This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
"With Devo Max now the alternative, I cannot see that Scotland has anything at all to gain (except some sort of nebulous idea of "self respect") from independence and a lot to definitely lose and potentially a lot more to lose."
Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
I don't.
Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
I don't.
In reply to Fultonius:
Devomax is not on offer. Devomax is fiscal independence and that has never been offered.
What is on offer is a vague set of powers, suggested by a person with no mandate and with no discussion in any parliament and no agreement on what those powers should be. All of this was cobbled together about a week ago after voting had started and people had posted their votes away.
Devomax is not on offer. Devomax is fiscal independence and that has never been offered.
What is on offer is a vague set of powers, suggested by a person with no mandate and with no discussion in any parliament and no agreement on what those powers should be. All of this was cobbled together about a week ago after voting had started and people had posted their votes away.
In reply to Fultonius:
It's really very clear.
Yes is not a vote for Salmond or for the SNP, but a vote for Scotland to become an independent country, after which we can start making our own political choices.
No is not a vote for Cameron, for the Tories, or for Devo Max (a term of little meaning, as it has not been defined), but a vote to remain in the UK. After that, what happens is up to the UK parties and voters, of which Scottish voters are only a small fraction.
There's a chance of more devolution after that, but it won't be up to the people of Scotland to to decide, unless the rest of the UK has no strong majority opinion.
That's democracy. We've been given the chance to make the choice for ourselves, which is a remarkable thing, but we also have the choice to hand that power back and leave it up to the whole of the UK to decide for us.
It's really very clear.
Yes is not a vote for Salmond or for the SNP, but a vote for Scotland to become an independent country, after which we can start making our own political choices.
No is not a vote for Cameron, for the Tories, or for Devo Max (a term of little meaning, as it has not been defined), but a vote to remain in the UK. After that, what happens is up to the UK parties and voters, of which Scottish voters are only a small fraction.
There's a chance of more devolution after that, but it won't be up to the people of Scotland to to decide, unless the rest of the UK has no strong majority opinion.
That's democracy. We've been given the chance to make the choice for ourselves, which is a remarkable thing, but we also have the choice to hand that power back and leave it up to the whole of the UK to decide for us.
In reply to Saor Alba:
And Salmond goes round promising all sorts of stuff in an independent Scotland with no credible costing and no mandate whatsoever. It's quite frankly ourageous. In the (to me almost unthinkable) event of a Yes result, a mandate to govern an independent Scotland will be granted in the Scottish general election which will presumably take place on independence, and, after the political and financial turmoil of the transition to independence, who is to say who will win that election?
The promise of a version of Devo Max comes from the leaders of all three major parties. To me that makes it credible. I really don't think they could go back on it.
The quote in the OP was mine from another thread.
> (In reply to Fultonius)
>
> What is on offer is a vague set of powers, suggested by a person with no mandate and with no discussion in any parliament and no agreement on what those powers should be.
>
> What is on offer is a vague set of powers, suggested by a person with no mandate and with no discussion in any parliament and no agreement on what those powers should be.
And Salmond goes round promising all sorts of stuff in an independent Scotland with no credible costing and no mandate whatsoever. It's quite frankly ourageous. In the (to me almost unthinkable) event of a Yes result, a mandate to govern an independent Scotland will be granted in the Scottish general election which will presumably take place on independence, and, after the political and financial turmoil of the transition to independence, who is to say who will win that election?
The promise of a version of Devo Max comes from the leaders of all three major parties. To me that makes it credible. I really don't think they could go back on it.
The quote in the OP was mine from another thread.
Post edited at 23:03
In reply to Robert Durran:
Hi Robert.
Are you referring to the version of Devo Max Gordon Brown tells us they'll start drafting on the day after the referendum, and then tell us about at the end of October?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29141474
> The promise of a version of Devo Max comes from the leaders of all three major parties. To me that makes it credible. I really don't think they could go back on it.
Hi Robert.
Are you referring to the version of Devo Max Gordon Brown tells us they'll start drafting on the day after the referendum, and then tell us about at the end of October?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29141474
In reply to Robert Durran:
The more you think about it the more dangerous a Yes vote sounds.
Not only for Scotland but the UK as a whole. Political and Social instability are guaranteed and the rhetoric of the SNP will ensure all Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door.
Political tensions will increase as English voters will rightly say 'forget them what about us'.
At some point push will come to shove. Oil is not the golden ticket. Think about it for gods sake!!!
> And Salmond goes round promising all sorts of stuff in an independent Scotland with no credible costing and no mandate whatsoever. It's quite frankly ourageous. In the (to me almost unthinkable) event of a Yes result, a mandate to govern an independent Scotland will be granted in the Scottish general election which will presumably take place on independence, and, after the political and financial turmoil of the transition to independence, who is to say who will win that election?
> The promise of a version of Devo Max comes from the leaders of all three major parties. To me that makes it credible. I really don't think they could go back on it.
The more you think about it the more dangerous a Yes vote sounds.
Not only for Scotland but the UK as a whole. Political and Social instability are guaranteed and the rhetoric of the SNP will ensure all Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door.
Political tensions will increase as English voters will rightly say 'forget them what about us'.
At some point push will come to shove. Oil is not the golden ticket. Think about it for gods sake!!!
In reply to Fultonius:
Who or what are The Establishment?
>
> Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
> Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
>
Who or what are The Establishment?
In reply to skog:
Yes
> Hi Robert.
>
> Are you referring to the version of Devo Max Gordon Brown tells us they'll start drafting on the day after the referendum, and then tell us about at the end of October?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29141474
>
> Are you referring to the version of Devo Max Gordon Brown tells us they'll start drafting on the day after the referendum, and then tell us about at the end of October?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29141474
Yes
In reply to Fultonius:
Does anyone really believe the promises in the white paper? Funded by a 3p cut in corporation tax and wild optimism.
>
> Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
> Does anyone really believe these offers from The Establishment?
Does anyone really believe the promises in the white paper? Funded by a 3p cut in corporation tax and wild optimism.
In reply to rogerwebb:
No, not entirely. For me it's more of an outline of what we'd like to work towards. It's sufficiently different from what the UK seems to be heading for that I'm up for trying.
No, not entirely. For me it's more of an outline of what we'd like to work towards. It's sufficiently different from what the UK seems to be heading for that I'm up for trying.
To me, what they are offering is just more tax raising powers.
Unfortunately, even if Scotland were to raise the tax rates it wouldn't make a hoot of difference as it ll just goes into the same UK pot and we'll not see any more if it back in Scotland.
No devolution on Corporation tax or Oil.
Doesn't sound that good to me.
Unfortunately, even if Scotland were to raise the tax rates it wouldn't make a hoot of difference as it ll just goes into the same UK pot and we'll not see any more if it back in Scotland.
No devolution on Corporation tax or Oil.
Doesn't sound that good to me.
In reply to Fultonius:
Is that really true? If so, no sane Scottish government would raise taxes above UK rates. And if the loss of revenue were likewise shared across the whole UK, they would be mad not to drastically cut them. Surely that can't be what is proposed!
> Unfortunately, even if Scotland were to raise the tax rates it just goes into the same UK pot and we'll not see any more if it back in Scotland.
Is that really true? If so, no sane Scottish government would raise taxes above UK rates. And if the loss of revenue were likewise shared across the whole UK, they would be mad not to drastically cut them. Surely that can't be what is proposed!
In reply to Robert Durran:
I am not sure how many times this needs to be said.....It's not about Salmond.
The next Scottish election is scheduled for 2016 I think which makes sense. There would be no reason to add further complication by having an election immediately after the independence vote.
On a point of fact, no one is offering Devomax. Devomax is full fiscal autonomy and that is not being offered.
There is also the continual misunderstanding that "Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door." It's hard to think of a more poorly thought out statement. Scotland isn't failing and no one is blaming England.
In your second post, you are right to talk about the income tax. It's a pointless power which no one will use as there is no benefit to it. The only thing that works is having control over taxation and tax revenue. Only independence offers that.
I am not sure how many times this needs to be said.....It's not about Salmond.
The next Scottish election is scheduled for 2016 I think which makes sense. There would be no reason to add further complication by having an election immediately after the independence vote.
On a point of fact, no one is offering Devomax. Devomax is full fiscal autonomy and that is not being offered.
There is also the continual misunderstanding that "Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door." It's hard to think of a more poorly thought out statement. Scotland isn't failing and no one is blaming England.
In your second post, you are right to talk about the income tax. It's a pointless power which no one will use as there is no benefit to it. The only thing that works is having control over taxation and tax revenue. Only independence offers that.
In reply to Fultonius:
I don't believe there is anything worthwhile on offer.
Others, not the Government of Scotland,, will meet in a room to decide on what powers they WANT to give to Scotland. ( there is no negotiation position to speak of)
The consensus therefore will quickly fall on the minimum possible powers( because who in their is going to suggest the most wide ranging promises as a consensus proposal, when there is no reason to do so)
The next stage is to take on board that others now , quite rightly, believe that what is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander, and demand the same powers that are given to Scotland.
So NONE of the parties want to give away wide ranging powers to Scotland, never mind the regions, so now that they have a consensus on delivering the minimum 'promised' powers , the will now try and wriggle out of as much of those 'promises' as they possibly can, (whilst at the same time try and present them as 'significant ' and wide ranging etc.)
Sound like a reasonable prediction of what will be carved up?
( Did I forget to mention the moral bankruptcy of a party that said more powers for Scotland was incompatible with remaining in the UK, - and just to clarify that, it said :-
The ONLY way Scotland can have more powers, was to vote FOR independence. )
The Scottish people were denied a democratic opportunity to vote for more powers on the ballot paper. Why ? Because those powers would have had to be agreed and fully explained, and scrutinised in the 2 year lead up to the referendum. ( and they would have to deliver them)
They gambled that they would be able to avoid this, and they colluded with the other parties to carry out this deception .
Personally I am surprised that changing the prospectus at the last minute was not called foul( or at least anti- democratic) by the Electoral Commission!
I don't believe there is anything worthwhile on offer.
Others, not the Government of Scotland,, will meet in a room to decide on what powers they WANT to give to Scotland. ( there is no negotiation position to speak of)
The consensus therefore will quickly fall on the minimum possible powers( because who in their is going to suggest the most wide ranging promises as a consensus proposal, when there is no reason to do so)
The next stage is to take on board that others now , quite rightly, believe that what is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander, and demand the same powers that are given to Scotland.
So NONE of the parties want to give away wide ranging powers to Scotland, never mind the regions, so now that they have a consensus on delivering the minimum 'promised' powers , the will now try and wriggle out of as much of those 'promises' as they possibly can, (whilst at the same time try and present them as 'significant ' and wide ranging etc.)
Sound like a reasonable prediction of what will be carved up?
( Did I forget to mention the moral bankruptcy of a party that said more powers for Scotland was incompatible with remaining in the UK, - and just to clarify that, it said :-
The ONLY way Scotland can have more powers, was to vote FOR independence. )
The Scottish people were denied a democratic opportunity to vote for more powers on the ballot paper. Why ? Because those powers would have had to be agreed and fully explained, and scrutinised in the 2 year lead up to the referendum. ( and they would have to deliver them)
They gambled that they would be able to avoid this, and they colluded with the other parties to carry out this deception .
Personally I am surprised that changing the prospectus at the last minute was not called foul( or at least anti- democratic) by the Electoral Commission!
Post edited at 01:08
In reply to rogerwebb:
A bit of a clue is that the Mayor of London, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister were all in the same drinking club at Oxford University.
> Who or what are The Establishment?
A bit of a clue is that the Mayor of London, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister were all in the same drinking club at Oxford University.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Precisely. So why does he go on as if a Yes vote would be a mandate to run Scotland as his personal fiefdom? I think it is this arrogance alongside his absurd promises which I find most loathesome about him.
Given that a Yes vote would be, just that, a vote for independence, and emphatically NOT a mandate for Salmond and the SNP, the arrangements for separation would, I presume, be negotiated on cross party and extra-party terms. With indepenence and a whole reallignent of Scottish politics under a new constiutution (what, for instance, would then be the raison d'etre of the SNP) I presume there would be fresh elections for an actual government of the new country.
> I am not sure how many times this needs to be said.....It's not about Salmond.
Precisely. So why does he go on as if a Yes vote would be a mandate to run Scotland as his personal fiefdom? I think it is this arrogance alongside his absurd promises which I find most loathesome about him.
>
> The next Scottish election is scheduled for 2016 I think which makes sense. There would be no reason to add further complication by having an election immediately after the independence vote.
> The next Scottish election is scheduled for 2016 I think which makes sense. There would be no reason to add further complication by having an election immediately after the independence vote.
Given that a Yes vote would be, just that, a vote for independence, and emphatically NOT a mandate for Salmond and the SNP, the arrangements for separation would, I presume, be negotiated on cross party and extra-party terms. With indepenence and a whole reallignent of Scottish politics under a new constiutution (what, for instance, would then be the raison d'etre of the SNP) I presume there would be fresh elections for an actual government of the new country.
> On a point of fact, no one is offering Devomax. Devomax is full fiscal autonomy and that is not being offered.
>
> There is also the continual misunderstanding that "Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door." It's hard to think of a more poorly thought out statement. Scotland isn't failing and no one is blaming England.
>
> In your second post, you are right to talk about the income tax. It's a pointless power which no one will use as there is no benefit to it. The only thing that works is having control over taxation and tax revenue. Only independence offers that.
>
> There is also the continual misunderstanding that "Scotland's failings will be laid squarely at England's door." It's hard to think of a more poorly thought out statement. Scotland isn't failing and no one is blaming England.
>
> In your second post, you are right to talk about the income tax. It's a pointless power which no one will use as there is no benefit to it. The only thing that works is having control over taxation and tax revenue. Only independence offers that.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Precisely. So why does he go on as if a Yes vote would be a mandate to run Scotland as his personal fiefdom? I think it is this arrogance alongside his absurd promises which I find most loathesome about him.
Given that a Yes vote would be, just that, a vote for independence, and emphatically NOT a mandate for Salmond and the SNP, the arrangements for separation would, I presume, be negotiated on cross party and extra-party terms. With indepenence and a whole reallignent of Scottish politics under a new constiutution (what, for instance, would then be the raison d'etre of the SNP) I presume there would be fresh elections for an actual government of the new country.
> I am not sure how many times this needs to be said.....It's not about Salmond.
Precisely. So why does he go on as if a Yes vote would be a mandate to run Scotland as his personal fiefdom? I think it is this arrogance alongside his absurd promises which I find most loathesome about him.
> The next Scottish election is scheduled for 2016 I think which makes sense. There would be no reason to add further complication by having an election immediately after the independence vote.
Given that a Yes vote would be, just that, a vote for independence, and emphatically NOT a mandate for Salmond and the SNP, the arrangements for separation would, I presume, be negotiated on cross party and extra-party terms. With indepenence and a whole reallignent of Scottish politics under a new constiutution (what, for instance, would then be the raison d'etre of the SNP) I presume there would be fresh elections for an actual government of the new country.
Post edited at 01:04
In reply to Robert Durran:
You are indeed a trusting soul Robert.
(That of course is being kind. )
I will stick to my own analysis, but I will interested to hear how many think that I am closer to the truth than your rather optimistic -honour amongst politicians - scenario.
You are indeed a trusting soul Robert.
(That of course is being kind. )
I will stick to my own analysis, but I will interested to hear how many think that I am closer to the truth than your rather optimistic -honour amongst politicians - scenario.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The whore must be well sore, and thanks to your goofy hero Salmond, so will everyone else.
Vote Yes and make Salmond an eternally historical figure?
You're all MAD!!!
The whore must be well sore, and thanks to your goofy hero Salmond, so will everyone else.
Vote Yes and make Salmond an eternally historical figure?
You're all MAD!!!
In reply to Fultonius:
No I don't believe it!
Otherwise they would have offered them from the start... Here is something I wrote earlier in reply to today's Economist article:
'Without going into such an elaborate, high-flying, multi-syllable 'i am the wordsmith' analysis as presented in this article, I would like to answer the question posed by the author. I believe that, if a third choice for more and fuller devolution would have been allowed on the ballot in the first place, we would not be where we are now. It is too late for Cameron and co to offer these things when first they were thrown out of the window. Offer people a choice between yes an no only, they are going to have a hard think and go one way or the other and most of them have! There is no middle ground available now. People will have to decide one way or the other as stipulated. If politicians would have given the voters a range of options, they would have been able to be more thoughtful; the yes/no vote was divisive in design and radicalising, but that's what was decided by politicians. Now they have to have their cake and eat it. IMHO
The other point is that many English didn't really realise until the last few weeks that there was something going on at all- judging from chat with English friends. As ever, the debate has been very localised until a recent urgency could be detected...even the Queen is getting her oar in now! People should speak their mind a bit earlier before it's too late!!
Thirdly, I am a person who is not Scottish born, but I have lived here for a large part of my adult life and I like to think that I am part of Sottish society. I have always felt included in Scottish life and politics, but am still waiting to get included in UK elections. It will be 20 years this September!
No I don't believe it!
Otherwise they would have offered them from the start... Here is something I wrote earlier in reply to today's Economist article:
'Without going into such an elaborate, high-flying, multi-syllable 'i am the wordsmith' analysis as presented in this article, I would like to answer the question posed by the author. I believe that, if a third choice for more and fuller devolution would have been allowed on the ballot in the first place, we would not be where we are now. It is too late for Cameron and co to offer these things when first they were thrown out of the window. Offer people a choice between yes an no only, they are going to have a hard think and go one way or the other and most of them have! There is no middle ground available now. People will have to decide one way or the other as stipulated. If politicians would have given the voters a range of options, they would have been able to be more thoughtful; the yes/no vote was divisive in design and radicalising, but that's what was decided by politicians. Now they have to have their cake and eat it. IMHO
The other point is that many English didn't really realise until the last few weeks that there was something going on at all- judging from chat with English friends. As ever, the debate has been very localised until a recent urgency could be detected...even the Queen is getting her oar in now! People should speak their mind a bit earlier before it's too late!!
Thirdly, I am a person who is not Scottish born, but I have lived here for a large part of my adult life and I like to think that I am part of Sottish society. I have always felt included in Scottish life and politics, but am still waiting to get included in UK elections. It will be 20 years this September!
Post edited at 01:14
In reply to Fultonius:
Just plain wrong. Scotland has been a net beneficiary of the UK tax system to the tune of something like 1200 pounds per head. An independent Scotland would immediately have to increase taxes to make up for that deficiency alone. Then it would have to start building up its own currency, health care system, defence etc, or negotiate with the remaining UK to have a share of theirs - from a weak negotiating position.
Just plain wrong. Scotland has been a net beneficiary of the UK tax system to the tune of something like 1200 pounds per head. An independent Scotland would immediately have to increase taxes to make up for that deficiency alone. Then it would have to start building up its own currency, health care system, defence etc, or negotiate with the remaining UK to have a share of theirs - from a weak negotiating position.
In reply to Fultonius:
They'd have to.. there's going back on pledges like education.. but this would be another and tbh the path to further devolution has been pretty continuous. When I lived in Glasgow it didn't even have the parliament yet...
I don't think Devomax means fiscal independence.. I didn't think it was defined..
They'd have to.. there's going back on pledges like education.. but this would be another and tbh the path to further devolution has been pretty continuous. When I lived in Glasgow it didn't even have the parliament yet...
I don't think Devomax means fiscal independence.. I didn't think it was defined..
In reply to Heike:
They didn't offer them from the start because they believed a No vote was a certainty. They were wrong. Of course they are now taking desperate measures to try to avoid the appalling catastrophe of a Yes vote. What else do you suggest they should do? I really don't think they could get away with swinging the referendum on these promises and then not delivering; if they didn't I think Salmond would be well within his rights of demanding a rerun which he would then certainly win. As things now stand, a No vote is to me a no brainer - Scotland can have its cake and eat it.
> (In reply to Fultonius) No I don't believe it!
> Otherwise they would have offered them from the start...
> Otherwise they would have offered them from the start...
They didn't offer them from the start because they believed a No vote was a certainty. They were wrong. Of course they are now taking desperate measures to try to avoid the appalling catastrophe of a Yes vote. What else do you suggest they should do? I really don't think they could get away with swinging the referendum on these promises and then not delivering; if they didn't I think Salmond would be well within his rights of demanding a rerun which he would then certainly win. As things now stand, a No vote is to me a no brainer - Scotland can have its cake and eat it.
In reply to Heike:
People change their mind…
You know the £'s a millstone around your necks..
The Northern Atlantic Arc…
If they believed that was the best way why did it suddenly change?
> No I don't believe it!
> Otherwise they would have offered them from the start... Here is something I wrote earlier in reply to today's Economist article:
People change their mind…
You know the £'s a millstone around your necks..
The Northern Atlantic Arc…
If they believed that was the best way why did it suddenly change?
In reply to Fultonius:
Save and strengthen the NHS
Stop privatisation of Schools
Reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
Never go to war.
I saw these as some, (perhaps headline?)your reasons for voting yes.
The first two are entirely devolved matters (the second from before devolution), the third is already within the competency of the Scottish Government. I share your goals but question the efficacy or necessity of independence as a solution, given that all three are current Scottish government policies and an NHS free at the point of delivery is even a Scottish Conservative policy.
I note that in Norway healthcare is not free at the point of delivery.
The last I understand and aspire to that but it is an aspiration that seems incompatible with Nato membership or contact with modern times. It relies upon the concept that we go to war rather than war comes to us.
Currently, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, France, Germany, Croatia, Italy, Australia, and others are preparing to take action against IS.
In Afghanistan members of ISAF include, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and many more.
It is hard to see how, if we are to become members of Nato and the EU, we can stay out of such conflicts.
(feel free to kick me off you thread for straying, I could just the potential for a sudden exponential thread growth)
(edited to add a forgotten word 'neccessity'
Save and strengthen the NHS
Stop privatisation of Schools
Reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
Never go to war.
I saw these as some, (perhaps headline?)your reasons for voting yes.
The first two are entirely devolved matters (the second from before devolution), the third is already within the competency of the Scottish Government. I share your goals but question the efficacy or necessity of independence as a solution, given that all three are current Scottish government policies and an NHS free at the point of delivery is even a Scottish Conservative policy.
I note that in Norway healthcare is not free at the point of delivery.
The last I understand and aspire to that but it is an aspiration that seems incompatible with Nato membership or contact with modern times. It relies upon the concept that we go to war rather than war comes to us.
Currently, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, France, Germany, Croatia, Italy, Australia, and others are preparing to take action against IS.
In Afghanistan members of ISAF include, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and many more.
It is hard to see how, if we are to become members of Nato and the EU, we can stay out of such conflicts.
(feel free to kick me off you thread for straying, I could just the potential for a sudden exponential thread growth)
(edited to add a forgotten word 'neccessity'
Post edited at 07:36
In reply to Fultonius:
Nice pledge they've signed:
http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article4265480.ece/alternates/s615b/1....
It's very pretty. I like the parchment-style effect, makes it look historical and important. Published in the Daily Record, too, so it's official!
I notice there's still no mention - not even a brief sketch-out - of the extensive new powers they're in agreement they can give us.
If they can't bring themselves to do this now, while they actually do have a common cause uniting them, what chance they'll manage once the pressure's off?
Nice pledge they've signed:
http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article4265480.ece/alternates/s615b/1....
It's very pretty. I like the parchment-style effect, makes it look historical and important. Published in the Daily Record, too, so it's official!
I notice there's still no mention - not even a brief sketch-out - of the extensive new powers they're in agreement they can give us.
If they can't bring themselves to do this now, while they actually do have a common cause uniting them, what chance they'll manage once the pressure's off?
In reply to rogerwebb:
The most clear cross party consensus in the event of independence appears to be removal of Trident. However I suspect that a negotiated retention of Trident is the biggest bargaining chip that an independent Scotland will have in negotiations with rUK.
In theory that would be a win-win for iScotland - retain all the jobs and industry around Trident - but blame their betrayal of their referendum promises on the nasty English
That's politics for you - still, I'm sure the Scottish politicians are unique throughout the world as not actually operating as politicians.
The most clear cross party consensus in the event of independence appears to be removal of Trident. However I suspect that a negotiated retention of Trident is the biggest bargaining chip that an independent Scotland will have in negotiations with rUK.
In theory that would be a win-win for iScotland - retain all the jobs and industry around Trident - but blame their betrayal of their referendum promises on the nasty English
That's politics for you - still, I'm sure the Scottish politicians are unique throughout the world as not actually operating as politicians.
In reply to off-duty:
I always thought salmond would trade it for something too.
Makes me laugh at the moment how the campaigns have panned out. Tory lab and lib waiting for the last 2 weeks because the know that the last day is all that counts. Depressing to see the comments of some on fb about the devo Max offer. "Lies, lies I tell you!" It's a decent offer, and Cameron's explanation that they should sort independence before looking at devolution makes sense.
> The most clear cross party consensus in the event of independence appears to be removal of Trident. However I suspect that a negotiated retention of Trident is the biggest bargaining chip that an independent Scotland will have in negotiations with rUK.
I always thought salmond would trade it for something too.
Makes me laugh at the moment how the campaigns have panned out. Tory lab and lib waiting for the last 2 weeks because the know that the last day is all that counts. Depressing to see the comments of some on fb about the devo Max offer. "Lies, lies I tell you!" It's a decent offer, and Cameron's explanation that they should sort independence before looking at devolution makes sense.
In reply to off-duty:
I'm not convinced Trident is an economic boost for Scotland. It is easy to count how many people are employed at the Trident base, much harder to calculate how much other economic activity has been lost because people and businesses don't want to be near the nuclear weapon store and the submarines. The area in England with the lowest house prices is beside Sellafield.
There's also oil exploration in the area being stopped by the MOD since it could interfere with the submarines and the fact that the MOD quite like the area being relatively hard to get to. As for industry the submarines are made in the north of England and the weapons design and manufacture is done in the south of England.
> In theory that would be a win-win for iScotland - retain all the jobs and industry around Trident - but blame their betrayal of their referendum promises on the nasty English
I'm not convinced Trident is an economic boost for Scotland. It is easy to count how many people are employed at the Trident base, much harder to calculate how much other economic activity has been lost because people and businesses don't want to be near the nuclear weapon store and the submarines. The area in England with the lowest house prices is beside Sellafield.
There's also oil exploration in the area being stopped by the MOD since it could interfere with the submarines and the fact that the MOD quite like the area being relatively hard to get to. As for industry the submarines are made in the north of England and the weapons design and manufacture is done in the south of England.
In reply to rogerwebb:
We used to have an Establishment but they moved to London.
> And who are 'The Establishment' in Scotland?
We used to have an Establishment but they moved to London.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
By Establishment do you simply mean people who run things (government, companies, media, etc.)?
By Establishment do you simply mean people who run things (government, companies, media, etc.)?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And not that many years ago Livingstone, Brown and Darling filled the same rolls, are they part of the same drinking club? Though not. But of course that doesn't fit your perception of the establishment.
> A bit of a clue is that the Mayor of London, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister were all in the same drinking club at Oxford University.
And not that many years ago Livingstone, Brown and Darling filled the same rolls, are they part of the same drinking club? Though not. But of course that doesn't fit your perception of the establishment.
Post edited at 09:18
In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:
Hmm, "a BLT and a LBD please"!!
> And not that many years ago Livingstone, Brown and Darling filled the same rolls,
Hmm, "a BLT and a LBD please"!!
In reply to MG:
'Establishment' is about the people who run things forming a self serving social group whose membership is not by merit and which concentrates power in a particular geographic location and within particular families. It is stunning how many cabinet ministers went to Eton and Oxford, were either born into or married into landowning families and have previously worked in the City.
> By Establishment do you simply mean people who run things (government, companies, media, etc.)?
'Establishment' is about the people who run things forming a self serving social group whose membership is not by merit and which concentrates power in a particular geographic location and within particular families. It is stunning how many cabinet ministers went to Eton and Oxford, were either born into or married into landowning families and have previously worked in the City.
In reply to Fultonius:
The Establishment ? the SNP and Holyrood are all part of the UK establishment.
The Establishment ? the SNP and Holyrood are all part of the UK establishment.
In reply to skog:
I think that was the Daily Record having fun with Photoshop.
They probably didn't cut out pictures from the newspaper and glue them on the bottom either
> Nice pledge they've signed:
> It's very pretty. I like the parchment-style effect, makes it look historical and important.
I think that was the Daily Record having fun with Photoshop.
They probably didn't cut out pictures from the newspaper and glue them on the bottom either
Post edited at 10:22
In reply to climbwhenready:
You mean they didn't really use a parchment scroll, and sign it with quill pens?
That's disappointing. And to think I trusted them.
You mean they didn't really use a parchment scroll, and sign it with quill pens?
That's disappointing. And to think I trusted them.
I really hope it's a No. How on earth that man, with no real mandate managed to pull off a referendum without there having to be something like 60% or more for the motion I don't know. We could be forced to go independent on the basis of less than half the population of Scotland. Besides if it is sensible and logical NO vote, then westminster had better not renege on their promises because next time it'd be a resounding yes. Right now Salmond and his white paper is a losers charter - guesswork, supposition and lies.
In reply to Robert Durran:
>
He doesn't.
You are right, a cross party, cross society team needs to be assembled and that is what will be done.
Fresh elections are scheduled for May 2016 which is according to the parliament's fixed terms.
> Precisely. So why does he go on as if a Yes vote would be a mandate to run Scotland as his personal fiefdom? I think it is this arrogance alongside his absurd promises which I find most loathesome about him.
>
He doesn't.
> Given that a Yes vote would be, just that, a vote for independence, and emphatically NOT a mandate for Salmond and the SNP, the arrangements for separation would, I presume, be negotiated on cross party and extra-party terms. With indepenence and a whole reallignent of Scottish politics under a new constiutution (what, for instance, would then be the raison d'etre of the SNP) I presume there would be fresh elections for an actual government of the new country.
You are right, a cross party, cross society team needs to be assembled and that is what will be done.
Fresh elections are scheduled for May 2016 which is according to the parliament's fixed terms.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yes he does. Specific policies such as Trident and tax cuts. Independence does not deliver anyone's policies; it simply delivers independence. A government elected after independence could and that might have nothing to do with Salmond.
But that is under the current devolved system. Everything would be up for grabs with independence and I would have thought it would be very odd not to schedule the first Scottish General election to tie in with the actual start of independence.
> He doesn't.
Yes he does. Specific policies such as Trident and tax cuts. Independence does not deliver anyone's policies; it simply delivers independence. A government elected after independence could and that might have nothing to do with Salmond.
> Fresh elections are scheduled for May 2016 which is according to the parliament's fixed terms.
But that is under the current devolved system. Everything would be up for grabs with independence and I would have thought it would be very odd not to schedule the first Scottish General election to tie in with the actual start of independence.
In reply to GrahamD:
And George Galloway would explode if anyone thought he was part of the "establishment".
> The Establishment ? the SNP and Holyrood are all part of the UK establishment.
And George Galloway would explode if anyone thought he was part of the "establishment".
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
As an MP he is, though.
> And George Galloway would explode if anyone thought he was part of the "establishment".
As an MP he is, though.
In reply to Fultonius:
It is getting increasingly clear that the rest of the UK won't allow the last minute Devo Max bodge-up to get through parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100400/My-fu...
"Christopher Chope, a Tory MP, warned that Parliament has stopped similar deals before. He told BBC Radio 4's the World At One: "I certainly think that the people in Scotland should recognise that this is a pledge, in inverted commas, by party leaders, but that is not a guarantee that that would be implemented in the United Kingdom parliament."
It is getting increasingly clear that the rest of the UK won't allow the last minute Devo Max bodge-up to get through parliament.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100400/My-fu...
"Christopher Chope, a Tory MP, warned that Parliament has stopped similar deals before. He told BBC Radio 4's the World At One: "I certainly think that the people in Scotland should recognise that this is a pledge, in inverted commas, by party leaders, but that is not a guarantee that that would be implemented in the United Kingdom parliament."
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think you'll find he's a bit of a fringe member and short on influence.
He likes the death penalty, conscription and objected to Alan Turing's pardon.
>
> "Christopher Chope, a Tory MP, warned that Parliament has stopped similar deals before. He told BBC Radio 4's the World At One: "I certainly think that the people in Scotland should recognise that this is a pledge, in inverted commas, by party leaders, but that is not a guarantee that that would be implemented in the United Kingdom parliament."
> "Christopher Chope, a Tory MP, warned that Parliament has stopped similar deals before. He told BBC Radio 4's the World At One: "I certainly think that the people in Scotland should recognise that this is a pledge, in inverted commas, by party leaders, but that is not a guarantee that that would be implemented in the United Kingdom parliament."
I think you'll find he's a bit of a fringe member and short on influence.
He likes the death penalty, conscription and objected to Alan Turing's pardon.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
given that its extremley clear what the rest of the UK thinks of a currency union, I'd not put too much store in getting that.
Frankly those who wish Scotland to have either more devolution or independedce are in a great position now - if a significant amount of devolution does not occur after a 'No' vote, there will rapidly be a second referendum and a resounding 'Yes'.
> It is getting increasingly clear that the rest of the UK won't allow the last minute Devo Max bodge-up to get through parliament.
given that its extremley clear what the rest of the UK thinks of a currency union, I'd not put too much store in getting that.
Frankly those who wish Scotland to have either more devolution or independedce are in a great position now - if a significant amount of devolution does not occur after a 'No' vote, there will rapidly be a second referendum and a resounding 'Yes'.
In reply to Heike:
Then people need to be informed earlier - I was walking with a mate this weekend, Northumbrian, has worked in Scotland a lot - did not have a real clue what was going on as the media coverage has been so poor. Mind you some of the comments one sees from voters in Scotland suggest they are very poorly informed on some points - the whole currency question for one.
>People should speak their mind a bit earlier before it's too late!!
There have been polls for a long time showing the rest of the UK want Scotland to stay. Folk are speaking there minds, and I hope, before its too late.
Am I correct in thinking, that your lack of vote in UK elections means you are not a UK citizen? Assuming that you have not applied to be one, will you need to apply to be a Scottish citizen in order to vote post a 'Yes' result? (just curious)
> The other point is that many English didn't really realise until the last few weeks that there was something going on at all-
Then people need to be informed earlier - I was walking with a mate this weekend, Northumbrian, has worked in Scotland a lot - did not have a real clue what was going on as the media coverage has been so poor. Mind you some of the comments one sees from voters in Scotland suggest they are very poorly informed on some points - the whole currency question for one.
>People should speak their mind a bit earlier before it's too late!!
There have been polls for a long time showing the rest of the UK want Scotland to stay. Folk are speaking there minds, and I hope, before its too late.
> Thirdly, I am a person who is not Scottish born, but I have lived here for a large part of my adult life and I like to think that I am part of Sottish society. I have always felt included in Scottish life and politics, but am still waiting to get included in UK elections. It will be 20 years this September!
Am I correct in thinking, that your lack of vote in UK elections means you are not a UK citizen? Assuming that you have not applied to be one, will you need to apply to be a Scottish citizen in order to vote post a 'Yes' result? (just curious)
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
"Increasingly clear"?? Three party leaders agree. You don't think it will be whipped through the house of Commons?
Again it's a sign of the confused and increasingly desperate arguing position here.
"We believe that the Westminster parties will renege on everything in the case of No vote, but in the case of a Yes vote we expect sweetness and light to reign and Salmond - sorry Scotland - to gain everything he asks for in some sort of benevolent 'we all friends really' post vote sentiment".
If you distrust the Westminster parties that much, then you have to question how vicious any post-referendum negotiations are going to be.
> It is getting increasingly clear that the rest of the UK won't allow the last minute Devo Max bodge-up to get through parliament.
"Increasingly clear"?? Three party leaders agree. You don't think it will be whipped through the house of Commons?
Again it's a sign of the confused and increasingly desperate arguing position here.
"We believe that the Westminster parties will renege on everything in the case of No vote, but in the case of a Yes vote we expect sweetness and light to reign and Salmond - sorry Scotland - to gain everything he asks for in some sort of benevolent 'we all friends really' post vote sentiment".
If you distrust the Westminster parties that much, then you have to question how vicious any post-referendum negotiations are going to be.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
A few weeks ago I'd agreed with you on that. Now I think there is so much backlash against special treatment for Scotland and so much interest in England getting the same deal I think what will actually happen is some kind of commission into a more federal system for the whole UK and a side effect of that will be the end of the Barnett formula, and a constitutional settlement that removes the chance of future independence referendums. That outcome would be very popular in 90% of the UK.
> if a significant amount of devolution does not occur after a 'No' vote, there will rapidly be a second referendum and a resounding 'Yes'.
A few weeks ago I'd agreed with you on that. Now I think there is so much backlash against special treatment for Scotland and so much interest in England getting the same deal I think what will actually happen is some kind of commission into a more federal system for the whole UK and a side effect of that will be the end of the Barnett formula, and a constitutional settlement that removes the chance of future independence referendums. That outcome would be very popular in 90% of the UK.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
given the now well established practice of refernda on devolution and or independence, its hard to see it being stopped as a practice now.
given the now well established practice of refernda on devolution and or independence, its hard to see it being stopped as a practice now.
In reply to Fultonius:
Finally some sense on the BBC news tonight that the whole devo max issue is a massive can of worms that is unlikely to be resolved, with many politicians already stating so, at a time when their leaders are doing their best to sell something that will keep the Union. Subtle efforts by some politicians to create Tory land in England. Maybe aye, maybe not but they're not doing the Union any favours are they?
Devo Max isn't going to happen and all the more reason for me to vote Yes, as it is clear Scotland is set up for a serious kicking after a No vote.
Finally some sense on the BBC news tonight that the whole devo max issue is a massive can of worms that is unlikely to be resolved, with many politicians already stating so, at a time when their leaders are doing their best to sell something that will keep the Union. Subtle efforts by some politicians to create Tory land in England. Maybe aye, maybe not but they're not doing the Union any favours are they?
Devo Max isn't going to happen and all the more reason for me to vote Yes, as it is clear Scotland is set up for a serious kicking after a No vote.
In reply to yer maw:
Would this be the same BBC that was so massively biased in favour of unionism and caused many UKC posters to froth even more than normal?
> Finally some sense on the BBC news tonight that the whole devo max issue is a massive can of worms that is unlikely to be resolved, with many politicians already stating so, at a time when their leaders are doing their best to sell something that will keep the Union. Subtle efforts by some politicians to create Tory land in England. Maybe aye, maybe not but they're not doing the Union any favours are they?
> Devo Max isn't going to happen and all the more reason for me to vote Yes, as it is clear Scotland is set up for a serious kicking after a No vote.
Would this be the same BBC that was so massively biased in favour of unionism and caused many UKC posters to froth even more than normal?
In reply to off-duty:
Well, quite. If you distrust that Westminster will give you anything to make you stay, then you'd best be very worried about what they'd be prepared to give you if you go.
As an aside, I see the Spanish have chipped in again reminding people that they would need to agree to Scotland negotiating EU "membership from within", and to agree to Scotland getting any opt outs from standard policy (Euro, Schengen et al), and that they aren't terribly minded to do that...
> "We believe that the Westminster parties will renege on everything in the case of No vote, but in the case of a Yes vote we expect sweetness and light to reign and Salmond - sorry Scotland - to gain everything he asks for in some sort of benevolent 'we all friends really' post vote sentiment".
> If you distrust the Westminster parties that much, then you have to question how vicious any post-referendum negotiations are going to be.
Well, quite. If you distrust that Westminster will give you anything to make you stay, then you'd best be very worried about what they'd be prepared to give you if you go.
As an aside, I see the Spanish have chipped in again reminding people that they would need to agree to Scotland negotiating EU "membership from within", and to agree to Scotland getting any opt outs from standard policy (Euro, Schengen et al), and that they aren't terribly minded to do that...
In reply to AJM:
This is such a non argument. If Scotland stays part of the UK it can do almost nothing about what it's "offered". It has a weak bargaining position - it's only card being "we'll push for another referendum".
If Scotland becomes independent, then rUK, even if they are foaming at the mouth with anger over Scotland leaving, will do everything in their power to minimize the impact on the rUK.
Scotland going down the shitter would have a large effect on rUK. Therefore, rUK are very unlikely to do anything overly "punitive" because they would be somewhat shooting themselves in their own foot...
> Well, quite. If you distrust that Westminster will give you anything to make you stay, then you'd best be very worried about what they'd be prepared to give you if you go.
This is such a non argument. If Scotland stays part of the UK it can do almost nothing about what it's "offered". It has a weak bargaining position - it's only card being "we'll push for another referendum".
If Scotland becomes independent, then rUK, even if they are foaming at the mouth with anger over Scotland leaving, will do everything in their power to minimize the impact on the rUK.
Scotland going down the shitter would have a large effect on rUK. Therefore, rUK are very unlikely to do anything overly "punitive" because they would be somewhat shooting themselves in their own foot...
In reply to Robert Durran:
Hi Robert,
"I really don't think they could go back on it."
Sorry mate but I think you are wrong here. It doesn't matter what the three party leaders say, Westminster will make the final decision based on a vote in the House. Already some MP's at Westminster are saying they will vote against any further powers being given to Scotland. Therefore, the three party leaders cannot guarantee the delivery of anything, and I think that's an undisputable fact. There is also a General Election in May - it is conceivable that none of the current signatories to the Vow will hold office or party leadership after said GE.
Conclusion? The Vow means a guarantee of absolutely nothing - that doesn't make it credible.
One can therefore only conclude that if you want change you vote YES.
Enjoy the day tomorrow.
ANdy
Hi Robert,
"I really don't think they could go back on it."
Sorry mate but I think you are wrong here. It doesn't matter what the three party leaders say, Westminster will make the final decision based on a vote in the House. Already some MP's at Westminster are saying they will vote against any further powers being given to Scotland. Therefore, the three party leaders cannot guarantee the delivery of anything, and I think that's an undisputable fact. There is also a General Election in May - it is conceivable that none of the current signatories to the Vow will hold office or party leadership after said GE.
Conclusion? The Vow means a guarantee of absolutely nothing - that doesn't make it credible.
One can therefore only conclude that if you want change you vote YES.
Enjoy the day tomorrow.
ANdy
In reply to Andrew Mallinson: Without a guarantee a proposal isn't credible? So independence, coming without a guarantee, isn't credible?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Hi Sir,
"So independence, coming without a guarantee, isn't credible?"
With respect, I never said it was. I am voting Yes for reasons wholly unconnected with independence.
ANdy
Hi Sir,
"So independence, coming without a guarantee, isn't credible?"
With respect, I never said it was. I am voting Yes for reasons wholly unconnected with independence.
ANdy
In reply to Fultonius:
These supposedly new powers are not Devo max or Home rule both of which would involve fiscal independence. And those promising them aren't in a position to honour those promises. They are undeliverable And therefore worthless.
These supposedly new powers are not Devo max or Home rule both of which would involve fiscal independence. And those promising them aren't in a position to honour those promises. They are undeliverable And therefore worthless.
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
Eh? For a laugh? To practice drawing crosses? I'm struggling here.....
> I am voting Yes for reasons wholly unconnected with independence.
Eh? For a laugh? To practice drawing crosses? I'm struggling here.....
In reply to Andrew Mallinson: With equal respect, that's why I put it as a question. You have read the referendum question haven't you?
In reply to alastairmac:
They may or may not be delivered. Just like all of Salmond's promises. Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
The only thing certain to be delivered by a Yes vote is Independence itself. Everthing else is an act of faith.
> These supposedly new powers are not Devo max or Home rule both of which would involve fiscal independence. And those promising them aren't in a position to honour those promises. They are undeliverable And therefore worthless.
They may or may not be delivered. Just like all of Salmond's promises. Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
The only thing certain to be delivered by a Yes vote is Independence itself. Everthing else is an act of faith.
In reply to Fultonius:
True.. but some need to take the chip off their shoulder and realise not sharing the pound is not punitive threats, it's common sense..
> Scotland going down the shitter would have a large effect on rUK. Therefore, rUK are very unlikely to do anything overly "punitive" because they would be somewhat shooting themselves in their own foot...
True.. but some need to take the chip off their shoulder and realise not sharing the pound is not punitive threats, it's common sense..
In reply to Jim C:
What do you base this statement on? The last time it was asked, to the N E it was turned down. No other part of Britain has asked for what you claim they would ask for AFAIK. If you do know some that have could you tell us?
> The next stage is to take on board that others now , quite rightly, believe that what is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander, and demand the same powers that are given to Scotland.
What do you base this statement on? The last time it was asked, to the N E it was turned down. No other part of Britain has asked for what you claim they would ask for AFAIK. If you do know some that have could you tell us?
In reply to yer maw:
That wouldn't be a bit of scaremongering, would it? I thought that was supposed to be the reserve of the no camp?
It seems fairly obvious to me that the main parties have had such a scare on this question that they would be very relieved if the no vote won and very, very careful to tread carefully in the future. I think the referendum was accepted and managed very lazily because they thought there would be an easy win for the union, recent event have shown just the opposite, and they won't forget it. As said if they did the next General Election, not far away, would return a massive SNP majority and the tide towards total independence would be unstoppable.
> Devo Max isn't going to happen and all the more reason for me to vote Yes, as it is clear Scotland is set up for a serious kicking after a No vote.
That wouldn't be a bit of scaremongering, would it? I thought that was supposed to be the reserve of the no camp?
It seems fairly obvious to me that the main parties have had such a scare on this question that they would be very relieved if the no vote won and very, very careful to tread carefully in the future. I think the referendum was accepted and managed very lazily because they thought there would be an easy win for the union, recent event have shown just the opposite, and they won't forget it. As said if they did the next General Election, not far away, would return a massive SNP majority and the tide towards total independence would be unstoppable.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Absolutely. If the referendum were seen to have swung on this pledge (and it will be if the outcome is No), there is simply no way they could go back on it or fail to implement it without unignorable calls for a rerun, and quite rightly so.
On the other hand, if Salmond's promises turn out to be as vacuous as they seem to me, there will be no going back to the Union.
> It seems fairly obvious to me that the main parties have had such a scare on this question that they would be very relieved if the no vote won and very, very careful to tread carefully in the future. I think the referendum was accepted and managed very lazily because they thought there would be an easy win for the union, recent event have shown just the opposite, and they won't forget it. As said if they did the next General Election, not far away, would return a massive SNP majority and the tide towards total independence would be unstoppable.
Absolutely. If the referendum were seen to have swung on this pledge (and it will be if the outcome is No), there is simply no way they could go back on it or fail to implement it without unignorable calls for a rerun, and quite rightly so.
On the other hand, if Salmond's promises turn out to be as vacuous as they seem to me, there will be no going back to the Union.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Off topic but scary.
I was in Inverness High Street today and stopped at the lib dem stall. While I was there a 'Yes' man took photographs of me. I challenged him as to why. He kept repeating it's not illegal but was unwilling to explain why he has never felt it necessary to take my picture before but my engaging with the opposition suddenly made him do so.
I cannot think of a reasonable explanation of this behaviour.
If it's meant to intimidate, it does.
Off topic but scary.
I was in Inverness High Street today and stopped at the lib dem stall. While I was there a 'Yes' man took photographs of me. I challenged him as to why. He kept repeating it's not illegal but was unwilling to explain why he has never felt it necessary to take my picture before but my engaging with the opposition suddenly made him do so.
I cannot think of a reasonable explanation of this behaviour.
If it's meant to intimidate, it does.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
To save you the trouble of looking this up ( as you have obviously not been following this closely:-
John Redwood told BBC Radio 5 live:
"If you are going to give tax powers to Scotland and to Wales, England will want exactly the same tax powers and we will want our own Parliament.
And Christopher Chope said it was by no means certain that the UK Parliament would approve the transfer of any further powers to Holyrood."
>
> What do you base this statement on? The last time it was asked, to the N E it was turned down. No other part of Britain has asked for what you claim they would ask for AFAIK. If you do know some that have could you tell us?
To save you the trouble of looking this up ( as you have obviously not been following this closely:-
John Redwood told BBC Radio 5 live:
"If you are going to give tax powers to Scotland and to Wales, England will want exactly the same tax powers and we will want our own Parliament.
And Christopher Chope said it was by no means certain that the UK Parliament would approve the transfer of any further powers to Holyrood."
In reply to Jim C:
I would take any intervention by John Redwood and Christopher Chope with the same degree of seriousness as Jim Sillars and his day of reckoning.
I would take any intervention by John Redwood and Christopher Chope with the same degree of seriousness as Jim Sillars and his day of reckoning.
In reply to Jim C:
I like how you quote those bizarre people but dismiss any other politicians. Have you decided yet?
I like how you quote those bizarre people but dismiss any other politicians. Have you decided yet?
In reply to Fultonius:
I do. But what they're promising won't give Scotland the powers it needs to avoid the cuts a tory government want to impose.
I do. But what they're promising won't give Scotland the powers it needs to avoid the cuts a tory government want to impose.
In reply to rogerwebb:
To be fair, when Alastair Darling visited Loch Lomond, one of his campaign made a bee line for a chap beside me , and standing in his face blocking his view and aggressively accused him of intending to cause trouble.
I just happen to know the poor bloke was just there for the food fair, and I had seen him hours earlier enjoying the day. No one had any idea Darling was going to turn out thkere, and just happened to set up where we were standing at the time, and we were just observing the commotion .
It turned out , when asked why he thought that, the No campaigner revealed he had seen the guy had a wee Yes badge on, and this was enough to provoke the confrontation.
Anyway, intimidation is totally counterproductive, so any savvy campaigner would not be wise to aggravate anyone who has a secret ballot vote,
if anything these tactics will backfire on whomever uses them, unless you are suggesting that you are intimidated into to changing your vote, or not voting at all because you feel intimidated ?
My guess is that if anything it would make you more determined.
This Yes man is therefore working on behalf of the No camp.
> Off topic but scary.
> I was in Inverness High Street today and stopped at the lib dem stall. While I was there a 'Yes' man took photographs of me. I challenged him as to why. He kept repeating it's not illegal but was unwilling to explain why he has never felt it necessary to take my picture before but my engaging with the opposition suddenly made him do so.
> I cannot think of a reasonable explanation of this behaviour.
> If it's meant to intimidate, it does.
> If it's meant to intimidate, it does.
To be fair, when Alastair Darling visited Loch Lomond, one of his campaign made a bee line for a chap beside me , and standing in his face blocking his view and aggressively accused him of intending to cause trouble.
I just happen to know the poor bloke was just there for the food fair, and I had seen him hours earlier enjoying the day. No one had any idea Darling was going to turn out thkere, and just happened to set up where we were standing at the time, and we were just observing the commotion .
It turned out , when asked why he thought that, the No campaigner revealed he had seen the guy had a wee Yes badge on, and this was enough to provoke the confrontation.
Anyway, intimidation is totally counterproductive, so any savvy campaigner would not be wise to aggravate anyone who has a secret ballot vote,
if anything these tactics will backfire on whomever uses them, unless you are suggesting that you are intimidated into to changing your vote, or not voting at all because you feel intimidated ?
My guess is that if anything it would make you more determined.
This Yes man is therefore working on behalf of the No camp.
Post edited at 19:45
In reply to Jim C:
I'm certainly not changing my vote now, I would though like to know what these pictures are used for. I've emailed his companion who turned out to be a councillor (and to be fair a nice guy with whom I have a lot of common ground) asking if he has a reasonable explanation.
Photo man was alarmingly ignorant about the contents of the white paper and politics in general.
Today I have seen my first vandalised Yes signs, not good.
I'm certainly not changing my vote now, I would though like to know what these pictures are used for. I've emailed his companion who turned out to be a councillor (and to be fair a nice guy with whom I have a lot of common ground) asking if he has a reasonable explanation.
Photo man was alarmingly ignorant about the contents of the white paper and politics in general.
Today I have seen my first vandalised Yes signs, not good.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
No., I was on a training course today, what was the latest lie ?
( bearing in mind that know one actually knows the ' truth', as it will be subject to negotiation)
I agree with that, everything will be up for grabs, and there will be ' betrayals' (on both sides. )
I was amazed tonight, after two years of discussions my ( committed) Tory friend said that he has:- no doubt that Scotland 'could' make a success of independence!
He also seems most concerned with Cairney's vague language regarding a possibility of any currency union , he now seems to accept the possibility, (he fears) that the rUK will be bounced into , or have to give / negotiate away, a CU after a Yes vote.
(An extension' to keeping Trident in Scotland for more than 5 years possibly?)
Cairney's has not ruled CU out, simply saying that the others have said no, and that there would be a loss of the newly won sovereignty. ( incomparable with sovereignty)
Cairney might just be being impartial, OR he might be leaving the door slightly ajar, just in case it is needed.
Although Salmond just asserts a CU will happen, my friend now fears a CU will happen .
(Whereas before he was convinced the rUK would never roll over.)
I sense he too distrusts them to hold to their promises, and his wishes.
I think he is cracking up. He took me by surprise that he is no longer totally denying that CU is a possibility, far less proposing that Scotland could be successful as an independent country.
(Previously, it was going to be a basket case in two years or earlier. )
Don't get me wrong, he is certainly not a Yesser but he seems no longer to be in in total and assured denial that there is any possibility of CU, and, whilst he fears a left wing socialist leaning Government with full powers over Scotland's affairs, he is now actually proposing that ,depending what form / direction the Scottish Government takes after the next election, Scotland could perhaps , possibly, maybe, make a success of independence!
I can tell you that is an enormous turn around. I think Salmond has hexed him.
As I have said on here before, I don't like Salmond, I don't support or vote for the SNP, but , I have to accept that this mini conversion is amazing, and admiration goes to Salmond for that.
( it is a resounding NO vote from him though, committed voters rarely change)
> They may or may not be delivered. Just like all of Salmond's promises.
Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
No., I was on a training course today, what was the latest lie ?
( bearing in mind that know one actually knows the ' truth', as it will be subject to negotiation)
> The only thing certain to be delivered by a Yes vote is Independence itself.
Everthing else is an act of faith.I agree with that, everything will be up for grabs, and there will be ' betrayals' (on both sides. )
I was amazed tonight, after two years of discussions my ( committed) Tory friend said that he has:- no doubt that Scotland 'could' make a success of independence!
He also seems most concerned with Cairney's vague language regarding a possibility of any currency union , he now seems to accept the possibility, (he fears) that the rUK will be bounced into , or have to give / negotiate away, a CU after a Yes vote.
(An extension' to keeping Trident in Scotland for more than 5 years possibly?)
Cairney's has not ruled CU out, simply saying that the others have said no, and that there would be a loss of the newly won sovereignty. ( incomparable with sovereignty)
Cairney might just be being impartial, OR he might be leaving the door slightly ajar, just in case it is needed.
Although Salmond just asserts a CU will happen, my friend now fears a CU will happen .
(Whereas before he was convinced the rUK would never roll over.)
I sense he too distrusts them to hold to their promises, and his wishes.
I think he is cracking up. He took me by surprise that he is no longer totally denying that CU is a possibility, far less proposing that Scotland could be successful as an independent country.
(Previously, it was going to be a basket case in two years or earlier. )
Don't get me wrong, he is certainly not a Yesser but he seems no longer to be in in total and assured denial that there is any possibility of CU, and, whilst he fears a left wing socialist leaning Government with full powers over Scotland's affairs, he is now actually proposing that ,depending what form / direction the Scottish Government takes after the next election, Scotland could perhaps , possibly, maybe, make a success of independence!
I can tell you that is an enormous turn around. I think Salmond has hexed him.
As I have said on here before, I don't like Salmond, I don't support or vote for the SNP, but , I have to accept that this mini conversion is amazing, and admiration goes to Salmond for that.
( it is a resounding NO vote from him though, committed voters rarely change)
In reply to rogerwebb:
Well not mine, Roger, but, then where I live is very tied in with the MOD, and there is a lot of NO signs, (and the very odd Yes sign that has suffered from whatever,by whomever I can't say It could have just been windy!)
Either way, this has NOT gone into violence by any means, we are all going to make the best of whatever is the outcome,
I personally will have no issues with anyone' afterwards.
> Today I have seen my first vandalised Yes signs, not good.
Well not mine, Roger, but, then where I live is very tied in with the MOD, and there is a lot of NO signs, (and the very odd Yes sign that has suffered from whatever,by whomever I can't say It could have just been windy!)
Either way, this has NOT gone into violence by any means, we are all going to make the best of whatever is the outcome,
I personally will have no issues with anyone' afterwards.
In reply to Jim C:
He implied that "Team Westminster" had now agreed that he could have a currency union because whereas Osborne had said several weeks ago that Scotland couldn't have the pound, in the second TV debate Darling had said Scotland could use it. Of course Osborne was saying no to a curency union whereas Darling was saying Scotland could, of course, use the pound without a currency union.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
> No., I was on a training course today, what was the latest lie ?
> Did you hear him lie on the Today programme this morning about currency?
> No., I was on a training course today, what was the latest lie ?
He implied that "Team Westminster" had now agreed that he could have a currency union because whereas Osborne had said several weeks ago that Scotland couldn't have the pound, in the second TV debate Darling had said Scotland could use it. Of course Osborne was saying no to a curency union whereas Darling was saying Scotland could, of course, use the pound without a currency union.
In reply to rogerwebb:
We'll see. Anne Marie Morris, James Grey and Jessie Norman are also quoted in The Guardian this morning. I think we safely add Bernard Jenkin to that list.
> I would take any intervention by John Redwood and Christopher Chope with the same degree of seriousness as ...
We'll see. Anne Marie Morris, James Grey and Jessie Norman are also quoted in The Guardian this morning. I think we safely add Bernard Jenkin to that list.
In reply to silhouette:
still not enough, and I think they will lose the next election anyway,
but I take your point.
There is still however if it's a No, and I hope it is, and all promises are ignored, of the 2016 Scottish election.
still not enough, and I think they will lose the next election anyway,
but I take your point.
There is still however if it's a No, and I hope it is, and all promises are ignored, of the 2016 Scottish election.
In reply to Jim C:
a) never heard of them, who do they represent except themselves?
b) tis is recent, apparently, don't you have an historical movements to give us, and not just two people, mass movements? I doubt you have but please prove me wrong.
> John Redwood told BBC Radio 5 live:
> "If you are going to give tax powers to Scotland and to Wales, England will want exactly the same tax powers and we will want our own Parliament.
> And Christopher Chope said it was by no means certain that the UK Parliament would approve the transfer of any further powers to Holyrood."
a) never heard of them, who do they represent except themselves?
b) tis is recent, apparently, don't you have an historical movements to give us, and not just two people, mass movements? I doubt you have but please prove me wrong.
In reply to Fultonius:
Well, yes, but minimising the impact on the rUK could well mean driving a hard bargain. What's best for the rUk is quite possibly no currency union, using support for EU and NATO membership as leverage over Scotland as a trade for retaining Faslane, not sharing any funding (research grants etc) where Scotland currently gets any more than its proportional share, and so on. Self interested but not pretty.
If you believe the party leaders don't care enough about Scotland to make a genuine if badly timed offer to try and make it stay, then they won't care about any damage they do to Scotland as long as the knock on cost to the UK is less than the cost of generosity would be. And besides, being hardball in negotiations and blaming any damage on the scots is tried and tested political methodology and would play well to any public anger south of the border.
Well, yes, but minimising the impact on the rUK could well mean driving a hard bargain. What's best for the rUk is quite possibly no currency union, using support for EU and NATO membership as leverage over Scotland as a trade for retaining Faslane, not sharing any funding (research grants etc) where Scotland currently gets any more than its proportional share, and so on. Self interested but not pretty.
If you believe the party leaders don't care enough about Scotland to make a genuine if badly timed offer to try and make it stay, then they won't care about any damage they do to Scotland as long as the knock on cost to the UK is less than the cost of generosity would be. And besides, being hardball in negotiations and blaming any damage on the scots is tried and tested political methodology and would play well to any public anger south of the border.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...