Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
julian64 said:
Salmon didn't do anything wrong. He seemed to be a man of principle ....
He lied to the Scottish Parliament when he said he had taken professional advice with regard to getting into the EU.He then spent £20,000 of the taxpayers money to try and prevent that lie from surfacing.
He was eventually exposed as a liar - as the truth came out.
In the last week - he says he has spoken to Italy, France, Spain etc - with regard to EU membership.
Everyone of them have come back and said - no conversations have ever taken place.
The man is a habitual liar. He can't help it.
The lies over security on his expenses
The inflated expenses on his trips to Westminster
The leaked Swinney document that says iScotland can't afford to pay pensions at the same level after 4 years.
I could go on and on...
Edited by Troubleatmill on Friday 19th September 17:41
Moonhawk said:
julian64 said:
Salmon didn't do anything wrong.
I'm sorry what?He lied to his fellow countrymen. Sold them a dream based on promises he couldn't possibly make (and had no right to make). Blatantly skirted round direct questions relying instead on a handful of throwaway soundbytes - then shouted down anyone who tried to point out the fact that he hadn't in fact answered the question posed to him. He accused anyone who wouldn't toe the party line of scaremongering - yet the yes campaign contained little more than this dressed up in the veil of positivity. He made outright threats towards the UK regarding the debt - then threw "what are you going to do - invade" in our face like a primary school child would. He has driven a wedge down the centre of Scotland to achieve nothing but his own political aims - and tried to break up a union that me and my ancestors have worked fought and died for without us even having a say. He doesn't even respect the will of the 2 million or so Scots who voted against his crusade - and barely has enough dignity to even mention them in his speeches.
Sorry - but that doesn't make him "alright" in my book.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th September 17:35
hidetheelephants said:
All 3 main political parties belatedly promised variations on federalism as reasons scots should vote no; the opinion polls and the election result suggest this was a winning strategy. Not delivering on promises is a good way to piss voters off.
Who cares? Those voters just had a chance stay or go, they chose to stay. The fact remains all this latest circus has done, to those south of the border, is illuminate how many Scots feel that others should put their hands in their pocket for them. Those who have heard the likes of Salmond spouting about the dangers to the NHS and etc, and know that the Scots parliament has tax raising powers, (that they cynically have not used )are even more pissed.What? they say, people expect and are not prepared to pay, let others do it for them?
Beware, if Devo max does get enacted, then expect (Scots) to be paying for it, anything else will be scrutinsed and turned away by the rUK voter, Salmond and co have shot Scotland right in the foot.
ash73 said:
It would have been impossible for Salmond to make detailed commitments about the EU and currency, because they would require months (or years) of legal wrangling. That's not to say it would have been impossible, but I think a lot of people just didn't want to take the risk.
Horses
t. They've had decades to sort it. He lied and tried to bluff - it bit him in the arse.ash73 said:
I think that's missing the point. The referendum was always meant to precede detailed negotiations on how independence would be implemented, it was intended to test if Scotland wanted to be independent in principle. And yet the majority rejected it for the very reason the details weren't sorted out.
It would have been impossible for Salmond to make detailed commitments about the EU and currency, because they would require months (or years) of legal wrangling. That's not to say it would have been impossible, but I think a lot of people just didn't want to take the risk.
It's not at all. Everyone knows the detail cannot be drawn up until after negotiations - but even when given advice/information on how things like entry into the EU could work, or the fact that a currency union was not on the cards, instead of taking that on board and reformulating the strategy based on this new information - he just put his head down and accused those people of "bluff and bluster" - insisting that the vision he had set forth before this information existed was still on the cards - when it clearly wasn't.It would have been impossible for Salmond to make detailed commitments about the EU and currency, because they would require months (or years) of legal wrangling. That's not to say it would have been impossible, but I think a lot of people just didn't want to take the risk.
It wasn't about the detail - it was about his blatant disregard for anyone elses opinion. I don't for one second believe he is so stupid that he believes his own lies - so I can only presume he continued down that path for one purpose - to win the Yes vote by whatever means - even if that mean misleading your voters.
julian64 said:
This thread is not making me feel proud to be english. Salmon didn't do anything wrong. He seemed to be a man of principle and a great many scottish seemed proud to have him represent them, which makes him okay in my book.
I didn't agree with him, but the general juvenile gloating and name calling on this thread is as bad as anything I heard from the scottish during the campaign.
Frankly unimpressed.
One thing he did do wrong was to have 1 solitary page in a 670 page White Paper about financial estimates. You may not be proud to be English but the Scots can feel very proud that the idiot was stopped in his tracks.I didn't agree with him, but the general juvenile gloating and name calling on this thread is as bad as anything I heard from the scottish during the campaign.
Frankly unimpressed.
ash73 said:
Moonhawk said:
He lied to his fellow countrymen. Sold them a dream based on promises he couldn't possibly make (and had no right to make). Blatantly skirted round direct questions relying instead on a handful of throwaway soundbytes - then shouted down anyone who tried to point out the fact that he hadn't in fact answered the question posed to him.
I think that's missing the point. The referendum was always meant to precede detailed negotiations on how independence would be implemented, it was intended to test if Scotland wanted to be independent in principle. And yet the majority rejected it for the very reason the details weren't sorted out.It would have been impossible for Salmond to make detailed commitments about the EU and currency, because they would require months (or years) of legal wrangling. That's not to say it would have been impossible, but I think a lot of people just didn't want to take the risk.
julian64 said:
This thread is not making me feel proud to be english. Salmon didn't do anything wrong. He seemed to be a man of principle and a great many scottish seemed proud to have him represent them, which makes him okay in my book.
I didn't agree with him, but the general juvenile gloating and name calling on this thread is as bad as anything I heard from the scottish during the campaign.
Frankly unimpressed.
He lied through his teeth and spent thousands of our cash trying to hide it and cover it up.I didn't agree with him, but the general juvenile gloating and name calling on this thread is as bad as anything I heard from the scottish during the campaign.
Frankly unimpressed.
Good riddance.
Pleased with the result, vows etc from Westminster had nothing to do with it for me voting no, I just saw independence as offering more or less what the UK already is, but with a much higher risk of it all going wrong for the sake of more localised power.
If politicians want to make improvements to the NHS, poverty, unemployment rates, etc etc, why limit it to Scotland? Pretty much everything raised by the SNP has been an issue for the whole UK and should be solved for the whole UK IMO.
And there is probably the argument that the last thing Aberdeen city council needs is more power!
If politicians want to make improvements to the NHS, poverty, unemployment rates, etc etc, why limit it to Scotland? Pretty much everything raised by the SNP has been an issue for the whole UK and should be solved for the whole UK IMO.
And there is probably the argument that the last thing Aberdeen city council needs is more power!
Nom de ploom said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:tangerine_sedge said:
Finally, the only person coming out of this mess smelling of roses is Gordon Brown, and who could have predicted that 2 weeks ago?
Well he did keep saying more devolution, more powers in the event of a No. He was talking like he was still PM.Th eNo campaign looked to have got its timing right - lots of postal votes made before news of a new political deal was struck....i'd feel a bit peeved.
He was the one that helped kick all this s
t off.ash73 said:
I think there was a lot of bluster, and he was right to stand his ground, if you look at some of the "expert" opinions in the media and compare them to the position outlined in the government committee papers, where they consulted with all manner of legal experts.
If you look at the opinions of those who don't have an axe to grind - and are foremost authorities ( in many cases - it is their job! )eg.
EU membership - The body that looks after that is the EU Commission. 2 EU Commision Presidents said very clearly. Article 49 is the only route. The Vice Commissioner wrote twice to Scottish Govt saying Article 49 is the only route.
Currency Union - Bank of England & Treasury - said it is not in rUK interest
Defence - Plenty of articles in Janes etc etc - that debunk the Scottish Govt numbers. Defence costs were ludicrously low.
R&D/ Life Science - All the major charities, universities etc - said UK funding will go to UK based Universities. ( I was ready to cancel my direct debits to several charities that use Scottish Universities for R&D )
Pensions - Sturgeon originally believed rUK had a huge pot of money for paying out the state pension. ( A tad embarrassing ) It is the current taxpayer that pays toward OAP state pensions.
etc etc
Troubleatmill said:
ash73 said:
I think there was a lot of bluster, and he was right to stand his ground, if you look at some of the "expert" opinions in the media and compare them to the position outlined in the government committee papers, where they consulted with all manner of legal experts.
If you look at the opinions of those who don't have an axe to grind - and are foremost authorities ( in many cases - it is their job! )eg.
EU membership - The body that looks after that is the EU Commission. 2 EU Commision Presidents said very clearly. Article 49 is the only route. The Vice Commissioner wrote twice to Scottish Govt saying Article 49 is the only route.
Currency Union - Bank of England & Treasury - said it is not in rUK interest
Defence - Plenty of articles in Janes etc etc - that debunk the Scottish Govt numbers. Defence costs were ludicrously low.
