Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[simoid]

Risky Shift said:

Various donors fund Better Together.

It does rile me somewhat that I've indirectly funded the "Yes" campaign.

I get 'file not found' for the donors link.

Conspiracy!

[Moonhawk]

Calvib said:

My point is, the YES campaign are making ground on the no campaign. The no campaign do not seem to have the strategy to do anything about it.

What "strategy" should they have? They have placed their cards on the table with regards to things like a currency union, have directly countered many of the assumptions the the Yes campaign's white paper. They have stated that they believe Scotland is an important part of the UK, that the UK is stronger together.

Alex Salmond has nothing to lose by bigging up the yes vote (even if its based upon assumptions, false promises and poor accounting). If people listen and he is successful, he will be hailed as a national hero and will be long gone by the time Scotland reaps the crop it has sown by going independent (for better or worse). He will never face the true consequences of independence - that burden will be borne by future generations.

Short of starting to make false promises (which i'm sure we can both agree wouldn't be a good thing) - just what else would you expect the "no" supporters to do.

There is simply nothing the no camp can do to counter somebody who will say pretty much anything to get ahead.......it's up to Scotlands people to decide whether he is sincere. If the gap is closing - then more and more must do - but the final decision will be on their heads. It's not the responsibility of the no camp to persuade people not to vote for independence.....

[DanL]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

d/ Financial institutions are making preparations to move large parts of their business south of the border. ( as EU law demands )

Can you explain this one please?

Which organisations and which parts of their business? And explain the EU law you mention too please.

I have to say, I think this is a red herring. Yes, there's some EU law which states that a bank has to be head quartered in the place it does the most business, but this could be achieved with a name plate change and some set up, rather than opting to move a bunch of roles into rUK. There's cost involved there, but maybe not anything like as much as upping sticks and moving.

I have no real horse in this race still - I don't mind overly if it's a yes or a no, and part of me would like a yes just to see how it all works out. Still, as an Englishman in England, it's not really my concern! I don't think the rUK would be financially worse off without Scotland in the long run. 10% of GBP, 10% of population, so it'll all balance out and we might drop from 6th place to 7th in the G8, but no real biggie.

The annoyance will be with the costs involved of relocating rUK stuff (civil service jobs, shipbuilding, Trident, etc.) from Scotland if it comes to that - I'd rather not have my taxes paying for that.

[simoid]

Moonhawk said:

What "strategy" should they have? They have placed their cards on the table with regards to things like a currency union, have directly countered many of the assumptions the the Yes campaign's white paper. They have stated that they believe Scotland is an important part of the UK, that the UK is stronger together.

Alex Salmond has nothing to lose by bigging up the yes vote (even if its based upon assumptions, false promises and poor accounting). If people listen and he is successful, he will be hailed as a national hero and will be long gone by the time Scotland reaps the crop it has sown by going independent (for better or worse). He will never face the true consequences of independence - that burden will be borne by future generations.

Short of starting to make false promises (which i'm sure we can both agree wouldn't be a good thing) - just what else would you expect the "no" supporters to do.

There is simply nothing the no camp can do to counter somebody who will say pretty much anything to get ahead.......it's up to Scotlands people to decide whether he is sincere. If the gap is closing - then more and more must do - but the final decision will be on their heads. It's not the responsibility of the no camp to persuade people not to vote for independence.....

I'd agree with almost all of that, until the last sentence, which has slightly confused me

Could you elaborate please?

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

Can you explain this one please?

Which organisations and which parts of their business? And explain the EU law you mention too please.

Nope.

NDAs and commercial confidentiality, and other things.

[Funk]

mcdjl said:

Calvib said:

Classic forum junkie paranoia...

What would I benefit from 'deflecting' anything on this debate?! It does not affect me or the wider real debate...

My point is, the YES campaign are making ground on the no campaign. The no campaign do not seem to have the strategy to do anything about it.

Discuss.

The problem is that the current thought process seems to go like this:
Alex says: we'll join the Eu, share a currency with the UK and everything will be great.
Uk/EU say: that doesn't sound good/likely, someone else points out some flaw and why it might not be great.
Alex says: they're bullying us, picking on us/lying.
Idiot voter says: why would Alex lie to us? Look at all those nasty people bullying us. They must really want us to be part of the UK. Therefore they must really be gaining from us being in it. Therefore we will be far better off out of it. Hence we must vote 'Yes'

How can you have a strategy to deal with such idiocy? As much as i distrust all politicians Alex and the Yes have proven to be liars (the advice from the EU they spent lots of lawyers fees on protecting, before being forced to admit it didn't exist) and yet still people believe him. When people are that damn dumb how can you reason with them?
Its alright going with Fluffs, 'I don't care, I just want independence', full respect, they know it'll be hard/cost, they're willing to take it on the chin. For anyone else that just believes Alex....they're nuts (IMO).
Discuss.

There's actually no need for the BT campaign to do very much. By voting 'no', Scots get to keep what they have plus probably negotiate some extra perks along the way (which I still disagree with - I want an English Parliament that looks after England's interests within the UK). Nothing much changes, what more do the Scots need to know about what voting 'no' achieves?

On the OTHER hand, the 'yes' campaigners have every requirement on them to articulate the outcome of a 'yes' vote - what changes? What are the risks? What are the downsides along with any upsides?

To all the Yessers - we're still waiting for answers to:

1) currency - there will be no currency union, what do you propose to do instead?

2) EU - the EU has categorically stated that it will be 'almost impossible' (and if that's their view, it will NEVER happen). What do you plan to do when you're no longer part of the UK or the EU?

These are, in my view, the two most pressing of MANY questions and neither have been even remotely answered. You're taking a massive gamble on your futures, security and livelihoods, are you confident you have the facts about what going solo entails?

Oh, agree with the other poster who earlier said, "If you're opting out of the UK, you pay the costs incurred." I'm not voting for it (I get no say in the future of my country) so I'm not willing to pay for it.

[Moonhawk]

simoid said:

I'd agree with almost all of that, until the last sentence, which has slightly confused me

Could you elaborate please?

I dont see how the no camp have a responsibility to convince people to maintain the status quo? The fact of the matter is - we shouldn't really need a "no" campaign at all. We are already in the union - why do we need a campaign to convince people to stay in it. People have years of experience of being in the union......the no campaign can't really tell them something they dont already know.

IMO their only responsibility (if they have one at all) is simply to show if the yes camp are being dishonest in their claims. To maintain balance.

[simoid]

Moonhawk said:

I dont see how the no camp have a responsibility to convince people to maintain the status quo? The fact of the matter is - we shouldn't really need a "no" campaign at all. We are already in the union - why do we need a campaign to convince people to stay in it. People have years of experience of being in the union......the no campaign can't really tell them something they dont already know.

IMO their only responsibility (if they have one at all) is simply to show if the yes camp are being dishonest in their claims. To maintain balance.

I'm not sure, there is a large degree of ignorance about what powers Holyrood has, and about Westminster and such things. Educating about the current situation I suppose comes under the umbrella of revealing nationalist bullst though.

For example, there was one picture doing the rounds on Facebook saying that one should vote yes to stop the Tories privatising the NHS

[Funk]

simoid said:

Moonhawk said:

I dont see how the no camp have a responsibility to convince people to maintain the status quo? The fact of the matter is - we shouldn't really need a "no" campaign at all. We are already in the union - why do we need a campaign to convince people to stay in it. People have years of experience of being in the union......the no campaign can't really tell them something they dont already know.

IMO their only responsibility (if they have one at all) is simply to show if the yes camp are being dishonest in their claims. To maintain balance.

I'm not sure, there is a large degree of ignorance about what powers Holyrood has, and about Westminster and such things. Educating about the current situation I suppose comes under the umbrella of revealing nationalist bullst though.

For example, there was one picture doing the rounds on Facebook saying that one should vote yes to stop the Tories privatising the NHS

To be fair, large swathes of Scots are revealing their true (blue) colours and I'm becoming more certain we're actually better off without them.

[simoid]

Funk said:

To be fair, large swathes of Scots are revealing their true (blue) colours and I'm becoming more certain we're actually better off without them.

I'm sure you'd like to be rid of a large proportion of the English population too, but the burden of eejits is just one of those liabilities I believe we're better sharing

[MintyChris]

exitwound said:

Why can't we be independent? Are we as Scots, too wee, too poor, too stupid? ...We have to believe in ourselves that we CAN make this work..

Forgetting oil, EU, taxes, Trident etc, for a moment, a yes vote means that Scots will have a vote in their own parliament for their own parties and policies instead of the constant labour/tory yo-yoing run by middle England in Wesminster, where we have not had a vote since the early '70's
Our own vote will work for us and us alone. The SNP will be no more, Alex will be out of a job and retired again.
Who cares if it works or not, the whole point is that it'll be up to us whether we sink or swim and its worth it just for that alone..

