Examples of how we're "Better Together" thread - all welcome

[Hibbyradge]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/still-better-together/

[ronaldo7]

Tories or Labour, they're all Better together.

https://t.co/O4mBCu9kMw

[Gatecrasher]

Can we not just have an snp/indy propaganda mega thread rather than loads of little ones?

[Hibbyradge]

Can we not just have an snp/indy propaganda mega thread rather than loads of little ones?

Why? Is it too tough to face up to all the realities, you want to sweep them under a single carpet?

FWIW, I'm not SNP and I won't be voting for them anytime soon.

I'm a neutral observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Outer_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

[marinello59]

Why? Is it too tough to face up to all the realities, you want to sweep them under a single carpet?

FWIW, I'm not SNP and I won't be voting for them anytime soon.

I'm a neutral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Outer_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Neutral until SNP puts candidates forward in England? :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Neutral until SNP puts candidates forward in England? :greengrin

As I said, neutral. :na na:

I was a Labour Party member for 20 years, you know.

The way UK politics is now, I'm considering joining the Lib Dems.

[Gatecrasher]

Why? Is it too tough to face up to all the realities, you want to sweep them under a single carpet?

FWIW, I'm not SNP and I won't be voting for them anytime soon.

I'm a neutral observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Outer_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Oh Aye that's it right enough how about checking my post history on the subject and you will see I was pretty neutral but voted no because I felt the case for indy wasn't made.

It seems like every time something happens like jobs going or the big bad tories done something a new thread started along the lines of above, it's making things all very messy on the message board. Is it any wonder unless there's a tragic or major event the holy ground is deserted.

[lord bunberry]

Still waiting for an example though.

[Jack]

We get to do our own road signs.

[Beefster]

The 2014 referendum must be one of the only times that the losers of a vote have spent the next 12 months gloating about it. I blame the women-hating, Hillsborough-victim-baiting 'Rev' Stu Campbell.

[Colr]

As Scotland cannot impliment its own employment policies on Sunday trading if England has different Sunday opening hours it would seem that the two economies are so interlinked that policy alignment between England and Scotland is essential. This would render independence unworkable. Seperate policies don't work.

[johnbc70]

How's about due to the collapse in the oil price that the SNP got so massively wrong we are in a better place as we have the combined revenues of the UK to lessen the blow? Although I am sure someone will come along and point out it was not the SNPs fault and someone else is to blame.

[easty]

How's about due to the collapse in the oil price that the SNP got so massively wrong we are in a better place as we have the combined revenues of the UK to lessen the blow? Although I am sure someone will come along and point out it was not the SNPs fault and someone else is to blame.

It's the SNPs fault that oil prices went down?

[johnbc70]

The 2014 referendum must be one of the only times that the losers of a vote have spent the next 12 months gloating about it. I blame the women-hating, Hillsborough-victim-baiting 'Rev' Stu Campbell.

They remind me of my old auntie, never happy unless she was moaning or complaining about something.

Maybe if the Yes voters put as much effort into trying to point out the positives of an independent Scotland instead of always focusing on the negatives of where we are today they may have done better.

[marinello59]

It's the SNPs fault that oil prices went down?

No, blaming the SNP would be silly.
If prices had gone up it would have been to their credit though.:greengrin

[johnbc70]

It's the SNPs fault that oil prices went down?

I thought this was about examples of how we could be better together? Was it a bad example?

[Hibbyradge]

I thought this was about examples of how we could be better together? Was it a bad example?

It was a good example. It will be less good when the prices inevitably go up again, though.

[johnbc70]

It was a good example. It will be less good when the prices inevitably go up again, though.

And when it goes down again it becomes a good example again.

Although was reading something about it being 2040 before we see prices back at the peak.

[emerald green]

It's the SNPs fault that oil prices went down?

While nobody could predict the huge crash in price, the oil industry, economists and experts from around the world repeatedly warned that oil prices came nowhere near the SNP's fantasy predictions / spin. As was proven to be the case.

[Jack]

While nobody could predict the huge crash in price, the oil industry, economists and experts from around the world repeatedly warned that oil prices came nowhere near the SNP's fantasy predictions / spin. As was proven to be the case.

Not all of them Goldman Sachs, for example, was predicting $200 at one time!

[emerald green]

Not all of them Goldman Sachs, for example, was predicting $200 at one time!

So, like Alex Salmond, they got it completely wrong too!

The difference between Goldman Sachs and Alex Salmond was that it wasn't Goldman Sachs that attempted the biggest deception in modern political history by arguing a case for Scottish independence that was based on entirely bogus claims about future North sea oil revenues.

The scale of the fall in the oil price may be even greater than anticipated, but it was the downward trend which the Nationalists stood alone in denying, and were prepared to denigrate anyone who dared to contradict them. "Scaremongering" was the buzz word at the time I recall.

As far back as 2013, the Office of Budget Responsibility (with no political axe to grind that I know of) was forecasting a drop in the oil price to below $100 a barrel in future years. How right they were! Salmond dismissed this as "stuff and nonsense" and accused the civil servants responsible of "political manipulation", whatever he meant by that. This set the tone for two years of abusing the integrity and motives of anyone who dared to contradict him.

The White Paper (based upon which the people of Scotland were being asked to vote on the future of their country) insisted that a "cautious" (lol) figure to base Scotland's economic future on was $113 a barrel. An economic argument which, to say the least, was very poor and potentially very risky IMHO.

I think the oil price might be around $42 at the moment.

[ronaldo7]

I'm not too sure any of the 65,000 people who've lost their jobs due to the oil downturn will feel Better together. You never know though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-34193720

[EH6 Hibby]

So, like Alex Salmond, they got it completely wrong too!

The difference between Goldman Sachs and Alex Salmond was that it wasn't Goldman Sachs that attempted the biggest deception in modern political history by arguing a case for Scottish independence that was based on entirely bogus claims about future North sea oil revenues.


What about the deception that there was hardly any oil left only for loads more to miraculously discovered within weeks of the referendum?

[Killiehibbie]

And when it goes down again it becomes a good example again.

Although was reading something about it being 2040 before we see prices back at the peak.The thing is nobody knows what might trigger big price increases much sooner than that.

[emerald green]

I'm not too sure any of the 65,000 people who've lost their jobs due to the oil downturn will feel Better together. You never know though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-34193720

It's always a very bad thing to see people lose their jobs. But I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you suggesting this wouldn't have happened anyway in the event of Scotland having voted for independence? That nobody would have been laid off by the oil companies?

As the CEO of Oil & Gas UK said: "This great industry of ours is facing challenging times".


What about the deception that there was hardly any oil left only for loads more to miraculously discovered within weeks of the referendum?

Ah whitabootery! Can you reveal who it was who said there was "hardly any oil left".

Even if someone did, do you seriously think most people are that stupid as to totally believe that?

[johnbc70]

I'm not too sure any of the 65,000 people who've lost their jobs due to the oil downturn will feel Better together. You never know though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-34193720

So are you saying that somehow a Yes vote would have changed the price of oil? I don't think you are, so what point you making? If your not saying a Yes vote would have changed the price of oil are you saying a Yes vote would have made the 65,000 smaller somehow?

[ronaldo7]

It's always a very bad thing to see people lose their jobs. But I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you suggesting this wouldn't have happened anyway in the event of Scotland having voted for independence? That nobody would have been laid off by the oil companies?

As the CEO of Oil & Gas UK said: "This great industry of ours is facing challenging times".



Ah whitabootery! Can you reveal who it was who said there was "hardly any oil left".

Even if someone did, do you seriously think most people are that stupid as to totally believe that?


So are you saying that somehow a Yes vote would have changed the price of oil? I don't think you are, so what point you making? If your not saying a Yes vote would have changed the price of oil are you saying a Yes vote would have made the 65,000 smaller somehow?

I'm suggesting the big broad shoulders are really not broad enough when it comes to the Oil industry. It's bigger that the UK or an Indy Scotland.

The Oil Industry, the Steel Industry, the Fish Industry, HMRC workers, the renewables Industry, all waiting for the broad shoulders to carry the day.

Pooling and sharing jobs not working for Scotland I'm afraid.

[emerald green]

I'm suggesting the big broad shoulders are really not broad enough when it comes to the Oil industry. It's bigger that the UK or an Indy Scotland.

The Oil Industry, the Steel Industry, the Fish Industry, HMRC workers, the renewables Industry, all waiting for the broad shoulders to carry the day.

Pooling and sharing jobs not working for Scotland I'm afraid.

So if Scotland was an independent country none of these issues would exist in the global economy we live in? The "big broad shoulders" of the UK are not broad enough, but Scotland's on its own are? What do you mean by "to carry the day".

People are losing their jobs in the industries you mention right across the UK. Thousands in the steel plants in S****horpe as well as in Scotland for example.

What would work for Scotland and make all these issues simply disappear?

[Canon Hannan]

So if Scotland was an independent country none of these issues would exist in the global economy we live in? The "big broad shoulders" of the UK are not broad enough, but Scotland's on its own are? What do you mean by "to carry the day".

People are losing their jobs in the industries you mention right across the UK. Thousands in the steel plants in S****horpe as well as in Scotland for example.

What would work for Scotland and make all these issues simply disappear?

2400 HMRC jobs lost in Scotland and 2800 created in Croydon.

There is your Better Together.

[EH6 Hibby]

Ah whitabootery! Can you reveal who it was who said there was "hardly any oil left".

Even if someone did, do you seriously think most people are that stupid as to totally believe that?

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13175839.Sir_Ian_Wood__iScotland_will_run_out_of_o il_and_gas_in_35_years_if_new_sources_are_not_foun d/

That was just one report. Iirc, it was also brought up several times during the live to debates.

As for people believing it, I know for a fact several people did, my dad for one does not have access to the Internet do only had the TV and news papers to go by, all of which were pro Union. Why would he doubt what he was being told?

[marinello59]

No need for all of this ..... Erm...... debate.
The answer is 42.

[ronaldo7]

No need for all of this ..... Erm...... debate.
The answer is 42.

I predict this thread will wither on the vine, and the only 1 reason we're better together is the oil price has dropped. :aok:

[marinello59]

I predict this thread will wither on the vine, and the only 1 reason we're better together is the oil price has dropped. :aok:

Nope. We are Better Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are better together. It's just a way of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

[johnbc70]

I predict this thread will wither on the vine, and the only 1 reason we're better together is the oil price has dropped. :aok:

Maybe it's not all about economics and policies on this or that, maybe because it is just what many believe. Can't argue with that (although I am sure you will manage)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Still waiting for an example though.

Thousands of employees in edinburgh's financial services sector still have jobs.

Likewise Faslane.

We are still part of one of the highest growth economies in Europe.

We have the military power to aid our allies France in their time of need.


I actually voted yes in the referendum, but i accept that we as a country didn't.

Also, are you really suggesting that there are no advantages to remaining in the UK?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nope. We are Better Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are better together. It's just a of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

Spot on mate.

[Future17]

We have the military power to aid our allies France in their time of need.

How does that work? :confused:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

How does that work? :confused:

I'm not sure I understand the question?

Do you mean how does it work that the UK has something to offer France at this time?

[Geo_1875]

So if Scotland was an independent country none of these issues would exist in the global economy we live in? The "big broad shoulders" of the UK are not broad enough, but Scotland's on its own are? What do you mean by "to carry the day".

People are losing their jobs in the industries you mention right across the UK. Thousands in the steel plants in S****horpe as well as in Scotland for example.

What would work for Scotland and make all these issues simply disappear?

Different economic and social policies wouldn't make these issues disappear but they would certainly help mitigate the catastrophic effect they are having on ordinary people.

[Treadstone]

Apparently oil is a burden.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Apparently oil is a burden.

Apparently an Independent Scotland would have been a basket case because of the drop in oil prices.

[Moulin Yarns]

Apparently an Independent Scotland would have been a basket case because of the drop in oil prices.


http://www.cityam.com/224490/scottish-independence-low-oil-prices-would-have-been-benefit-independent-scotland

Oil at $47 a barrel will raise less revenue than oil at $114 a barrel. But, and it is an enormous but, if Scotland had voted "yes", the first conversation that Holyrood would have had with George Osborne (http://www.cityam.com/people/george-osborne) would have been along the lines of this:

“Everyone, including Oil & Gas UK, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the so called independent Office for Budget Responsibility, tell us the future cash flows from the North Sea are negative with oil at less than $50 a barrel. So, how much will Westminster pay us to take over this liability?”

[Future17]

I'm not sure I understand the question?

Do you mean how does it work that the UK has something to offer France at this time?

I mean, how will the UK use its military power to aid France?

[Treadstone]

Apparently an Independent Scotland would have been a basket case because of the drop in oil prices.

UK debt is over a trillion but Scotland would be a 'basket case'. Failing to see the consistency here, can you define ?

[lyonhibs]

Nope. We are Better Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are better together. It's just a way of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

Oh such lucidity, clarity and common sense. Shame it'll never catch on with the #areyouyesyet warriors that seem to proliferate all over social media every time Westminster does something they seem to be unsavoury.

[Jack]

For every £100 raised in revenue from the North Sea oil and the other fields Scotland currently receives way less than a tenner after all the reserved bits and bobs are paid for.

An independent Scotland would receive £100.

Tricky one!

[Future17]

Oh such lucidity, clarity and common sense. Shame it'll never catch on with the #areyouyesyet warriors that seem to proliferate all over social media every time Westminster does something they seem to be unsavoury.

Should people not campaign for what they believe in? :confused:

[johnbc70]

Should people not campaign for what they believe in? :confused:

There is a difference between campaigning in what you believe in and just pointing out all the perceived 'wrongdoings' and 'injustices' that Westminster or the Torys/Labour/Lib Dems (take your pick) have done since September 2014.

Read Marinello59's post above, it was much better put that I have done.

[stoneyburn hibs]

UK debt is over a trillion but Scotland would be a 'basket case'. Failing to see the consistency here, can you define ?

An even bigger basket case ? :confused:

It's often said that an Independent Scotland would have fallen flat on her face fiscally, given the drop in oil prices.
Countries of a similar population seem to cope ok without any oil, or a burden of having it.

I think I was agreeing with you.

[ronaldo7]

There is a difference between campaigning in what you believe in and just pointing out all the perceived 'wrongdoings' and 'injustices' that Westminster or the Torys/Labour/Lib Dems (take your pick) have done since September 2014.

Read Marinello59's post above, it was much better put that I have done.

Some can do both:wink:

[easty]

Should people not campaign for what they believe in? :confused:

Earlier I considered replying to the point you have replied to, but it really wasn't even worth it. #rubbishandpointless

[ronaldo7]

Nope. We are Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are together. It's just a way of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

Fixed it for you:greengrin

You might be speaking to Yes people, others are out chappin doors.:wink:

[hibs0666]

We are better together because the case for independence is dead (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/case-for-independence-dead-former-snp-policy-chief-1-3949549)

“The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP’s model is broken.”

I know, I know - more unionist propaganda, except that it comes from Slippery-as-a-Salmond's former head of policy. :tee hee:

Given that Sturgeon will not commit to an indyref2, I guess she knows the truth of it. Thank goodness that 55% of us saw the truth of it too.

[Peevemor]

We are better together because the case for independence is dead (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/case-for-independence-dead-former-snp-policy-chief-1-3949549)

“The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP’s model is broken.”

I know, I know - more unionist propaganda, except that it comes from Slippery-as-a-Salmond's former head of policy. :tee hee:

Given that Sturgeon will not commit to an indyref2, I guess she knows the truth of it. Thank goodness that 55% of us saw the truth of it too.



“It is reasonable to assume that all these obstacles can be overcome, but it is stupid to deny they exist,” he said.


He suggested Scotland’s long-serving Finance Secretary John Swinney would be “unfit for the job” if he does not understand these obstacles “so we must assume these bright people know that the old model, once optimistic, is now dead”.



Well with logic like that... :wtf:

[johnbc70]

We are better together because the case for independence is dead (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/case-for-independence-dead-former-snp-policy-chief-1-3949549)

“The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP’s model is broken.”

I know, I know - more unionist propaganda, except that it comes from Slippery-as-a-Salmond's former head of policy. :tee hee:

Given that Sturgeon will not commit to an indyref2, I guess she knows the truth of it. Thank goodness that 55% of us saw the truth of it too.

Very surprised to see someone who was tasked with such an important role to secure a Yes vote come out with that. I am sure the usual suspects will be along to discredit him with something or another, instead of actually listening to what he has to say and taking it on as constructive criticism.

[Geo_1875]

Very surprised to see someone who was tasked with such an important role to secure a Yes vote come out with that. I am sure the usual suspects will be along to discredit him with something or another, instead of actually listening to what he has to say and taking it on as constructive criticism.

I wouldn't try to discredit him for speaking his mind. However, he ceased to be a Special Adviser to the Scottish Government some time before the referendum. I'm surprised he didn't come out with this earlier.

[hibs0666]

I wouldn't try to discredit him for speaking his mind. However, he ceased to be a Special Adviser to the Scottish Government some time before the referendum. I'm surprised he didn't come out with this earlier.

Better late than never I suppose. :thumbsup:

[JeMeSouviens]

Very surprised to see someone who was tasked with such an important role to secure a Yes vote come out with that. I am sure the usual suspects will be along to discredit him with something or another, instead of actually listening to what he has to say and taking it on as constructive criticism.

Bell left SNP/Yes well before the Indyref and wrote a series of sceptical articles, eg.:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/17/scottish-independence-after-the-flag-waving

[lord bunberry]

We are better together because the case for independence is dead (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/case-for-independence-dead-former-snp-policy-chief-1-3949549)

“The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP’s model is broken.”

I know, I know - more unionist propaganda, except that it comes from Slippery-as-a-Salmond's former head of policy. :tee hee:

Given that Sturgeon will not commit to an indyref2, I guess she knows the truth of it. Thank goodness that 55% of us saw the truth of it too.
The Uk doesn't earn enough to pay for its current level of spending, that's why we're currently a trillion pounds in debt. The current level of Scottish spending includes its share of paying for things like Trident and high speed rail lines that wouldn't exist in an independent Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

Anyway, in answer to the original question, we are Better Together if:

- we are "British" and feel primarily attached to the UK as our nation, Scotland just being a region (which we might have a particular regional attachment to and pride in but not as our country). I reckon that accounts for about half of the No vote.

- we are cautious and don't want to make the jump. Better a safely mediocre Scotland subsumed in the UK than potentially lose your job, financial security. etc

- we have some personal stake in the British state, eg. ambitious Labour politicians (although how many resounding election defeats that will last for is debateable?)

[hibs0666]

The Uk doesn't earn enough to pay for its current level of spending, that's why we're currently a trillion pounds in debt. The current level of Scottish spending includes its share of paying for things like Trident and high speed rail lines that wouldn't exist in an independent Scotland.

Tell that to the former SNP policy advisor. He's the one that has confirmed that the SNP plans for independence are disingenuous.

[Peevemor]

Tell that to the former SNP policy advisor. He's the one that has confirmed that the SNP plans for independence are disingenuous.

On what terms did he part company with the SNP?

[Moulin Yarns]

On what terms did he part company with the SNP?

Don't know, but he has been slagging the SNP for over 2 years now.



http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-scottish (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-scottish)

[hibs0666]

On what terms did he part company with the SNP?

Dunno. In what way would that be material to the opinions he has expressed?

[easty]

Dunno. In what way would that be material to the opinions he has expressed?

You don't think it would be relevant?

[JimBHibees]

Dunno. In what way would that be material to the opinions he has expressed?

An axe to grind? Personal vengeance at being sacked/let go? Working for someone else.

[lord bunberry]

An axe to grind? Personal vengeance at being sacked/let go? Working for someone else.
I'm sure I read that he's just started up a new magazine that he's looking to publicise.

[JeMeSouviens]

Incidentally, although he was and is heavily critical of the SNP/Yes campaign and the white paper. He didn't give up on independence, this from Aug 2014:


If its equality that bothers you, then the British economic model is structurally incapable of adjusting without giving up on the City of London. If it’s a welfare system that works, then look at the chaos of the UK reforms. If it’s a tax system people respect, then you can’t have the UK Treasury’s tolerance of havens.
In short, if we are to become the people we could be, then it is impossible in the UK. That doesn’t mean it’s a sure thing in Scotland, simply that Yes is a start in the right direction

[hibs0666]

You don't think it would be relevant?

It would be relevant in the same that that our collective experiences shape our opinions. I would rather see the mention of it as being an attempt at deflection i.e. shoot the messenger rather than listen.

[hibs0666]

An axe to grind? Personal vengeance at being sacked/let go? Working for someone else.

No axe to grind? No personal vengeance?

[easty]

No axe to grind? No personal vengeance?

I don't really get the point you're trying to make. :confused:

[hibs0666]

I don't really get the point you're trying to make. :confused:

Aye but do you have an axe to grind likes? :wink:

[happiehibbie]

Politics ! It's simple to answer think about appearing in court in front of a jury. If that jury has an any doubt do you give a guilty or not guilty verdict. SNP had to many maybes aye maybes no so a no vote and stay together also the SNP economics did not add up and the economy was based on oil at around 113 a barrel this has dropped by 60% there is no argument they can use to support the losses thankfully being part of the U.K. We can share these losses. Peaks. And troughs we are a very small island we are better together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Politics ! It's simple to answer think about appearing in court in front of a jury. If that jury has an any doubt do you give a guilty or not guilty verdict. SNP had to many maybes aye maybes no so a no vote and stay together also the SNP economics did not add up and the economy was based on oil at around 113 a barrel this has dropped by 60% there is no argument they can use to support the losses thankfully being part of the U.K. We can share these losses. Peaks. And troughs we are a very small island we are better together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say but ... o/t moan approaching ...

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!

We are a ******G HUGE ISLAND*, comfortably in the world's top 10 by size.

* actually collection of islands plus part of Ireland.

[emerald green]

Nope. We are Better Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are better together. It's just a way of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

Good post, and I would just like to add a couple of points.

I believe that many (not all) of those who voted NO made up their minds to do so within two seconds of the moment when the referendum day was announced. These folk were never going to change their minds, still aren't, and probably never will. And please don't start insulting/blaming senior citizens for the result (not you personally I mean) as many separatists did after the referendum result was known. I know many who were extremely annoyed by that, and they won't forget it. Big mistake.

These people were likely content with their lot (how dare they be!), resented the way the separation debate was intruding into their lives, objected to those who were pushing for separation noisily in town centres on Saturday afternoons, had business contacts throughout the UK & wanted to maintain them, were employed by UK businesses based outside Scotland & felt threatened by separation, and had friends & family across the UK.

They were never going to be taken in by the opinions of disaffected people who wanted separation, at any cost, but were ignorant of its consequences.

[McD]

There was always going to be roughly 3 groups of people approaching the referendum.

Those who would vote yes under any circumstance (this isn't a dig).
thise who would vote no under any circumstance (again not a dig).
Those who were on the fence/didn't know/unsure/cautious/looking for guidance.

given the vote was simply yes or no, where 'no' leaves each of us in a status quo (where each of us can reasonably expect life to be fairly similar to now/recent past, and predictable in regards to lifestyle, income, etc), the onus was always on the Yes campaign to convince the last group to vote 'yes'.

The percentages of yes/no would indicate that not enough of the last group were convinced to do that. Marinello 59 has described this very eloquently.


Since that day though, a proportion of the Yes campaign seem to look for opportunities to, almost point the finger and say 'see, told you so', when something crops happens that they don't like. For me, this only causes deeper fractures in the Scottish population, where a more positive way forward would be to re-engage with the No voters and look to positively capture the imagination, show why they believe Scotland will be better off independently.

The Yes campaign won't change people's minds by blaming people who voted no for what comes to pass, they may change minds by demonstrating how Scotland could thrive independently.

[emerald green]

Apparently an Independent Scotland would have been a basket case because of the drop in oil prices.

"We all know that in the present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit. For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide."

The above is a quote from George Kerevan (SNP MP). It's not just about the oil price, although that's important.

[emerald green]

For every £100 raised in revenue from the North Sea oil and the other fields Scotland currently receives way less than a tenner after all the reserved bits and bobs are paid for.

An independent Scotland would receive £100.

Tricky one!

Very tricky indeed! Here's some figures:

The UK government will receive less than £1 billion a year in oil revenues for at least the next five years. This compares to the Scottish Government's insistence that the revenues in 2016/17 alone would be between £6.8-£7.9 billion. Surely some mistake?

The OBR now estimates £600 million for that year - a record breaking "mis-calculation" by the Scottish Government?

The full fiscal autonomy which the SNP "demand" (although I don't believe they actually really want FFA - it's yet more posturing IMO) would also exchange the Barnett Formula for North Sea Oil revenues. How would this gap be filled?

The Scottish Government needs to be honest with the country, and the Scottish people need to go into things with their eyes open and ask politicians - all of them, all parties - difficult questions, and not just swallow what they say like mugs.

That said, there are some Nationalists where the end justifies the means. It's independence at all costs. The practical financial implications of independence for Scotland, and the Scottish people, comes second for them.

[judas]

We are better together because the case for independence is dead (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/case-for-independence-dead-former-snp-policy-chief-1-3949549)

“The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP’s model is broken.”

I know, I know - more unionist propaganda, except that it comes from Slippery-as-a-Salmond's former head of policy. :tee hee:

Given that Sturgeon will not commit to an indyref2, I guess she knows the truth of it. Thank goodness that 55% of us saw the truth of it too.

Yes, but England, Wales and NI also don't earn enough to pay for their spending.

UK budget deficit is over £90bn this year.

The IFS says Scotlands budget deficit in the midst of an oil crisis would be £8bn. So in a sense, this is like a worst case scenario. Our pro rata share of the the current UK deficit would be circa £8bn and when UK deficit peaked at over £160bn (4 years ago) our pro rata share would have been around £13bn.

There seems to be a perception that Scotland is subsidised. But actually ever country
In the UK is.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I know many who were extremely annoyed by that, and they won't forget it.

If they are getting on a bit chances are they will. :tee hee:

[steakbake]

I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say but ... o/t moan approaching ...

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!

We are a ******G HUGE ISLAND*, comfortably in the world's top 10 by size.

* actually collection of islands plus part of Ireland.

Yeah, this line always irritates. 'A small island'. The Isle of Mann is a small island. Rockall is a small island. "Great Britain" (as in the name of the island) is the 9th biggest in the world. The British Isles archipelago is the 4th such largest in the world. The 11th largest country in Europe, behind Italy.

I always associate it with the wistful bleakery of Times' letter writers.

Not a comment about the poster at all, but you hear it time and again. On the one hand, we're just a wee island, humble and too small to be subdivided. On the other we are a global "superpower" - which usually comes down to ethereal things like whether we get ourselves into international scrapes on a regular basis or how many naughts we have on a transient banking spreadsheet.

[hibs0666]

Very tricky indeed! Here's some figures:

The UK government will receive less than £1 billion a year in oil revenues for at least the next five years. This compares to the Scottish Government's insistence that the revenues in 2016/17 alone would be between £6.8-£7.9 billion. Surely some mistake?

The OBR now estimates £600 million for that year - a record breaking "mis-calculation" by the Scottish Government?

The full fiscal autonomy which the SNP "demand" (although I don't believe they actually really want FFA - it's yet more posturing IMO) would also exchange the Barnett Formula for North Sea Oil revenues. How would this gap be filled?

The Scottish Government needs to be honest with the country, and the Scottish people need to go into things with their eyes open and ask politicians - all of them, all parties - difficult questions, and not just swallow what they say like mugs.

That said, there are some Nationalists where the end justifies the means. It's independence at all costs. The practical financial implications of independence for Scotland, and the Scottish people, comes second for them.

Stop talking sense for goodness sake. :aok:

[hibs0666]

Yeah, this line always irritates. 'A small island'. The Isle of Mann is a small island. Rockall is a small island. "Great Britain" (as in the name of the island) is the 9th biggest in the world. The British Isles archipelago is the 4th such largest in the world. The 11th largest country in Europe, behind Italy.

I always associate it with the wistful bleakery of Times' letter writers.

Not a comment about the poster at all, but you hear it time and again. On the one hand, we're just a wee island, humble and too small to be subdivided. On the other we are a global "superpower" - which usually comes down to ethereal things like whether we get ourselves into international scrapes on a regular basis or how many naughts we have on a transient banking spreadsheet.

Seeing as there is no viable economic argument being presented for an independent Scotland, the only case that (kind of) hangs together is a basic emotional one. As soon as it starts to get a bit more complex (like the future economic well-being of our people) the whole notion quickly unravels.

[JeMeSouviens]

Seeing as there is no viable economic argument being presented for an independent Scotland, the only case that (kind of) hangs together is a basic emotional one. As soon as it starts to get a bit more complex (like the future economic well-being of our people) the whole notion quickly unravels.

If the limit of your ambition for Scotland is to remain a subsidised backwater, then fair enough. If it's really the loss of the British state that concerns you, then tough, you're on the wrong side of history (imo).

[hibs0666]

If the limit of your ambition for Scotland is to remain a subsidised backwater, then fair enough. If it's really the loss of the British state that concerns you, then tough, you're on the wrong side of history (imo).

Love it - I think that you've proven the valaidity of the basic emotional argument for independence. :wink:

My ambition for Scotland is to be a land of opportunity for its citizens that cares for the most unfortunate. That can be best achieved with Scotland as part of the UK. As demonstrated by Salmond's policy bloke, this is not viable with any plans yet tabled for independence and the SNP is disingenuous to say otherwise.

If you don't want to be a 'subsidised backwater' I'm assuming that you will be voting to exit the EU in the referendum. We can't be subsidised can we? And if we're a backwater in UK terms, goodness knows what we are in European terms.

If you are not in favour of an EU exit Under what circumstances are European subsidies and acceptance of being a European backwater acceptable when they are patently not acceptable in the UK context?

[johnbc70]

If the limit of your ambition for Scotland is to remain a subsidised backwater, then fair enough. If it's really the loss of the British state that concerns you, then tough, you're on the wrong side of history (imo).

I am afraid it is views like this that do the Yes campaign no good at all - you wrongly assume that anyone who does not think the same as you is somehow not wanting a prosperous Scotland, you think if you are not a Yes voter then you must be happy for Scotland to be a 'subsidised backwater' but have you ever considered that everyone that voted No wants Scotland to prosper and be a land of opportunity for everyone that lives here? I have not met one person who voted Yes or No that does not want a prosperous Scotland with opportunity.

Interested on your view on the EU as posted by previous poster.

[judas]

If the limit of your ambition for Scotland is to remain a subsidised backwater, then fair enough. If it's really the loss of the British state that concerns you, then tough, you're on the wrong side of history (imo).

The 'subsidy' is the provision of borrowed money that we have to pay back.

The UK borrows to support its deficit - and that of Scotland, who like all union and most of Europe, runs at a loss.

If I'm a hundred £ in debt and you are too, and you need £1 to pay for the annual interest. I could give it to you, but only by borrowing it from someone else. That doesn't mean I'm really any better of than you. I'm not sitting with a surplus in my bank account, I'm overdrawn like you.

Interestingly though, this is all amidst an oil crisis. The picture will improve dramatically for Scotland when the op rises - and that seems likely (place your bets here).

Is the economic benefit for Scotland big enough to warrant separation? Possibly.

A bigger draw for me is the practical and democratic benefit. A focused government tailoring policy specifically to suit Scotlands needs and mandated by its own population, seems sensible.

[JeMeSouviens]

Love it - I think that you've proven the valaidity of the basic emotional argument for independence. :wink:

My ambition for Scotland is to be a land of opportunity for its citizens that cares for the most unfortunate. That can be best achieved with Scotland as part of the UK. As demonstrated by Salmond's policy bloke, this is not viable with any plans yet tabled for independence and the SNP is disingenuous to say otherwise.


If you're going to put in post after post lauding Alex Bell's (aka policy bloke) views, then it would help to read them from source rather than distilled via tabloid headline, here's a reminder:


If its equality that bothers you, then the British economic model is structurally incapable of adjusting without giving up on the City of London. If it’s a welfare system that works, then look at the chaos of the UK reforms. If it’s a tax system people respect, then you can’t have the UK Treasury’s tolerance of havens.
In short, if we are to become the people we could be, then it is impossible in the UK. That doesn’t mean it’s a sure thing in Scotland, simply that Yes is a start in the right direction

Maybe (shock horror) a raw calculation based on current attributed per capita spending under identical policy priorities is a tad simplistic. I agree with Policy Bloke that the SNP's policy needs work. For example, maintaining current level of defence spending (approx 5 times that of Ireland's) would be absolutely ludicrous for a small European country.



If you don't want to be a 'subsidised backwater' I'm assuming that you will be voting to exit the EU in the referendum. We can't be subsidised can we? And if we're a backwater in UK terms, goodness knows what we are in European terms.

If you are not in favour of an EU exit Under what circumstances are European subsidies and acceptance of being a European backwater acceptable when they are patently not acceptable in the UK context?

I'm fairly ambivalent about EU exit as it happens and not sure to what extent you expect that Scotland is or would be subsidised? The UK is a net contributor after all. But top marks for deflection.

At the moment, we don't even register in European terms, never mind being a backwater.

[JeMeSouviens]

The 'subsidy' is the provision of borrowed money that we have to pay back.

The UK borrows to support its deficit - and that of Scotland, who like all union and most of Europe, runs at a loss.

If I'm a hundred £ in debt and you are too, and you need £1 to pay for the annual interest. I could give it to you, but only by borrowing it from someone else. That doesn't mean I'm really any better of than you. I'm not sitting with a surplus in my bank account, I'm overdrawn like you.

Interestingly though, this is all amidst an oil crisis. The picture will improve dramatically for Scotland when the op rises - and that seems likely (place your bets here).

Is the economic benefit for Scotland big enough to warrant separation? Possibly.

A bigger draw for me is the practical and democratic benefit. A focused government tailoring policy specifically to suit Scotlands needs and mandated by its own population, seems sensible.

Me too. :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

I am afraid it is views like this that do the Yes campaign no good at all - you wrongly assume that anyone who does not think the same as you is somehow not wanting a prosperous Scotland, you think if you are not a Yes voter then you must be happy for Scotland to be a 'subsidised backwater' but have you ever considered that everyone that voted No wants Scotland to prosper and be a land of opportunity for everyone that lives here? I have not met one person who voted Yes or No that does not want a prosperous Scotland with opportunity.

Interested on your view on the EU as posted by previous poster.

:top marks on condescension.

Some people that voted No would absolutely rather Scotland was a subsidised backwater as they view it as a safer option than independence. What if we **** it up altogether? LIkewise I can't be the only person who knows people who voted No as a safer option for their own personal situation (and btw, why shouldn't they, I've been through redundancies and job hunting, it's not pleasant). Risk versus reward at a national/regional* level and a personal level was a huge factor. Hardly groundbreaking news.


* delete to personal taste.

[JeMeSouviens]

The 'subsidy' is the provision of borrowed money that we have to pay back.

The UK borrows to support its deficit - and that of Scotland, who like all union and most of Europe, runs at a loss.

If I'm a hundred £ in debt and you are too, and you need £1 to pay for the annual interest. I could give it to you, but only by borrowing it from someone else. That doesn't mean I'm really any better of than you. I'm not sitting with a surplus in my bank account, I'm overdrawn like you.

Interestingly though, this is all amidst an oil crisis. The picture will improve dramatically for Scotland when the op rises - and that seems likely (place your bets here).

Is the economic benefit for Scotland big enough to warrant separation? Possibly.

A bigger draw for me is the practical and democratic benefit. A focused government tailoring policy specifically to suit Scotlands needs and mandated by its own population, seems sensible.

I'd add that while that's true, it's also true that the UK is providing a larger share of earned+borrowed money per head in Scotland than in most other areas of the UK. Unionists are happy to accept Barnett allocation despite the fact it is ripping off their fellow Britons.

[emerald green]

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13175839.Sir_Ian_Wood__iScotland_will_run_out_of_o il_and_gas_in_35_years_if_new_sources_are_not_foun d/

That was just one report. Iirc, it was also brought up several times during the live to debates.

As for people believing it, I know for a fact several people did, my dad for one does not have access to the Internet do only had the TV and news papers to go by, all of which were pro Union. Why would he doubt what he was being told?

Just back. "Hardly any oil left" now turns out to be running out in 35 years! That's not really the same, is it?

Sorry, but the TV and newspapers were not all "pro-union". That's simply not true. All the TV debates for example had representatives of all the political parties present to put forward their arguments.

Furthermore, I regularly saw (and heard on radio) news bulletins and other political programmes on all the major TV (and radio) channels, which carried interviews with members of all political parties, including the SNP, the Green Party, Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in the lengthy run-up to the referendum. Alex Salmond never seemed to be off the TV during that period.


If they are getting on a bit chances are they will. :tee hee:

Sorry, what was that? :greengrin


Stop talking sense for goodness sake. :aok:

Thanks hibs0666. :aok: Keep up the fight. I'm butting out now though.

I don't usually get involved in the political stuff because I just feel that some folk's views are so deeply held and entrenched you will never get them to see sense / change their views. It's like :brickwall

[McD]

Just back. "Hardly any oil left" now turns out to be running out in 35 years! That's not really the same, is it?

Sorry, but the TV and newspapers were not all "pro-union". That's simply not true. All the TV debates for example had representatives of all the political parties present to put forward their arguments.

Furthermore, I regularly saw (and heard on radio) news bulletins and other political programmes on all the major TV (and radio) channels, which carried interviews with members of all political parties, including the SNP, the Green Party, Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, in the lengthy run-up to the referendum. Alex Salmond never seemed to be off the TV during that period.



Sorry, what was that? :greengrin



Thanks hibs0666. :aok: Keep up the fight. I'm butting out now though.

I don't usually get involved in the political stuff because I just feel that some folk's views are so deeply held and entrenched you will never get them to see sense / change their views. It's like :brickwall

:agree:

[ronaldo7]

It looks like we'll still be talking about Independence in 10 years time...unless we've become Independent by then :aok:

15692

[Jack]

One current benefit is that because of the monumental cock up made by Westminster / Department of Health / NHS Trusts in England they've run up a £2bn deficit so Scotland should get more money as England tries to sort it out :-)

Wales and NI should also benefit.

[ronaldo7]

15723

[Beefster]

15723

That place you lift your witty infographics from is still struggling to get to grips with this whole 'UK' Parliament thing, huh?

[marinello59]

That place you lift your witty infographics from is still struggling to get to grips with this whole 'UK' Parliament thing, huh?

I guess we can blame No voters for us bombing Syria now though. They've replaced Rod Petrie in my blame game.
I burnt my dinner tonight. Better Together? Aye, right!

[Onceinawhile]

That place you lift your witty infographics from is still struggling to get to grips with this whole 'UK' Parliament thing, huh?

I think you're deliberately missing the point aren't you. The point is, of course is that with a yes vote, we wouldn't be in the UK parliament and the wishes of the Scottish voting public would have been respected.

[johnbc70]

I think you're deliberately missing the point aren't you. The point is, of course is that with a yes vote, we wouldn't be in the UK parliament and the wishes of the Scottish voting public would have been respected.

Their wishes were respected when Scots voted to stay part of the UK.

Are only 3% of Scots in favour of bombing Syria?

[johnbc70]

I guess we can blame No voters for us bombing Syria now though. They've replaced Rod Petrie in my blame game.
I burnt my dinner tonight. Better Together? Aye, right!
I know its been said many times but the Yes voters are concentrating their efforts on all the wrong places. This constant blame game only worsens their cause, instead of putting effort into what actually went wrong for them last September.

[Onceinawhile]

Their wishes were respected when Scots voted to stay part of the UK.

Are only 3% of Scots in favour of bombing Syria?

I don't know, I've not taken a poll. But 3% of our MPs are.

If people really can't see why 'yessers' are pissy, then I can only assume they are being wilfully obtuse.

[ronaldo7]

That place you lift your witty infographics from is still struggling to get to grips with this whole 'UK' Parliament thing, huh?

And you keep coming back for more huh!

[Pretty Boy]

Their wishes were respected when Scots voted to stay part of the UK.

Are only 3% of Scots in favour of bombing Syria?

I think a figure of 73% was quoted for the percentage of Scots against bombing.

That's probably going to be hard for some to get their brains around but that means a decent chunk of no voters are against. I was a yes voter but the idea being floated that no voters can't oppose or criticise anything the government does because of the way they voted is nonsensical. If that was the case I, and thousands of others, would still blindly be voting Labour and the SNP would never have gained my/our vote and won power in Scotland in the 1st place.

