Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[McWigglebum4th]

Troubleatmill said:

So why to certain members of our community find this too hard to understand?

because SCAREMONGERING

[Risky Shift]

I too am Scottish. I am also a NO voter and I deeply resent the divisive tactics that the SNP are employing.

I struggle to reconcile the facts that the SNP has existed for 80 years with a core aim of achieving independence, yet at no point has anyone seemingly thought of creating, publicising and maintaining a (detailed and costed!) plan for it that acknowledges all the potential issues, addresses them as far as possible and makes the best possible case for separation. What have they been up to for the past 80 years?

[voyds9]

pcvdriver said:

voyds9 said:

If we are both parents states then the land owner and cotton picker were equal members of American society.

What a bizarre analogy, please explain how you came to that conclusion? Or am I to assume you've had a substantial liquid lunch.....and finished off with a port or two a few moments ago?....

Just suggesting that the Scottish are a junior partner in the relationship with the rUK

And by analogy Alex Salmond seems to think he is the cotton picker that owns the plantation.

[blinkythefish]

Risky Shift said:

I too am Scottish. I am also a NO voter and I deeply resent the divisive tactics that the SNP are employing.

I struggle to reconcile the facts that the SNP has existed for 80 years with a core aim of achieving independence, yet at no point has anyone seemingly thought of creating, publicising and maintaining a (detailed and costed!) plan for it that acknowledges all the potential issues, addresses them as far as possible and makes the best possible case for separation. What have they been up to for the past 80 years?

I think telling everyone how oppressed they are has occupied most of their time.

[///ajd]

Borghetto said:

A number of no voting Scots have voiced their dismay at being tarred with the SNP brush and they have me sympathies. A lot of the posts on this forum seem to attack Scotland and the Scots generally and I am sure most of us do not want to inflict ANY damage on them. We have been countrymen for centuries and whilst we've not always been in accord, I for one have always seen these disagreements as being family squabbles. What Salmond and his supporters are achieving is creating a rift between us. We had decades of animosity towards Ireland and I fear the same will happen with an independent Scotland.

London and the South East have succeeded not by pillaging from Scotland, but by being a good place for the World to invest and it should continue to thrive whether Scotland stays or goes. The SNP wingers keep on calling everybody in this neck of the woods gamblers and wide boys and whilst we have our fair share of them, mostly those who succeed do so by being well educated and working damn hard. Last weeks Economist had an interesting article titled "To The Rescue" in which they state the fastest growth industry in the UK is business services (includes consultants, accountants, call centres). Their exports are up 21% since the recovery began. A lot of these better paid jobs will be centred in London/SE, ditto Thames Valley "Silicon Valley". So this Scots myth that this part of the world is filled with bankers is way wide of the mark. Can Scotland succeed in the medium term - yes of course; but not if governed by the lying fantasists of the SNP.

Some good posts here, and some patently genuine "don't tar me with the stupid racist SNP yes sheep brush", which actually strike a real chord and remind me of all the fine Scot folks I've encountered over the years.

Infact, the sentiment above is some of the most compelling arguments for 'better together' I've seen yet. Remember page 42 of PH vol 5.

[A.J.M]

I think however, the damage is done to Scotland, regardless of what way the vote goes.

Companies have on here and in the news said they have held back business or put business elsewhere.
Countless others will have done the same.

Attitudes to Scotland and to the UK will have been changed, this has been an ugly campaign for everyone and i see no winners on it.

My Canadian friends have offered to help as much as they can for a working visa, i'm now going to take it.
Something good can come of it yet.

[Welshbeef]

A.J.M said:

I think however, the damage is done to Scotland, regardless of what way the vote goes.

Companies have on here and in the news said they have held back business or put business elsewhere.
Countless others will have done the same.

Attitudes to Scotland and to the UK will have been changed, this has been an ugly campaign for everyone and i see no winners on it.

My Canadian friends have offered to help as much as they can for a working visa, i'm now going to take it.
Something good can come of it yet.

Relationships harmed a bit yes- some investment put elsewhere or delayed until a decision is know so yep economic damage to Scotland for sure. But at the macro level its small beer - but sadly to those individuals impacted its really st street

[Funk]

Is it wrong that even in the event of a 'no' vote, I object to Scotland enjoying more devolution? If Scotland's getting 'devo-max' then I want an English Parliament that can vote and decide on English matters which are in the best interests of the English.

We have an imbalance already in the UK and it's tilted in Scotland's (and Wales') favour.

That said, regardless of the outcome I think the damage is done. I'm fed up with hearing how 'oppressive' and 'st' we are in England (note it's always 'England', not Wales or NI..). Someone mentioned on here the other day that a significant contract was awarded to a business on the South Coast when it came to a toss-up between them and a Scottish company; the Scottish company lost out purely on the basis of the total uncertainty as to what might happen. There will be thousands more stories along similar lines I'd imagine, and it will only get worse as the vote gets closer.

Add to this the people who've voiced their concerns about their homes, jobs and security in a post-Yes Scotland and the likelihood of major financial institutions relocating to England in order to secure/retain their customer base and it really doesn't look good for Scotland at all.

Have any of the Yessers answered the questions about what currency they're going to use when they're denied a currency union and what they'll do when they're refused entry to the EU? On that note, why the hurry to divorce from the UK only to be beholden to Brussels? It seems absolutely perverse.

[mpire]

Funk said:

Have any of the Yessers answered the questions about what currency they're going to use when they're denied a currency union and what they'll do when they're refused entry to the EU? On that note, why the hurry to divorce from the UK only to be beholden to Brussels? It seems absolutely perverse.

They don't care .... they don't care how it affects us their fellow Scots,
they don't care how it affects anyone else. Not only do they not care, they
also don't believe that this will happen even amongst themselves.

Salmond is interested in Salmond .... Scottish FM is nice little number,
and suits the obnoxious arrogance of the man to a " T " A proper statesman
doesn't sneer at the person in charge of another country ( if we
consider Ruk a seperate country for the sake of this debate ) as Salmond
does
toward Cameron. Whether you agree with their politics or not.

So, what's in it for Alex ? Power, status, ego satisfied,
a nice little life .

But the more he can piss people off, the more publicity he generates for
himself ... look at this thread: 5 volumes and God only knows how many posts
from how many people, with 3/ 4 ( if we ignore the reincarnations ) very
shouty, very persistent pro Yessers who can't or simply won't resist the
compulsion to tell us daily ... what THEY want.

This will all be over on Sept 19th, the question as you rightly say, is
what legacy of lasting damage it has caused in the interim .. but don't
expect them to answer any of anyone's awkward questions with anything
other than nonsense.

Edited by mpire on Friday 18th April 07:35

[///ajd]

mpire said:

This will all be over on Sept 19th, the question as you rightly say, is
what legacy of lasting damage it has caused in the interim .. but don't
expect them to answer any of anyone's awkward questions with anything
other than nonsense.

I think if more good scots send the message "don't tar me with the stupid racist SNP yes sheep brush" and speak up against these rogues, then the rUK will understand and not feel ill of the Scots. Infact, if done correctly, it could bring the countries closer and steer the ansgt against only the minority of racist idiots that lets face it blight all cultures to a greater or lesser extent.

I think one of the frustrations from a rUK point of view is that the No supporters - the overall population I mean, not the politicians or celebrities - seem fairly quiet on the issue, sometimes it seems through fear of persecution by the SNP (which they do so well - look at that poor travel agent etc.).

So, is there a peoples "No" campaign - effectively a counter to wingsoverscotland? Obviously it would not be the same, in terms of not being racist or full of ignorant small minded idiots, but surely there is possibly room for a "peoples" campaign, aside from the official "better together" operation?

[mercGLowner]

mpire said:

They don't care .... they don't care how it affects us their fellow Scots,
they don't care how it affects anyone else. Not only do they not care, they
also don't believe that this will happen even amongst themselves.

Salmond is interested in Salmond .... Scottish FM is nice little number,
and suits the obnoxious arrogance of the man to a " T " A proper statesman
doesn't sneer at the person in charge of another country ( if we
consider Ruk a seperate country for the sake of this debate ) as Salmond
does
toward Cameron. Whether you agree with their politics or not.

So, what's in it for Alex ? Power, status, ego satisfied,
a nice little life .

But the more he can piss people off, the more publicity he generates for
himself ... look at this thread: 5 volumes and God only knows how many posts
from how many people, with 3/ 4 ( if we ignore the reincarnations ) very
shouty, very persistent pro Yessers who can't or simply won't resist the
compulsion to tell us daily ... what THEY want.

This will all be over on Sept 19th, the question as you rightly say, is
what legacy of lasting damage it has caused in the interim .. but don't
expect them to answer any of anyone's awkward questions with anything
other than nonsense.

Edited by mpire on Friday 18th April 07:35

Great post and I completely agree.

[Risky Shift]

Funk said:

Is it wrong that even in the event of a 'no' vote, I object to Scotland enjoying more devolution

Not at all. I despaired a little when the PM brought it up a couple of months ago - why reward disruptive behaviour like that? Doesn't it set a precedent?

We already have a very good deal in Scotland - better than Wales has and much better than the English regions yet the SNP don't just want to have their cake and eat it, they want the keys to the cake shop too.

[Edinburger]

I've just read posts from the last few days and one thing occurred to me - it's no wonder there are so few Yes supporters here.

Read them yourself. Do you really think the average Joe PHer knows answers to questions which haven't yet been answered in the public domain?

Do you really think cries of "selfish", "racist ", etc ., are conducive to an open, meaningful and productive debate?

How can I tell you what Plan B on currency is? How can I prove to you that this isn't a hatred of all thing English (note though that I don't often see that claim on other forums).

[Edinburger]

Following on from last post due to iPhone limitations...

I know that I'm guilty of not always contributing effectively to this thread. I accept that. And there's good reason for that just as there's good reason to ignore many of the ludicrous posts from many of you.

So if this forum is to achieve anything, let's try to be more realistic.

[blinkythefish]

Edinburger said:

I've just read posts from the last few days and one thing occurred to me - it's no wonder there are so few Yes supporters here.

Read them yourself. Do you really think the average Joe PHer knows answers to questions which haven't yet been answered in the public domain?

Do you really think cries of "selfish", "racist ", etc ., are conducive to an open, meaningful and productive debate?

How can I tell you what Plan B on currency is? How can I prove to you that this isn't a hatred of all thing English (note though that I don't often see that claim on other forums).

If you don't know the answer to these questions because they haven't been aired in the public domain, can you answer this:

Why do you think these particularly important questions have not been answered by the yes campaign in the public domain?

Is it perhaps because they know they have no good answers, and if they gave a proper answer they would do their campaign no good so instead they rely on bluff, bluster, appeals to patriotism and nebulous concepts such as "fairer".

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

How can I tell you what Plan B on currency is? How can I prove to you that this isn't a hatred of all thing English (note though that I don't often see that claim on other forums).

Then how can you, as an educated person (and, even more incredibly, working in the financial services industry), seriously consider voting yes?

It is akin to being told your parachute definitely doesn't work by numerous people and still jumping out of the plane because a mate says he's sure he'll think of something on the way down.

[Risky Shift]

Edinburger said:

Do you really think the average Joe PHer knows answers to questions which haven't yet been answered in the public domain?

You imply that the Yes campaign intends, or is able to acceptably answer these questions! I do however accept your point - the average voter (on either side) hasn't the first idea about any of the issues bar what they've seen the respective campaigns say via the media.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged to ask for the answers.

[Neonblau]

Edinburger said:

Following on from last post due to iPhone limitations...

I know that I'm guilty of not always contributing effectively to this thread. I accept that. And there's good reason for that just as there's good reason to ignore many of the ludicrous posts from many of you.

So if this forum is to achieve anything, let's try to be more realistic.

What's ludicrous is that the Yes campaign is marching towards irrevocable constitutional change and either a) hasn't a clue as to the answers to those questions or b) knows that the answers won't suit their cause.

Try to be realistic? Answer the questions then, they've had 80 years to think about them.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

I've just read posts from the last few days and one thing occurred to me - it's no wonder there are so few Yes supporters here.

Read them yourself. Do you really think the average Joe PHer knows answers to questions which haven't yet been answered in the public domain?

Do you really think cries of "selfish", "racist ", etc ., are conducive to an open, meaningful and productive debate?

How can I tell you what Plan B on currency is? How can I prove to you that this isn't a hatred of all thing English (note though that I don't often see that claim on other forums).

Well, there are lots of possible answers out there on currency options without a currency union - all of which are pretty unattractive. This leaves the SNP trying to secure a union on rUK terms - which will involve probably more constraints on spending that you will get under devo. Why vote for that?

In terms of teh use of phrases such as selfish and racist. It is sometimes best to tell it how it is. It is good that you don't like these labels, but it is important to think "why does the rUK think these labels fit? Are they a real perception or are they just being nasty?"

Selfish: I think it is clear to me that the SNP and Yes mandate is incredibly selfish. Some example:
1. To threaten to remove trident (=don't care about rUK costs = selfish)
2. Keep most of oil revenue whilst trying to share where it suits (renewable subsidies, decommissioning costs) = selfish
3. Etc.

Racist: Aside from the undercurrent of evil tories, thatcher, english stealing oil, etc., there are clear policies that are racist:
1. Free uni for Scots and EU foreigners, but not English.

You might not like the terms - which is good - but you need to think about the fact that you are actively supporting a cause which is patently and demonstrably both of the these things. If you don't like being labelled a selfish racist, then vote No! Simple.

[confused_buyer]

///ajd said:

Selfish: I think it is clear to me that the SNP and Yes mandate is incredibly selfish. Some example:
1. To threaten to remove trident (=don't care about rUK costs = selfish)
2. Keep most of oil revenue whilst trying to share where it suits (renewable subsidies, decommissioning costs) = selfish
3. Etc.

The ironic thing is that the SNP have a very old fashioned "British" view of the world. Basically, they seem to think the Empire still exists and they can generally throw their weight around and it will all happen. Currency Union? Well, just tell them we're having it. EU? Pitch up in Brussels and tell those European johnny foreigner upstarts that they should be damn well pleased to have such a fine and powerful country as Scotland wanting to be a member and give them a list of conditions they'll deign to consider joining on. NATO? Well, again, a quick trip to Belgium and tell those damn colonials from Washington what they'll need to change about NATO before we'll join.

If that fails, presumably they'll just send a gunboat in.

Because none of them have grown up in a small country of 5 million people they have a complete mental block on seeing the world in a context of a small country of 5 million people.