Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[///ajd]

hidetheelephants said:

///ajd said:

hidetheelephants said:

///ajd said:

el stovey said:

///ajd said:

It is interesting that when it suits, 1979 is 'last time', yet when the comparison is not positive, it was 'totally different'.

Anyway, El, if you are convinced independence is certain, what should the rUK do about investing strategically in Scotland? Sounds like a poor deal for the rUK when you split and leave with the proceeds of 60m for the benefit of 5m.

Sounds like you think the T26 contract should not go to the Clyde if independence is inevitable, and you only wish ill on the union. What are we all to do?

Quite right. I think it's only a matter of time before Scotland breaks away. I think a Conservative UK government should plan accordingly. I certainly would if I was a Conservative PM. Labour obviously have to concentrate on winning Scotland back and if/when they get in will no doubt do whatever possible to do so.

Interesting.

So rUK should award T26 in rUK, and presumably scale back Scottish renewable subsidies from 30% to per capita 8%.

Perhaps the big three could put that in their 2015 manifestos. If Scotland votes in a nationalist majority again in 2016, steps will be taken to make all Scottish investments fair but tactical and per capita, and not strategic to the possible detriment of the rUK in the case of future split.

This is the kind of hatstand tinfoil wibble that the 'Aye' mouthbreathers lap up and quote as gospel; you're as bonkers as they are.

OK as ideas go it needs a bit of work, but how else is the rUK to protect itself from the risk of separatists?

Does the rUK do nothing and carry on with letting the SG carry on hurling abuse and making threats unchecked? I'm totally fed up with it. If we are to have another separatist government in Scotland, something has to be done to either reinforce the union or prepare for ejection.

If Scotland keeps voting SNP, and we keep having these destructive votes, the rUK can't just stand by.

Like I said, you're as nuts as they are and have as little grasp of political or economic reality.

Do you have no ideas or solutions at all - its all too difficult to take any political steps to limit the impact of separatist regional governments and their impact on the rest of the UK?

You think rUK can just do nothing? You think that is just tough?

Do you just think the UK should helplessly endure another referendum in 10 years if a party with such a manifesto pledge is elected in Scotland?

I think there should be some consequences if a region of the UK with only 8% of the population decides to vote for something like the recent vote that affects everyone else. They don't have to vote for that party - so it is not anti-democratic - it is just pre-empting the consequences of voting intentions by saying - vote for a party with separatist agenda and we will have to e.g. cut subsidies for renewables back to per capita levels. Sounds fair to me. Where is the catch?

[Munter]

andymadmak said:

Of course..... All Scots are British. ( and have voted by a clear majority to remain so).

No they are British by geography. They are in the UK because it's best for their future.

[Risky Shift]

Moonhawk said:

Another thing that just occurred to me. Why is Salmond angry about the result.

Wasn't it Salmond who wanted a "Devo Max" option in the first place - in addition to Independence.

The last minute promises of extra powers, it could be argued, turned the referendum from Yes/No - to Yes/Devo Max.

Salmond should be happy - arguably he got what he wanted either way (Independence or Devo Max)?

Unless of course the Devo Max option was simply a ploy on his behalf to try and split the No vote in two

There's already been some discussion of why there couldn't be any more than 2 options on the referendum paper: say you have 3 options; A, B, C and the votes are spilt as follows:

A - 40%
B - 30%
C - 30%

"A" clearly wins, but the majority "B" & "C" did not vote for it, ergo: problem.

I think Salmond wanted a Devo-Max option to (A) split the vote so that the above could happen and he'd win one way or the other and, (B) with Devo-Max he could go down the route of saying "look how many powers we have and how well we're doing with them, let's have another referendum!".

As it stands he's announced that he's standing down so that he can throw a hand-grenade into the room and walk away with his trademark smirk across his smug face. We have not seen the last of him.

• edited for grammar*

[Langweilig]

Before you have finished reading this article, you will have deduced that Alex Salmond is completely mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/alex-sa...

[technodup]

For the Yessers moaning about a few plebs shouting in George Sq. That's the moral high ground compared to this.

https://www.facebook.com/ScottishRepublicanArmy

Bring it on you wee stebag bd.

