[DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!

[iup=3563397]Stugene[/iup] wrote:No idea. Frankly I don't care about what currency I use (be it the pound, the dollar or pubes)

Finally, a realistic option for Salmond!

[iup=3563397]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3563296]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:A simple but very important question for the Yes supporters/voters.

What is the proposed economic plan for an independent Scotland in the event of no Formal currency union?

We beg to come back.

No idea. Frankly I don't care about what currency I use (be it the pound, the dollar or pubes), if I can get the power to determine to the political landscape of my country.

This is just the incredibly short sighted view that the Yes campaign is entirely dependant on.

PostRe: Scottish independence by **Eighthours** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:47 am

Give me time, Manny. Jesus.

[iup=3562943]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:This in mind, I have two small questions :

a) Regardless of what you think of the validity of any of these points, exactly what more do we need to be told to go into "collapse into ruin" territory?

b) Do you believe that the No campaign has done more, less, or the same amount of deception against the populace than the Yes campaign (or Salmond, if you must reduce it down to one man)?

a) I agree with Hexx, who answered a similar point on the previous page. Nearly all of them are possible consequences, which make economic as well as common sense. I don't think that they amount to 'collapse into ruin', particularly because it's very unlikely that all of them will happen in some perfect storm of gooseberry fool, but I do think that they present very real risk factors which should be borne in mind when deciding to become an independent nation.

b) Less, simply because denying that any of these risks exist and calling them a scaremongering Westminster conspiracy, does the Scottish people a disservice and insults their intelligence. If you think that No are over-egging the pudding, that's certainly arguable. But there IS a pudding. Salmond would like you to think that dessert's off.

When was the last time a politician took pains to point out flaws in their own argument?

[iup=3563428]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:This is what you're voting for if you go with Yes:

The No camp fear mongering has had an effect on me – instead of retiring on 19th. September, I am staying in. This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.
BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. If it wants into the ‘monster fields’ in the areas west of Shetland, it will have to learn to bend the knee to a greater power – us, the sovereign people of Scotland. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors. If Bob Dudley thinks this is mere rhetoric, just let him wait. It is sovereign power that counts. We will have it, he will not.
As for the Bankers. Your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over. You will be split between retail and investment, and if your greed takes the latter down, there will be no rescue. You believe in the market, in future you will live with its discipline. Fail will mean failure.
As for Standard Life, it will be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies, and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland, and the costs involved. It has never crossed the minds of our compliant Unionist media, especially the BBC, to ask the Chief Executive what his costings are on his proposed moves.
As for John Lewis, the question is whether the senior management consulted the ‘partners’ or took instructions from Cameron? Another question our supine BBC did not ask. There is now talk of boycott, and if it happens it will be a management own goal.
What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out.

That was Jim Sillars, former deputy leader of the SNP. Wow.

But the Yes Scotland campaign condemned this frightening rhetoric, right? Er, no: ‘Jim is a passionate campaigner who is carrying on the work of his late wife Margo MacDonald, who dedicated her political life to achieving an independent Scotland and a fairer society.'

Frightening.

[iup=3563446]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3563397]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3563296]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:A simple but very important question for the Yes supporters/voters.

What is the proposed economic plan for an independent Scotland in the event of no Formal currency union?

We beg to come back.

No idea. Frankly I don't care about what currency I use (be it the pound, the dollar or pubes), if I can get the power to determine to the political landscape of my country.

This is just the incredibly short sighted view that the Yes campaign is entirely dependant on.

You want to know what's really frightening? The "Better Together" campaign has rather spectacularly failed to provide any worthwhile opposition. Which given how farcial you present these arguments to be, one would imagine it to be the easiest job in politics.

Where is the well-reasoned counterpoints? The fairly presented statistics and figures with both sides of the argument? Information about exactly what these "substantial new powers" are going to be? Surely the government should have access to this data and the ability to present it in an unbiased fashion?

The No Campaign has notably failed to crush Salmond with facts every time there has been an opportunity to.

[iup=3563507]Meep[/iup] wrote:When was the last time a politician took pains to point out flaws in their own argument?

I'm not asking Salmond to say, 'Well, Alistair, you've really got me there' on any of this stuff. Just for him to stop bleating on about a Westminster conspiracy and instead say why he thinks (for example) the likes of RBS moving their operations down south either isn't true or won't affect the economy, or how he intends to persuade them to stay. Or why he thinks the highest oil reserve estimates are correct (surprise surprise), rather than the opinions of the raft of experts who think that oil reserves are being massively overestimated. Or why prices won't rise in an independent Scotland, when common sense says they will obviously have to due to the problems of delivering to remote areas. Etc etc etc. 'La la la la la' isn't treating the Scottish people with any respect whatsoever. They need the facts on this stuff, or at least a counter-argument. The head-in-the-sand treatment is insulting and disingenuous.

Such a divisive topic especially in the last few days of debate. Going to be a close call.

I think the NO vote will win.

I hope so and then i hope that the devolution promises are adhered to afterwards.

I'd rather remain as the Union we have but if the Yes vote wins - so be it.

Scotland will have decided its own fate for good or bad and Scotland will have to face that future whether it be brighter or darker.

People on both sides have been pretty cringeworthy at times.
It's going to be very interesting either way.

Might have to finally make one of the Glasgow meets after we cut you lot loose!

It will be a no result mainly because humans face commitment dilemmas when faced with big choices and tend to default to what they view as most secure. Essentially, booking a skydiving session requires much less courage than actually jumping from the plane.

Nevertheless, unionists would be wise to remember that no vote in the referendum does not actually defeat the possibility of independence. In order to do that you actually have to defeat nationalism itself; which is going to be difficult if the SNP keeps getting into government. If they keep putting independence on their manifesto and keep getting elected then they are well within their rights to keep holding referendums, even if it is ten years down the line until the next one.

IMO, I think independence is more likely at some point in the future than not. The idea is not going away and will probably only gain support over time.

Dear Everyone in the UK,

You're strawberry floating up the news. Please stop, as familiarity has now bred total contempt for the situation. Scotland can go or stay as it pleases, but I don't want to hear any more rehashed, shallowly argued opinions from absolutely anyone that has the bare-arsed cheek to be within shouting distance of a journalist.

Thanks and regards,

TheWay

[iup=3563730]TheWay[/iup] wrote:Dear Everyone in the UK,

You're strawberry floating up the news. Please stop, as familiarity has now bred total contempt for the situation. Scotland can go or stay as it pleases, but I don't want to hear any more rehashed, shallowly argued opinions from absolutely anyone that has the bare-arsed cheek to be within shouting distance of a journalist.

Thanks and regards,

TheWay

The best argument against democracy...

That would be Keith Vaz.

YouTube

[iup=3563513]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3563507]Meep[/iup] wrote:When was the last time a politician took pains to point out flaws in their own argument?

I'm not asking Salmond to say, 'Well, Alistair, you've really got me there' on any of this stuff. Just for him to stop bleating on about a Westminster conspiracy and instead say why he thinks (for example) the likes of RBS moving their operations down south either isn't true or won't affect the economy, or how he intends to persuade them to stay. Or why he thinks the highest oil reserve estimates are correct (surprise surprise), rather than the opinions of the raft of experts who think that oil reserves are being massively overestimated. Or why prices won't rise in an independent Scotland, when common sense says they will obviously have to due to the problems of delivering to remote areas. Etc etc etc. 'La la la la la' isn't treating the Scottish people with any respect whatsoever. They need the facts on this stuff, or at least a counter-argument. The head-in-the-sand treatment is insulting and disingenuous.

All of those questions were "answered" in the so-called second televised debate by Lec Loser, but thanks for playing!

I understand the point about how god damn stagnant the UK has become. It is frustrate that appropriate measures needed to modernise and protect citizens cannot be taken due to layer upon layer of vested interests that have congealed over centuries. If we could not get AV passed then what hope do we have of getting rid of the House of Lords, peerages and drafting an actual constitution? And yes, we do need a constitution. Anyone who thinks a state with no clearly defined boundaries, especially when faced with possible threats tend to induce reactionary responses, is out of their mind. Any bets on full electoral, legislative and executive overhauls being performed on this creaking ship of a country before we're all dead and buried?

[iup=3564133]Lucien[/iup] wrote:I'd much rather have independence and work on that issue, than stay in the UK and work on fixing the electoral system. You need* a currency, we'll fix that out of necessity; it's much harder to take power away from two main parties (who are more or less the same). Hell, people couldn't even get the AV vote through.

IMO, if you vote with the currency on your mind, and not the electoral system, that's a real shame.

You've summed up my own position on this better than I ever could.

The image the BBC used to report on what was going on in Buchanan Street yesterday :

http://i.imgur.com/FD9wl1l.jpg

What things actually looked like :

http://i.imgur.com/Uv97MNs.jpg

I'm absolutely shocked to find the BBC coyly misrepresenting the size & scope of a popular demonstration.

Damn, looks quite the turnout

The closer its getting to the vote now I'm noticing the yes to independence lot getting more and more aggressive on the news channels when questioned about financial queries .Seems they don't like talking about how a country will be financially run if they weren't in the UK.

[DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Who is online

Affiliates