One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[The Devil's Point]

Guy, my rant (fuelled by yesterday's celebrations I will admit ) was not aimed at you, it just so happened I used one of your quotes. However, I do think the nationalists are in denial, and are now accusing so many people of scaremongering that it is just looking ridiculous. You are right to say that talking of 'facts' and 'common sense' is subjective, but we have to make a subjective decision. People need to make a judgement, I suppose, as there are no truly objective facts.

 

If the Scottish economy was booming we would be barking to leave!

 

I think we'll notice our loss of influence once we've lost it.

 

I think what the nationalists have called 'project fear' has actually been 'project reality'. The fact that nationalists seem to fear reality says it all about nationalism in my view.

 

I've said before that I will bear no grudge if it is a Yes and will work to try and take things forward. Surely it makes more sense to take more powers for the parliament just now, and give yourselves a few more years to get things really ready. If No wins on Thursday, you will get another go in not too many years. If Yes wins, we are just not ready and I think it will be a disaster.

 

If we are keeping the oil we have nothing to negotiate with! (rUK has already said they are prepared to honour all the debt so that is not the card it might have been). The day after a Yes vote the UK party leaders play only to a rUK gallery and with a seven month run into a Westminister election it is unlikely that they will be minded to be seen to offer much to us. Any government minister who suggests granting currency union will have no credibility at all after what has been said. The economics of currency union might make sense in some ways, but the politics will mean it will never happen. You needed to check it out with the rUK voters first to be honest.

 

I think this will prove to have been a nice try, and I suspect there will be full independence in my lifetime. Just don't think we are ready yet though. Sorry

[kni]

There is also the issue about, in the event of a Yes vote, whether the voters in rUK should then vote on the separation agreement(s) and a possible currency union. Salmond seems to think that rUK and the EU should and will give an independent Scotland anything that it wants. That, for sure, will not happen. Politicians bear grudges, especially when they lose, and Westminster will try to stuff Scotland with as much debt and liabilities that it can.

[The Devil's Point]

Was just looking out my telescope there and it seems the moon is going NO.

[kni]

Was just looking out my telescope there and it seems the moon is going NO.

 

Can you see the moon from Hell?

[The Devil's Point]

Can you see the moon from Hell?

 

Only the dark side

[Guy Incognito]

^ Guy, under Salmond's Sterling-isation policy, the Bank of England will make the key economic decisions. Holyrood will not be making decisions on monetary policy or setting interest rates. Surely that is objectionable to you.

 

Salmond's plan is a currency union, which wouldn't be my plan if I was in his position. Objectionable would be too strong a term to describe it though. Daft, would probably be the word I'd use. That said, as things stand the BoE controls the interests rates anyway.

 

It'd be good if he called Westminster's bluff and told them where to stick their sterling and their £1trn debt, but I don't think he will, not at this stage. I'd much prefer our own currency with its own central bank that is able to control interest rates; the only downside I can think of is that it might affect our exports, due to transaction costs and the fact that it might actually be too strong (given that it would be oil and gas backed).

 

However - and I know I have said this before - just because the SNP's vision doesn't totally mirror my own doesn't mean that I am going to pass up the chance of getting where I want to be. In my view it is a step in the right direction and is certainly better than the alternative.

 

Guy, my rant (fuelled by yesterday's celebrations I will admit ) was not aimed at you, it just so happened I used one of your quotes. However, I do think the nationalists are in denial, and are now accusing so many people of scaremongering that it is just looking ridiculous. You are right to say that talking of 'facts' and 'common sense' is subjective, but we have to make a subjective decision. People need to make a judgement, I suppose, as there are no truly objective facts.

 

If the Scottish economy was booming we would be barking to leave!

 

I think we'll notice our loss of influence once we've lost it.

 

I think what the nationalists have called 'project fear' has actually been 'project reality'. The fact that nationalists seem to fear reality says it all about nationalism in my view.

 

I've said before that I will bear no grudge if it is a Yes and will work to try and take things forward. Surely it makes more sense to take more powers for the parliament just now, and give yourselves a few more years to get things really ready. If No wins on Thursday, you will get another go in not too many years. If Yes wins, we are just not ready and I think it will be a disaster.

 

If we are keeping the oil we have nothing to negotiate with! (rUK has already said they are prepared to honour all the debt so that is not the card it might have been). The day after a Yes vote the UK party leaders play only to a rUK gallery and with a seven month run into a Westminister election it is unlikely that they will be minded to be seen to offer much to us. Any government minister who suggests granting currency union will have no credibility at all after what has been said. The economics of currency union might make sense in some ways, but the politics will mean it will never happen. You needed to check it out with the rUK voters first to be honest.

 

I think this will prove to have been a nice try, and I suspect there will be full independence in my lifetime. Just don't think we are ready yet though. Sorry

 

Fair enough.

 

I can't agree that the No campaign is project reality. At times they have flat out lied: they told OAPs that their pensions are at risk, even after DWP confirmed that they wouldn't be, and the other week Willie Rennie appeared on TV claiming that mortgage payments would go up - and couldn't explain why when pressed by the interviewer.

 

Their other, more recent tactic has been to basically threaten people. I don't think this is a particularly good one - Scots tend not to take kindly to being told they can't do something. Robin McAlpine sums up this aspect better than I ever could here:

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/butterfly-rebellion

 

By the way, I don't think that the Yes campaign has been brilliant either; the mainstream movement has been fairly toothless, in my opinion. What has been good, though, is the grassroots movement, and I think that the other side massively underestimated that.

 

Currently, we have only 6 MEPs. Slovakia, roughly the same size as us, has twice as many. We have no seat in the UN and no seat in NATO. The UK has, but the UK tends to argue for what is best for the UK, which isn't always necessarily the best for Scotland specifically.

 

We may be keeping the lion's share of the oil but Westminster has responsibility for the debt - and the debt is whopping. This is why I think a CU is likely (even if I rather we didn't have one - see above). Scottish MPs from unionist parties will be in a strange position; their party line will be to do what is best for rUK but at the same time they know that they'll have to face their constituents at some point. Also, there lies a second bite at the cherry in the form of a career in Holyrood. This will include people with a wealth of experience in actually running a country, and, setting aside any differences during this campaign, their experience could prove invaluable in a fledgling nation.

[The Devil's Point]

 

I don't think that the Yes campaign has been brilliant either; the mainstream movement has been fairly toothless, in my opinion.

 

 

 

But it was the Yes side who had to make the case. Unionists trust that over three hundred years of discussion and debate has found a level whcih, for all its flaws, works.

 

It was for Yes to come and tell us an alternative, it was for Yes to tell us how all these promises would work.

 

But you could not do that.

 

You did not have a case.

 

And now Scottish Nationalism will be buried for another generation.

 

You had the chance, you ****** it up.

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

 

But it was the Yes side who had to make the case. Unionists trust that over three hundred years of discussion and debate has found a level whcih, for all its flaws, works.

 

It was for Yes to come and tell us an alternative, it was for Yes to tell us how all these promises would work.

 

But you could not do that.

 

You did not have a case.

 

And now Scottish Nationalism will be buried for another generation.

 

You had the chance, you ****** it up.

 

Sorry, have I missed something? I thought the vote wasn't until Thursday.

 

The Yes case has been made. Plenty of times. You may not agree with the case but there is now a wealth of information out there. Some questions still require answers, but it is not possible to answer everything at this stage. The work done not by big name politicians but by volunteers has been amazing over the past few months. The moment ordinary folk took the reins of the campaign was when it really took off.

 

The Yes campaign may yet fail but it won't be for a lack of trying.

[The Devil's Point]

The Yes campaign may yet fail but it won't be for a lack of trying.

 

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

 

We had a chance in the seventies, and we ****** it up. Whisky, oil, farming, coal, we had it all. We blew it, and now we're ******.

 

We've never had pants on under our kilts.

[javeajag]

I have just read a paper from a big data outfit in London who analysed the data on the referendum - no axe to grind apparently wanted to see how it was through their methodology - it's a bit technical but they take poll data, then loads of other info all sorts of stats etc- not my specialist subject !- anyway they correctly predicted Boris Johnson's margin if victory and Obama/Romney as well....

Predicting a Yes win by a bigger margin than in the current polls

[glenncraig]

To many yes voters walking with blinkers on and rose tinted glasses. So many experts have said how much S@@T we would be in but all you can say is scaremongering. The minute you get an expert that says what you want they become the bees knees. One word answer means one word not sixty pages of wishfull thinking. NO

[Guy Incognito]

 

 

I don't think anyone would argue with that.

 

We had a chance in the seventies, and we ****** it up. Whisky, oil, farming, coal, we had it all. We blew it, and now we're ******.

 

We've never had pants on under our kilts.

 

To be fair, the government stitched us up in '79. And besides, what was on offer was an assembly with powers far more limited that Holyrood has now.

 

There are parallels we can draw with now. For instance, 'new powers' in return for rejecting the assembly were offered then too.

 

 

One thing that gives me hope of a Yes vote on Thursday is the fact that Scots have always voted in favour of self-determination when the question has been put to them: both in 1979 and 1997.

 

We still have whisky, oil and farming, although coal mining and most of the manufacturing is now long gone. I have often wondered whether the assembly would have made much difference. I am certain that independence would have, had it been on offer. So while I understand what you were saying before about it being the wrong time, I am not sure we will get another chance like this again.

 

The door is open. All it needs is a wee push.

[The Devil's Point]

Aye, well its for the people to decide.

 

Perhaps us over forty type people are too long in the tooth (or lacking in teeth) to buy lies. If a snake oil salesman came here, he'd get chased right out of Whiteinch, the length of Dumbarton Road (where we would let the Partick Young Team take over).

 

Back in the day, in the seventies, when you abandoned your car in a blizzard you never went back. Its that attitude that is missing in so many young people today.

Edited September 16, 2014 by The Devil's Point

[kni]

I have just read a paper from a big data outfit in London who analysed the data on the referendum - no axe to grind apparently wanted to see how it was through their methodology - it's a bit technical but they take poll data, then loads of other info all sorts of stats etc- not my specialist subject !- anyway they correctly predicted Boris Johnson's margin if victory and Obama/Romney as well.... Predicting a Yes win by a bigger margin than in the current polls

 

I take it that you are referring to the ICM poll. The UK Polling Report blog appears to think that it was out of step with other ICM and other companies' polls. It also had a smaller sample so the margin of error was slightly bigger. From personal experience, I rate ICM and Yougov as the best pollsters. Leaving out the ICM latest poll, possibly an "outlier", the recent No and Yes leads have been around 2%, i.e. within the 3% margin of error. To put it simply, it's neck and neck and too close to call.

[The Devil's Point]

Bill Clinton was my dad,

 

Hillary was not my mum.

 

John Lambie is my god

 

Kelvindale and Whiteinch say no in the referendum

[Fawlty Towers]

Has the case for independence been made?

 

I would say the answer to that question is no and that is reflected by those individuals, organisations and newspapers who are supporting a No vote. There was an excellent piece in The Sunday Post which looked at all the key issues and for each one the case was not proven. We are all agreed on the importance of this vote and I would argue that to vote Yes the case has to be have been completely made - even in a minor court case the onus is on the prosecution to prove someone's guilt not for that person to prove their innocence.

 

There is a lot of discussion about how the campaigns have operated and lots of people keep saying how great the Yes campaign has been and how poor the No one has been but lets look at that. The Yes campaign (essentially the SNP) have been in power for several years in Holyrood and have always known they would be presenting the people with this option. They are also running a campaign when Westminster's popularity is at its lowest and they have added a section of the population to the electorate which they believe favour them yet only 2 polls so far have had them leading - surely they should be doing better in that context?

[The Devil's Point]

Life is full of problems, we need a remedy. Denial works for me.

 

No popular teenager ever did anything.

[ScottyDFA]

[ScottyDFA]

What a bunch we Scots are, eh!

 

We get all worked up singing "Flower of Scotland", which includes the words "when will we see your like again, that fought and diedfor your wee bit hill and glen..."

 

Then, when we are presented with the opportunity to win self-determination without firing a shot, half of us are shitting ourselves.

[Guy Incognito]

Has the case for independence been made?

 

I would say the answer to that question is no and that is reflected by those individuals, organisations and newspapers who are supporting a No vote. There was an excellent piece in The Sunday Post which looked at all the key issues and for each one the case was not proven. We are all agreed on the importance of this vote and I would argue that to vote Yes the case has to be have been completely made - even in a minor court case the onus is on the prosecution to prove someone's guilt not for that person to prove their innocence.

 

There is a lot of discussion about how the campaigns have operated and lots of people keep saying how great the Yes campaign has been and how poor the No one has been but lets look at that. The Yes campaign (essentially the SNP) have been in power for several years in Holyrood and have always known they would be presenting the people with this option. They are also running a campaign when Westminster's popularity is at its lowest and they have added a section of the population to the electorate which they believe favour them yet only 2 polls so far have had them leading - surely they should be doing better in that context?

 

Many, not all but many, of those individuals, organisations and newspapers who support a No vote have their own vested interests heart rather than what is good for Scotland. The newspapers that are sold in Scotland are often either off-shoots of English publications or are owned down south. Consequently, I take what such people have to say with an extremely generous pinch of salt.

 

The Yes case, at its most fundamental, is simple: Scotland is a country and it should run and control its own affairs. That is the case. That is the pitch. We can argue over the nuts and bolts, and have been doing for the past couple of years, but the concept is really very simple. Ultimately, voters might reject that concept (which would be a pity, in my opinion) but to me it is quite clear to see what it is.

 

Conversely, I am still not sure what the No case really is. With less than one day to go until the polls open I still haven't heard a compelling reason for why we are, to coin a phrase, better together. I have tried to see things from the unionist perspective, honestly I have, but all I can come up with are the same kind of 'what ifs' that have been put forward already. The entire concept of the UK no longer makes sense (if indeed if ever did).

 

You could argue that the SNP ought to have been more on the ball in presenting their proposals for independence but I don't think they expected to win as comfortably as they did in 2011. Between 2007 and 2010 they were a minority administration who struggled to get legislation passed through parliament and before that they were playing catch-up to Labour. The ConDems being in power in Westminster probably is a plus for them, in a strictly political sense, but I wouldn't pay too much attention to opinion polls. What they don't adequately factor in are the first time voters or those people who don't normally vote.

 

As I have said before, it was only when ordinary folk got involved in campaigning that things really began to take off for the Yes side. Perhaps that tells us something.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Guy Incognito

[Guy Incognito]

Bill Clinton was my dad,

 

Hillary was not my mum.

 

John Lambie is my god

 

Kelvindale and Whiteinch say no in the referendum

 

And he says, vote Yes.

[Fawlty Towers]

Many, not all but many, of those individuals, organisations and newspapers who support a No vote have their own vested interests heart rather than what is good for Scotland. The newspapers that are sold in Scotland are often either off-shoots of English publications or are owned down south. Consequently, I take what such people have to say with an extremely generous pinch of salt.

 

The Yes case, at its most fundamental, is simple: Scotland is a country and it should run and control its own affairs. That is the case. That is the pitch. We can argue over the nuts and bolts, and have been doing for the past couple of years, but the concept is really very simple. Ultimately, voters might reject that concept (which would be a pity, in my opinion) but to me it is quite clear to see what it is.

 

Conversely, I am still not sure what the No case really is. With less than one day to go until the polls open I still haven't heard a compelling reason for why we are, to coin a phrase, better together. I have tried to see things from the unionist perspective, honestly I have, but all I can come up with are the same kind of 'what ifs' that have been put forward already. The entire concept of the UK no longer makes sense (if indeed if ever did).

 

You could argue that the SNP ought to have been more on the ball in presenting their proposals for independence but I don't think they expected to win as comfortably as they did in 2011. Between 2007 and 2010 they were a minority administration who struggled to get legislation passed through parliament and before that they were playing catch-up to Labour. The ConDems being in power in Westminster probably is a plus for them, in a strictly political sense, but I wouldn't pay too much attention to opinion polls. What they don't adequately factor in are the first time voters or those people who don't normally vote.

 

As I have said before, it was only when ordinary folk got involved in campaigning that things really began to take off for the Yes side. Perhaps that tells us something.

 

Thanks, I thought I loved my country but just had a different opinion on how it would be best served in this debate so I am grateful you were able to let me know that I am in fact a selfish individual who is putting self interest (not sure what I am gaining) before the needs of the country! That is the thing that has annoyed me the most in this debate - the Yes campaign labelling those of are in the No campaign as not caring about Scotland.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Fawlty, why do you say that the case has not been made?

 

Are there any aspects of the debate in particular?

[jaggybunnet]

Fawlty, why do you say that the case has not been made?

 

Are there any aspects of the debate in particular?

 

is that a serious question or are you taking the piss, how about most of them.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

is that a serious question or are you taking the piss, how about most of them.

Oh the banter.