[Sir David Gray]

That place you lift your witty infographics from is still struggling to get to grips with this whole 'UK' Parliament thing, huh?

http://7428.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Like-Button-8.jpg

[Beefster]

I think you're deliberately missing the point aren't you. The point is, of course is that with a yes vote, we wouldn't be in the UK parliament and the wishes of the Scottish voting public would have been respected.

I think it's folk who bang on about Scotland's wishes not being respected in the UK parliament that spectacularly miss the point but hey ho.

If Scotland had managed to be magically transported to a habitable planet in another galaxy, we wouldn't be in the UK parliament and the wishes of the Scottish voting public would have been respected. Logically, exactly the same argument.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Mostly I think the main point for me was people keeping their jobs who stood to loose them after we went independence and also that we managed to avoid financial armegdeon by keeping together!!

[Moulin Yarns]

Mostly I think the main point for me was people keeping their jobs who stood to loose them after we went independence and also that we managed to avoid financial armegdeon by keeping together!!


Ah yes, the old "vote yes and you will lose your job" myth. Can you provide concrete evidence of that?

[Rasta_Hibs]

Ah yes, the old "vote yes and you will lose your job" myth. Can you provide concrete evidence of that?

There was quite a stack of business leaders came out advising on this at the time of the referendum. Also the oil pricing at $133 a barrel would have left us with a massive hole in public budget.

Being in a union with our biggest trading partner on he planet - England makes sense, much like being a part of the EU helps UK business.

[Peevemor]

There was quite a stack of business leaders came out advising on this at the time of the referendum. Also the oil pricing at $133 a barrel would have left us with a massive hole in public budget.

Being in a union with our biggest trading partner on he planet - England makes sense, much like being a part of the EU helps UK business.



WHITEHALL has released details of David Cameron’s meetings ahead of last year’s independence referendum, showing talks with Scottish business leaders and senior media figures.


Released under the UK Government’s transparency procedures, August 28, three weeks before polling day, was a particularly busy 24 hours in the Prime Minister’s diary.


According to the record, he met Nick Robinson, the BBC’s then political editor, as well as Rona Fairhead from the BBC Trust for a “general discussion”.


On the same day, Mr Cameron had talks with Gordon Smart of the Sun’s Scottish edition.


He also had a “round-table” with Scottish business owners Castle Precision Engineers, Star Equestrian, Jack Perry, MacTaggart, Scott & Co. Ltd, Maxxium UK, Ian Bankier, the Celtic Chairman, and Malcolm Group.


Then later, the PM had another general discussion with the CBI as well as CBI Scotland, Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks, the Weir Group PLC, Standard Life, M Computer Technologies, ScottishPower and GPW.


Three days later, Mr Cameron had another “general discussion” with Mr Robinson, Martin Ivens of the Sunday Times and the Economist.


Two days before polling day, he also had a general talk with Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail.


Downing Street also revealed that the official code of conduct for Government Ministers has been updated to make clear that they must be open about their meetings with the Press.


No 10 published the new code, which includes the new requirement that: "The Government will be open about its links with the media. All meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, editors and senior executives will be published quarterly regardless of the purpose of the meeting."


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14033117.Whitehall_reveals_PM_s_private_talks_days _ahead_of_independence_referendum/

[marinello59]

Mostly I think the main point for me was people keeping their jobs who stood to loose them after we went independence and also that we managed to avoid financial armegdeon by keeping together!!

What job losses would Indendence have caused?
Financial Armageddon? The oil industry may be going through tough times but it's still a massive multi million pound industry that any country would want to have. After a period of normalisation tax receipts from the North Sea will recover.

[Rasta_Hibs]

What job losses would Indendence have caused?
Financial Armageddon? The oil industry may be going through tough times but it's still a massive multi million pound industry that any country would want to have. After a period of normalisation tax receipts from the North Sea will recover.

The drop in revenue would have been huge. SNP expected and planned for $133.

[marinello59]

The drop in revenue would have been huge. SNP expected and planned for $133.

Theres more to Scotland than just the oil industry. I'm not so sure the SNP gambled all on one industry although many of their supporters peddled a load of nonsense about secret oilfields etc. An Independent Scotland would have cost us something in the short term in my opinion but there is no way we would have faced 'armageddon'.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Theres more to Scotland than just the oil industry. I'm not so sure the SNP gambled all on one industry although many of their supporters peddled a load of nonsense about secret oilfields etc. An Independent Scotland would have cost us something in the short term in my opinion but there is no way we would have faced 'armageddon'.

Well im no financial wizkid but surely covering the hole in the budget would mean extra borrowing. Borrowing which once interest rates go up again would have left us in the deepest of doo doo?

[Moulin Yarns]

Well im no financial wizkid but surely covering the hole in the budget would mean extra borrowing. Borrowing which once interest rates go up again would have left us in the deepest of doo doo?

without going back and finding the independent assessments, I'm sure the budgeting for Independence was undertaken excluding oil revenue, and while a lot was made of the potential oil revenue, it was never seen as the mainstay of an Independent Scotland.

Feel free to look for evidence to the contrary.

[marinello59]

without going back and finding the independent assessments, I'm sure the budgeting for Independence was undertaken excluding oil revenue, and while a lot was made of the potential oil revenue, it was never seen as the mainstay of an Independent Scotland.

Feel free to look for evidence to the contrary.

That's how I remember it.

[Bob1875]

Nope. We are Better Together for the foreseeable future because 55% of our fellow Scots decided we are. As Yes supporters we shouldn't be asking why we are better together. It's just a way of laying the blame for any bad news at the feet of those who voted no and it will achieve nothing. We should be concentrating on telling people why we would be better as an independent Scotland. We lost the vote because we spent too much time talking to ourselves and we are still doing it. It's frustrating as hell. Until we accept that we lost not because people voted the 'wrong' way but because the Yes campaign was flawed we will still be years away from going it alone.
Rant over. :greengrin

We lost the vote because of the shameful campaign the British media undertook during the referendum. People scaremongered into voting no, was unbelievable. The amount of people these days swayed by anything that comes out the TV would have been easy to see at least a 10% swing imo.

[Mibbes Aye]

We lost the vote because of the shameful campaign the British media undertook during the referendum. People scaremongered into voting no, was unbelievable. The amount of people these days swayed by anything that comes out the TV would have been easy to see at least a 10% swing imo.

You lost the vote because you couldn't persuade people of your argument.

It's a comfort zone to blame media influence but unfortunately it sends out a bad message. It implies you think the electorate you need to win over is weak-minded and malleable. If that's what you think of the Scottish people (and it showed in the aftermath) they're going to keep rejecting your dogmatic, fundamentalist schtick.

Posts like yours simply encourage people to continue being in the No camp.

[Sir David Gray]

We lost the vote because of the shameful campaign the British media undertook during the referendum. People scaremongered into voting no, was unbelievable. The amount of people these days swayed by anything that comes out the TV would have been easy to see at least a 10% swing imo.

I'm able to think for myself thanks very much.

I can actually see some merit in Scotland being independent (although not under the leadership of the SNP) but it's comments like this one which makes me even happier that I voted "no" last year.

55% of the Scottish public voted "no". Are all these people brain-dead morons, who need to read the tabloids and watch Sky News to have their minds made up for them?

[ronaldo7]

I'm able to think for myself thanks very much.

I can actually see some merit in Scotland being independent (although not under the leadership of the SNP) but it's comments like this one which makes me even happier that I voted "no" last year.

55% of the Scottish public voted "no". Are all these people brain-dead morons, who need to read the tabloids and watch Sky News to have their minds made up for them?

Who would you see Scotland being independent under?

[marinello59]

Who would you see Scotland being independent under?

It would be the Krankies for me. Scotland would be Fandabbydozy. Let's make it happen. :thumbsup:

[Sir David Gray]

Who would you see Scotland being independent under?

If a right of centre party was to come along and campaign for Scottish independence, I would be interested in hearing more about their aims and objectives. The concept of Scotland being independent is not something I am totally against.

I am aware that is not currently an option, though, and that the SNP is the only party that is likely to lead Scotland into independence. Therefore, for the time being, I'm not interested.

[ronaldo7]

If a right of centre party was to come along and campaign for Scottish independence, I would be interested in hearing more about their aims and objectives. The concept of Scotland being independent is not something I am totally against.

I am aware that is not currently an option, though, and that the SNP is the only party that is likely to lead Scotland into independence. Therefore, for the time being, I'm not interested.

:faf: Cheers Mrs Thatcher:aok:

[marinello59]

If a right of centre party was to come along and campaign for Scottish independence, I would be interested in hearing more about their aims and objectives. The concept of Scotland being independent is not something I am totally against.

I am aware that is not currently an option, though, and that the SNP is the only party that is likely to lead Scotland into independence. Therefore, for the time being, I'm not interested.

The Scottish Libertarians that launched last week might be your thing. They seem a bit bonkers to me though.

[lord bunberry]

I'm able to think for myself thanks very much.

I can actually see some merit in Scotland being independent (although not under the leadership of the SNP) but it's comments like this one which makes me even happier that I voted "no" last year.

55% of the Scottish public voted "no". Are all these people brain-dead morons, who need to read the tabloids and watch Sky News to have their minds made up for them?
They're not brain dead morons! Some of them were elderly people who have worked hard all their lives, but were fearful that they might lose out on their pensions. Most people will rightly vote for what's right for them and my dad was worried by what he saw and read, so he voted no. He's not brain dead or a moron, but he swallowed enough of the lies to convince him to vote no. Project fear worked on him and probably many others.

[Sir David Gray]

:faf: Cheers Mrs Thatcher:aok:

Precisely why I hardly bother with the Holy Ground board any more.

[ronaldo7]

They're not brain dead morons! Some of them were elderly people who have worked hard all their lives, but were fearful that they might lose out on their pensions. Most people will rightly vote for what's right for them and my dad was worried by what he saw and read, so he voted no. He's not brain dead or a moron, but he swallowed enough of the lies to convince him to vote no. Project fear worked on him and probably many others.

:applause:

[lord bunberry]

If a right of centre party was to come along and campaign for Scottish independence, I would be interested in hearing more about their aims and objectives. The concept of Scotland being independent is not something I am totally against.

I am aware that is not currently an option, though, and that the SNP is the only party that is likely to lead Scotland into independence. Therefore, for the time being, I'm not interested.
I think in an independent Scotland the Tory party would be quite a strong force. It wasn't that long ago that the tories had a majority in Scotland. The problem they now face is the toxic link with the English party and the thatcher years.

[ronaldo7]

Precisely why I hardly bother with the Holy Ground board any more.

Your choice. Don't take it personally mate, you're entitled to your right of centre ground, just like us separatists are eh:aok:

[marinello59]

Your choice. Don't take it personally mate, you're entitled to your right of centre ground, just like us separatists are eh:aok:

Is this how you are winning people round when you are going door to door? :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Is this how you are winning people round when you are going door to door? :greengrin

I always take the left hand side of the road:aok:

[Sir David Gray]

Your choice. Don't take it personally mate, you're entitled to your right of centre ground, just like us separatists are eh:aok:

I just can't be arsed with the usual response I get on here whenever I try to have a reasonable discussion with others about serious matters. You asked me a question and I gave you an honest answer and all I get in reply is some nonsense about Margaret Thatcher, along with some childish smileys.

My opinion is normally in the minority on here and it normally just gets dismissed and ridiculed.

Don't worry, you're not the only one, at least you haven't accused me of being an extremist.

[ronaldo7]

I just can't be arsed with the usual response I get on here whenever I try to have a reasonable discussion with others about serious matters. You asked me a question and I gave you an honest answer and all I get in reply is some nonsense about Margaret Thatcher, along with some childish smileys.

My opinion is normally in the minority on here and it normally just gets dismissed and ridiculed.

Don't worry, you're not the only one, at least you haven't accused me of being an extremist.

As I've said, you're entitled to your right of centre ground, but don't expect others to follow you just because you think it's right:wink:(1st smiley)

I'm sure you're as hard skinned as other Hibees on here, so don't let the comments get you down. Sometimes life goes the other way, and it's all sweetness and light:greengrin( 2nd smiley)

Scotland wouldn't be the same if we couldn't take the piss out of the Tories.:aok: (3rd smiley) Tartan or otherwise:agree:

[stoneyburn hibs]

You lost the vote because you couldn't persuade people of your argument.

It's a comfort zone to blame media influence but unfortunately it sends out a bad message. It implies you think the electorate you need to win over is weak-minded and malleable. If that's what you think of the Scottish people (and it showed in the aftermath) they're going to keep rejecting your dogmatic, fundamentalist schtick.

Posts like yours simply encourage people to continue being in the No camp.

Pish, it was fair game to scare our ever ageing population that their pensions would decline given a Yes vote ? Both from the media and the Better Together campaign. Posts like yours only confirm what most of us already know.

[JimBHibees]

Pish, it was fair game to scare our ever ageing population that their pensions would decline given a Yes vote ? Both from the media and the Better Together campaign. Posts like yours only confirm what most of us already know.

Couldn't agree more to say the coverage was in any way balanced is laughable. The establishment closed ranks and the propaganda machine was full blast especially from outlets like BBC. Frankly the level of misinformation in some of the press would have done Pravda and Goebbells proud. No one is saying that voters are weak or thick or malleable however if the same message is repeated over and over again it will IMO have an influence and did have a significant influence.

[ronaldo7]

You lost the vote because you couldn't persuade people of your argument.

It's a comfort zone to blame media influence but unfortunately it sends out a bad message. It implies you think the electorate you need to win over is weak-minded and malleable. If that's what you think of the Scottish people (and it showed in the aftermath) they're going to keep rejecting your dogmatic, fundamentalist schtick.

Posts like yours simply encourage people to continue being in the No camp.

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:

[marinello59]

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:

How is your first paragraph helpful? Some Independence supporters are Orange Order, Britain First, UKIP sympathising English hating Nationalists with a capital N.
I think we can and will be an Independent nation within 10 years but not if all we can do is get those who voted No's backs up.

[Mibbes Aye]

Pish, it was fair game to scare our ever ageing population that their pensions would decline given a Yes vote ? Both from the media and the Better Together campaign. Posts like yours only confirm what most of us already know.

55% clearly didn't :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:

Keep this sort of stuff up and I reckon the "no" vote will be 60% next time.

[Mibbes Aye]

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:

Regardless of my views, you're never going to win anyone round with that approach!

The world isn't black and white and neither are people's views.

Start trying to persuade people rather than alienate them!

[Benny Brazil]

Couldn't agree more to say the coverage was in any way balanced is laughable. The establishment closed ranks and the propaganda machine was full blast especially from outlets like BBC. Frankly the level of misinformation in some of the press would have done Pravda and Goebbells proud. No one is saying that voters are weak or thick or malleable however if the same message is repeated over and over again it will IMO have an influence and did have a significant influence.

Sorry dont usually get involved in political threads on here - but almost all Yes supporters I have spoken to or read posts from on other social media are saying exactly that about No voters.
People I used to be friendly with accused me of being "weak, gullable, a coward, lacking backbone" etc etc all because I voted No. The SNP never managed to convince me that a Yes vote would make Scotland a better place to live - they never managed to convince me that our country could prosper financially as an independent country, they were hardly convincing when it came the economy. And I would dare to say that this is the probably the main reason why many people voted No not because of any media bias or fear campaign - why do Yes voters try to make out that it was only the No voters who were ill informed and didnt bother to read about or research into the key issues.

For what its worth like Trig I am not wholly against the idea of independence - but I struggle with the idea that the SNP could run the country - they are not exactly setting the heather on fire just now. They are fortunate that their rival parties in Scotland are not much better. Oh for a John Smith or a Donald Dewar.
Its sad to see that so many Yes voters are driving a wedge between people in Scotland. All this crap with the I voted Yes and I am one of the proud 45 etc etc does nothing to help.

[stoneyburn hibs]

55% clearly didn't :greengrin

Lol touche.

[Benny Brazil]

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:

Condescending clap trap.

[ronaldo7]

How is your first paragraph helpful? Some Independence supporters are Orange Order, Britain First, UKIP sympathising English hating Nationalists with a capital N.
I think we can and will be an Independent nation within 10 years but not if all we can do is get those who voted No's backs up.

It's not meant to be helpful, it's just factual. I won't change them nor will you. I'm working on others.


Keep this sort of stuff up and I reckon the "no" vote will be 60% next time.

Want a bet:greengrin


Regardless of my views, you're never going to win anyone round with that approach!

The world isn't black and white and neither are people's views.

Start trying to persuade people rather than alienate them!

Sometimes you need several approaches. I'll wait on Purdah, at the next Independence referendum:aok: The VOW2

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not meant to be helpful, it's just factual. I won't change them nor will you. I'm working on others.



Want a bet:greengrin



Sometimes you need several approaches. I'll wait on Purdah, at the next Independence referendum:aok: The VOW2

No real answer to three different posters :rolleyes:

Give us a detailed account of your case for why independence is right and right now. Not other people's words, your own.

[ronaldo7]

Condescending clap trap.

Thanks:aok:

[ronaldo7]

No real answer to three different posters :rolleyes:

Give us a detailed account of your case for why independence is right and right now. Not other people's words, your own.

Not "Your" real answers, or the ones you want. The Orange Order, Britain First, and Ukip wanted to stay in the Union did they not?

[Mibbes Aye]

Not "Your" real answers, or the ones you want. The Orange Order, Britain First, and Ukip wanted to stay in the Union did they not?

That's your detailed account for why independence is right?

Really?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Sorry dont usually get involved in political threads on here - but almost all Yes supporters I have spoken to or read posts from on other social media are saying exactly that about No voters.
People I used to be friendly with accused me of being "weak, gullable, a coward, lacking backbone" etc etc all because I voted No. The SNP never managed to convince me that a Yes vote would make Scotland a better place to live - they never managed to convince me that our country could prosper financially as an independent country, they were hardly convincing when it came the economy. And I would dare to say that this is the probably the main reason why many people voted No not because of any media bias or fear campaign - why do Yes voters try to make out that it was only the No voters who were ill informed and didnt bother to read about or research into the key issues.

For what its worth like Trig I am not wholly against the idea of independence - but I struggle with the idea that the SNP could run the country - they are not exactly setting the heather on fire just now. They are fortunate that their rival parties in Scotland are not much better. Oh for a John Smith or a Donald Dewar.
Its sad to see that so many Yes voters are driving a wedge between people in Scotland. All this crap with the I voted Yes and I am one of the proud 45 etc etc does nothing to help.

You've lost friends because of the vote ?
For better or worse there are no rival parties in Scotland, most of which are there undoing and not anything to do with the popularity of the SNP. No fortune involved. There's always gonna be complaints but the current Scottish government have performed as well as previous incumbents at worst.
As for your last paragraph, I said it before, cuts both ways regarding the rhetoric of both sides.

[Benny Brazil]

You've lost friends because of the vote ?
For better or worse there are no rival parties in Scotland, most of which are there undoing and not anything to do with the popularity of the SNP. No fortune involved. There's always gonna be complaints but the current Scottish government have performed as well as previous incumbents at worst.
As for your last paragraph, I said it before, cuts both ways regarding the rhetoric of both sides.

Lost is probably not the right word - but after being described constantly in the aftermath of the vote some of the descriptions I used above then its fair to say I dont view them as friends anymore.
Of course it cuts both ways but I dont see too many No voters celebrating the fact they voted No.

[McD]

Sorry dont usually get involved in political threads on here - but almost all Yes supporters I have spoken to or read posts from on other social media are saying exactly that about No voters.
People I used to be friendly with accused me of being "weak, gullable, a coward, lacking backbone" etc etc all because I voted No. The SNP never managed to convince me that a Yes vote would make Scotland a better place to live - they never managed to convince me that our country could prosper financially as an independent country, they were hardly convincing when it came the economy. And I would dare to say that this is the probably the main reason why many people voted No not because of any media bias or fear campaign - why do Yes voters try to make out that it was only the No voters who were ill informed and didnt bother to read about or research into the key issues.

For what its worth like Trig I am not wholly against the idea of independence - but I struggle with the idea that the SNP could run the country - they are not exactly setting the heather on fire just now. They are fortunate that their rival parties in Scotland are not much better. Oh for a John Smith or a Donald Dewar.
Its sad to see that so many Yes voters are driving a wedge between people in Scotland. All this crap with the I voted Yes and I am one of the proud 45 etc etc does nothing to help.


your entire post...:applause: Describes my own experiences to a T.

I should also add (not that you've implied it btw), that I've also had conversations with many Yes voters who weren't like this, and many No voters who weren't scaremongered into their choice of vote.

It's called democracy for a reason. People who voted No are not necessarily stupid, or cowards, or were scared into voting that way. Equally, people who voted Yes are just as entitled to their views and aren't necessarily English hating or thistle waving.

I do agree that a massive divide has grown and has continued to do so since the vote, and is continuing to do so because of how many people on both sides continue to look to score points and apportion blame for everything from the forth bridge closure to immigration to Syria to trident, instead of looking for consensus and discussion for a better way forward for everyone.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not "Your" real answers, or the ones you want. The Orange Order, Britain First, and Ukip wanted to stay in the Union did they not?


That's your detailed account for why independence is right?

Really?

In your own words Ronaldo7, your own words mind.

Why should we have voted Yes?

Positive explanations that make a reasoned and sensible case.

[marinello59]

It's not meant to be helpful, it's just factual. I won't change them nor will you. I'm working on others.


My response was factual.
Trig said he could see why independence could be attractive but not under the SNP. The important thing is he could be convinced to vote for independence, not what his own political views are. If those who vote for a centre right party can be convinced to vote for independence we will be home and dry. There is nothing wrong with holding the SNP line as consistently as you do but we really need to be reaching out to people of all political colours. I'm sure you agree with that.

[ronaldo7]

In your own words Ronaldo7, your own words mind.

Why should we have voted Yes?

Positive explanations that make a reasoned and sensible case.

You've had it before Mibbes. Self determination is all that matters. Making our own decisions.

We could go into many areas of policy, as I'm sure we have...Defence, Welfare, Economy, Health, etc, they're better in our hands rather than others.

Footnote: Before other mention Heath is in our hands...TTIP is not.

[ronaldo7]

My response was factual.
Trig said he could see why independence could be attractive but not under the SNP. The important thing is he could be convinced to vote for independence, not what his own political views are. If those who vote for a centre right party can be convinced to vote for independence we will be home and dry. There is nothing wrong with holding the SNP line as consistently as you do but we really need to be reaching out to people of all political colours. I'm sure you agree with that.

I'm sure Trig can determine what he/she wants to do. Totally up to them to make up their mind on the facts as the rest of us do. I'm happy with that.

[marinello59]

I'm sure Trig can determine what he/she wants to do. Totally up to them to make up their mind on the facts as the rest of us do. I'm happy with that.

We ain't going to win him over by dismissing him / her as Mrs Thatcher though.

[ronaldo7]

We ain't going to win him over by dismissing him / her as Mrs Thatcher though.

Nobody could dismiss Mrs T. Well, not now.

[Mibbes Aye]

In your own words Ronaldo7, your own words mind.

Why should we have voted Yes?

Positive explanations that make a reasoned and sensible case.


You've had it before Mibbes. Self determination is all that matters. Making our own decisions.

We could go into many areas of policy, as I'm sure we have...Defence, Welfare, Economy, Health, etc, they're better in our hands rather than others.

Footnote: Before other mention Heath is in our hands...TTIP is not.

I asked for positive explanations that made a reasoned and sensible case.

Do you want another go?

It's pretty basic. You want us to vote for independence, a big thing. Explain, in your own words, why we should?

[ronaldo7]

You've had it before Mibbes. Self determination is all that matters. Making our own decisions.

We could go into many areas of policy, as I'm sure we have...Defence, Welfare, Economy, Health, etc, they're better in our hands rather than others.

Footnote: Before other mention Heath is in our hands...TTIP is not.


I asked for positive explanations that made a reasoned and sensible case.

Do you want another go?

It's pretty basic. You want us to vote for independence, a big thing. Explain, in your own words, why we should?

Round the houses mate.

You've had it, again, and again, and again. Why can't a No voter move on:wink:

[stoneyburn hibs]

I asked for positive explanations that made a reasoned and sensible case.

Do you want another go?

It's pretty basic. You want us to vote for independence, a big thing. Explain, in your own words, why we should?

In the interests of a balanced view, you should present a case for Scotland not being Independent.

[marinello59]

I asked for positive explanations that made a reasoned and sensible case.

Do you want another go?

It's pretty basic. You want us to vote for independence, a big thing. Explain, in your own words, why we should?

I think he has answered you by saying that self determination is his priority. I'm not so sure he needs to add to that.

[Mibbes Aye]

Round the houses mate.

You've had it, again, and again, and again. Why can't a No voter move on:wink:

You can't give me a reasoned case for why I should vote Yes, can you?

[Mibbes Aye]

I think he has answered you by saying that self determination is his priority. I'm not so sure he needs to add to that.

Whose self though?

Why does his idea of self-determination trump mine?

[marinello59]

Whose self though?

Why does his idea of self-determination trump mine?

It doesn't. But it's his view.

[ronaldo7]

You can't give me a reasoned case for why I should vote Yes, can you?

You'll vote for what you want...won't you, as all "Grown men" will do:aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

It doesn't. But it's his view.

Fair enough.

But for something this important it needs a better case. And we singularly fail to see that case being articulated.

What does it say about what they think of us?

[Mibbes Aye]

You'll vote for what you want...won't you, as all "Grown men" will do:aok:

That'll be that democracy thing :agree:

I'm open-minded. Give me good reasons why I should vote Yes. I'm pragmatic and potentially would.

My caveat is I set a high bar as to what constitutes 'good' reasons.

Ball's in your court, Silly arguments will just alienate me and others though.

[ronaldo7]

That'll be that democracy thing :agree:

I'm open-minded. Give me good reasons why I should vote Yes. I'm pragmatic and potentially would.

My caveat is I set a high bar as to what constitutes 'good' reasons.

Ball's in your court, Silly arguments will just alienate me and others though.

Post 154. That's all

[Benny Brazil]

Post 154. That's all

Can you give some more detail as to how the economy is better is our hands?

[Mibbes Aye]

Post 154. That's all

That doesn't say anything! It's just a bunch of nouns!

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Give me a reasoned, sensible and plausible reason for why independence is better. I dare you.

While you're at it, give me a proper explanation for the council tax freeze. It's the flagship policy of your party, how does it make our country better and how does it promote social justice?

[Sir David Gray]

That doesn't say anything! It's just a bunch of nouns!

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Give me a reasoned, sensible and plausible reason for why independence is better. I dare you.

While you're at it, give me a proper explanation for the council tax freeze. It's the flagship policy of your party, how does it make our country better and how does it promote social justice?

:agree:

[lord bunberry]

Lots of people will continue to be in the No camp, as they want to be in it. Some of them are Orange Order, Britain First, Ukip, etc. Others are dyed in the wool Unionist, with some others just happy to go along with the status quo.

However some of the 55% will see the light, (and they are doing), and when they do, we'll have our Independence, and not a Nationalist in sight:wink:

Just People who hold their hopes in their own hands.:aok:
Amen sister

[lord bunberry]

That doesn't say anything! It's just a bunch of nouns!

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Give me a reasoned, sensible and plausible reason for why independence is better. I dare you.

While you're at it, give me a proper explanation for the council tax freeze. It's the flagship policy of your party, how does it make our country better and how does it promote social justice?
Was the council tax freeze better than council tax rises? Your right about it being a non progressive policy, but it was was a policy that was welcomed by almost the entire country.

[Moulin Yarns]

Was the council tax freeze better than council tax rises? Your right about it being a non progressive policy, but it was was a policy that was welcomed by almost the entire country.

And copied in English local authorities so it must have been seen as a good thing. But some folk still won't accept that :wink:

[Beefster]

And copied in English local authorities so it must have been seen as a good thing. But some folk still won't accept that :wink:

Aren't you a member of the Green Party? Slightly bizarre because, aside from one other poster, you're as big a SNP cheerleader as I've seen on here.

As has been explained repeatedly on here, it's the hypocrisy of the SNP's position that is the problem on the likes of the council tax freeze and free prescriptions. Constantly banging on about poverty, "Bombs not bairns", the non-progressive policies of the U.K. Government etc etc etc whilst implementing one policy that benefits the middle/upper classes much more then those living in poverty and another that uses up NHS money on folk who could happily afford to pay.

It's amazing how principles get quietly swept under the carpet when the wrong political parties are involved.

[Moulin Yarns]

Aren't you a member of the Green Party? Slightly bizarre because, aside from one other poster, you're as big a SNP cheerleader as I've seen on here.

As has been explained repeatedly on here, it's the hypocrisy of the SNP's position that is the problem on the likes of the council tax freeze and free prescriptions. Constantly banging on about poverty, "Bombs not bairns", the non-progressive policies of the U.K. Government etc etc etc whilst implementing one policy that benefits the middle/upper classes much more then those living in poverty and another that uses up NHS money on folk who could happily afford to pay.

It's amazing how principles get quietly swept under the carpet when the wrong political parties are involved.

Pointing out a fact, that's all. Fed up with followers of other parties critisism when not offering any alternative. Land and property tax for example.

[RyeSloan]

You've had it before Mibbes. Self determination is all that matters. Making our own decisions. We could go into many areas of policy, as I'm sure we have...Defence, Welfare, Economy, Health, etc, they're better in our hands rather than others. Footnote: Before other mention Heath is in our hands...TTIP is not.

I'm interested how that squares with being in the EU.

There is a real prospect that the UK will vote to leave which the SNP may use to force another ref. In which they will argue for Scotland to leave the UK but keep the pound but stay a member of the EU...how does that square with self determination?

[Sir David Gray]

I'm interested how that squares with being in the EU.

There is a real prospect that the UK will vote to leave which the SNP may use to force another ref. In which they will argue for Scotland to leave the UK but keep the pound but stay a member of the EU...how does that square with self determination?

:top marks That's one of the main reasons why I can't take the SNP seriously.

How will Scotland be an independent country, when we'll just go from being ruled by Westminster to being ruled by Brussels?

I have never understood that at all.

[johnbc70]

Did Sturgeon back the idea of a EU referendum? If not then how did she square that one away.

[Peevemor]

:top marks That's one of the main reasons why I can't take the SNP seriously.

How will Scotland be an independent country, when we'll just go from being ruled by Westminster to being ruled by Brussels?

I have never understood that at all.

So is Germany ruled by Brussels. Is France? Is Westminster?

[Peevemor]

Did Sturgeon back the idea of a EU referendum? If not then how did she square that one away.

Why should she? Is there a huge anti-EU sentiment or movement in Scotland?

[johnbc70]

Why should she? Is there a huge anti-EU sentiment or movement in Scotland?

They called the referendum when support for Yes was in the 20%-30% range so is that a huge anti UK sentiment?

The majority of Scots never wanted to leave the UK and the majority do not want to leave the EU but tell me what is the difference? Total double standards.

[Hibrandenburg]

They called the referendum when support for Yes was in the 20%-30% range so is that a huge anti UK sentiment?

The majority of Scots never wanted to leave the UK and the majority do not want to leave the EU but tell me what is the difference? Total double standards.

If you don't understand the difference between EU membership and UK membership there's not a lot of point discussing this further. Two completely different agreements. Your argument is akin to asking people why they don't eat broccoli just because they like potatoes.

[Peevemor]

They called the referendum when support for Yes was in the 20%-30% range so is that a huge anti UK sentiment?

The majority of Scots never wanted to leave the UK and the majority do not want to leave the EU but tell me what is the difference? Total double standards.

But Scotland, as part of the UK, can't unilaterally leave the EU so a referendum would serve no purpose. Your argument would only work post-independance.

[HH81]

15723

Done well to have 98% battery at 3.06pm.

[johnbc70]

If you don't understand the difference between EU membership and UK membership there's not a lot of point discussing this further. Two completely different agreements. Your argument is akin to asking people why they don't eat broccoli just because they like potatoes.
It's the principal of it rather than what it is about.

[johnbc70]

But Scotland, as part of the UK, can't unilaterally leave the EU so a referendum would serve no purpose. Your argument would only work post-independance.

The UK can and we voted to remain part of the UK and everything that comes with that, or do we get to pick and choose which bits we like and don't like.

[Peevemor]

The UK can and we voted to remain part of the UK and everything that comes with that, or do we get to pick and choose which bits we like and don't like.

In just over a year since the referendum, Westminster has not delivered the promises contained in "The Vow", Scottish MPs have had their voting powers diminished (even though some of the issues concerned DO have an eventual effect on Scottish funding) and Westminster voted to bomb Syria despite an estimated 70% of Scots being against. If the UK votes to leave the EU, going by current opnion, this will also be against the will of the Scots.

This isn't about getting to "pick and choose which bits we like and don't like". It's about how the Scottish electorate react to the undisguised contempt that Westminster is showing toward it.

[JeMeSouviens]

The UK can and we voted to remain part of the UK and everything that comes with that, or do we get to pick and choose which bits we like and don't like.

Well, no we didn't and I think that was the main flaw in the No side's prospectus. Remember "safer, faster change" and all the usual vow related soundbites. We were effectively told that we could pick and choose the bits we liked.

It got them through the vote, but I'm not convinced it's doing unionist parties any favours in the long run.

[JeMeSouviens]

:top marks That's one of the main reasons why I can't take the SNP seriously.

How will Scotland be an independent country, when we'll just go from being ruled by Westminster to being ruled by Brussels?

I have never understood that at all.

But the UK is a member of the EU. So why isn't it going from being ruled by Brussels to ruled by Brussels?

[Hibrandenburg]

But the UK is a member of the EU. So why isn't it going from being ruled by Brussels to ruled by Brussels?

:agree:

[Benny Brazil]

In just over a year since the referendum, Westminster has not delivered the promises contained in "The Vow", Scottish MPs have had their voting powers diminished (even though some of the issues concerned DO have an eventual effect on Scottish funding) and Westminster voted to bomb Syria despite an estimated 70% of Scots being against. If the UK votes to leave the EU, going by current opinion, this will also be against the will of the Scots.

This isn't about getting to "pick and choose which bits we like and don't like". It's about how the Scottish electorate react to the undisguised contempt that Westminster is showing toward it.

Not saying you are wrong Peeve and this post isn't to prove a point for one side or the other - but I haven't seen this stated anywhere, was there a credible opinion poll on this or something to back it up?
I have heard the SNP mention this as a way to possibly getting another referendum which I can understand how people would think its double standards - its not ok to be governed by England but its ok to be governed by Brussels.

[Peevemor]

Not saying you are wrong Peeve and this post isn't to prove a point for one side or the other - but I haven't seen this stated anywhere, was there a credible opinion poll on this or something to back it up?
I have heard the SNP mention this as a way to possibly getting another referendum which I can understand how people would think its double standards - its not ok to be governed by England but its ok to be governed by Brussels.

From 18/11/2015


Two-thirds of Scots will vote in favour of the United Kingdom remaining within the EU.


An Ipsos MORI, commissioned by STV, on the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) found almost two-thirds of Scots (65%) report that they would vote to remain in the EU with 22% voting to leave and 13% saying they don’t know. This contrasts with latest Ipsos MORI Britain-wide polling on the issue from August where support to remain in the EU was lower (52%) while 36% wanted to leave.






http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-65-of-scots-favour-remaining-in-eu-1-3951987

[Benny Brazil]

From 18/11/2015





http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-65-of-scots-favour-remaining-in-eu-1-3951987

:aok:

Will be interesting to see how this one pans out - I am not convinced the UK as whole will vote to leave the EU.

[RyeSloan]

:aok: Will be interesting to see how this one pans out - I am not convinced the UK as whole will vote to leave the EU.

Me neither but if it does it raises the prospect of the SNP wanting another referendum in which they will campaign to leave the UK (now outside of the EU) but retain the pound while wishing to stay inside of the EU with its stated desire for ever closer political and monetary union.

It doesn't take a qualified economist to see that state of affairs as mightily odd.

[easty]

Me neither but if it does it raises the prospect of the SNP wanting another referendum in which they will campaign to leave the UK (now outside of the EU) but retain the pound while wishing to stay inside of the EU with its stated desire for ever closer political and monetary union.

It doesn't take a qualified economist to see that state of affairs as mightily odd.

I don't see what's odd about the SNP wanting that at all. They obviously want independence, they want to remain in the EU, and they want to use the £, which is our currency at the moment. What's odd?

[marinello59]

Done well to have 98% battery at 3.06pm.

That's why we are better together. If Yes had won the day we would be communicating by carrier pigeon now.

[Benny Brazil]

I don't see what's odd about the SNP wanting that at all. They obviously want independence, they want to remain in the EU, and they want to use the £, which is our currency at the moment. What's odd?

Using the currency of the country they are wanting to break away from - which will still result in some form of currency union with the rest of the UK. Something that was never clearly explained during the referendum. Would be interested to know if the SNP have come up with a different strategy on this.

[easty]

Using the currency of the country they are wanting to break away from - which will still result in some form of currency union with the rest of the UK. Something that was never clearly explained during the referendum. Would be interested to know if the SNP have come up with a different strategy on this.

It's such a flimsy argument, the "how can we want to be independent, but still use the £" one.

Its our currency too...we even have our own banknotes that some places in England won't accept!

I'm no saying there aren't things that would need to be addressed, but when we do vote for independence I've no doubt we'll be using the £.

[RyeSloan]

I don't see what's odd about the SNP wanting that at all. They obviously want independence, they want to remain in the EU, and they want to use the £, which is our currency at the moment. What's odd?

Really? You see nothing odd about wanting to gain independence from the UK but at the same time tethering yourself to its currency and it's now non EU economy while at the same time arguing to be an integral part of the EU's ever closer political and fiscal union by way of possibly one of the least democratic institutions ever created and whose key players use a different currency altogether while being dominated by the desires and needs of Germany and France.

Fair enough if you consider that a normal thing to do, personally it hurts my head just thinking about why anyone would consider that an even remotely sane course of action to suggest taking.

[marinello59]

Really? You see nothing odd about wanting to gain independence from the UK but at the same time tethering yourself to its currency and it's now non EU economy while at the same time arguing to be an integral part of the EU's ever closer political and fiscal union by way of possibly one of the least democratic institutions ever created and whose key players use a different currency altogether while being dominated by the desires and needs of Germany and France.

Fair enough if you consider that a normal thing to do, personally it hurts my head just thinking about why anyone would consider that an even remotely sane course of action to suggest taking.

Kevin Bridges dealt with the currency problem pretty well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRIQL4lvIqU

[johnbc70]

I don't see what's odd about the SNP wanting that at all. They obviously want independence, they want to remain in the EU, and they want to use the £, which is our currency at the moment. What's odd?

Is it odd that interest rates for Scotland would be set by the BoE, an institution that would have no requirement to take into account any economic circumstances in Scotland when setting the rates.

[easty]

Is it odd that interest rates for Scotland would be set by the BoE, an institution that would have no requirement to take into account any economic circumstances in Scotland when setting the rates.

Our economies are similar, if that changed, and the level that interest rates were being set at wasn't suitable for us, then the situation would be changed.

[Kavinho]

Is it odd that interest rates for Scotland would be set by the BoE, an institution that would have no requirement to take into account any economic circumstances in Scotland when setting the rates.


Why does it have to stay that way for more than say 1, 2, or 5 years?

A move towards independence means a move towards its own institutions who can determine what is in Scotland, and Scottish people's best interests.

you can't one night be British, the next Scottish.

Dis-integration is not an overnight process.. Why that viewpoint wasn't debunked last year, I don't really know.

the whole notion of a collapse in the workings of the country was always total nonsense. The 'laws' of self interest governs that beyond dispute. It is not, and never would, be in England, Wales or Northern Ireland interests to watch Scotland descend into chaos.

[johnbc70]

All very well saying it will change and does not have to stay that way forever but what exactly is phase 2 then? What happens in 5 years time after a Yes vote to the BoE and who will set our interest rates? Not enough detail in the plans and too much let's wait and see. Would suggest I am not the only one that thinks like that, it you don't get drawn in on the emotional aspect then it comes down to hard facts and looking at the detail which is sadly lacking.

[Kavinho]

All very well saying it will change and does not have to stay that way forever but what exactly is phase 2 then? What happens in 5 years time after a Yes vote to the BoE and who will set our interest rates? Not enough detail in the plans and too much let's wait and see. Would suggest I am not the only one that thinks like that, it you don't get drawn in on the emotional aspect then it comes down to hard facts and looking at the detail which is sadly lacking.



Is it it hard facts, or is it possibly an unwillingness to trust in the abilities of your fellow countrymen to do what is right for you and them? There can be a thousand options, but only 1 come to pass.. You can throw up as many what ifs, and for every one that answers a concern, it raises another 5 corollaries. It becomes an endless labyrinth.

if one was to take your approach on this, and apply it to Europes development...... - there's been 60 years of treaty upon treaty to implement the structures required. You start at the first step, and you plan for 2/3 more, and you redo that at every step and fine tune your plan as it closes in.

The Treaty of Rome in 1957 didn't contemplate a common currency (just as an example).

If you look at Ireland, it tethered itself to the uk for 20 years before slowly cutting the ties (like the common currency for eg). It slowly established what was required, and gently moved towards self sufficiency, and self governance. The Irish Pound was linked to sterling for decades.

By the way I'm not suggesting any emotional argument here.

Im being pragmatic in my thinking about what the process of decoupling could potentially look like.

But Equally, I don't think I'm holding up any unrealistic barriers, and needing to understand every minute detail in how it might all fit together.. Because I honestly don't think that can be known to the level that you are saying is required.

No personal attack here, please recognise, apologies if upon reading this you feel it might be - it's intended simply as as an open, alternative position for you to genuinely consider.

And I say "you", simply, as it's been your good self who have put across the most recent opinions of what it might take to consider an alternative vote should it ever come to pass again in our lifetimes.

[Kavinho]

All very well saying it will change and does not have to stay that way forever but what exactly is phase 2 then? What happens in 5 years time after a Yes vote to the BoE and who will set our interest rates? Not enough detail in the plans and too much let's wait and see. Would suggest I am not the only one that thinks like that, it you don't get drawn in on the emotional aspect then it comes down to hard facts and looking at the detail which is sadly lacking.


And by the way phase 2 would be whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the Scottish people first and foremost whenever it came to deciding what and when phase 2 would be..


Thats not a cop out... It's just No one knows what's around the corner.. We didn't expect to be in a war over Syria a few weeks ago, or that Oscar Pistorius would now be facing 15 years in jail!

All I think anyone can ask for, is that those in power are considering what is best for the citizens of this nation.


Edit/addition:
in my own personal opinion, phase 2 would be the establishment of a Scottish Central Bank with full autonomy over the Country's Monetary policy, and the ability to set interest rates at a level that best helps the Scottish economy..

[easty]

And by the way phase 2 would be whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the Scottish people first and foremost whenever it came to deciding what and when phase 2 would be..


Thats not a cop out... It's just No one knows what's around the corner.. We didn't expect to be in a war over Syria a few weeks ago, or that Oscar Pistorius would now be facing 15 years in jail!

All I think anyone can ask for, is that those in power are considering what is best for the citizens of this nation.


Edit/addition:
in my own personal opinion, phase 2 would be the establishment of a Scottish Central Bank with full autonomy over the Country's Monetary policy, and the ability to set interest rates at a level that best helps the Scottish economy..

That's my opinion too. That would be the end goal, but there's just no need to have it in place for Independance Day. It's not necessary.

[Sir David Gray]

So is Germany ruled by Brussels. Is France? Is Westminster?


But the UK is a member of the EU. So why isn't it going from being ruled by Brussels to ruled by Brussels?

You've both missed my point.

The SNP is a party that is trying to gain independence for Scotland and going on about self determination etc etc. Therefore I cannot understand, for the life of me, how a pro-independence party can support Scotland leaving the UK but propose that we then immediately get signed up as the latest member state of the European Union.

The idea just sounds daft to me.

[Peevemor]

"Independence within Europe" has been an SNP tenet for a long time now. Sorry, but I'm struggling to see what's daft about it. Adhering to EU regulations is not the same as being ruled by Westminster. Surely you can see that?

[Peevemor]

Trust that old scrote

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/call-for-second-chamber-to-provide-check-on-snp-power-1-3969173

[marinello59]

Trust that old scrote

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/call-for-second-chamber-to-provide-check-on-snp-power-1-3969173

He has a point although putting increased checks in to the committee system would be a more cost effective way of doing things.

[Peevemor]

He has a point although putting increased checks in to the committee system would be a more cost effective way of doing things.

He wants to elect a second chamber at the same time as the parliament. Surely this would mean that the political make up of each chamber would be basically the same - so what would be the point?

Seems to me like he's looking for another trough for his snout.

[marinello59]

He wants to elect a second chamber at the same time as the parliament. Surely this would mean that the political make up of each chamber would be basically the same - so what would be the point?

Seems to me like he's looking for another trough for his snout.

No matter what is motivation is he has addressed a genuine concern. I don't like the idea of another chamber but it is one solution.

[Peevemor]

No matter what is motivation is he has addressed a genuine concern. I don't like the idea of another chamber but it is one solution.

Those elected to Westminster by Scotland don't have full voting rights, now he wants to diminish the powers of those at Holyrood. It's basically Scotland Regional Council - there are already controls in place in that London controls the most important budgets.

Labour set up the electoral system for the Scottish Government in such a way that no party (apart from maybe themselves) would ever have an overall majority, except nobody foresaw their collapse in Scotland. Do you think he'd be calling for a second chamber if Labour were in power?

[marinello59]

Those elected to Westminster by Scotland don't have full voting rights, now he wants to diminish the powers of those at Holyrood. It's basically Scotland Regional Council - there are already controls in place in that London controls the most important budgets.

Labour set up the electoral system for the Scottish Government in such a way that no party (apart from maybe themselves) would ever have an overall majority, except nobody foresaw their collapse in Scotland. Do you think he'd be calling for a second chamber if Labour were in power?

I don't see how he what he is proposing would diminish the powers of those at Holyrood. :confused:
No I don't think he would be calling for a second chamber if Labour were in the situation that the SNP find themselves in. That doesn't make him wrong. Like I said, my preference is for a re-vamp of the committee system but it is worth discussing having a second elected chamber.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Trust that old scrote

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/call-for-second-chamber-to-provide-check-on-snp-power-1-3969173

Unionist toilet paper.

[Peevemor]

I don't see how he what he is proposing would diminish the powers of those at Holyrood. :confused:
No I don't think he would be calling for a second chamber if Labour were in the situation that the SNP find themselves in. That doesn't make him wrong. Like I said, my preference is for a re-vamp of the committee system but it is worth discussing having a second elected chamber.



...would have the power to scrutinise and revise legislation and set up committees which could call ministers to give evidence.


He said the House of Lords had proved the value of a second chamber by telling the government to “think again” on issues...


And who would these part-time (his suggestion) 'senators' be? The same sort of politicians who are currently punted to the House of Lords to keep them out of harm's way?

[Geo_1875]

I don't see how he what he is proposing would diminish the powers of those at Holyrood. :confused:
No I don't think he would be calling for a second chamber if Labour were in the situation that the SNP find themselves in. That doesn't make him wrong. Like I said, my preference is for a re-vamp of the committee system but it is worth discussing having a second elected chamber.

Only works if they can agree on some things. Wouldn't work here unless one party had control of both chambers and then what's the point.

[Sir David Gray]

"Independence within Europe" has been an SNP tenet for a long time now. Sorry, but I'm struggling to see what's daft about it. Adhering to EU regulations is not the same as being ruled by Westminster. Surely you can see that?

We wouldn't just be adhering to EU regulations though would we?

We would become part of one massive super-state, which has completely replaced the sovereignty of each member state. Countries now have to get things approved by the European Union before they can pass certain laws.

One bone of contention that is always mentioned by SNP supporters is that we are ruled by English MPs at Westminster. However all that will happen is that, in addition to English MEPs, we'll be ruled by German, French and Italian MEPs as well.

That doesn't sound like my idea of independence.

[RyeSloan]

We wouldn't just be adhering to EU regulations though would we? We would become part of one massive super-state, which has completely replaced the sovereignty of each member state. Countries now have to get things approved by the European Union before they can pass certain laws. One bone of contention that is always mentioned by SNP supporters is that we are ruled by English MPs at Westminster. However all that will happen is that, in addition to English MEPs, we'll be ruled by German, French and Italian MEPs as well. That doesn't sound like my idea of independence.

And that's being generous in suggesting MEP's have any real influence on the direction of the EU!

[marinello59]

And who would these part-time (his suggestion) 'senators' be? The same sort of politicians who are currently punted to the House of Lords to keep them out of harm's way?

I thought he was proposing a directly elected sort of thing. It's a definite no from me then if it's by appointment only.

[easty]

We wouldn't just be adhering to EU regulations though would we?

We would become part of one massive super-state, which has completely replaced the sovereignty of each member state. Countries now have to get things approved by the European Union before they can pass certain laws.

One bone of contention that is always mentioned by SNP supporters is that we are ruled by English MPs at Westminster. However all that will happen is that, in addition to English MEPs, we'll be ruled by German, French and Italian MEPs as well.

That doesn't sound like my idea of independence.

So, Germany and France and Italy aren't independant countries either then, no? Utter waffling nonsense.

[Peevemor]

I thought he was proposing a directly elected sort of thing. It's a definite no from me then if it's by appointment only.

He is proposing elected positions. I just wonder who would seek or be proposed for these posts - I doubt it'll be those at the cutting edge.

[Sir David Gray]

So, Germany and France and Italy aren't independant countries either then, no? Utter waffling nonsense.

The point being that instead of just having MPs in England having the biggest influence on our laws in Scotland, we would be ruled instead by MEPs, not only from England, but from France, Germany and Italy as well.

As I said, that's not independence where I come from.

[easty]

The point being that instead of just having MPs in England having the biggest influence on our laws in Scotland, we would be ruled instead by MEPs, not only from England, but from France, Germany and Italy as well.

As I said, that's not independence where I come from.

So, yes, you're saying that Germany, France and Italy aren't countries that can say they're "independant" then. Because you can't have it both ways, if Scotland isn't independant if it wants to be part of the EU, then the same applies to all the other member countries.

[Peevemor]

The point being that instead of just having MPs in England having the biggest influence on our laws in Scotland...

... we'd have MSPs in Scotland having the biggest influence on our laws in Scotland.

[marinello59]

He is proposing elected positions. I just wonder who would seek or be proposed for these posts - I doubt it'll be those at the cutting edge.

I'd like to think there is an abundance of talented candidates in Scotland who could be persuaded to put themselves forward for election if it came to pass. Have a bit more faith in your fellow Scots. :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

The point being that instead of just having MPs in England having the biggest influence on our laws in Scotland, we would be ruled instead by MEPs, not only from England, but from France, Germany and Italy as well.

As I said, that's not independence where I come from.

There's so many differences I don't know where to begin. However if an independent Scotland wanted to leave the EU it could basically do it at the drop of a hat, to leave the union we have to get permission from Westminster first.

[Jonnyboy]

I'd like to think there is an abundance of talented candidates in Scotland who could be persuaded to put themselves forward for election if it came to pass. Have a bit more faith in your fellow Scots. :greengrin

I'll do it. Part time and great pay and expenses. What more could you ask for?

BTW, I'm not being serious (about doing it) :greengrin

[marinello59]

I'll do it. Part time and great pay and expenses. What more could you ask for?

BTW, I'm not being serious (about doing it) :greengrin

:greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

There's so many differences I don't know where to begin. However if an independent Scotland wanted to leave the EU it could basically do it at the drop of a hat, to leave the union we have to get permission from Westminster first.

OK fair enough.

I just believe that membership of the European Union runs contrary to the basic concept of gaining independence and I find it odd that any pro-independence political party would think otherwise.

[stoneyburn hibs]

OK fair enough.

I just believe that membership of the European Union runs contrary to the basic concept of gaining independence and I find it odd that any pro-independence political party would think otherwise.

Think of it as cutting out the middleman 😊

[Kavinho]

OK fair enough.

I just believe that membership of the European Union runs contrary to the basic concept of gaining independence and I find it odd that any pro-independence political party would think otherwise.

I think that you can't forget the original reasons for the founding of the European Union,(and all its forerunners).

It was set up by a grouping of independent countries, with the aims of protecting each single states independence - primarily by economic betterment policies and political methods to ensure European states would never end up at war with each other again.


The over arching principles is protection of independent states by ever closening ties to make war all but impossible. Openess, dialogue,negotiation, for the betterment of all its citizens.

Although I see the initial apparent paradox, through that prism, I can't really understand the viewpoint that a small state (already in Europe) wouldn't want to play its (small) part in that, and reap the associated benefits

[RyeSloan]

I think that you can't forget the original reasons for the founding of the European Union,(and all its forerunners). It was set up by a grouping of independent countries, with the aims of protecting each single states independence - primarily by economic betterment policies and political methods to ensure European states would never end up at war with each other again. The over arching principles is protection of independent states by ever closening ties to make war all but impossible. Openess, dialogue,negotiation, for the betterment of all its citizens. Although I see the initial apparent paradox, through that prism, I can't really understand the viewpoint that a small state (already in Europe) wouldn't want to play its (small) part in that, and reap the associated benefits

But he question is now...what benefits? The EU is hardly a paradigm of economic vitality is it? Look at the financial oppression in Greece, Spain, Portugal etc etc.

It's time to reevaluate the benefits of the membership of a union that has no political accountability but has stated aims of every closer union not just blindly state that a newly independent nation should automatically join such an opaque and clearly struggling institution, especially when at the same time advocating not using that institutions predominant currency.

[Kavinho]

But he question is now...what benefits? The EU is hardly a paradigm of economic vitality is it? Look at the financial oppression in Greece, Spain, Portugal etc etc.

It's time to reevaluate the benefits of the membership of a union that has no political accountability but has stated aims of every closer union not just blindly state that a newly independent nation should automatically join such an opaque and clearly struggling institution, especially when at the same time advocating not using that institutions predominant currency.

Arguably there isn't a paradigm of economic vitality currently anywhere in the world right now.

1st (ongoing) benefit is the sustained period of intra-European stability. There was only 30 years between 2 world wars.. no major conflict in Europe since the beginnings of European integration.

2nd is clearly the Economic benefit of free trade, and the removal of tariffs amongst the EU block.

This is undoubtedly a benefit. . So much so that the US created is own equivalent with NAFTA.

3rdly is the freedom of an individual to move freely around the continent.


Is hard to re-evaluate the benefits if we dismiss the most crucial of all being the foundation and continuation of a stable (geo - politically) continent.

Isolation, in an ever shrinking world, is not the answer for me, whether as an independent Scottish nation, or as part of the wider UK.



Regarding your financial oppression point, I'd counter that the majority of the imposed 'reform' measures are coming from Lagarde's IMF. An institution despite its name, set up in the main to promote globalisation and the march of (predominantly) American conglomerates and multi nationals.


"We'll provide the shorter term bailout, as long as you make structural changes to your economy that will support our (Capitalist/globalisation) Interests into the longer term".

[RyeSloan]

Arguably there isn't a paradigm of economic vitality currently anywhere in the world right now. 1st (ongoing) benefit is the sustained period of intra-European stability. There was only 30 years between 2 world wars.. no major conflict in Europe since the beginnings of European integration. 2nd is clearly the Economic benefit of free trade, and the removal of tariffs amongst the EU block. This is undoubtedly a benefit. . So much so that the US created is own equivalent with NAFTA. 3rdly is the freedom of an individual to move freely around the continent. Is hard to re-evaluate the benefits if we dismiss the most crucial of all being the foundation and continuation of a stable (geo - politically) continent. Isolation, in an ever shrinking world, is not the answer for me, whether as an independent Scottish nation, or as part of the wider UK. Regarding your financial oppression point, I'd counter that the majority of the imposed 'reform' measures are coming from Lagarde's IMF. An institution despite its name, set up in the main to promote globalisation and the march of (predominantly) American conglomerates and multi nationals. "We'll provide the shorter term bailout, as long as you make structural changes to your economy that will support our (Capitalist/globalisation) Interests into the longer term".

Actually I agree with you...free movement of labour and removals of trade barriers are the EU's biggest successes. If it was left at that then there wouldn't be much of an issue but with the creation of the Euro we had a politically motivated move that will be defended to the end no matter the cost to the European people. It's went too far and wants to go further, yet the party that is allegedly desperate for an independent Scotland meekly and without question insists we should be party to an EU that has a stated desire for more centralisation of economic and political power. It's an oxymoron to me and one I'm clearly struggling to get my head around.

As for the IMF...oh so true. Little more than a weapon of the U.S. to use the dollar and its influence to maintain the position of the U.S. on the global economic stage.

[Kavinho]

Actually I agree with you...free movement of labour and removals of trade barriers are the EU's biggest successes. If it was left at that then there wouldn't be much of an issue but with the creation of the Euro we had a politically motivated move that will be defended to the end no matter the cost to the European people. It's went too far and wants to go further, yet the party that is allegedly desperate for an independent Scotland meekly and without question insists we should be party to an EU that has a stated desire for more centralisation of economic and political power. It's an oxymoron to me and one I'm clearly struggling to get my head around.

As for the IMF...oh so true. Little more than a weapon of the U.S. to use the dollar and its influence to maintain the position of the U.S. on the global economic stage.

Recommended reading on this topic would be john m perkins - confessions of an economic hitman
And
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine (which you can find a film on You Tube if the massive book is to much!!)

[ronaldo7]

Lets all prepare for another Indyref in the next few years. Roll on Indy2.

https://t.co/x86sraql2E

[ronaldo7]

Better Together bods have lost £57,000 and been fined £2,000

It seems those bus loads of "Activists" from south of the border cost more than they thought.:wink:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35351396

[speedy_gonzales]

Better Together bods have lost £57,000 and been fined £2,000

It seems those bus loads of "Activists" from south of the border cost more than they thought.:wink:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35351396
This is all getting a bit tiresome and can't believe we're still wading through this cess pool of misinformation.

Where does it say BT lost £57K?

They failed to detail the £57K spend within a set time frame so were fined, £2K.

You also fail to mention the other fines that were implemented as reported in the same article?

[ronaldo7]

This is all getting a bit tiresome and can't believe we're still wading through this cess pool of misinformation.

Where does it say BT lost £57K?

They failed to detail the £57K spend within a set time frame so were fined, £2K.

You also fail to mention the other fines that were implemented as reported in the same article?

My choice of words might have been better:wink:

I'd thought people might like to see that many parties/organisations didn't get their act together so to speak. BNP, Wings, and many others. I do think that an organisation at Big as BT would have been BETTER organised though.

[Jones28]

I find it hard to believe that the SNP would have blindly pushed for independance had they not worked the economics out first and ensured that Scotland could have afforded it.

I also severely doubt that they would have done it on the reliance of oil - which is fairly volatile market if you look at pricing over the past decade or so - staying at a certain price.

There are good points being made by both sides about the campaigns. Instead of alienating/condescending/patronising people because of the way they voted more of us need to explain why we wanted independance - or not as the case may be. Personally it was about self determination and making our own way in the world. It was anti monarchy, anti English, romanticism. I lived in Lincolnshire for 9 months so it would be a bit contradictive of me to say so.

I found the build up to the campaign a really exciting time. I went to debates and rallies prior to the vote and heard some very intelligent people argue for independance. I think that reassured me more than most other things.

Nationalism isn't generally a good thing. It stirs up past glories that side track people from real and relevant arguments. I vote SNP and Yes because I didn't like the alternative. However after independance had been achieved I would have probably voted for a new, re-aligned Labour Party or the Greens.

Truth be told no-one knows what would have happened had independance became a reality. It would only just be kicking in now (January 2016 was the time the transition would be complete if I'm not mistaken?) and I think there would have been a lot of nervous ***** in Holyrood if oil prices had collapsed on the same way. Contrary to the current situation though, when prices inevitably start to climb again Scotland would have been left with circa 27 billion barrels to sell at a reasonable sum. Swings and roundabouts when for some short term loss there would have been long term recovery and hopefully a profit.

Scotland is a leader in technology, more importantly renewables. We are a great wee nation for any company to want to come here and set up shop from abroad. In 2015 Scotland generated 49.7% of our gross energy from renewable sources* and is targeting 100% in 2020. It's a shame that the UK government are building nuclear power plants when they should be focussing so much more on renewables.

Essay over 🍻



*http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00491539.pdf

[Dashing Bob S]

I think in the long-term bigger picture, you would have to be a bit of idiot to doubt that Scotland, with 6million people, and resource rich, couldn't develop a stronger economy than the one we have now, as an afterthought branch economy of the UK reliant on an inherently unstable London based financial services sector. You are better being run by people who actually care about the economic success of a place, and actively want to develop it.

However, in the short term, there would definitely be a transitional gap, in my opinion, where the country would be worse off, especially if the price of oil (currently kept artificially low by the Saudis in order to maintain influence over the US, particularly over their development of fracking) was to remain at this level.

I think most of the younger people will be happy to take the short-term hit, while the older ones are happy to sit it out. This is to some extent self-renewing, but also cultural, as this generation of elderly lived in an era of post-war affluence.

However, I believe that the UK economy will continue to stagnate, and is vulnerable, being reliant on the volatile financial services sector. The financial crisis in China, in particular, gives grounds for concern, as do the difficulties in the emerging economies of India, Brazil and Russia. China will greatly impact on the USA, being it's biggest debtor, which will then have potentially catastrophic ramifications for the UK.

Of course, there will be shock waves all over, but I feel the social democratic Scandinavian states (which Scotland aspires to being) have a much better chance to ride this out satisfactorily than a British economy so reliant on fiance.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[Beefster]

I read something a while ago that showed that the importance of financial services to both the UK and Scotland was usually overstated. IIRC it represents a bit less than 10% of the economies of both Scotland and the remainder. Not trivial but not exactly completely reliant.

As for folk willing to take a hit on the economy, IMHi this is the normal response when folk are faced with abstract notions. When jobs are being lost, poverty is rising and the suffering is real, I doubt folk would be so willing.

[speedy_gonzales]

Scotland is a leader in technology, more importantly renewables.

Are we a global leader in technology? I know we've punched above our weight in the past but don't know if that's the case nowadays. I thought we were on a par with other similar sized countries although it's hard to tell as a lot of the breakthroughs, including those at university hospital level, are a result of collaborative cross border working.

I believe the Spanish were once heavily involved in the engineering and financing of our tidal/coastal renewables but I'd heard this is no longer the case!?!

[RyeSloan]

Are we a global leader in technology? I know we've punched above our weight in the past but don't know if that's the case nowadays. I thought we were on a par with other similar sized countries although it's hard to tell as a lot of the breakthroughs, including those at university hospital level, are a result of collaborative cross border working. I believe the Spanish were once heavily involved in the engineering and financing of our tidal/coastal renewables but I'd heard this is no longer the case!?!

It's a nice sound bite and straight out the SNP hyperbole play boom and sure we have some technology and renewable expertise but to say we are a global leader in technology is just daft.

Very very easy to see the U.S. are the leaders in that area with Scotland a mere afterthought when you consider companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, IBM, Cisco etc etc etc. even in a UK sense the main tech growth is seen in the likes of silicon roundabout in London.

And as for renewables, I reckon the Chinese are probably ahead of most and now have a huge state sponsored drive to EV's and clean energy to propel them further, again look at the largest companies in the renewables sector and you see companies like First solar and Siemens and a host of Chinese companies. Just having a relatively large installed renewables capacity doesn't make your nation a leader in the industry.

Scottish companies are no where near the levels of those mentioned above, sure there might be small success stories in niche areas but world leaders in tech and renewable? Naw.

Would independence change any of that? Who knows but let's not pretend we are world leaders when we are not or that such a lofty ambition would be achieved simply through a change of government.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's a nice sound bite and straight out the SNP hyperbole play boom and sure we have some technology and renewable expertise but to say we are a global leader in technology is just daft.

Very very easy to see the U.S. are the leaders in that area with Scotland a mere afterthought when you consider companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, IBM, Cisco etc etc etc. even in a UK sense the main tech growth is seen in the likes of silicon roundabout in London.


Edinburgh is actually undergoing something of a software mini-boom with Rockstar, Amazon, Skyscanner, Dell Security, Brocade all having a presence and a bunch of start ups on the go. It might not be the valley but having been made redundant in 2002 and 2014, I can tell you first hand it's got way better in those 12 years.



And as for renewables, I reckon the Chinese are probably ahead of most and now have a huge state sponsored drive to EV's and clean energy to propel them further, again look at the largest companies in the renewables sector and you see companies like First solar and Siemens and a host of Chinese companies. Just having a relatively large installed renewables capacity doesn't make your nation a leader in the industry.

Scottish companies are no where near the levels of those mentioned above, sure there might be small success stories in niche areas but world leaders in tech and renewable? Naw.

Would independence change any of that? Who knows but let's not pretend we are world leaders when we are not or that such a lofty ambition would be achieved simply through a change of government.

Well there is a strong argument that locally focused government covering a smaller area will be more nimble and responsive to local business needs. Anecdotally, I've heard/read stories that this is already true to an extent with our toytown devolved government. You wouldn't actually need independence, a devomax arrangement that gave a quasi-federal Scotland control of business tax and regulation would do it.

Of course, the Unionist parties don't want this just in case it might work and thus come at some cost to the North of England. "Better mediocre together" for the Northern plebs and concentrate on the real wealth creating powerhouse in the SE.

[RyeSloan]

Edinburgh is actually undergoing something of a software mini-boom with Rockstar, Amazon, Skyscanner, Dell Security, Brocade all having a presence and a bunch of start ups on the go. It might not be the valley but having been made redundant in 2002 and 2014, I can tell you first hand it's got way better in those 12 years. Well there is a strong argument that locally focused government covering a smaller area will be more nimble and responsive to local business needs. Anecdotally, I've heard/read stories that this is already true to an extent with our toytown devolved government. You wouldn't actually need independence, a devomax arrangement that gave a quasi-federal Scotland control of business tax and regulation would do it. Of course, the Unionist parties don't want this just in case it might work and thus come at some cost to the North of England. "Better mediocre together" for the Northern plebs and concentrate on the real wealth creating powerhouse in the SE.

Don't disagree to be honest and I'm still convinced the majority of Scots would settle quite happily for Devo Max or some sort of federalisation of the UK...Even after that though we would still someway from being world leaders in the areas mentioned no matter how nimble our government was (is there such a thing as nimble government?!)

It's also worth wondering just what governments bring in terms of attracting and developing the types of business you mention. Clearly lower tax rates have an impact (as Ireland has shown) but you can easily flip that to say the governments are therefore stifling growth through excessive taxation and make the argument for less tax, less government and therefore more growth! ;-)

[Jones28]

Are we a global leader in technology? I know we've punched above our weight in the past but don't know if that's the case nowadays. I thought we were on a par with other similar sized countries although it's hard to tell as a lot of the breakthroughs, including those at university hospital level, are a result of collaborative cross border working.

I believe the Spanish were once heavily involved in the engineering and financing of our tidal/coastal renewables but I'd heard this is no longer the case!?!

Personally I feel Scotland is a leader, maybe not at the front line but certainly up there for our size and status. Considering the rate at which we've developed wind power and the % of our energy that is generated by renewable power I think we've done well in this aspect.

Dundee has become a mini hub for gaming in the UK and Europe.

These breakthroughs could be a result of the EU and collaboration across borders and oceans, but for me these would happen with or without the union.