Who is bogging off after the YES vote?

[footsoldier]

Siscar said:

All of which is another way of saying you have no idea. Independence with no clue even what currency you would use, god help you.

I'm not a unionist, I'm a democrat, vote for what you want, but it's quite sad how some Scots are sleep walking into this when there are so many questions unanswered.

Over 100 independent countries have been created since start of 20th Century. (30 of them after referenda, with an average of 15months from vote to establishment)

It is without doubt that none of them have had as much information and as many questions answered as Scotland has now. If you have any more questions, go to the Scottish Govt website, and ask - they'll get back to you.

On currency, an independent commission, including 2 Nobel economists (non-Scots), gave 6 options - plans A to F and then came to the objective conclusion that a currency union would be the No 1 choice - in best interests of UK and Scotland.

If the rUk govt wants to deploy a scorched earth policy, then of course there is no guarantee that Plan A can be implemented, but one of the other 5 will be, and you can't expect the Yes campaign to provide answers to questions based on all the illogical and self-defeating actions that one could possible imagine that third parties would take. (even though they won't and in some cases can't take such actions)

The no campaign is modelled on the 'can you prove you've stopped beating your wife?' line of questioning

So, the unionist tactics are to put out the idea that there is no information, and bogging the debate down in unanswerable knots, which no reasonable person could expect to have answered, if they take a few seconds to think about it. The fact that people are for the first time being engaged by, and exposed to counter arguments to the lazy scare stories, explains the gradual increase in the Yes vote.

Here's the thing, Yes can never provide all the answers, and neither can the UK. However, if we get to 18 September in same manner as we are now, the Yes campaign will have provided, without exaggeration, more information on the future possibilities for voters than any Indy campaign in the history of the world, and the No campaign will have entirely based its arguments on what's happened in the past and what might scare people into sticking with that.

That will do me fine - those no tactics have lost every Scottish election since 2007, and will lose this one as well.

[Siscar]

Ah, you are living in fantasy land. If you understand anything about a currency union you would realise that there is no chance of rUK agreeing to one. It's not about bullying, scorched earth, any of that nonsense, it's about the fact that there is no benefit to rUK doing it. It isn't going to happen.

To vote yes on the basis that it'll be alright in the end is bizarre. To dismiss doubts over EU membership on the basis that the EU president, commission, etc are all wrong is equally bizarre, as are all the other problems like the continued prosperity of the financial services industry, the shipbuilding industry, even the oil industry with relation to government subsidy.

Of course the SNP say everything is bullying, scaremongering, insults to Scotland, etc etc., it's naive nonsense and identifiable as such because they don't answer the questions. If there is no currency union, what then? If there is no continued membership of the EU, what then? If the PPF doesn't cover Scottish pensions, if they have to follow EU law on cross border pensions, if shipbuilding contracts have to follow EU law and not favour Scotland, if renewable subsidies from rUK don't get targeted on Scotland.... there's a myriad of these questions to which the Nats have no answer. If they don't like the question it's scaremongering, project fear - it's never answering the question.

For the rest of the UK the consequences of independence aren't that great and for many losing a big socialist end of the country is no bad thing. But the naivety of the package you are being expected to buy is quite staggering, by all means accept the massive economics risks involved if you wish, but don't blame others for telling it to you as it is.

[Dryce]

footsoldier said:

Over 100 independent countries have been created since start of 20th Century. (30 of them after referenda, with an average of 15months from vote to establishment)

I wonder how many started that position from a minority of pro-separatists as opposed to an overwhelming majority wanting separation before hand.

Some will have experience ethnic division or had their pre-separation dispostion imposed by war or colonial or imperial poilitics..

Scotland wasn't invaded in 1707 - it joined the union of its own accord.

So how many of those is Scotland actually genuinely comparable to?

footsoldier said:

It is without doubt that none of them have had as much information and as many questions answered as Scotland has now. If you have any more questions, go to the Scottish Govt website, and ask - they'll get back to you.

If you kick off with most people wanting change then they'r not to going to need convincing. It's a downhill rush as opposed to the current uphill struggle towards the final decision.

footsoldier said:

On currency, an independent commission, including 2 Nobel economists (non-Scots), gave 6 options - plans A to F and then came to the objective conclusion that a currency union would be the No 1 choice - in best interests of UK and Scotland.

But the currency is not ours to have a union with .... an inconvenient truth for some that just gets glossed over and glossed over again and again.

footsoldier said:

If the rUk govt wants to deploy a scorched earth policy, then of course there is no guarantee that Plan A can be implemented,

Plan A for the Scottish separatists was the Euro. It's actually Plan B that we're on.

footsoldier said:

you can't expect the Yes campaign to provide answers to questions based on all the illogical and self-defeating actions that one could possible imagine that third parties would take. (even though they won't and in some cases can't take such actions)

Bt that's not what is being asked. The fact that the questions are irritating doesn't mean they are not valid.

footsoldier said:

So, the unionist tactics are to put out the idea that there is no information, and bogging the debate down in unanswerable knots, which no reasonable person could expect to have answered, if they take a few seconds to think about it. The fact that people are for the first time being engaged by, and exposed to counter arguments to the lazy scare stories, explains the gradual increase in the Yes vote.

If somebody comes along to you and says you should change your electricity or gas supplier then typically you would only change from your existing supplier if there was a good reason?

footsoldier said:

Here's the thing, Yes can never provide all the answers

They're not even providing the basic answers.

So it's sign up to change your electricity supplier and find out after you get the first bill that you make a mistake because the tariffs and charges are never explained. It's called mis-selling.

So in some ways the yes approach seems rather worrying to an objective participant in the referendum. It smells of that mis-selling.

The proponents would get an easier ride if the referendum had been demanded by a significant majority of the people in Scotland. That wasn't the case.

It doesn't help that the SNP rather played with the public on the issue of EU membership advice. An outsider might comment on the fact that the electoral role is being extended for the referendum - while there might be justification it also smells of an attempt to skew the result.

Meanwhile if you do ask the right questions it seems that's not allowed and they are not to be answered because they should not be answered. Not a good way to run a campaign. It doesn't inspire much confidence.

[McWigglebum4th]

footsoldier said:

Over 100 independent countries have been created since start of 20th Century. (30 of them after referenda, with an average of 15months from vote to establishment)
l.

Move to one of those then seeing Scotland is so st

I hear South Sudan is lovely

[GoneAnon]

footsoldier said:

Scotland wasn't invaded in 1707 - it joined the union of its own accord.

If you honestly think this is correct, you need to go down to the library and brush up on your history.

Way back then Scotland and England were hardly democracies. Most of us on here wouldn't be allowed a vote, far less any chance of sitting in parliament on either side of the border. The landed gentry had their own priorities and the common people weren't among them. Indeed some, including Robert Burns, would say they were bought-off.

You might recall his work referring to the parcel of rogues, and there were riots in Scottish cities when the population learned what the Scottish government of the day had done.

Depending who's history you prefer to believe, the politicians did it because:
A) They were greedy bds who fancied some extra cash and a title
B) The Darian scheme had bankrupted Scotland (or, at least, the wealthy backers)
C) The English threatened to invade to protect their own interests unless Scotland "merged".


I'm off to bed now, but I have a serious question that I hope will get serious answers before I come back tomorrow night.

Currently, Scotland educates its university students for free, and has to offer the same treatment to students from other EU countries, but doesn't have to extend this concession to students from rUK as they are from the same EU state.

If Scotland becomes independent, could it introduce fees for education for everyone, including Scottish students, and then provide grants or bursaries to their own people, perhaps to students (or via parents) paying tax to or receiving benefits from a Scottish exchequer? That would leave EU and rUK sudents paying the same fees as Scots, but have to ask their own government to give them a grant or bursary



Edited to correct the quote start/end being in the wrong place.

Edited by GoneAnon on Tuesday 22 April 10:31

Edited by GoneAnon on Tuesday 22 April 10:34

[footsoldier]

McWigglebum4th said:

Move to one of those then seeing Scotland is so st

I hear South Sudan is lovely

Where did I say Scotland is st exactly? Is that where your level of debate maxes out?

I'm leaving you to it now, plenty more productive stuff to do...

[Dryce]

GoneAnon said:

If you honestly think this is correct, you need to go down to the library and brush up on your history.

Way back then Scotland and England were hardly democracies. Most of us on here wouldn't be allowed a vote, far less any chance of sitting in parliament on either side of the border. The landed gentry had their own priorities and the common people weren't among them. Indeed some, including Robert Burns, would say they were bought-off.

You're being disingenuous.

If you're going to play that game let's separate Scotland into different tribal areas and decide that they each get separate independence. After all the people didn't have a modern democracy then in order to divide. Moreover we can give Shetland and the Orkneys back to Norway. they didn't vote to become part of Scotland.

Get real.

Scotland entered into a union as a nation. It didn't have some colonial power draw lines to enclose it as part of the UK, it wasn't invaded and occupied by England in 1707, the UK wasn't joined and left as some creation due to the Ottomans or Austro-Hungarians, and there's no claim of ethnic or religious or linguistic division that separates Scotland from the rest of the UK.

[footsoldier]

Siscar said:

. But the naivety of the package you are being expected to buy is quite staggering, by all means accept the massive economics risks involved if you wish, but don't blame others for telling it to you as it is.

I deal with economic risks and opportunities every day, with my own livelihood at stake. Seems to go all right, so I'm pretty sure I don't need your interpretation of "how it is", but thanks anyway

[ViperPict]

Dryce said:

GoneAnon said:

If you honestly think this is correct, you need to go down to the library and brush up on your history.

Way back then Scotland and England were hardly democracies. Most of us on here wouldn't be allowed a vote, far less any chance of sitting in parliament on either side of the border. The landed gentry had their own priorities and the common people weren't among them. Indeed some, including Robert Burns, would say they were bought-off.

You're being disingenuous.

If you're going to play that game let's separate Scotland into different tribal areas and decide that they each get separate independence. After all the people didn't have a modern democracy then in order to divide. Moreover we can give Shetland and the Orkneys back to Norway. they didn't vote to become part of Scotland.

Get real.



Scotland entered into a union as a nation. It didn't have some colonial power draw lines to enclose it as part of the UK, it wasn't invaded and occupied by England in 1707, the UK wasn't joined and left as some creation due to the Ottomans or Austro-Hungarians, and there's no claim of ethnic or religious or linguistic division that separates Scotland from the rest of the UK.

Scotland entered the union, arguably, illegally. The decision was made by the self-serving elite whose decision it was to make is highly debatable (as per the Declaration of Arbroath stating Scotland's sovereignty lies with the people and, therefore reasonably, the government). The vast majority of Scots did not want a union and there were riots and public disorder for years after 1707.

[ViperPict]

Siscar said:

Ah, you are living in fantasy land. If you understand anything about a currency union you would realise that there is no chance of rUK agreeing to one. It's not about bullying, scorched earth, any of that nonsense, it's about the fact that there is no benefit to rUK doing it. It isn't going to happen.

To vote yes on the basis that it'll be alright in the end is bizarre. To dismiss doubts over EU membership on the basis that the EU president, commission, etc are all wrong is equally bizarre, as are all the other problems like the continued prosperity of the financial services industry, the shipbuilding industry, even the oil industry with relation to government subsidy.

Of course the SNP say everything is bullying, scaremongering, insults to Scotland, etc etc., it's naive nonsense and identifiable as such because they don't answer the questions. If there is no currency union, what then? If there is no continued membership of the EU, what then? If the PPF doesn't cover Scottish pensions, if they have to follow EU law on cross border pensions, if shipbuilding contracts have to follow EU law and not favour Scotland, if renewable subsidies from rUK don't get targeted on Scotland.... there's a myriad of these questions to which the Nats have no answer. If they don't like the question it's scaremongering, project fear - it's never answering the question.

For the rest of the UK the consequences of independence aren't that great and for many losing a big socialist end of the country is no bad thing. But the naivety of the package you are being expected to buy is quite staggering, by all means accept the massive economics risks involved if you wish, but don't blame others for telling it to you as it is.

So, in line with the topic of the thread, are you leaving Scotland when the yes vote is realised?

[Dryce]

ViperPict said:

Scotland entered the union, arguably, illegally. The decision was made by the self-serving elite whose decision it was to make is highly debatable (as per the Declaration of Arbroath stating Scotland's sovereignty lies with the people and, therefore reasonably, the government). The vast majority of Scots did not want a union and there were riots and public disorder for years after 1707.

As I said before this is disingenuous.

Stating that the 'vast majority of Scots' did not want a union is a supposition. There were no polls as such. Moreover the nature of Scotland at the time was far from homogeneous - culturally and economically. Not to mention those who wanted to forcibly change the head of state for the whole of Britain to another of their own choice. It's notable that the 1715 and 1745 uprisings were not purely Scottish affairs but set in a wider British context. One might have thought that post Union the context might have been rather more centred on Scottish separatism if your supposition was true.

Furthermore the Declaration of Abroath wasn't about the people in the modern sense - it was about the nobility of the day as the people - and through them the nation. That's the way things worked back then. These days people tend to see it a false modern context which is inappropriate to those times.

Conversely some might argue in 300 years time that the polls prior to the referendum being announced showed the vast majority of Scots did not want independence (and by inference didn't want a referendum ...). Historians looking back might well question the motives of the core of separatists who initiated it and their motives in extending the election roll and their approach to dissemination of information. 300 years on things may not be interpreted as we might expect because yet again the context will have shifted.

[Humper]

Wow, all the rich folks care more about personal wealth than independence, seems to be the theme,leaving the ordinary working man willing to fight for it.
Didn't Mel Gibson star in a film with a similar theme.....
All the "nobles" taking bribes from the English, eh?.
If Scotland gaining independence is so bad for you, fk off then, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Wonder if the Manx government are worried about the impossibility of a currency union with the UK?

[Siscar]

Humper said:

Wow, all the rich folks care more about personal wealth than independence, seems to be the theme,leaving the ordinary working man willing to fight for it.
Didn't Mel Gibson star in a film with a similar theme.....
All the "nobles" taking bribes from the English, eh?.
If Scotland gaining independence is so bad for you, fk off then, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Poor folks worry about personal wealth as well, in fact it's them who are most at risk from the increased economic risk, your income dropping when you have very little of it has a much bigger impact than on those with plenty to spare.

Humper said:

Wonder if the Manx government are worried about the impossibility of a currency union with the UK?

Why should they be worried about that?

IOM runs a budget surplus and holds sterling for every pound they issue. If Scotland would like to do that then I doubt there would be a problem with it. But that isn't something that can be afforded.

[Siscar]

footsoldier said:

Siscar said:

. But the naivety of the package you are being expected to buy is quite staggering, by all means accept the massive economics risks involved if you wish, but don't blame others for telling it to you as it is.

I deal with economic risks and opportunities every day, with my own livelihood at stake. Seems to go all right, so I'm pretty sure I don't need your interpretation of "how it is", but thanks anyway

Good for you, presumably you do it by first seeking as much information as possible beforehand? After all it would be foolish to take risks without information, so I guess you are pressing the SNP to tell you something really basic like what currency you will operate? In a way that is credible.

[simoid]

OlberJ said:

simoid said:

I agree with Barroso and the Scottish government on the general principles of the EU application - we will attempt to negotiate our continued membership after a yes vote. What's your problem with that.

Continued? I thought it was a new application?

Scotland is a member of the UK at present, and the UK is a member of the EU.

Think of it like, I don't know, your employer has a corporate membership to a gym and you're leaving your employer.

Some of the other gym members might not like your individual membership (perhaps the Spanish ones) and we'll have a tough time convincing all the other members we should get a hefty discount and exemptions from many of the key rules of the gym.



Edit: used golf club instead of gym one of the times

Edited by simoid on Tuesday 22 April 08:55

[simoid]

footsoldier said:

On currency, an independent commission, including 2 Nobel economists (non-Scots), gave 6 options - plans A to F and then came to the objective conclusion that a currency union would be the No 1 choice - in best interests of UK and Scotland.

I see it this way:

The economists were asked not "what's the best plan for Scotland?" but "what's the best koan for Scotland IF we leave the UK?"

And they came back with "the best plan for Scotland is the one that is most similar to the current UK". I wonder why that was. Why didn't the SNP ask the economists if we should stay in the UK?

Why do you want a currency union, this this would leave Scotland's budgets under the control of a foreign land, which is highly likely to be more right wing than Scotland? Seems daft.

I think I'd much rather have the freedom and security of devolution, guaranteed support of our own central bank, and so on and so forth.

[simoid]

ViperPict said:

Firstly, this is not the topic of this thread. Secondly, these are not issues that will convince me (or many other Scots) to vote NO. Not least because they are being used as 'firepower' by Project Fear (which is what they are doing in relation to the examples you give). Thirdly, why are you posting in a regional PH forum that you are not related to? Are the arch-unionists on PH attempting to close ranks and shore up the 'debate'? I thought you didn't care about the result of the referendum? You seem awfully involved in the debate and very much biased to the unionist side...

Yeah, clear off back to the English forums, Siscar.

Hey Pict, is anyone who votes no a sensible, rational individual, or are they all biased because they're Rangers fans/Protestant/monarchists/English/ginger/something else?

[ViperPict]

simoid said:

ViperPict said:

Firstly, this is not the topic of this thread. Secondly, these are not issues that will convince me (or many other Scots) to vote NO. Not least because they are being used as 'firepower' by Project Fear (which is what they are doing in relation to the examples you give). Thirdly, why are you posting in a regional PH forum that you are not related to? Are the arch-unionists on PH attempting to close ranks and shore up the 'debate'? I thought you didn't care about the result of the referendum? You seem awfully involved in the debate and very much biased to the unionist side...

Yeah, clear off back to the English forums, Siscar.

Hey Pict, is anyone who votes no a sensible, rational individual, or are they all biased because they're Rangers fans/Protestant/monarchists/English/ginger/something else?

I can see no reason to vote no other than misplaced nostalgia or the desire to retain your privilege. Thankfully many Scots are motivated differently.

[simoid]

ViperPict said:

I can see no reason to vote no other than misplaced nostalgia or the desire to retain your privilege. Thankfully many Scots are motivated differently.

Well I can't be in the first category, since I'm emotionally favourable to the prospect of a Scottish passport, a Scottish flag at the UN, seeing Scotland in a different colour on maps, etc. However it's pretty well balanced by my appreciation of all that has made and still makes the UK great.

And I have no privilege at present, so I can't have any desire to retain it.

So, since I'll vote no for neither of the reasons you've suggested, is it possible that I genuinely weigh up the probabilities of costs and benefits and come to the conclusion that the optimal choice is continued devolution in the UK?

[ViperPict]

simoid said:

ViperPict said:

I can see no reason to vote no other than misplaced nostalgia or the desire to retain your privilege. Thankfully many Scots are motivated differently.

Well I can't be in the first category, since I'm emotionally favourable to the prospect of a Scottish passport, a Scottish flag at the UN, seeing Scotland in a different colour on maps, etc. However it's pretty well balanced by my appreciation of all that has made and still makes the UK great.

And I have no privilege at present, so I can't have any desire to retain it.

So, since I'll vote no for neither of the reasons you've suggested, is it possible that I genuinely weigh up the probabilities of costs and benefits and come to the conclusion that the optimal choice is continued devolution in the UK?

Then I fear you are being disingenuous or not being honest with yourself.

Inevitably going for independence requires some faith (since we can't know for sure what the situation will be like post-referendum - largely down to Westminster's belligerent refusal to negotiate - although they have been forced into it a bit now).

But I have every faith in our country and a short period of uncertainty will be followed by generations of prosperity (I don't mean just economic).