You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In the event of a close vote,
I wouldn't worry, at the current rate of progress it will be No in front by a big margin..
Here's probably the most relevant paragraph from the Edinburgh Agreement:
The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
So there are two issues. What if the referendum doesn't produce a decisive result? (And who defines what is decisive?) and what if the best interests of the rest of the UK (as judged by the UK government) do not include Scottish independence?
I wouldn't worry, at the current rate of progress it will be No in front by a big margin..
Only a 5% swing needed, according to the latest Panelbase poll. The margin is getting smaller and smaller, and we've still got 6 months to go. It's going to be close.
you are going to get a YES majority, the former Primementalist is backing the Union
[img] 
?w=150&h=136[/img]
The result wil be upheld I am sure of that.
The only people I have heard promoting a result that may be against the wishes of the Scottish people are in the yes camp.
Ernie and teamhurtmore, can you both register to vote up here please!
epicyclo, I see you displayed a link to Rangers and Celtic for independence. You can have them.
It is heartening to see that Scotlands religious bigots can side together against a common enemy. 😉
athgray - Member
...epicyclo, I see you displayed a link to Rangers and Celtic for independence. You can have them.It is heartening to see that Scotlands religious bigots can side together against a common enemy.
No thanks. They've debased the ancient sport of kicking a human head from one end of the village to the other. They're a bunch of Philistines!
Athgray I think you'll find there are many people involved with the old firm who detest bigotry as much as anyone.
gordimhor - Member
Athgray I think you'll find there are many people involved with the old firm who detest bigotry as much as anyone.
Both the Ranger & Celtic for Independence FB pages make it very clear bigotry will not be tolerated.
In my nationalist days believe it or not I used to attend Ibrox fairly regularly. Drifted away from football to a certain degree, based in part to the tribalism and waving of Union Jacks or Tricolours with nothing to do with football, and also the pleasant songs.
I am sure that FB warnings will keep the wrong sort from supporting the cause.
There have been 2 stories I can find which suggest at least a [b]possibility[/b] that the Uk government might attempt to delay or prevent Scottish independence if there is a Yes majority.
[url= http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/yes-vote-no-guarantee-of-independence-1.223772 ]Baroness Jay[/url]
This from The Herald of Feb 14th this year
Yet the referendum debate is today intensified by one of Mr Cameron's senior colleagues, who indicated a Yes vote in September's poll would not be the end of the matter.Dismissing the SNP Government's 18-month timescale for completing negotiations as "totally unrealistic", the source said: "A Yes vote in the referendum would be the start of a process, not the end of one; we would start negotiations. But if Alex Salmond made impossible demands, we would not just roll over and agree to everything he wanted. If we could not reach agreement, the status quo would be the default option."
The senior Coalition figure said one such impossible demand would be the First Minister's threat, repeated yesterday, that Scotland would not pay its share of UK debt if it were denied a currency union by Whitehall.
"It would not be a question of defying the wishes of the Scottish people. As the UK Government, we would have a duty to represent the interests of the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland," the source said.
But Mr Salmond hit back, saying: "This is an astonishing and irresponsible intervention by a senior Coalition source. The Westminster establishment are now so worried about losing the referendum that they are threatening to refuse to respect the democratic will of the people of Scotland and rip up the Edinburgh Agreement, signed in all good faith with the Prime Minister."
gordimhor. Read the link to baroness jay. Glad you highlighted possibility, possibly should have highlighted delay as well. All the article raises are questions about logistics, not that a yes vote would not be upheld. A bit of scare mongering there.
As to the second quote, I have seen this before, do we know who the source us yet?
If the result is yes I have no doubt it will be upheld, however I would rather take time to ensure the best possible outcome for all those concerned. I understand that apparently the clock is ticking to allow dear leaders coronation by a certain date.
Athgray I dont know who the source is and I certainly think it is [b]extremely unlikely[/b] that the referendum result would not be upheld.
Oh btw you are caught 🙂
Damn. One thing I will say is that if a yes vote is not upheld I will back the yes voters to the hilt.
Only a 5% swing needed, according to the latest Panelbase poll. The margin is getting smaller and smaller, and we've still got 6 months to go. It's going to be close.
You didn't link to that poll Ben. Is it anything to do with who commissioned it?
No, it's because I was typing on an iPad with a small person asleep on one arm 😉
Yes, I know who commissioned it, and of course you shouldn't read too much into one poll, but the trend is obvious.
[quote=bencooper ]So there are two issues. What if the referendum doesn't produce a decisive result? (And who defines what is decisive?) and what if the best interests of the rest of the UK (as judged by the UK government) do not include Scottish independence?
As pointed out by Baroness Jay, the best interests of rUK might not include iS walking away from the debt (because its not allowed a share of the currency "asset") - the wording of that agreement would appear to preclude AS playing hardball, as the answer to any unreasonable [s]demand[/s] assertion by him is simply "no". Which is quite interesting in the context of what will happen with all those unknowns in the event of a Yes vote. I don't think anybody seems to be proposing preventing independence if that's what the people of Scotland decide, simply that not only will it not be on the terms the SNP chooses (and no prevaricating about the independence movement being more than the SNP - who else exactly is negotiating the terms?), but that they don't actually have as strong a negotiating hand as they might suggest.
So what happens if there's no agreement? Will Westminster just say no to independence?
[quote=bencooper ]Yes, I know who commissioned it, and of course you shouldn't read too much into one poll, but the trend is obvious.
So you agree you should also consider other polls when determining the trend? Here's one for you:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/03/scottish-anxiety-independence-revealed-poll
[quote=bencooper ]So what happens if there's no agreement? Will Westminster just say no to independence?
Are they obliged to say yes to whatever terms AS wants if the result of the referendum is yes? Because if Westminster is not allowed to say no, then that would appear the obvious outcome. It's not really that hard to understand the logic behind a negotiated independence requiring an agreement which is acceptable to both parties.
bencooper - Member
So what happens if there's no agreement? Will Westminster just say no to independence?
UDI fixes that, but it's usually messy.
I think what England needs to decide if the referendum is a Yes is whether or not it wants a friendly or unfriendly nation on its northern land border.
I think what England needs to decide if the referendum is a Yes is whether or not it wants a friendly or unfriendly nation on its northern land border.
😆
I think that rUK will be a convenient bogey man for the rest of time.
A report commissioned by Sir Tom Hunter has said the reasons given by Chancellor George Osborne for his rejection of a currency union with an independent Scotland are "unsubstantiated" and fundamentally flawed.
THE gap between the Yes and No votes in the independence referendum has narrowed, according to an opinion poll that delivers a double blow to those fighting to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.The new survey for Scotland on Sunday suggests a swing of just five percentage points would bring Scotland to the cusp of independence, while a large proportion of the population remain unconvinced that a No vote would deliver the more powerful Scottish Parliament that they want.
In turn he will write to First Minister Alex Salmond highlighting the need for a Plan B, which the paper also recommends.
A report commissioned by Sir Tom Hunter has said the reasons given by Chancellor George Osborne for his rejection of a currency union with an independent Scotland are "unsubstantiated" and fundamentally flawed.
I don't think the fact that a Scottish billionaire has found someone in a Chinese college who disagrees with someone else in London provides a compelling argument that currency union is a good idea.
I think it's widely accepted that as a general rule there are disagreements on most things in politics and that economics is no exception.
Who the hell is Prof Leslie Young and why is his opinion so important that it might make everyone who disagrees with him wrong ?
BTW according to Prof Leslie Young, whose opinion you apparently value, there needs to be a "plan B". Something which despite having had 80 years to think about the SNP still hasn't told the Scottish electorate what it is. Which understandably creates the suspicion that there isn't one.
And yes, I can see how the narrowing of the gap between the No vote and the Yes vote must be very heartening for you. As far as I am aware every single poll taken has shown a lead for the No camp.
The one certainty in an otherwise uncertain situation is that there is no overwhelming enthusiasm for Scottish "independence". So if the Yes camp manage to pull it off it will indeed be something which they can be truly proud of.
And if they do pull it off, I predict that in several years from now you will struggle to find a Scotsman or woman who openly admits to having voted Yes. Miraculously like Tony Blair supporters they will all have disappeared.
What if the referendum doesn't produce a decisive result? (And who defines what is decisive?)
it will produce a decisive result because the questions have been phrased properly and clearly to give a clear mandate (cf. the Crimean referendum question). It's decisive unless there is an exact tie down to the vote (which seems unlikely).
I was undecided until i read this
http://harddawn.com/why-america-must-say-no-to-scotlands-independence-from-great-britain/
BTW according to Prof Leslie Young, whose opinion you apparently value, there needs to be a "plan B". Something which despite having had 80 years to think about the SNP still hasn't told the Scottish electorate what it is. Which understandably creates the suspicion that there isn't one.
When more and more experts come out to say that a currency union makes sense, why would the Yes campaign give up on it? No prenegotiation, remember. Of course there are other options, which have all been thought through (including by the independent commission that recommended a currency union in the first place), so saying there's no plan B is just parroting one of the more stupid things Better Together like to say.
Again, I think the main problem the Yes campaign have is that they underestimate the Tory ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face. Or, in this case, make it harder for rUK businesses to sell to their second-largest market to make a political point.
bencooper - MemberWhen more and more experts come out to say that a currency union makes sense
This really isn't happening.
What is happening is that you are struggling to find any credible support for your campaign.
Without trying to be nasty, I've seen links to your posts here on two other forums, and they haven't been used to highlight a reasonable and well thought out argument for a yes vote...
You may want to think about that. 💡
I have stalkers? Wow - and slightly odd. Though if people are deluded enough to think this is "my" campaign, perhaps I'm not surprised. I just come on here because I like to argue.
Also struggling to understand why I should care what random people on unnamed Internet forums think about me 😉
bencooper - MemberThough if people are deluded enough to think this is "my" campaign, perhaps I'm not surprised.
Judging by the content of your posts, I'm certainly not surprised. You continue to paste up any biased drivel that supports your view and ignore anything that doesn't and have devoted a fair bit of time to it.
Also struggling to understand why I should care what random people on unnamed Internet forums think about me
It's more of a case that there is a general concensus that if you actually believe everything you post, you are a mentalist.
In your defence, at least you didn't make that ridiculous threat up the page, although it was funny.
Again, I think the main problem the Yes campaign have is that they underestimate the Tory ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face. Or, in this case, make it harder for rUK businesses to sell to their second-largest market to make a political point.
Again, I think the main problem the No campaign have is that they underestimate the SNP ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face. Or, in this case, make it harder for Scottish businesses to sell to their largest market to make a political point.
Which is more likely, or even more concerning?
The Yes campaign is bigger than the SNP. But it's easier to portray the independence movement as Alex Salmond's pet project.
There's a "general consensus" among people on this unnamed forum? Now I really don't believe you - there's no Internet forum anywhere that reaches a general consensus on anything.
I predict that in several years from now you will struggle to find a Scotsman or woman who openly admits to having voted Yes
Who the hell is ernie_lynch and why is his opinion so important that it might make everyone who disagrees with him wrong ?
can we have a consensus that we like to argue ben 😉
Who the hell is ernie_lynch .....
You mean that you don't know ? **
.
bencooper - MemberThe Yes campaign is bigger than the SNP. But it's easier to portray the independence movement as Alex Salmond's pet project.
Says the man who tries to make it a Scotland verses the Tories issue with this gem :
[i] I think the main problem the Yes campaign have is that they underestimate the Tory ability to cut off their own nose to spite their face. [/i]
Opposition to currency union is not a uniquely Tory position, but you like to suggest that it is.
so saying there's no plan B is just parroting one of the more stupid things Better Together like to say.
For the Scottish electorate to make an informed decision about something as important as independence from the rest of the UK they need to hear an open and honest debate. All sides need to be open and honest, this includes the SNP. So if the SNP have a plan B then the Scottish electorate are entitled to know what is.
Why is plan B a secret ? Why might the people of Scotland have to wait until [i]after[/i] they have voted to find out what it is ?
There's nothing "stupid" about Better Together saying there's no plan B, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no plan B.
Either that or plan B is so full of holes that the SNP won't to let anyone scrutinise it.
.
** As far as I'm aware no one is going around internet forums making the case for Scottish based on, among other things, comments I've made. And if they have, then I would be very much expect people to ask "who the hell is ernie_lynch ?"
Typo : that should of course say : "....making the case for Scottish [i]independence[/i]"
"who the hell is ernie_lynch?"
Some Argie trouble-making upstart, I thought? 🙂
Why is plan B a secret ? Why might the people of Scotland have to wait until after they have voted to find out what it is ?There's nothing "stupid" about Better Together saying there's no plan B, the overwhelming evidence is that there is no plan B.
You are of course correct but rUK has no Plan B that I am aware of
The real problem is they have been asked to vote and then negotiate.
Whilst this is the scenario both sides will say what they think will happen and/or what they think will attract the floating voters to their side.
To think that any negotiation would end exactly as either side presents it is unwise.
To criticise and blame only one side for this is seems to me a bit unfair.
They are both doing the same tbh.
ITs basically going oh look a politician over there is behaving a like a politician
Its why dave wont debate there but he will make announcements on the issue/ - concrete ines like no currencey union to suit his agenda and vague and imprecise claims of more devolution still being an option without any actual commitment to it for example. Like AS approach of promsing the unrealistic it is politically astute but hard to defend on any other grounds.
I am not sure why folk focus on just one side here they are all largely behaving like politicians do.
can we have a consensus that we like to argue ben
Too right. Though I want to know where these other forums are, so I can go argue on there too 😉
Why is plan B a secret ? Why might the people of Scotland have to wait until after they have voted to find out what it is ?
Because the idea was to have no prenegotiation - an independent commission said that a currency union would be the best option for everyone, but the idea is these things will be negotiated after the referendum. Of course before the referendum, everyone on both sides will say things to get the vote to go their way - the No side will say that things are not negotiable, the Yes side will say that things are negotiable. Once the vote happens, if it's a Yes then the game changes completely and both sides are now out to negotiate the best settlement for Scotland on one side and the rUK on the other. And again we'd be back to the point that an independent commission, plus a bunch of economic experts, have said that a currency union is best for both sides.
Really, though, it's a side issue - I'm tired of talking about the currency because it'll all work out okay. There are several options, someone sensible will be negotiated. I'm much more interested in the other reasons an independent Scotland is a good idea - the way we can protect the NHS, the way we can have an more direct democratic form of government, the way we can get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those are the reasons I want independence, and frankly even if it means I have to use the Scottish Groat to pay for things it's still a price worth paying.
[quote=bencooper ]The Yes campaign is bigger than the SNP. But it's easier to portray the independence movement as Alex Salmond's pet project.
I wonder why that is? Could it be because the independence movement is AS's pet project?
we can get rid of weapons of mass destruction
The deep fried Mars bar? 😕
Can't we just give Scotland independance, then have a no vote, and then use that as an excuse to invade?
I'd promise to only carpet bomb one of the two places in Scotland. 🙂
You are of course correct but rUK has no Plan B that I am aware of
You don't appear to have fully grasped what independence for Scotland will actually mean. After independence it will be for Scotland to decide whether they use the rUK currency without agreement, or issue their own currency, or apply for to join the Euro, or use the US dollar, or whatever. The rUK won't need to come up with any plan at all. They let independent countries decide such issues for themselves.
.
Really, though, it's a side issue - I'm tired of talking about the currency because it'll all work out okay.
😕 erm, after this thread experienced a long period of inactivity you suddenly appear to post a link concerning currency union. In your link the author of the report, whose opinion you apparently value, points out that there needs to be a plan B.
You are now claiming that the whole issue of currency union and whether there is a plan B is a side issue which you're tired of talking about !
How about not trawling through the internet looking for articles on post-independence currency arrangements if it's a side issue which you're tired of talking about ? 💡 💡 💡
I wonder why that is? Could it be because the independence movement is AS's pet project?
It really isn't. I lean towards the SSP and Greens a lot more than the SNP, both of whom support independence. Right now, it doesn't matter who we vote for, we get whatever England wants. After independence, we get who we want.
a long period of inactivity
It wasn't that long, and it was relevant so I thought it would be of interest. Why do you assume that, because I post a link, I support every word of the article and agree with every implication?
bencooper - Member
....an independent commission said that a currency union would be the best option for everyone
Hmmm......
(Heard the news item about the other report allegedly trashing the HM Treasury one on radio while driving to my ride this morning. It's analysis of the assymtery or risk is interesting even if for unintended reasons. Very clear why if doesn't work for either side. Still of "academic interest" only as it won't happen. One party may make a u turn every now and then, but not all three and HMT when the argument is so clear cut)
After independence, we get who we want.
I gives me a warm feeling that, the innocence required to believe that still exists is today's cynical world. 😉
Why do you assume that, because I post a link, I support every word of the article and agree with every implication?
No, I assume that if you post a link you're actually interested in the topic that the link is discussing.
I don't expect you to claim that it's a side issue which you're not interested in discussing.
And while you might not agree with everything in a link you did say that claiming there was no plan B was [i]"one of the more stupid things Better Together like to say"[/i]. I think we are entitled to know whether you think Prof Leslie Young (whoever he is) says "stupid things".
It gives me a warm feeling that, the innocence required to believe that still exists is today's cynical world.
Same self-serving shysters, different accent.
You don't appear to have fully grasped what independence for Scotland will actually mean. After independence it will be for Scotland to decide whether they use the rUK currency without agreement, or issue their own currency, or apply for to join the Euro, or use the US dollar, or whatever. The rUK won't need to come up with any plan at all. They let independent countries decide such issues for themselves.
I thought we were debating whether rUK will enter a currency union with iS as this is indeed Plan A. I think we can all agree that rUK has a say in this.
Again no will disagree that there will be negotiations between both sides in the event of a Yes vote so again it seems reasonable to say rUK has say in what they do/what happens at the separation.
I thought we were debating whether rUK will enter a currency union with iS as this is indeed Plan A.
I didn't think we were. Last I heard the Conservatives, Labour, and the LibDems, all ruled out currency union. Since the next UK/rUK government is likely only include politicians from those parties then I think we can safely say there will be no currency union.
The rUK [i]plan B[/i] will be/is : "no currency union"
I didn't think we were. Last I heard the Conservatives, Labour, and the LibDems, all ruled out currency union.
They have ruled it out [i]now[/i], before the referendum - after the referendum, they may well realise that it makes more sense to go with the solution that's best for the rUK.
England wants. After independence, we get who we want.
Funny. I live in England and don't get who I want.
after the referendum
We'll still all be part of the UK. 🙂
bencooper - Member
Iafter the referendum, they may well realise that it makes more sense to go with the solution that's[b] best for the rUK.[/b]
Is this one of those things that if you say it often enough, some people might actually believe it?
Funny. I live in England and don't get who I want.
Perhaps Scottish independence will help with that - it might be the kick that the rUK needs to do something about the democratic deficit at Westminster. A social democratic Scotland might also be a good inspiration. One thing the independence debate has done, which is great no matter what the result in September, is get people in Scotland interested and talking about politics again.
Is this one of those things that if you say it often enough, some people might actually believe it?
I'm not an economist. I believe it because the independent commission said it and other experts have also said it. The only people I've seen who disagree are political leaders (who of course will say anything they have to to get the result they want), and a civil service mandarin.
I don't think it's a cut and dried issue.
IanMunro - MemberEngland wants. After independence, we get who we want.
Funny. I live in England and don't get who I want.
But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.
But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.
To an extent the English do get who Scotland wants to govern them. There is no English parliament, Scotland has a direct say in all issues concerning England and the government departments which govern England.
I have no idea why there is no English parliament, at least I don't understand the moral justification for not having one. And the absence of an English parliament is a deeply undemocratic and unacceptable anomaly imo.
[quote=bencooper ]
Could it be because the independence movement is AS's pet project?
It really isn't.
Oh, so what is his pet project?
[quote=bencooper ]Why do you assume that, because I post a link, I support every word of the article and agree with every implication?
I'm not as naive as ernie - I assumed you only agreed with the bits which support your preconceptions.
[quote=bencooper ]I'm not an economist. I believe it because the independent commission said it and other experts have also said it. The only people I've seen who disagree are political leaders (who of course will say anything they have to to get the result they want), and a civil service mandarin.
You missed these insignificant chaps then (who you'd think might support a currency union if anybody would, if what AS says is to be believed)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union
teamhurtmore - Member
"bencooper - Member
After independence, we get who we want."
I gives me a warm feeling that, the innocence required to believe that still exists is today's cynical world.
So fundamentally you believe
1. democracy doesn't work, and government is best done by an elite?
or
2. Scots are too stupid to run their own country properly?
Neither actually.
I don't believe in fairy tales either.
You missed these insignificant chaps then (who you'd think might support a currency union if anybody would, if what AS says is to be believed)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union
I didn't really miss them - but since there's also lots of business people who are ambivalent about independence, and lots who are pro-independence, it's probably sensible to count the opinions of the business community as a draw.
More importantly, I'm still waiting to see these forums where there's a general consensus I'm a mentalist 😀
But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.To an extent the English do get who Scotland wants to govern them. There is no English parliament, Scotland has a direct say in all issues concerning England and the government departments which govern England.
I have no idea why there is no English parliament, at least I don't understand the moral justification for not having one. And the absence of an English parliament is a deeply undemocratic and unacceptable anomaly imo.
I fully support Ernie in his quest for a greater degree of self-determination for the people of England.
This historical anomaly, whereby one nation with a questionable mandate holds an undue and unwarranted influence over a neighbour with differing and divergent priorities, does neither party any good in the long run. We should put a stop to it at once.
Unsatisfactory constitutional arrangements, eh? Who needs 'em? We should have a referendum about it or something.
[quote=bencooper ]I didn't really miss them - but since there's also lots of business people who are ambivalent about independence, and lots who are pro-independence, it's probably sensible to count the opinions of the business community as a draw.
Yes of course, let's count any pro-independence business people as equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD. I would expect nothing less of you.
I fully support Ernie in his quest for a greater degree of self-determination for the people of England.
Absolutely - the Westminster democratic deficit is even worse for people in the North of England and the South-West than it is for us. The rUK really needs a federal system, like most other democracies have, and something seriously needs doing to the electoral system too.
Yes of course, let's count any pro-independence business people as equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD. I would expect nothing less of you.
Okay, how are we going to score it? By number of businesses on each side? By the number of employees these businesses have? By the turnover, profit, exports or some other financial metric of each of these businesses? How would you determine which side is the winner?
How about you find somebody equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD who support a currency union? What other business organisations are there of similar standing?
So fundamentally you believe democracy doesn't work
Not the way you think it does. If Scotland votes yes it will be less independent than it is now. For example the City of London will still invest in Scotland but Scotland will lose all regulation and control over it, similarly Scotland will continue to use the pound sterling but lose all influence.
On another thread someone says [i]"I would be voting Yes to decouple Scotland from a neo-liberal, London-centric Westminster consensus"[/i] which betrays a real naivety.
Firstly an "independent" Scotland will have sign the European Fiscal Compact if it joins the EU which takes control of the economy out of its hands and makes the neoliberal model enforceable by unelected EU Commissioners.
And secondly all four major parties in Scotland have signed up to the neoliberal consensus. And yes that includes the SNP - cutting corporation tax is pure neolibralism.
.
Scots are too stupid to run their own country properly?
The Scots aren't stupid, about half of all the British Prime Ministers for the last 150 years have been Scottish or of Scottish descent. Which is quite an achievement bearing in mind that the English outnumber the Scots 10 to 1.
What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.
What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.
Are you able to quantify the effects of that Influence Ernie? Even people in the north of England view Westminster as Southern-centric.
We should have a referendum about it or something.
Even better, we should have one that contains the options most people actually want.
Crazy thought I know but
"Even better, we [s]should[/s] could have had the one that contains the option that the book of dreams describes"
- it certainly isn't independence
Are you able to quantify the effects of that Influence Ernie?
You think political influence has no effect ? That's a new one on me.
You think political influence has no effect ? That's a new one on me.
In that case it should be easy for you to explain the effects. If being part of a union gives us such influence, why is their a referendum in September?
What a bizarre question. Scotland obviously has political influence. The referendum in September is to decide whether Scotland wishes to be separate from the rest of the UK.
Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions 🙂
What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.
How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK? Don't try and make out the Scottish leaders of the big 3 UK parties pander to anyone but their base support and as many of the influential swing constituencies as possible.
- it certainly isn't independence
If you keep saying that over and over again, some of us might starting believing you 🙄
How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK?
Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?
And voting Yes will remove all responsibility from UK Prime Ministers to even consider the interests of the Scottish people.
.
If you keep saying that over and over again, some of us might starting believing you
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but not I'm going to ignore the truth simply because to don't like it.
A separate Scotland will have less influence over issues which effect it.
Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?
Exactly. But this is what you were insinuating when you mentioned how many Scottish prime misters we'd had, wasn't it? Otherwise why bring it up?
A separate Scotland will have less influence over issues which effect it.
We'll obviously need to agree to disagree on that then.
But this is what you were insinuating when you mentioned how many Scottish prime misters we'd had, wasn't it? Otherwise why bring it up?
It is certainly not what I 'insinuated'.
I brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.
This does not however mean that it has been at the detriment of the rest of the UK, why would it need to be ?
EDIT : AS/SNP now wants a separate Scotland to work in direct competition with the rest of the UK, with the false claim that a corporation tax rate 3% below the UK level will draw investment away from England and Wales and to Scotland. The effect of this kind of strategy will be detrimental to both Scotland and England and Wales (and it certainly won't help Northern England which so many on here claim to be concerned about) Competition between Scotland and England and Wales will be bad for all parties concerned. Although England will almost certainly come out less scathed.
They shouldn't. But well, that's kinda the point of independence!ernie_lynch - Member
How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK?
Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?
btw few pages back you were on about currency options B, the options are there if you care to look for them. Salmond and sturgeon, have be pretty clear on that(despite the media trying to say otherwise.).
ernie_lynch - Member
...I brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.
Is that why our people keep having to emigrate to find a living for their family?
Scotland's population was just over 5 million 100 years ago. It's still in the 5 millions. Meanwhile England's population has risen 40%.
That doesn't sound like the cake of opportunity has been spread very evenly.
If that is influence, it's not the sort we need.