2141 replies to this topic

[LY_Scott]

    I just put the 'Salmond is a plonka' stuff down to usual politics. But it really sounds like he just wants independence, never mind how it would actually work out...  

  I feel a lot of Scots opting for the yes vote are doing it for the sole reason to detach themselves from the English. They'll deal with the question of how it might work afterwards. 

That's so far off the mark and polls its ridiculous.

[Gedi]

 

 

I just put the 'Salmond is a plonka' stuff down to usual politics. But it really sounds like he just wants independence, never mind how it would actually work out...    

  I feel a lot of Scots opting for the yes vote are doing it for the sole reason to detach themselves from the English. They'll deal with the question of how it might work afterwards. 

 

That's so far off the mark and polls its ridiculous.

 

 

 

My family is Scottish, and they've brought up that point a few times in the past.

I understand the frustrations the Scottish have with the English. I'm from the North of England and have similar frustrations with the south of England, although we don't get it rammed down our throats as much as you guys do.

[Rosssco]

I'm not a Sturgeon fan either. The sniggering and eye rolling are not becoming. Salmond does it a bit too but it's usually followed with some worthwhile vocal response so he gets off a bit easier.

 

The No Unionist campaign is just as full of assertions as the Yes campaign. The EU question for example can be cleared up if the UK government ask the question of the EU but they refuse to do so. The worry and vagueness of it all aids their campaign. If they were sure of the outcome why don't they ask?

 

The same with the use of the pound. They continually say you'll have to negociate...we don't know...maybe you can't use it etc. But asked. "Will you object?" They um and ah and well..you'll need to negociate....But we'll be negociating with you!. Will you object?....And it goes on. The Bank Of England have now come forward and said they are open to discussions with the Scottish Government on it...so woops they're independent aren't they...we'll see what the outcome of that is.

 

 

 

There are assertions on both sides granted, but the Yes campaign has many more IMO, and is speaking from a position of trying to convince us this change is genuinely beneficial and worth the inherent risks (leaving aside issues of Scottish or Britishness).

 

The issue with using the pound I think is not one of could and independant Scotland use it. It probably can. But would that really be the best approach. From a financial stablity POV, probably yes, but then it's not true independance and eliminates one of the much trumpht "fiscal levers" available to an independant government. The BoE have had "basic" discussions with the SNP, which is logical to prepare in case of all eventualities, but that doesn't indicate they are going to give Alex some good news..

 

Monetary unions with independant governments and different fiscal policies have been proven to not work very well, especially in times of crisis. The Eurozone is the prime example of this. Ironically, the Eurozone is moving towards greater political and financial integration, (because thats essentially what is required for economic stablity and the Euro to work) and to a more UK-like model... Where as some are convinced going the other way is correct...

 

I am not against independance as a concept if it truly is the right thing for Scotland, even though I also identify myself as British. It just seems that the real details have been swept aside by the desire for independance at any cost. 

 

What's currently being offered is 'Independance Lite'. If you want to get the true benefits of independance (like the much vaunted Scandanavian model, from which various ebenefical concepts have been cherry-picked), then it has to be complete, with a new currency, completely revised social contract, and a challenge to all existing norms..

 

The SNP know people would not vote for this, hence the watered down, slightly opaque version we continue to be presented with. I'd respect them more if thet came out and said "right, it might be a bit rough for a while, more tax possibly, transitionaly changes, we can't give you this just yet, but long term there's some real benefits..".

[bunsenburner]

The whole thing is nuts. It should only happen if the split is mutually desired (and I guess you'd get a 50:50 vote from the English too). Imagine if the south east wanted to stick two fingers up to the rest of the UK? It is clearly in ones favour and not in the others therefore it's probably a bad idea as London becomes a Monaco-like principality and the rest of England struggles to make ends meet. The same argument applies to Scotland. If Scotland is a big net contributor to British well being why is it fair that they split? That argument works the other way too.

[Zuber]

The whole thing is nuts. It should only happen if the split is mutually desired (and I guess you'd get a 50:50 vote from the English too). Imagine if the south east wanted to stick two fingers up to the rest of the UK? It is clearly in ones favour and not in the others therefore it's probably a bad idea as London becomes a Monaco-like principality and the rest of England struggles to make ends meet. The same argument applies to Scotland. If Scotland is a big net contributor to British well being why is it fair that they split? That argument works the other way too.

 

I'm not against the Scots getting independence if that's what they want.

 

But that's an interesting point. If Scotland is allowed to have a say in if it wants to be in the Union, then surely the other party in the marriage should have a say in whether they want to stay married to Scotland as well.

 

[techieboy]

Give the Shetland and Orkney Islands a referendum to see if they want to be part of Scotland, I say. See how that alters the financials when "their" oil/gas fields get removed from the equation.

[G-Bob]

Give the Shetland and Orkney Islands a referendum to see if they want to be part of Scotland, I say. See how that alters the financials when "their" oil/gas fields get removed from the equation.

 

I detect an invasion coming on.  

[Rosssco]

 

The whole thing is nuts. It should only happen if the split is mutually desired (and I guess you'd get a 50:50 vote from the English too). Imagine if the south east wanted to stick two fingers up to the rest of the UK? It is clearly in ones favour and not in the others therefore it's probably a bad idea as London becomes a Monaco-like principality and the rest of England struggles to make ends meet. The same argument applies to Scotland. If Scotland is a big net contributor to British well being why is it fair that they split? That argument works the other way too.

 

I'm not against the Scots getting independence if that's what they want.

 

But that's an interesting point. If Scotland is allowed to have a say in if it wants to be in the Union, then surely the other party in the marriage should have a say in whether they want to stay married to Scotland as well.