R&D/ Life Science - All the major charities, universities etc - said UK funding will go to UK based Universities. ( I was ready to cancel my direct debits to several charities that use Scottish Universities for R&D )
Pensions - Sturgeon originally believed rUK had a huge pot of money for paying out the state pension. ( A tad embarrassing ) It is the current taxpayer that pays toward OAP state pensions.
etc etc
Cheese Mechanic said:
hidetheelephants said:
All 3 main political parties belatedly promised variations on federalism as reasons scots should vote no; the opinion polls and the election result suggest this was a winning strategy. Not delivering on promises is a good way to piss voters off.
Who cares? Those voters just had a chance stay or go, they chose to stay. The fact remains all this latest circus has done, to those south of the border, is illuminate how many Scots feel that others should put their hands in their pocket for them. Those who have heard the likes of Salmond spouting about the dangers to the NHS and etc, and know that the Scots parliament has tax raising powers, (that they cynically have not used )are even more pissed.What? they say, people expect and are not prepared to pay, let others do it for them?
Beware, if Devo max does get enacted, then expect (Scots) to be paying for it, anything else will be scrutinsed and turned away by the rUK voter, Salmond and co have shot Scotland right in the foot.
hidetheelephants said:
It's not just Scotland pushing for federalism; Wales, NI and the discontented periphery of England also seem quite enthusiastic. Even our beknighted PM says so.
Disconnected periphery of England? That would be all of it then. The only issue I have is that it will mean more politicians, which can only be a bad thing.hidetheelephants said:
It's not just Scotland pushing for federalism; Wales, NI and the discontented periphery of England also seem quite enthusiastic. Even our beknighted PM says so.
Somebody in Wales banging on yet again about this apparent underfunding to the tune of £300 million that Wales has to endure. I'd love to know what this is based on considering Wales gets about £1000 more per head than England gets due to the Barnett formula.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29279701
Does anyone know?
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th September 18:18
hidetheelephants said:
It's not just Scotland pushing for federalism; Wales, NI and the discontented periphery of England also seem quite enthusiastic. Even our beknighted PM says so.
Maybe so, but where does the real power lie? Farage has it, tail wagging dog etc, thats what all this has done. A wider electorate was not aware of Barnnet, or if they were , they were not overly fussed. They are now though, and royally pissed they are. Anti English imagery will have enforced their views. As said, Scots want devo max, they will be paying for it. Ruk electorate will almost without doubt make that a fact.
ash73 said:
But those are people with an axe to grind, or rather people he would be negotiating with, and it's easy for them to say no in principle when it's not actually being forced upon them yet. The EU wanting Scotland to reapply when they are already members, the bank wanting to protect London's financial markets from a complex currency agreement; neither of them may be entitled to take that position legally (or practically), we wouldn't know until it's been hammered out.
But I can understand people perceiving it as a big risk.
Scotland is not - and never has been - a member state of the EU. But I can understand people perceiving it as a big risk.
It was not that the BoE said no to CU. It was that all the rUK political parties said no.
ash73 said:
But those are people with an axe to grind, or rather people he would be negotiating with, and it's easy for them to say no in principle when it's not actually being forced upon them yet. The EU wanting Scotland to reapply when they are already members, the bank wanting to protect London's financial markets from a complex currency agreement; neither of them may be entitled to take that position legally (or practically), we wouldn't know until it's been hammered out.
But I can understand people perceiving it as a big risk.
I dont know why some people do not understand this: Scotland has never been a member of the EU. End Of.But I can understand people perceiving it as a big risk.
Re the CU. No idea what the hell you think the legal position is. The Euro Zone train wreck has demonstrated to everyone that a currency union without political union is a recipe for disaster. It was never going to happen barring something like Westminister having complete control over Scotlands fiscal and monetary policy. And that is no different to today, no independence.
ash73 said:
But those are people with an axe to grind, or rather people he would be negotiating with, and it's easy for them to say no in principle when it's not actually being forced upon them yet. The EU wanting Scotland to reapply when they are already members, the bank wanting to protect London's financial markets from a complex currency agreement; neither of them may be entitled to take that position legally (or practically), we wouldn't know until it's been hammered out.
You say that as if its a certainty.Even if Salmond believed these people were bluffing - he didn't even recognise the possibility that what they were saying was true.
Just because somebody may have an opposing view to you regarding independence - doesn't mean everything they say is a bluff.
Edinburger said:
BlackLabel said:
So we'll be seeing a lot more of the lady below now. Quite frankly, she was just as bad as Salmond during this campaign and should resign as well.
If she's his successor then that's the end of the SNP's credibility. She is a waste of skin.I'm sad that Salmond has resigned. He will be a big loss.
t is most peculiar.He has (quite demonstrably) lied to the people of Scotland over a whole range of issues for at least the last two years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff