You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Listening to R4 this morning and I am now even more confused.
I've given up on the BBC news - they've gone beyond selective editing and bias, they're now into the category of just making stuff up.
they're now into the category of just making stuff up.
Any examples Ben?
Did they make up the bollocx about the secret oil reserves off the West Coast?
[quote=CaptainFlashheart said]That sort of bullying hectoring arrogance
How is stating a political position either bullying, hectoring or arrogant?
I think cressers thinks that making the speech in Scotland is provocative.
Or course if he made it in England then no doubt he'd be accused of being scared/remote/little Englander etc etc.
Can't win really 🙄 (unless he towed the SNP line rather than shoot their fox)
Any examples Ben?Did they make up the bollocx about the secret oil reserves off the West Coast?
They've made up the thing about Osborne ruling out a currency union - when it turns out he's doing nothing of the sort, he's ruling out a particular set of his own treasury's conditions for a union.
There's a really good website I've lots the link to, which tracks the BBC's stealth edits of articles - it's funny and worrying to see how they tweak articles, firming up statements ("may" becomes "will", stuff like that), and removing quotes and opinions that go contrary to the line they're pushing.
Yeah, the oil reserves thing - I read about that on various sources, I have no idea if there are significant reserves there or not, or indeed if anyone's even looked. But hey, pay me a license fee and I'll be fair and impartial and check my facts too 😉
I think cressers thinks that making the speech in Scotland is provocative.
Making the speech at all is provocative. Remember how Westminster alway said that it was a matter for Scots to decide and they wouldn't get involved? That didn't last, did it? So now we have the full resources of the Westminster government acting for the No side.
[b]bencooper[/b]
Defaulting on a debt is very different to refusing to pay a share of an existing debt
No it isnt. It's exactly the same thing - failure to pay.
One interesting point raised is that the UK will have a general election after the Scottish referendum. Therefore the UK parties can seek a clear mandate from the electorate as to how to handle a yes vote (assuming it goes that way). As an English voter if Scotland votes yes (and I hope they do not) I would support a UK a party with a mandate to exclude Scotland from the pound.
AS and the SNP are stuck here as an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU. The only possible swerve is to retain the pound and piggy back off the UK's special status in the EU and that makes no sense to the rest of the UK.
The OP quoted a figure of £59 billion pounds in UK exports to Scotland, not sure where that inure comes from but it sounds very high. If Scotland could source those imports more cheaply elsewhere they'd already be doing so.
No it isnt. It's exactly the same thing - failure to pay
Me refusing to pay my mortgage is very different to me refusing to help my neighbour pay his mortgage.
But anyway, these are just negotiating positions - what the SNP are really saying is if you can make dramatic statements then so can we.
an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU
No we don't. And join the EU? I'm already an EU citizen.
Provocation is not just a Westminster thing then
And the Scottish Paper refers to 'south of the border' tsssk.
This currency thing is a sham.
So on Day 1 of newly independent Scotland rUK will just stop accepting pounds from over the border?
That's totally unworkable. There would have to be a transition period and during that transition period GBP is the only sensible currency.
Is it rational to have a longer transition period so that both countries can negotiate various positions and examine the best way to deal with currencies and finances between the two nations. Or is it rational to throw the baby out with the bathwater instead?
jambalaya - MemberAS and the SNP are stuck here as an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU.
Well worded there! But deceptive. Yes Scotland has to [i]commit[/i] to the Euro, but there's no requirement to ever act on that commitment- you can even commit to not acting on the commitment. A silly system but that's bureaucrats for you.
So by all means do carry on saying we'd be committed, just don't pretend it means a thing.
bencooper - Member
Defaulting on a debt is very different to refusing to pay a share of an existing debt. Outside investors may well be very interested in a country with no debts and massive natural and human resources.
Indeed Ben! they call it Argentina.
But to be serious for a moment, let me come back to Gordi's excellent argument last night. I fully accept the notion that centralised governments (be it Westminster, Brussels etc) are doing a poor job at representing the interests oft the populations they SERVE (not the other way round). In general I would favour greater localised power over centralised power with the obvious exceptions of and such as defence.
Where I respectfully disagree with Gordi is on whether the White Paper delivers this or not. It is widely accepted now that the white paper is little more than a political manifesto. As such is shares the common characteristics of most manifestos ie, it contains a list of wishes that will not and more importantly cannot be delivered upon. Under scrutiny it falls down and is exposed as simple deceit. There is nothing new there since the same can be said of nearly all manifestos. What is different, however, it that in this case, the issues are more serious and therefore the level of scrutiny and the requirements for precision are mush higher - indeed unusually, even uniquely, high. And so they should be.
As my post last night showed, the spotlight of scrutiny is now fully on the central issue of the proposed currency union. This is the one glaring Achilles heel in the argument as the writer in the Scotsman concluded. It also lays bare the elephant in the room - the fact that we are not actually debating full independence at all (apart form the some of the nationalist camp). The WP lays out the case for higher levels of devolution but fall short of calling for independence.
