If You Were Undecided About Scotland, Has Cameron Tipped It For You?

[GrantB]

Agree, and only the SNP are doing this. Most of us are happy to have most issues related to our "affairs" decided by a devolved parliament, while keeping some issues eg defence to be decided at Westminister.

 

??

 

Only the SNP are NOT doing this!

Meanwhile we have the unholy alliance of Lab / LibDem / Tory telling us we are too small and weak to run things for ourselves.

 

If you are happy to let Westminster handle defence on your behalf, ask yourself how you felt about Tony Blair being America's obedient little lap dog and leading us into an illegal war in Iraq? Or for that matter, what you thought of Michael Moore's comment about Scotland being too small to take part in the recent conflict in Lybia despite the fact that many nations of similar size to Scotland (if not smaller) were supplying troops.

[The Devil's Point]

Meanwhile we have the unholy alliance of Lab / LibDem / Tory telling us

 

ie everyone else in Scotland

 

After Salmond brown-nosing the Chinese, despite their human rights record, the gnats have not a leg to stand on in international affairs.

 

How frustrating it must be for you that you still find so many disagreeing. How irritating that people keep asking questions you cannot answer.

 

Tell us the answers. Where are the numbers? How will you fund free personal care for the elderly, childcare and disability rights from a public sector based economy?

 

Show us the numbers or quit the arrogant posturing. I don't need anyone to tell me how to be Scottish thank you.

[GrantB]

You didn't answer my question about defence.

 

David Cameron did exactly the same thing in China a couple of months before Salmond went. Didn't hear the outrage on here from the British Nationalists. Salmond is perfectly correct to try and improve trade links with one of the world's biggest economies (whether you like it or not).

 

I'm not frustrated in the slightest. We're winning the argument and by 2014, we'll win the vote.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that Scotland cannot afford to run her own affairs? Being told we cannot do things for ourselves is arrogant posturing.

[The Devil's Point]

You didn't answer my question about defence.

 

The decision to go to war in Iraq was taken against the opinion of the British people, rather than just Scottish people, in my view. I suppose we could of stayed out of it if we'd been independent so I'll grant you that. History will one day show whether Blair was wise to go against public opinion. Certainly the doomsday predictions regarding massive terrorist counter-attacks on the west have not as yet come true, and it does seem that particular genie has been put back in the bottle, at least for now. It might be possible to make a case that Iraq contributed to enabling the Arab Spring further down the line (although I should say I was also against the Iraq war personally at the time). We shall see.

 

I think decisions in relation to war and peace will realistically always have to be taken by the whole of the British Isles anyway. Like it or not we are stuck on one little island and a nuke or invading force in Birmingham is going to have knock on effects across the border

 

Suppose an independent Scotland could throw a few troops (remember we would no longer be able to afford serious ships or fast jets) into warzones but it seems to me that there isn't too much wrong with the British Army

[alx]

Picking up one issue that's a pet hate of mine: The defence footprint fallacy. The defence underspend in scotland has been grotesque. We have basically been massively subsidising jobs in the South East of England. Nearly the whole Army, RAF and Navy is in the south east (jaggy bunnet brought up Catterick in the North of england once as one of the few exceptions).

 

How many Labour poilticians have ever mentioned this in public? Zero. How many Labour politicians even knew this? Not many I'll wager, with a few dishonest creeps keeping quiet about it. This is just an example of the combination of stupidity compounded by blatant lies that the SNP have always had to put up with.

 

Here's another one: the referendum is illegal and can be challenged in the courts. That's only superficially true of any small country that has been 'unified' with a larger one. International law trumps this. All nations are allowed to secede from their unions. Imagine the English weren't allowed to have a referendum due to EU law (same thing). How many Labour poilticians have ever mentioned this in public? Zero. The thick ones haven't even twigged on the logic.

 

How about letting Scots living abroad vote in the referendum, as recommended by various Labour politicians? Elections have to use electoral registers to make them legal. There is no register of voters abroad who many years ago lived in Scotland. How many times mentioned by Labour? Zero.

 

I could on all day with examples like this.

[alx]

If anyone is interested, there's a brilliant article on Newsnet Scotland that covers a lot of ground;

 

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

 

The article is writtem by Paul T Kavanagh. Fair play to him, he must have spent ages writing this, look at the section headings...............

 

Abandoning the English: We'd abandon the English to decades of Tory rule.

Alex Salmond: Alex Salmond stirs up divisions

Anti-English: Scottish nationalism is motivated by hatred of the English.

BBC: You'll not get the BBC on telly after independence.

Border controls: There would be border controls and we'd need passports to visit Newcastle

Braveheart: The woad to independence

Credit rating: Scotland would lose the AAA credit rating it enjoys as part of the UK.

Debt: Scotland would be unable to service the amount of debt it would be required to take on.

Defence: Scotland would be defenceless without the UK armed forces and would lose thousands of defence jobs.

Devo-max: If we vote against independence we can have devo-max instead.

EU membership: Scotland would be forced to reapply for EU membership.

Euro: Scotland would be forced to use the euro

Expats: I'm an expat, independence means my English children would become foreigners to me.

Gaelic: Public employees would be forced to learn Gaelic.

Gay rights: Scotland would allow homophobes to dictate policy and introduce anti-gay legislation

History: We have 300 years' of history in the Union, we shouldn't throw that away.

International influence: The Union allows Scotland to punch above her weight internationally

Investment: The independence debate threatens inward investment in the Scottish economy.

Nationalism: Nationalism is regressive and backward looking.

Oil: The oil is running out and won't last much longer.

Overseas business: Independence would destroy Scotland's say in the world – removing the ability to do big business overseas.

Pound sterling: Scotland wouldn't be allowed to continue to use the pound

Poverty: Scotland is too poor to be independent.

Queen: Scotland won't be able to retain the Queen as head of state.

Royal Bank of Scotland: The cost of bailing out RBS would have bankrupted an independent Scotland.

Separation: Nationalists want separation.

Spain: Spain would veto Scottish membership of the EU.

Subsidies: Scotland depends upon subsidies from the UK to run our economy.

Togetherness: We're stronger together than we are apart.

Travel abroad: Independence would prevent Scots from travelling safely in foreign countries

Trident: Scotland would have to pay for the removal of Trident and the cost of a new base in the rump-UK.

Unanswered questions: Too many unanswered questions remain about independence

[KAWB]

That twat Cameron's annoyed me again today, "I'll give Scotland more power if you vote against independence".

 

Red rag twatty boy and there will be many a tartan bull that's going to f**k you in the @rse for being so arrogant and ignorant for even saying that in public. It's almost blackmail.

 

I think for every issue Salmond probably has a fall back, some would argue he's deliberately set the bar to an impossible level so that his compromise position is what he wanted to get in the first place. It's getting interesting.

 

 

[Jaggernaut]

That twat Cameron's annoyed me again today, "I'll give Scotland more power if you vote against independence".

 

Red rag twatty boy and there will be many a tartan bull that's going to f**k you in the @rse for being so arrogant and ignorant for even saying that in public. It's almost blackmail.

 

I think for every issue Salmond probably has a fall back, some would argue he's deliberately set the bar to an impossible level so that his compromise position is what he wanted to get in the first place. It's getting interesting.

 

He's desperate. Today it was that Scotland is "fairer" under Westminster than we would be if we could run our own affairs. Yes, Scotland might be fairer to its citizens than England is in some ways, but it's no thanks to the Westminster government.

 

So, Scotland is "fairer" in the UK; this from a tory who appears to be smugly satisfied with the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor in the UK, Scotland included.

 

Independence: the sooner the better.

[gianlucatoni]

bernard ponsonby booting cameron's baws on STV just now - "would you strike it down" ... and repeat!

Edited February 16, 2012 by gianlucatoni

[hamiltonjag]

Every time that reptile Cameron opens its mouth I start having nationalist thoughts. When it shuts up the anger leaves and my brain kicks-in again.

[JAGZ1876]

Every time that reptile Cameron opens its mouth I start having nationalist thoughts. When it shuts up the anger leaves and my brain kicks-in again.

 

 

I beg to differ

[stillresigned]

Cameron coming to Edinburgh to address "naughty schoolchildren" is a PR dream for the SNP. Mind you nany factors at the moment are PR victories for the SNO e.g. whenever the opposition at Holyrood advance practically any argument, they tend to be so politically inept that I shudder to listen. That should not be taken as a green light for any utterances Salmond makes, his personal tendency towards smugness and arrogance, is a real bugbear of mine.

Furthermore, the hoary old chestnut of England wishing to be rid of us, would in fact be a valid argument if Scotland were a subject country subject to English dictat, which of course is untrue, isn't it?

The real reason for the Prime Ministers visit is that it allows him a nice opportunity to wrap himself in the Union flag and to show Tory voters, in the south of England what a great defender of tradition he is..

In other words Cameron is playing to his domestic audience and any benefits to the Scottish Unionist cause must be secondary to that prime objective.

[Guy Incognito]

Every time that reptile Cameron opens its mouth I start having nationalist thoughts. When it shuts up the anger leaves and my brain kicks-in again.

Well, if there is a 'no' vote in 2014 then I fear we will be hearing a lot more from Cameron and his ilk. Except by then there will be nothing we can do about it, not for a long time anyway.

 

If you are prepared to accept years and years of Tory rule then fine, vote 'no'. If not, then you should really consider voting differently, because the alternative under the current constitutional set-up is virtually non-existent. The referendum isn't about voting for Alex Salmond, or any one man, it is about voting for how our country is run; and personally, I dread to think what will become of Scotland if we don't take this golden opportunity to run our country the way the majority of people - if the results of recent elections are anything to go - want it to be run.

 

If you don't like Salmond then even in an independent Scotland you will have the opportunity to be rid of him. In a non-independent Scotland, however, then the chances are we will be stuck with Dave pulling the strings.

[GrantB]

Independence isn't about the SNP. Nor is it about Salmond. It's not even a party political issue.

 

However, if you really want rid of the Tories once and for all, it is the only course of action. Otherwise you wont have a leg to stand on when you complain about what Cameron and Osbourne are doing to the country.

[hamiltonjag]

Aye ok, very good. But before committing to an independent Scotland (with or without the smug lardarse Salmond or his wee herry sidekick at the helm) I'd want to know whether I was voting for Scotland to become the strong, independent land with the bright future that the nats want to portray...... or a fecked-up wasteland.

 

I'm not an economist, just a voter looking for a clear picture of reality rather than the fantasy/horror spun by nationalists and unionists. Taking a wee squizz at the figures in terms of North Sea oil revenue (the former porn of the SNP enthusiast) things aren't looking too clever. Despite the rising price of oil per barrel, revenue is in freefall. Perhaps this is why we don't hear much "its wur oil" any more. Whisky? Perhaps in terms of excise duty, but for anything else its best to remember that most of the big brand names are owned by overseas companies.

 

Like I say I'm no economist but show me the sums and I'll probably get it. What scares the crap out of me is the predictions from most economists who basically think we'd be mental to vote for independence. For example:

A newly independent small country with sizeable fiscal deficits, high public debt and reliance on a declining resource for 12 per cent of its fiscal revenue, could not enjoy a triple A rating. Its costs of borrowing might be far higher than those of the UK. To avoid the risk, it would need to lower its debts quite rapidly. This would require even greater austerity than in the UK as a whole. Given its close ties to the rest of the UK, Scotland could not get away with taxing corporations or skilled people more heavily than its neighbour. So the bulk of this extra austerity would surely fall on public spending.~Martin Wolf

Wooft! Deeper public spending cuts than even the t*ries are making?! Would I want to vote for that? I don't think so! The poor and most vulnerable have taken quite enough of a kicking already imvho. So much for lardy's "arc of prosperity".... or is it? Not so long ago he was pointing across the Irish Sea and going "look at how well Ireland's doing!!" Ummm..... right ye are Eck. Now he's pointing at Scandinavian countries. I'm no economist, but I can point to the same countries and say "7 quid a pint?!?!"

 

I'm falling on the side of maintaining the status quo, despite the fact we've got a c**t in 10 Downing Street.

[jaggybunnet]

Aye ok, very good. But before committing to an independent Scotland (with or without the smug lardarse Salmond or his wee herry sidekick at the helm) I'd want to know whether I was voting for Scotland to become the strong, independent land with the bright future that the nats want to portray...... or a fecked-up wasteland.

 

I'm not an economist, just a voter looking for a clear picture of reality rather than the fantasy/horror spun by nationalists and unionists. Taking a wee squizz at the figures in terms of North Sea oil revenue (the former porn of the SNP enthusiast) things aren't looking too clever. Despite the rising price of oil per barrel, revenue is in freefall. Perhaps this is why we don't hear much "its wur oil" any more. Whisky? Perhaps in terms of excise duty, but for anything else its best to remember that most of the big brand names are owned by overseas companies.

 

Like I say I'm no economist but show me the sums and I'll probably get it. What scares the crap out of me is the predictions from most economists who basically think we'd be mental to vote for independence. For example:

 

Wooft! Deeper public spending cuts than even the t*ries are making?! Would I want to vote for that? I don't think so! The poor and most vulnerable have taken quite enough of a kicking already imvho. So much for lardy's "arc of prosperity".... or is it? Not so long ago he was pointing across the Irish Sea and going "look at how well Ireland's doing!!" Ummm..... right ye are Eck. Now he's pointing at Scandinavian countries. I'm no economist, but I can point to the same countries and say "7 quid a pint?!?!"

 

I'm falling on the side of maintaining the status quo, despite the fact we've got a c**t in 10 Downing Street.

 

bloody hell i agree with most of that, right i away for a drink

[jaggybunnet]

Independence isn't about the SNP. Nor is it about Salmond. It's not even a party political issue.

 

However, if you really want rid of the Tories once and for all, it is the only course of action. Otherwise you wont have a leg to stand on when you complain about what Cameron and Osbourne are doing to the country.

 

Grant, if its only the snp that want it then it is about the snp and wee eck

[hamiltonjag]

bloody hell i agree with most of that, right i away for a drink

INDEPENDENCE NOW!!!

 

(just kiddin )

[GrantB]

Aye ok, very good. But before committing to an independent Scotland (with or without the smug lardarse Salmond or his wee herry sidekick at the helm) I'd want to know whether I was voting for Scotland to become the strong, independent land with the bright future that the nats want to portray...... or a fecked-up wasteland.

 

I'm not an economist, just a voter looking for a clear picture of reality rather than the fantasy/horror spun by nationalists and unionists. Taking a wee squizz at the figures in terms of North Sea oil revenue (the former porn of the SNP enthusiast) things aren't looking too clever. Despite the rising price of oil per barrel, revenue is in freefall. Perhaps this is why we don't hear much "its wur oil" any more. Whisky? Perhaps in terms of excise duty, but for anything else its best to remember that most of the big brand names are owned by overseas companies.

 

Like I say I'm no economist but show me the sums and I'll probably get it. What scares the crap out of me is the predictions from most economists who basically think we'd be mental to vote for independence. For example:

 

Wooft! Deeper public spending cuts than even the t*ries are making?! Would I want to vote for that? I don't think so! The poor and most vulnerable have taken quite enough of a kicking already imvho. So much for lardy's "arc of prosperity".... or is it? Not so long ago he was pointing across the Irish Sea and going "look at how well Ireland's doing!!" Ummm..... right ye are Eck. Now he's pointing at Scandinavian countries. I'm no economist, but I can point to the same countries and say "7 quid a pint?!?!"

 

I'm falling on the side of maintaining the status quo, despite the fact we've got a c**t in 10 Downing Street.

 

For every bit of scaremopngering, there is a counterquote.

 

Angus Robertson is on twitter today saying that there are £1trillion of oil reserves in the North Sea. Do you really want Cameron to squander it? Next we'll be sending another task force to the Falklands to help out a bunch of inbreds.

[jaggybunnet]

For every bit of scaremopngering, there is a counterquote.

 

Angus Robertson is on twitter today saying that there are £1trillion of oil reserves in the North Sea. Do you really want Cameron to squander it? Next we'll be sending another task force to the Falklands to help out a bunch of inbreds.

 

 

sorry thats just crap, any numbers that come out are a guess at best and also dont take into account that some of it wont be financially viable and the rise and fall of oil prices.

 

and as for the falklands bit, well i am disapointed in you Grant

[GrantB]

sorry thats just crap, any numbers that come out are a guess at best and also dont take into account that some of it wont be financially viable and the rise and fall of oil prices.

 

and as for the falklands bit, well i am disapointed in you Grant

 

I don't think that the SNP are going to just pull the numbers out of the sky. I leave that kind of thing to Labour (the party that told us before the '79 referendum that the oil would run out before the Milennium)

 

I've never understood the Falklands. It's like the isle of Lewis being Argentinian. The argument has been done to death on another thread and as you well know, the islands were only rescued to keep Thatcher in power as she was being slaughtered in the opinion polls at the time.

[jaggybunnet]

I don't think that the SNP are going to just pull the numbers out of the sky. I leave that kind of thing to Labour (the party that told us before the '79 referendum that the oil would run out before the Milennium)

 

I've never understood the Falklands. It's like the isle of Lewis being Argentinian. The argument has been done to death on another thread and as you well know, the islands were only rescued to keep Thatcher in power as she was being slaughtered in the opinion polls at the time.

 

 

why not, thats all they have done so far.

 

they have the same right as you to be helped if they need it

[twinny]

sorry thats just crap, any numbers that come out are a guess at best and also dont take into account that some of it wont be financially viable and the rise and fall of oil prices.

 

and as for the falklands bit, well i am disapointed in you Grant

 

Well any numbers that come out are an underestimate, and always have been. I'm sure someone explained already.

 

Oil prices aren't going to be falling (significantly) any time soon, are they?

[jaggybunnet]

Well any numbers that come out are an underestimate, and always have been. I'm sure someone explained already.

 

Oil prices aren't going to be falling (significantly) any time soon, are they?

 

 

are they and as you said estimate, they get it wrong as was proved the last time.

 

i read somewhere (sorry will try to track it down) that yes prices will drop, there is also the cost of converting to use which was one of the reasons given for the depot in england going bust. some (i wont guess) areas will just be too expencive to drill (depth and such like) which will afect the price.

 

my point was that there are to many variables with oil to base your finaces on it. aberdeen needs to be looking at what they will do when the oil drys up now, not when it happens

[hamiltonjag]

I don't think that the SNP are going to just pull the numbers out of the sky. I leave that kind of thing to Labour (the party that told us before the '79 referendum that the oil would run out before the Milennium)

 

I've never understood the Falklands. It's like the isle of Lewis being Argentinian. The argument has been done to death on another thread and as you well know, the islands were only rescued to keep Thatcher in power as she was being slaughtered in the opinion polls at the time.

I'd like things to be a lot clearer in terms of both positive and negative predictions of fiscal stability (or at least be presented with figures from a source with no vested interest in the outcome of the referendum so I as a voter can make a more informed decision). So far it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

 

As folk have rightly pointed out, this is not about party politics. It's about the future of the country I live in. So it's safe to say that I care deeply about this referendum and have grave concerns about the future impact on my country post-referendum. To date all I've heard is rhetoric from both nationalists and unionists with the romanticised "think with your heart and be proud of your nation" stuff from the Nats counterbalanced by horror stories from the rest. It's utterly naive to think "the truth lies somewhere in the middle" because in reality the truth could exist anywhere across the spectrum. Unless the politicians get their collective @rses in gear and start coming up with something concrete in this debate the result may just be a knee-jerk reaction from voters on how anti-t*ry (and, by association, anti UK) they feel that day. This of course would suit the Nationalists, which could also possible spell economic and social disaster for this country.

 

Let's get some figures out and let's start talking reality! And that sentiment is aimed at both sides of the debate.