 

 

 

Doesn't work like that though guys. If England want to leave the union, they could vote to do so (or effectively dissolve the union), but you can't decide to vote a different part of your country out. Its not the old Scotland vs. England debate (or it shouldn't be), its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

[techieboy]

I detect an invasion coming on.  

Well, we've got to use the two fcuking great big aircraft carriers you're building for us, for something. They're already half way there, so won't cost too much in fuel to make it the rest of the way.

[bunsenburner]

The whole thing is nuts. It should only happen if the split is mutually desired (and I guess you'd get a 50:50 vote from the English too). Imagine if the south east wanted to stick two fingers up to the rest of the UK? It is clearly in ones favour and not in the others therefore it's probably a bad idea as London becomes a Monaco-like principality and the rest of England struggles to make ends meet. The same argument applies to Scotland. If Scotland is a big net contributor to British well being why is it fair that they split? That argument works the other way too.

I'm not against the Scots getting independence if that's what they want. But that's an interesting point. If Scotland is allowed to have a say in if it wants to be in the Union, then surely the other party in the marriage should have a say in whether they want to stay married to Scotland as well.

Doesn't work like that though guys. If England want to leave the union, they could vote to do so (or effectively dissolve the union), but you can't decide to vote a different part of your country out. Its not the old Scotland vs. England debate (or it shouldn't be), its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

But they are not Scottish, they are British (in this context).

[techieboy]

its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

Absolutely.

[Gedi]

The Scots have always disliked the English, but the English have never disliked the Scots. Due to this one sided dislike there's never really been a rift.

 

I'm wondering if the no vote goes through and Scotland remain a part of the UK, are the English going to start resenting the Scots, potentially causing a rift.

[Zuber]

 

its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

Absolutely.

 

 

Being devils Advocate here (just to be clear)...

 

So, why can't England, Wales and Northern Ireland decide 'Scotland is costing us too much' not going to put up with it any more and so ask them to go it alone ?

 

After all, the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should do what's in their best interests...

 

I still think the marriage analogy works to an extent.

 

It's basically like Scotland saying, since we think we are doing ok thank you very much we might just bugger off. If having done the sums we realise that's not the case, you are stuck with us and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

Have your cake and eat it...

 

I think I've just convinced my self that I'm actually annoyed Scotland gets a say in this but we don't

Edited by Zuber, 29 November 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[techieboy]

One way to absolutely guarantee a YES vote in Scotland would be for the rest of the Union to vote NO.

[LY_Scott]

 

its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

Absolutely.  

  Being devils Advocate here (just to be clear)...   So, why can't England, Wales and Northern Ireland decide 'Scotland is costing us too much' not going to put up with it any more and so ask them to go it alone ?   After all, the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should do what's in their best interests...   I still think the marriage analogy works to an extent.   It's basically like Scotland saying, since we think we are doing ok thank you very much we might just bugger off. If having done the sums we realise that's not the case, you are stuck with us and there is nothing you can do about it.   Have your cake and eat it...   I think I've just convinced my self that I'm actually annoyed Scotland gets a say in this but we don't

You might think that the French, Germans and Spaniards etc might hold a similar view of a referendum muted about leaving EU?

[LY_Scott]

The whole thing is nuts. It should only happen if the split is mutually desired (and I guess you'd get a 50:50 vote from the English too). Imagine if the south east wanted to stick two fingers up to the rest of the UK? It is clearly in ones favour and not in the others therefore it's probably a bad idea as London becomes a Monaco-like principality and the rest of England struggles to make ends meet. The same argument applies to Scotland. If Scotland is a big net contributor to British well being why is it fair that they split? That argument works the other way too.

I'm not against the Scots getting independence if that's what they want. But that's an interesting point. If Scotland is allowed to have a say in if it wants to be in the Union, then surely the other party in the marriage should have a say in whether they want to stay married to Scotland as well.

Doesn't work like that though guys. If England want to leave the union, they could vote to do so (or effectively dissolve the union), but you can't decide to vote a different part of your country out. Its not the old Scotland vs. England debate (or it shouldn't be), its about what best for Scotland, hence the people that live there should decide...

But they are not Scottish, they are British (in this context).

No, Scotland is a country, its the area to where scots law is applied and there's a very clear border. It never ceased to exist. We're simply in an agreed political union since 1707 passed by the Scottish Parliament. Britain is the island we share and Great Britain a name for the union. Its different.

[LY_Scott]

The Scots have always disliked the English, but the English have never disliked the Scots.

I don't.

[LY_Scott]

Give the Shetland and Orkney Islands a referendum to see if they want to be part of Scotland, I say. See how that alters the financials when "their" oil/gas fields get removed from the equation.

If they left I think they'd be leaving both of us. Norway is more a tie for them if not Scotland.

[Zuber]

You might think that the French, Germans and Spaniards etc might hold a similar view of a referendum muted about leaving EU?

 

 

And you can see how they are annoyed with the UK about it...

 

Arguing you are just as bad isn't a strong argument though

 

As a counter argument. I would say it's not the same thing.

 

The EU has been going through some huge changes in recent years. In terms of more 'poor' countries joining, increasing the financial burden and also the whole structure of the the EU with much tighter integration advocated going forward etc.

 

This is very different to the situation with Scotland, where no such major changes are taking place. The Union is essentially the same as it has been for some time other than the UK has been very sensitive to Scottish needs. Hence devolution, Scottish parliament etc.

[LY_Scott]

What your saying is the terms of our union havent changed in any way in 300 years? All of it we've all been completly happy with? Its been argeeable for all parties at all points? Its a policital union in exactly the same way just a really old one. It has the same problems.