[NicD]

Langweilig said:

Before you have finished reading this article, you will have deduced that Alex Salmond is completely mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/alex-sa...

yes, mad, but not dangerous, as it seems only bluster.

[NicD]

Langweilig said:

Before you have finished reading this article, you will have deduced that Alex Salmond is completely mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/alex-sa...

yes, mad, but not dangerous, as it seems only bluster.

[imagineifyeswill]

That facebook page is a disgrace it makes me embarrassed and ashamed to be Scottish.

[Troubleatmill]

Langweilig said:

Before you have finished reading this article, you will have deduced that Alex Salmond is completely mad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/alex-sa...

If only someone had posted it before

[whoami]

imagineifyeswill said:

That facebook page is a disgrace it makes me embarrassed and ashamed to be Scottish.

It's nothing at all to do with Scotland.

The police should be investigating its origins.

[Moonhawk]

Risky Shift said:

There's already been some discussion of why there couldn't be any more than 2 options on the referendum paper....

Yep - I understand why a 3 question referendum was ruled out. The point I was making that the two options that Salmond requested - ended up being represented in some form.

The final referendum (it could be argued) wasn't Yes/No - it was in fact Yes/Devo Max, since the straight "No" option was essentially nullified as soon as the extra powers were promised.

The question therefore arises - what the fk is he complaining about.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 21st September 22:37

[Efbe]

Gaz. said:

imagineifyeswill said:

That facebook page is a disgrace it makes me embarrassed and ashamed to be Scottish.

I'm at a loss, I really am.

Honestly, it looks like a crap attempt at satire.

[imagineifyeswill]

Its a very sick attempt at satire if that is the case.

[whoami]

Efbe said:

Honestly, it looks like a crap attempt at satire.

Satire?

I think not.

[Risky Shift]

Moonhawk said:

Yep - I understand why a 3 question referendum was ruled out. The point I was making that the two options that Salmond requested - ended up being represented in some form.

The final referendum (it could be argued) wasn't Yes/No - it was in fact Yes/Devo Max, since the straight "No" option was essentially nullified as soon as the extra powers were promised.

The question therefore arises - what the fk is he complaining about.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 21st September 22:37

I agree, it did end up being Yes/Devo-Max, effectively. Now, he's rabble-rousing; attempting to prevent both sides from moving forward together, attempting to further foster grievance and division. Just more of the same divisive bks; and he loves it.

[imagineifyeswill]

whoami said:

Efbe said:

Honestly, it looks like a crap attempt at satire.

Satire?

I think not.

I dont think so either going by most of the stuff being posted on all there personal FB pages by the more fanatical losing Yes voters.

[SpeedMattersNot]

I kept checking at the time on this topic, but what was the general opinion on here regarding the unionists activities reported in the media?

On my Facebook, all Scots I knew were objecting to the antics performed by the apparent 'no' voters who were acting in an unsavoury manor despite getting the result they wanted?

[Moonhawk]

Risky Shift said:

I agree, it did end up being Yes/Devo-Max, effectively. Now, he's rabble-rousing; attempting to prevent both sides from moving forward together, attempting to further foster grievance and division. Just more of the same divisive bks; and he loves it.

And in doing so - clearly demonstrates that Scotland's future comes second place to his political ego trip.

The only people who have a genuine reason to voice a grievance after this referendum are those who wanted a straight "No" vote.

[whoami]

imagineifyeswill said:

whoami said:

Efbe said:

Honestly, it looks like a crap attempt at satire.

Satire?

I think not.

I don't think so either going by most of the stuff being posted on all there personal FB pages by the more fanatical losing Yes voters.

Posting a picture of a soldier, with the word , on his forehead, who was very nearly decapitated by his murderers, is not satire.

[RandomTask]

Risky Shift said:

I agree, it did end up being Yes/Devo-Max, effectively. Now, he's rabble-rousing; attempting to prevent both sides from moving forward together, attempting to further foster grievance and division. Just more of the same divisive bks; and he loves it.

What's being promised is not devo max. Devo max is full fiscal autonomy. The new powers are just playing around the edges, nothing that could create jobs.