Who is bogging off after the YES vote?
Discussion
ViperPict said:
Exactly! Whatever the result, take it on the chin and get on with things. No toys out of the pram behaviour.
Pooh said:
I kind of get your point, if the people of Scotland want to turn their country into a small, socialist country on the fringes of the E.U. then that is their choice but I also have the choice as to whether or not I want to stay and be part of it.
The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
We need to take opinion out of it, we have no idea how it will turn out. It is hard to just 'allow' people to get on with it, but democracy allows people to vote for whatever, despite their reasons, educated on the outcome or not. I personally think that people should vote on well thought out and non biased decisions, which I hope everyone is doing. It is likely that people will vote without doing so, especially with all the media attention over it, but then again they are voting for independence; When is independence a bad thing? I think independence is awesome, people should be happy for that to happen. The awesome bi product of it all is that because Scotland wants independence, its made a huge populus come together for an idea, possibly a group of people who usually wouldn't care. So no doubt people will start together to actually make changes which benefit scotland. When I say a bunch of people that don't care, it's just the usual case of people being so 'turned off' from politics.The whole thing makes me very sad and I think that whatever the outcome of the referendum there will be long term damage to the relationship between England and Scotland.
Scotland is full of people, exactly the same people you find in England. We are just bloody bored of the s
t. I personally think that the separation would mean that governments have a smaller foot print when solving issues, money, resources, care, just everything. Give it a go? Development, development, development. Things are st anyway, what difference will it make. If it makes the people happy, thats it at the end of the day, it might be good, or bad, we won't find out until we try. citizensm1th said:
what makes the scots believe they will be able to just walk across the border after independence?
as citizens of a foreign nation outside of the EU you will need both passports and a visa
This is the problem isn;t it as citizens of a foreign nation outside of the EU you will need both passports and a visa
Salmond and his delusional 'yes' campaign yes-men presume, it appears without any basis , thatthe following will happen
- Scotland will retain the Pound
- Soctland will immediately be accepted into the EU
-Scotland will be immediately accepted into NATO and the UK will continue to provide QRA air defence and caostal protection
- that the UK government will transfer all UK government owned assets located North of the border on the day ( apart from the dirty Nuclear submarines) and that all UK government directly employed staff ( so government depts e.g. HMRC and exec agences e.g. VOSA and the Military) will be transferred to the Scottish state ...
as it stands
- there is a very real risk that Scotland will be left having to create it;s own currency for a limited period of time and may forced to accept the Euro if it successfully applies to join the EU - alternatively as a tinpot porridge republic it will be forced in the interim to use the Pound and the EUro despite having no control over it or monetary policy.
- that Scotland will have to apply to join both the EU and NATO and be accepted - and that asumes that Spain and France accept them given their own internal issues of devolution / accession by regions
that the Scottish Military will have no personnel, equipment , materiel or bases on formation ( although i'm sure the UK government will let them have some of the existing bases for pennies as there will be no requirement for 'English Army of Occupation' (tm) as the existing personnel are members of the UK armed forces - and who would want to transfer to a tinpot service whioch will have no expeditionary capacity of it;s won and will spent it's time keeping factions in various armpits of the world from throwing csharpened mango and guava chunks at each other ( cf Eire's involvement in UN operations to earn income)
Patrick Bateman said:
Give it a go?
I'd want more assurances than that.
Why would independance ever be regarded as a bad thing? Why would you not give independance a go I'd want more assurances than that.
What should I do, be angry and shout opinions. Say its wrong, try and convince everyone else. Na its sunday. People will do as they want, thats why they vote. Cant really change more than that.SirChris said:
Why would independance ever be regarded as a bad thing? Why would you not give independance a go What should I do, be angry and shout opinions. Say its wrong, try and convince everyone else. Na its sunday. People will do as they want, thats why they vote. Cant really change more than that.
Because if you 'give it a go' and it's a disaster then tough s What should I do, be angry and shout opinions. Say its wrong, try and convince everyone else. Na its sunday. People will do as they want, thats why they vote. Cant really change more than that.t.How can people have any faith in Salmond and the like when they can't even give a Plan B on a currency union? Just saying 'but we'll get a currency union' is ill-prepared at best.
Patrick Bateman said:
Because if you 'give it a go' and it's a disaster then tough st.
How can people have any faith in Salmond and the like when they can't even give a Plan B on a currency union? Just saying 'but we'll get a currency union' is ill-prepared at best.
Well lets just hope to hell people vote for the right decision!t.How can people have any faith in Salmond and the like when they can't even give a Plan B on a currency union? Just saying 'but we'll get a currency union' is ill-prepared at best.
GoneAnon said:
an independent Scotland where the oil companies will be much bigger fish in a small pond and would, I'd speculate, enjoy more stability from a Scottish government.
Tail wags dog or dog wags tail?The UK can afford to 'disappoint' the oil and gas sector rather more than an independent Scotland.
So the small size of that pond could turn out to be a problem.
Patrick Bateman said:
Because if you 'give it a go' and it's a disaster then tough st.
How can people have any faith in Salmond and the like when they can't even give a Plan B on a currency union? Just saying 'but we'll get a currency union' is ill-prepared at best.
You do realise that this is not a vote for Salmond, yep. t.How can people have any faith in Salmond and the like when they can't even give a Plan B on a currency union? Just saying 'but we'll get a currency union' is ill-prepared at best.
If it is a yes result then it will evolve with time, if anyone was to give you cast iron guarantees atm, they can't as many are out to make this as difficult as they can to suit there own agenda. However i do think with a yes result, other countries will have to work with us and it will be, if not easy, not as difficult as some predict.
SirChris said:
Why would independance ever be regarded as a bad thing? Why would you not give independance a go
You don't just give it a go. You can't just undo it once you commit.If there had been a massive campaign in Scotland for a referendum with a clear majority demanding it then this debate would be different.
What has actually happend is that vocal minority have set up this situation and far from starting with a clear majority they are struggling towards trying to get at least a slight majority.
The argument or debate is being driven like a general election. Basically there is a manifesto being driven by the yes vote - and it's just as truthful and relivent as the manifestos published by parties in general elections. But unlike a 'mere' general election if the yes vote succeeds then it can't just be voted back out in 4 or 5 years time.
Ouch:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/refe...
What, was the advice a bit premature and politically motivated? Surely not?
Dryce said:
You don't just give it a go. You can't just undo it once you commit.
If there had been a massive campaign in Scotland for a referendum with a clear majority demanding it then this debate would be different.
What has actually happend is that vocal minority have set up this situation and far from starting with a clear majority they are struggling towards trying to get at least a slight majority.
The argument or debate is being driven like a general election. Basically there is a manifesto being driven by the yes vote - and it's just as truthful and relivent as the manifestos published by parties in general elections. But unlike a 'mere' general election if the yes vote succeeds then it can't just be voted back out in 4 or 5 years time.
Yes, just like everything else in politics, or life, there is no undo button. You are right, i agree. Suppose we will see what happen soon. Quite scary how so much can possibly change by one decision.If there had been a massive campaign in Scotland for a referendum with a clear majority demanding it then this debate would be different.
What has actually happend is that vocal minority have set up this situation and far from starting with a clear majority they are struggling towards trying to get at least a slight majority.
The argument or debate is being driven like a general election. Basically there is a manifesto being driven by the yes vote - and it's just as truthful and relivent as the manifestos published by parties in general elections. But unlike a 'mere' general election if the yes vote succeeds then it can't just be voted back out in 4 or 5 years time.
coldsnap said:
You do realise that this is not a vote for Salmond, yep.
Technically it isn't.But that's the way it certainly feels given the way the yes campaign is being driven.
The SNP have an advantage in that as a party this is what they want. So they dominate the 'yes' campaign as well as using their position in the the Scottish government to drive it forward with authority.
The other political groups in Scotland in an oddly quiet position. It seems that they're almost paralysed. No real heavy hitters standing up and taking the other side of the debate forward.
SirChris said:
Yes, just like everything else in politics, or life, there is no undo button. You are right, i agree. Suppose we will see what happen soon. Quite scary how so much can possibly change by one decision.
I think it's quite scary how pithy the debate is at times. I saw the Question Time episode with Eddie Reader, Annabel Goldie, and Nicola Sturgeon and just felt sick watching. Is that all we can come up with on this issue in terms of the discussion.Things are being rushed - in part because the SNP got boxed into making a move. So the timetables are all political. And we're talking about separating when the financial deficit is appalling and when energy prices could be volatile over the medium term.
It would have been more prudent for the advocates of independence to stick with devolution and let the *public* start to push for a referendum by a majority (if that's what they wanted) rather than have the politicians force it on their agenda.
The current referendum is actually a sort of Plan B anyway. Had this campaign been run before 2008 then the Euro and EU would have been central to it and who knows - the issue of the pound might have become the UK doing a sell to try and make Scotland keep it!
Dryce said:
Technically it isn't.
But that's the way it certainly feels given the way the yes campaign is being driven.
The SNP have an advantage in that as a party this is what they want. So they dominate the 'yes' campaign as well as using their position in the the Scottish government to drive it forward with authority.
The other political groups in Scotland in an oddly quiet position. It seems that they're almost paralysed. No real heavy hitters standing up and taking the other side of the debate forward.
Who knows what the political landscape come 2016 and beyond will be in the event of a yes vote, but i do genuinely believe it will have a better class of politicians than what we have in Hollyrood at present.But that's the way it certainly feels given the way the yes campaign is being driven.
The SNP have an advantage in that as a party this is what they want. So they dominate the 'yes' campaign as well as using their position in the the Scottish government to drive it forward with authority.
The other political groups in Scotland in an oddly quiet position. It seems that they're almost paralysed. No real heavy hitters standing up and taking the other side of the debate forward.
coldsnap said:
You do realise that this is not a vote for Salmond, yep.
If it is a yes result then it will evolve with time, if anyone was to give you cast iron guarantees atm, they can't as many are out to make this as difficult as they can to suit there own agenda. However i do think with a yes result, other countries will have to work with us and it will be, if not easy, not as difficult as some predict.
He is spearheading this though and if he's not stringent enough to have contingencies in place then what else is just hit and hope?If it is a yes result then it will evolve with time, if anyone was to give you cast iron guarantees atm, they can't as many are out to make this as difficult as they can to suit there own agenda. However i do think with a yes result, other countries will have to work with us and it will be, if not easy, not as difficult as some predict.
Patrick Bateman said:
He is spearheading this though and if he's not stringent enough to have contingencies in place then what else is just hit and hope?
He is, but its not about him. Trouble is is that he can lose as well as win votes. He has to make it clear its not about him and the SNP .......its all about Scotland's future. 
SirChris said:
Scotland is full of people, exactly the same people you find in England. We are just bloody bored of the st. I personally think that the separation would mean that governments have a smaller foot print when solving issues, money, resources, care, just everything. Give it a go? Development, development, development. Things are st anyway, what difference will it make. If it makes the people happy, thats it at the end of the day, it might be good, or bad, we won't find out until we try.
That is what pisses me off the mostt. I personally think that the separation would mean that governments have a smaller foot print when solving issues, money, resources, care, just everything. Give it a go? Development, development, development. Things are st anyway, what difference will it make. If it makes the people happy, thats it at the end of the day, it might be good, or bad, we won't find out until we try. If Scotland is so s
t then use your freedom to fk off out of it and find somewhere better to live.As i've travelled the world and Scotland is pretty f
king greatcoldsnap said:
He is, but its not about him. Trouble is is that he can lose as well as win votes. He has to make it clear its not about him and the SNP .......its all about Scotland's future.
No voters know it isn't about him. I'm not saying it's about him. But since the SNP are spearheading the whole thing they should have a pretty sound set of plans and contingencies in place.Do they?
Dryce said:
GoneAnon said:
an independent Scotland where the oil companies will be much bigger fish in a small pond and would, I'd speculate, enjoy more stability from a Scottish government.
Tail wags dog or dog wags tail?The UK can afford to 'disappoint' the oil and gas sector rather more than an independent Scotland.
So the small size of that pond could turn out to be a problem.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff