Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 2
Discussion
simoid said:
I'll go further.
It's arguably selfish wasting so much time, effort and money at present on a referendum that is highly unlikely to lead to independence. The Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives.
Continuing the fight, and expecting other people to waste time/effort/money debating against them, AFTER the country has voted to remain in the UK is beyond selfish.
You just can't say it's "highly unlikely to lead to independence" at this stage.It's arguably selfish wasting so much time, effort and money at present on a referendum that is highly unlikely to lead to independence. The Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives.
Continuing the fight, and expecting other people to waste time/effort/money debating against them, AFTER the country has voted to remain in the UK is beyond selfish.
From my point of view, what you actualy mean is that the Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives regarding Scotland as a troublesome northern county of England and not taking their often different or unique needs into consideration, while restricting their development and growth.
Caulkhead said:
Edinburger said:
Caulkhead said:
Nope, either way. The SNP have already royally cocked up this opportunity, only a fool would trust them if Scotland ever got a second chance.
How can you say that? The campaign has barely started and the referendum terms have only just been agreed!Look, there's two years to go and there's a hell of a lot of facts and figures and projections to be shared so let's park the predictions 'til nearer the time.
Rollin said:
Edinburger said:
Those of you who go on and on and on about the SNP withholding information should read this article. It's a few years old but a colleague mentioned this earlier and it's an interesting read: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/...
You'll have to start blaming Wilson instead of Thatcher for all your ills then.Edinburger said:
Rollin said:
Edinburger said:
Those of you who go on and on and on about the SNP withholding information should read this article. It's a few years old but a colleague mentioned this earlier and it's an interesting read: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/...
You'll have to start blaming Wilson instead of Thatcher for all your ills then.I fail to see the relevance to today
But the whole independence movement dwells in the past
Edinburger said:
simoid said:
I'll go further.
It's arguably selfish wasting so much time, effort and money at present on a referendum that is highly unlikely to lead to independence. The Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives.
Continuing the fight, and expecting other people to waste time/effort/money debating against them, AFTER the country has voted to remain in the UK is beyond selfish.
You just can't say it's "highly unlikely to lead to independence" at this stage.It's arguably selfish wasting so much time, effort and money at present on a referendum that is highly unlikely to lead to independence. The Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives.
Continuing the fight, and expecting other people to waste time/effort/money debating against them, AFTER the country has voted to remain in the UK is beyond selfish.
From my point of view, what you actualy mean is that the Yes campaign should do the decent thing and call off the vote so we can go back to our lives regarding Scotland as a troublesome northern county of England and not taking their often different or unique needs into consideration, while restricting their development and growth.
Edinburger said:
mcdjl said:
Edinburger said:
Okay I was obviously joking. That is interesting.
I thought I saw a report on the BBC that the referendum was harming Scotlands economy/investment. I'll have a look later though may have imagined it.As for the 70s report that you linked to as you say interesting. I have no doubt that such a thing is possible from both sides today: if Salmond had a report written that said that independence would cost Scotland dear i suspect that he would try to keep it secret, and the same on the side of the Uk government. I think that they're politicians and in it for themselves so gathering as much information as possible without their input is useful: this is one of the reasons i think its a shame VP wont explain his reasoning in a way that its easier for the rest of us to follow. Going back to your original point, it probably wouldn't have been possible for the independence movement to get such a report written back then so the current climate is definitely better for both sides. Its also interesting to note that (if i remember correctly- see above for doubts) that it appears that even back in the 70s companies were having worries about a socialist scotland- would this have allowed development in the same way that did happen given a different set up? Given the problems Venezuala (a random socilist country, not entirely fair) seem to be having despite vast oil riches its not a given that Scotland would be Switzerland. Besides would there have been anymore jobs? For everyone to get rich the people/companies working in oil would have to have been taxed as much or more as they are now so they're unlikely to be any richer overall. Historically could Scotland have lent to rUK? Possibly, but that depends on how many years the spending has flowed one way or the other: at the moment its roughly neutral but oil revenue is currently declining suggesting it could have flowed south previously. In the future it could flow north again so benefits to both sides but at different times?
thinfourth2 said:
Edinburger said:
Rollin said:
Edinburger said:
Those of you who go on and on and on about the SNP withholding information should read this article. It's a few years old but a colleague mentioned this earlier and it's an interesting read: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/...
You'll have to start blaming Wilson instead of Thatcher for all your ills then.I fail to see the relevance to today
But the whole independence movement dwells in the past
mcdjl said:
Edinburger said:
Okay I was obviously joking. That is interesting.
I thought I saw a report on the BBC that the referendum was harming Scotlands economy/investment. I'll have a look later though may have imagined it.mcdjl said:
Edinburger said:
mcdjl said:
Edinburger said:
Okay I was obviously joking. That is interesting.
I thought I saw a report on the BBC that the referendum was harming Scotlands economy/investment. I'll have a look later though may have imagined it.As for the 70s report that you linked to as you say interesting. I have no doubt that such a thing is possible from both sides today: if Salmond had a report written that said that independence would cost Scotland dear i suspect that he would try to keep it secret, and the same on the side of the Uk government. I think that they're politicians and in it for themselves so gathering as much information as possible without their input is useful: this is one of the reasons i think its a shame VP wont explain his reasoning in a way that its easier for the rest of us to follow. Going back to your original point, it probably wouldn't have been possible for the independence movement to get such a report written back then so the current climate is definitely better for both sides. Its also interesting to note that (if i remember correctly- see above for doubts) that it appears that even back in the 70s companies were having worries about a socialist scotland- would this have allowed development in the same way that did happen given a different set up? Given the problems Venezuala (a random socilist country, not entirely fair) seem to be having despite vast oil riches its not a given that Scotland would be Switzerland. Besides would there have been anymore jobs? For everyone to get rich the people/companies working in oil would have to have been taxed as much or more as they are now so they're unlikely to be any richer overall. Historically could Scotland have lent to rUK? Possibly, but that depends on how many years the spending has flowed one way or the other: at the moment its roughly neutral but oil revenue is currently declining suggesting it could have flowed south previously. In the future it could flow north again so benefits to both sides but at different times?
ViperPict said:
There certainly is NOT the consensus from companies that they consider the upcoming referendum a reason not to invest!
Did i ever say there was? in fact if you read what i posted rather than just replying you'll find that i admit i can't back up my claims and am willing to withdraw them. Alternatively i could just shout "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, go out and look for them, the links do exist" which seems to be some peoples approach to debate.I would think that every business leader should be considering the implications of independence. If I was a business owner and didn't know the ramifications of investing money in a certain direction I'd be waiting to find out more rather than jump in feet first.
Note: That reasoning alone may be why I'll never be a business owner
Note: That reasoning alone may be why I'll never be a business owner
Edinburger said:
You fail to see the relevance today? Then why do you hark on about events from yesteryear and comparisons with other countries?
Explain the relevanceAlso i hark back to events of 2 years ago which is of more relevance then 37 years ago as to those that think that events from 300 years ago should be in the debate
Their just mental
Guam said:
Edinburger said:
No surprise that this is the only response made...
Why its ancient history now? maybe you can find yourself a Tardis and go back and change things!In any event as we were and still are in a Union the article is mildly interesting but of no import <except for those trying to foment some form of political agenda>.
mcdjl said:
ViperPict said:
There certainly is NOT the consensus from companies that they consider the upcoming referendum a reason not to invest!
Did i ever say there was? in fact if you read what i posted rather than just replying you'll find that i admit i can't back up my claims and am willing to withdraw them. Alternatively i could just shout "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, go out and look for them, the links do exist" which seems to be some peoples approach to debate.London424 said:
I would think that every business leader should be considering the implications of independence. If I was a business owner and didn't know the ramifications of investing money in a certain direction I'd be waiting to find out more rather than jump in feet first.
Note: That reasoning alone may be why I'll never be a business owner
Of course they think about it. But many have though about it and came back with, at worst, "meh", more likely, "with change brings great opportunity"...Note: That reasoning alone may be why I'll never be a business owner
mcdjl said:
ViperPict said:
There certainly is NOT the consensus from companies that they consider the upcoming referendum a reason not to invest!
Did i ever say there was? in fact if you read what i posted rather than just replying you'll find that i admit i can't back up my claims and am willing to withdraw them. Alternatively i could just shout "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, go out and look for them, the links do exist" which seems to be some peoples approach to debate.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff