Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

How much would an independent Scotland tax and spend in 2016?

"Not a clue."

Exactly. That's why Scotland's voted no.

Most people I know who voted no, did so first and foremost because the Yes campaigns plans just did not stack up. That's what lost it.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

Most people I know who voted no, did so first and foremost because the Yes campaigns plans just did not stack up. That's what lost it.

You mean they looked at the economic alternatives, and correctly concluded we are better together in the UK?

So in other words, any plan for independence just does not make sense?

That does seem to be broad consensus!

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

How much would an independent Scotland tax and spend in 2016?

"Not a clue."

Exactly. That's why Scotland's voted no.

Most people I know who voted no, did so first and foremost because the Yes campaigns plans just did not stack up. That's what lost it.

Indeed. Thanks for agreeing

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

You mean they looked at the economic alternatives, and correctly concluded we are better together in the UK?

So in other words, any plan for independence just does not make sense?

That does seem to be broad consensus!

No, not exactly.

The specific proposition for an independent Scotland as put forward by the then Yes campaign was fundamentally flawed. That's what I meant.

Whether or not an alternative proposition makes sense in X years remains to be seen. Although I personally can't see that happening under Ms Sturgeon.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

You mean they looked at the economic alternatives, and correctly concluded we are better together in the UK?

So in other words, any plan for independence just does not make sense?

That does seem to be broad consensus!

No, not exactly.

The specific proposition for an independent Scotland as put forward by the then Yes campaign was fundamentally flawed. That's what I meant.

Whether or not an alternative proposition makes sense in X years remains to be seen. Although I personally can't see that happening under Ms Sturgeon.

It is denial of the highest order to make the lame excuse of "if only they had made a different proposition".

The proposition was flawed because it is - and always will be - fundamentally flawed.

If anything it has made the case for less devo, not more. It is a trap which is why the SNP are scared of the Smith report.

Edited by ///ajd on Monday 22 December 13:36

[simoid]

An alternative proposal should never appear since Scotland has voted against it. Settled and considered will, and all that.

Not least of all the immeasurable damage the last "debate" caused.

But, of course, the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power. So it shall remain, until Scotland sees through their deceitful power play.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

It is denial of the highest order to make the lame excuse of "if only they had made a different proposition".

The proposition was flawed because it is - and always will be - fundamentally flawed.

If anything it has made the case for less devo, not more. It is a trap which is why the SNP are scared of the Smith report.

Edited by ///ajd on Monday 22 December 13:36

Well that's just subjective.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

An alternative proposal should never appear since Scotland has voted against it. Settled and considered will, and all that.

Not least of all the immeasurable damage the last "debate" caused.

But, of course, the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power. So it shall remain, until Scotland sees through their deceitful power play.

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

An alternative proposal should never appear since Scotland has voted against it. Settled and considered will, and all that.

Not least of all the immeasurable damage the last "debate" caused.

But, of course, the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power. So it shall remain, until Scotland sees through their deceitful power play.

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

Well, I shouldn't have said it's the only thing that gives them power. Do you agree that it's part of their voting appeal, though?

[Funk]

So it seems that the SNP could hold the balance of power in a coalition Government. Not really the outcome Dave and Ed were hoping for I'll wager:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11307...

The Telegraph said:

SNP on course to hold balance of power in Westminster, according to new poll showing depth of Labour's collapse
Nationalists expected to take 54 of Scotland's 59 constituencies next May in poll predictions that could see Alex Salmond become minister in next UK Government

The SNP is on course to hold the balance of power in Westminster after the next election as a poll revealed almost half of all Scottish voters plan to back the party.

A staggering collapse in Labour's appeal north of the border will see the Nationalists win 54 of the 59 Scottish constituencies and play a central role in any Coalition negotiations, pollsters found.

The predictions raise the prospect of Alex Salmond, the SNP's former First Minister who is running for Parliament, becoming a minister in the next UK Government – a scenario unimaginable six months ago when he led the campaign to break up the Union with Scottish independence.

The poll also reveals the depth of Labour's problem in Scotland and reveals the challenge Jim Murphy faces in turning around the party's fortunes after becoming Scottish Labour leader.

The loss of 37 of Labour's 41 seats in Scotland could prove fatal to Ed Miliband's hopes of entering Number 10, losing a power base the party has enjoyed for decades.

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, said the poll was a "great early Christmas present" for the party and promised a renewed push after the New Year to get the "strongest possible voice" in Westminster.

The Survation poll for the Daily Record predicted 48 per cent of voters will back the SNP next May – its highest ever predicted vote share in Westminster elections from the pollster.

Labour is expected to get 24 per cent, Conservatives 16 per cent, Liberal Democrats 5 per cent and the UK Independence Party 4 per cent.
Mr Salmond, who is expected to win the seat of Gordon next May, has suggested SNP MPs could controversially break with convention and start voting on English-only laws to prop up a Labour Government.

The prospect of a party set on Scottish independence holding close to one in six seats in Westminster could trigger fresh concerns for the state of the Union less than a year after Scots voted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

Mr Salmond recently told The Independent there could be a "balanced" Parliament after the May election, adding: "That’s an opportunity to have delivered to Scotland what we have been promised" – a reference to the package of new powers which has been agreed for Holyrood.

Mr Murphy reacted to the poll by restating his autonomy from the party's Westminster leadership and warned a vote for the SNP would let David Cameron keep the keys to Downing Street.

"Scottish Labour is changing. We are one week into a new leadership team and really determined to change. We are rewriting the party's constitution so that decisions about Scotland are made here in Scotland. The days of the Scottish Labour leader having to ask the party in London about things are gone and gone for good," Mr Murphy said.

He added: "During the referendum Scotland was divided between Yes or No. But in the general election most Scots will be united in wanting to get David Cameron out of Downing Street. The choice Scots will face next year is between sending SNP MPs to the House of Commons to protest against the Tories, or Scottish Labour MPs who will remove the Tories. Voting SNP or Green in 2015 could accidentally keep the Tories in power."

Expect those laws barring Scots MPs from voting on English matters to be accelerated through now (and about time).

[McWigglebum4th]

Edinburger said:

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

Highly credible?

I have a chicken who couldn't do a much worse job then the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.


No that is a lie


The chicken has never completely screwed something up and then blamed someone else it just runs around stting on things


On that basis the chicken would be vastly superior

[McWigglebum4th]

Funk said:

Expect those laws barring Scots MPs from voting on English matters to be accelerated through now (and about time).

If the SNP get 54 seat in scotland i would bet on them going for independence without a referendum

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

It is denial of the highest order to make the lame excuse of "if only they had made a different proposition".

The proposition was flawed because it is - and always will be - fundamentally flawed.

If anything it has made the case for less devo, not more. It is a trap which is why the SNP are scared of the Smith report.

Edited by ///ajd on Monday 22 December 13:36

Well that's just subjective.

But its not subjective, is it.

The economic case for being better together is (now more than ever) indisputable. The SNP were lying.

The only reason anyone seems to fail to see this, is presumably the same reason some look at fossils and evolution and say "nah, earth is only 6000 years old. that book says so.". I think it is called blind faith, on a good day.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

An alternative proposal should never appear since Scotland has voted against it. Settled and considered will, and all that.

Not least of all the immeasurable damage the last "debate" caused.

But, of course, the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power. So it shall remain, until Scotland sees through their deceitful power play.

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

Well, I shouldn't have said it's the only thing that gives them power. Do you agree that it's part of their voting appeal, though?

For a small proportion of people - perhaps it is. But it's fundamentally wrong and utterley misleading to say that "the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power".

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Edinburger said:

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

Highly credible?

I have a chicken who couldn't do a much worse job then the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.


No that is a lie


The chicken has never completely screwed something up and then blamed someone else it just runs around stting on things


On that basis the chicken would be vastly superior

Aah, well. That's, err..., your view.

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Funk said:

Expect those laws barring Scots MPs from voting on English matters to be accelerated through now (and about time).

If the SNP get 54 seat in scotland i would bet on them going for independence without a referendum

Your last bet hasn't gone too well - no sign of terrorist activities, is there?

How do you see this "independence without a referendum" working? Military coup? Civil war? Please tell us...

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

It is denial of the highest order to make the lame excuse of "if only they had made a different proposition".

The proposition was flawed because it is - and always will be - fundamentally flawed.

If anything it has made the case for less devo, not more. It is a trap which is why the SNP are scared of the Smith report.

Edited by ///ajd on Monday 22 December 13:36

Well that's just subjective.

But its not subjective, is it.

The economic case for being better together is (now more than ever) indisputable. The SNP were lying.

The only reason anyone seems to fail to see this, is presumably the same reason some look at fossils and evolution and say "nah, earth is only 6000 years old. that book says so.". I think it is called blind faith, on a good day.

No, not really.

"The proposition was flawed because it is - and always will be - fundamentally flawed. " - that's your opinion which is based on opinion rather than facts so is therefore subjective, in the same way an editor's column in a newspaper is completely subjective.

[Welshbeef]

So more Bull st.

SNP lost and they continue to lose - why economic sense doesn't prevail by such a magnitude its humiliating to even discuss.
Scotland's chance for Indy was back in the 70's had they said Yes then well it would have worked but thereafter its not viable without notable cost increases for the population


If SNP get a high seat count next time I fear for the Scottish as having what 85-%++ of the seats makes for a dictatorship everything they want will simply happen the vote will be a non event either.
Id not want a Westminster govt to have such control its dangerous

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

An alternative proposal should never appear since Scotland has voted against it. Settled and considered will, and all that.

Not least of all the immeasurable damage the last "debate" caused.

But, of course, the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power. So it shall remain, until Scotland sees through their deceitful power play.

Disagree with the third paragraph: what gives the SNP power is the simple fact they're a highly credible alternative to the usual Lab/Lib/Con suspects.

Well, I shouldn't have said it's the only thing that gives them power. Do you agree that it's part of their voting appeal, though?

For a small proportion of people - perhaps it is. But it's fundamentally wrong and utterley misleading to say that "the spectre of a future referendum is the only thing that gives the SNP power".

You've actually quoted my post where I retracted the use of "only", but are still arguing about the usage? Interesting"

But I'm glad we agree that the SNP have and will continue to have power partly because they still want to split up the UK. I believe you might be seeing where we come from in this respect.

It seems strange to me that the SNP support is increasing - would you suggest that this might it be related to the recent referendum no vote? Or have they somehow increased their credibility from c. 20% of general election votes to 50% due to some other factor? (Figures OTTOMH) Surely that points to nationalism being at the heart of the SNP popularity and power.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

Your last bet hasn't gone too well - no sign of terrorist activities, is there?

How do you see this "independence without a referendum" working? Military coup? Civil war? Please tell us...

Why don't you ask an MSP?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/scotland-in...