The reality is, ..is that there is no choice for Scots, ..as if you vote No, your voting against your own country and as such, you aren't a Scot or don't wish to be. This is an amazing chance to secure a future for generations to come, we need to grab this with both hands and make it work at ANY cost.. Anything else doesn't bear thinking about..

Typical stance from a lot for yes voters. Completely and utterly haven't bothered to listen to the No argument. We aren't saying Scotland cant go on its own, we are saying it would be better staying with the UK.

Nice to see the boohoo, throw your toys out the pram, I didn't get the party I voted for therefore its undemocratic and unfair. Smacks of pure self centred ignorance.

Standard its not about the SNP its about the Independence nonsense too. SNP will be no more and Salmond will retire? Pull the other one. The SNP will do anything to hold onto power, as will Salmond. This is a Nationalist movement after all. These movements serve the few at the top at the expense of the people at the bottom.

And to finish it off the good old, if you vote No your not a true Scot. You know if someone said to me I'm not a true Scot for voting no they would probably end up with a few less teeth. People like you are exactly what holds Scotland back, not the no voters or people south of the border.

Thanks for highlighting further the level of intelligence (or lack of) from the yes side.

[Gaspode]

Funk said:

To be fair, large swathes of Scots are revealing their true (blue) colours and I'm becoming more certain we're actually better off without them.

Sadly, I'm starting to agree with you. I don't want the Scots to break up the union, I don't think it's in their best interests, and I don't think the result is going to be anything like the socialist utopia of milk and honey that it has been portrayed as.

But if they do decide to go, then so be it. They will have demonstrated that they owe no allegiance to Britain, and we would indeed therefore be much better off without them. The sad thing is that I think there would be very little appetite in the minds of the English, Welsh, Irish, and Cornish communities to provide any support or assistance should the Scots get themselves into difficulties. How easy it is to destroy centuries of successful co-operation through the influence of a small minority.

It's a bloody good job we can now make decent whisky south of the border. If they vote Yes and bugger off there will be a lot of Brits (well, at least one ) who will happily support their fellow countrymen rather than give money to a bunch of renegades/secessionists/traitors to the crown.

[Troubleatmill]

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

d/ Financial institutions are making preparations to move large parts of their business south of the border. ( as EU law demands )

Can you explain this one please?

Which organisations and which parts of their business? And explain the EU law you mention too please.

Glad to get you started....
LLoyds have said TSB will be based in England.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563691/TS...
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottis...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/461184/Now-Standa...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-25...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655


Dude - there is a lot of information out there.

But strangely no information on how Salmond & co's vision is achievable.

[exitwound]

Yes I'm a Scot, but I detest all the stuff that goes with it, the nationalism, flagwaving, braveheart crap..

I just want us to be running our own show, with whatever resources we have. I want our votes to count for something up here.

The virulent reactions to my original post says only one thing, ..the UK is running scared that we leave, ..you don't want us, thats obvious, so why not encourage the Yes vote, ..got a problem with that?? If so what?

Yes I work in the NHS at a high profile post, but I retire soon and am willing to take the leap of faith.. As I said, their is no alternative except more and more misery foisted upon us by Westminster.

Oddly enough, there are more Yes votes among the non-Scot settlers up here than the actual Scots, ..explain that one!

Personally, I don't believe that us Scots have the balls to go for it, they want it, but are too scared to take the chance..

Cheers..

[Blib]

exitwound said:

The virulent reactions to my original post says only one thing, ..the UK is running scared that we leave, ..you don't want us, thats obvious, so why not encourage the Yes vote, ..got a problem with that?? If so what?

I don't have a dog in this fight. So, I don't care whether you stay or go. But, can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that "you don't want us"?

Thanks.

[Gaspode]

exitwound said:

As I said, their is no alternative except more and more misery foisted upon us by Westminster.

I'm intrigued, What specific misery has Westminster foisted upon the people of Scotland in the last 3 years, 30 years, or 300 years? What is it that they have made you do that you weren't able to do differently? What is it about the current proposals that make you believe the situation is not going to lead to increased self-determination for Scotland? And lastly, why do you think that thousand of people all urging you to vote No and to remain in the UK indicates that we don't want you?

Oh and BTW, did anyone else hear that Professor guy on Radio 4 yesterday morning point out that under international law Scotland would only be entitled to keep 8% of the oil revenue? Good luck with the Nats trying to 'negotiate' that percentage up

[McWigglebum4th]

exitwound said:

Yes I'm a Scot, but I detest all the stuff that goes with it, the nationalism, flagwaving, braveheart crap..

Oh fk off

You posted this yesterday

exitwound said:

The reality is, ..is that there is no choice for Scots, ..as if you vote No, your voting against your own country and as such, you aren't a Scot or don't wish to be. This is an amazing chance to secure a future for generations to come, we need to grab this with both hands and make it work at ANY cost.. Anything else doesn't bear thinking about..

exitwound said:

The virulent reactions to my original post says only one thing, ..the UK is running scared that we leave, ..you don't want us, thats obvious, so why not encourage the Yes vote, ..got a problem with that?? If so what?

I'm scottish

How can you explain that?

Oh yeah

exitwound said:

The reality is, ..is that there is no choice for Scots, ..as if you vote No, your voting against your own country and as such, you aren't a Scot or don't wish to be.

I forgot i'm not scottish

exitwound said:

Personally, I don't believe that us Scots have the balls to go for it, they want it, but are too scared to take the chance..

Cheers..

I prefer to think we have the brains not to go for it

But if we do i shall piss myself laughing when you run out of money and your job and pension vanish in a puff of blue face paint

[mcdjl]

exitwound said:

Yes I'm a Scot, but I detest all the stuff that goes with it, the nationalism, flagwaving, braveheart crap..

I just want us to be running our own show, with whatever resources we have. I want our votes to count for something up here.

The virulent reactions to my original post says only one thing, ..the UK is running scared that we leave, ..you don't want us, thats obvious, so why not encourage the Yes vote, ..got a problem with that?? If so what?

Yes I work in the NHS at a high profile post, but I retire soon and am willing to take the leap of faith.. As I said, their is no alternative except more and more misery foisted upon us by Westminster.

Oddly enough, there are more Yes votes among the non-Scot settlers up here than the actual Scots, ..explain that one!

Personally, I don't believe that us Scots have the balls to go for it, they want it, but are too scared to take the chance..

Cheers..

Your vote up there counts as much as my vote down here.

I'm not really bothered if you stay or go, well actually I am as resetting up whatever shared services there are will end up costing everyine both sides of the border plenty and in my opinion the governments waste enough money anyway. Any way aside from that I really quite like my country (Britain) and think its something to be proud of, so on an emotional level would rather you stayed. Up to you though.

Theres been plenty of misery foisted on us from Westminster by Scots (Mr Blair, Brown and Darling) so if you go just make sure you take them with you.

Explain that? The born again/converted (immigrants) always make the most noise/try to convert more/feel least secure in their new identy and try to hide it about how great their whatever is and how everyone else should try it. Just as some people (Mr Connery) feel the need to make sure everyone knows they're schhkotish and let it define their identity, when to most people where they're from is just a part of who they are.

[Borghetto]

exitwound said:

Yes I work in the NHS at a high profile post, but I retire soon and am willing to take the leap of faith..

So I guess you'll have a nice secure index linked pension then. So what is this leap of faith you are going to make? It's the younger generations who will have their opportunities reduced. Nicely secure selfish people like you don't mind the risks, because you aren't really taking any.

[toppstuff]

exitwound said:

Yes I work in the NHS at a high profile post, but I retire soon and am willing to take the leap of faith.. As I said, their is no alternative except more and more misery foisted upon us by Westminster.

Cheers..

The irony is strong with this one.

So he is retiring from the NHS with presumably a decent pension. The NHS was founded by a Welshman and even then, in 1947, the Scots were given their own devolved version. Which was a pretty visionary thing to do, really. No doubt that without the co-operation of Westminster it would never have happened.

If Westminster has been heaping misery on the Scots, then I would like to know what the workers in the shipyards, the bloated public sector, the finance industry, make of the security thats been afforded to them.

Misery? My arse.

At least you have the grace to admit that Yes really amounts to nothing more than a "leap of faith".

Interesting that you are happy to gamble the future of your children and grandchildren and all the young people of Scotland, on nothing more than a whimsical dream and a flimsy approach to the facts. There really is NO plan B, you do know that?

As someone so eloquently said earlier in this thread - voting Yes is basically like jumping out of an aircraft without a parachute because someone with a blue face said "don't worry, we'll figure out something on the way down"..

Good luck. Your country is going to hit the ground hard. It's gonna hurt. You could be financially crippled for the rest of the ( next generations) life.