Mark Carney has started the process of bringing clarity and precision to the debate. He has stood up in a non political way and in effect said that a currency union is like a square ie, it is a construct with four equal sides. It cannot by definition have three nor can it have five. Nor can the sides be of unequal length. The three main political parties are now following suit and I would expect they will add flavour and colour to what those four equal sides look like, In contrast, AS and NS etc will continue to argue that a square has three/five (anything but 4) sides and will claim that to suggest otherwise is bullying. They will argue until they are [s]red[/s] blue in the face that a currency union does not have the crucial fourth leg, the one that Carney describes simple as a currency union by definition involves a ceding of national sovereignty.
So you have a choice, does a square have four sides or does it have three. It's pretty simple really. In my mind a three sided square does one thing - it topples over. What we are seeing now is the toppling of the triangle that is pretending to be a square.
This would be funny were it not for the seriousness of the consequences. This false debate is now creating high and unnecessary level of certainty not only for Scotland but also for the rUK. As such it is an extremely expensive vanity project. Greater levels of political power should and can be devolved throughout the UK, not just in Scotland. IMO this is not the best way to go about it. Instead of a win:win or even a win:lose we are likely to have a lose:lose result. Scotland and the rUK deserve better.
an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU
No we don't. And join the EU? I'm already an EU citizen.
Yes you do and you won't be in the EU. This was sorted yesterday.
Dr Jo Eric Khushal MurkensProf from the LSE
So he says:
No automatic EU membership.
If Scotland join then they must take the Euro.
They also must sign up to Schengen, which means there will need to be Border Controls between Scotland and England.But what would he know?
POSTED 20 HOURS AGO #
There just seems to be so many HUGE unanswered questions, how can anyone vote without knowing facts?
Hmm.. now all three main UK parliamentary parties are saying no to currency union with Scotland.
Have they asked the people they represent?
I don't want the Scots to vote for independence, but if they do, I want politicians that will try to keep the links between Scotland and what remains of the UK as strong as possible.
It's nonsense to say "please stay with us", and then in the next breath, "if you leave, then bugger off! completely". It's playground politics. We really need some grownups in parliament.
There just seems to be so many HUGE unanswered questions, how can anyone vote without knowing facts?
That's exactly the picture the NO camp are trying to present, because they know fear makes people vote for the status-quo. Change is scary.
It worries me... why can't they just make it clear why Scotland is better off staying in the UK, and back that up with a promise of more powers for the Scottish Parliament... surely that would be enough to win a NO vote. These unnecessary scare tactics, and general rubbishing of Scotland, could well back fire and make people vote YES, just to be rid of the kind of politicians leading the NO campaign.
Kelvin, the alternative interpretation is that they are representing the interest of the people they serve, They are bringing clarity to what is required for a currency union to succeed. At present, it looks like those criteria will not be met under the proposals set out by AS etc. The rUK cannot underwrite either Scottish banks or the Scottish government (the two are also linked) without certain safeguards in place. That is part of the fourth leg of the square.
It worries me... why can't they just make it clear why Scotland is better off staying in the UK, and back that up with a promise of more powers for the Scottish Parliament... surely that would be enough to win a NO vote.
Indeed but that is not what is being debated despite being the massive elephant in the room. Politicians are playing one game when most people want to play a totally different and far simpler one. Let's keep the UK in place but have better representation of local interests at the local level not just in Scotland but throughout the UK.
Kelvin, the alternative interpretation is that they are representing the interest of the people they serve
They're doing it badly.
Also, increasingly, I'd question who they serve.
winston_dog - MemberYes you do and you won't be in the EU. This was sorted yesterday.
It really wasn't, just reposting failed arguments doesn't "sort" things.
If your man is saying that using the euro is mandatory for eu members, just whisper "Sweden" in his ear. The process is simple, well understood, proven, and enshrined in treaty. I can't see the article referred to but the only thing you need to do with people who seem to claim we would have to use the euro, is find out if they're misrepresented, ignorant, deceived or dishonest.
Schengen seems to have a similar practical opt-out- if a nation doesn't want to be part of it, under the terms of the treaty it should be a simple matter of failing to qualify. As with the euro, there is no penalty for doing so (*) As far as I know there's not a precedent for that yet though.
(*- well, there [i]kind[/i] of is. The penalty for not meeting the terms of euro adoption is that you're not allowed to adopt the euro. The penalty for failing to meet the schengen technical criteria is not being allowed into schengen! "I don't want to eat my peas mummy!" "Well if you don't eat your peas- you can't have any peas!" "Er, OK")
just pure sabotage from westminster
osbourne is a rubber faced ****
Northwind - I will repost the link for you.
Now it seems quite straight forward to me from what he is saying.
The rules for "new" members are different from what went before.
The Prof seems to know what he is talking about and doesn't seem to be political but he seems to be talking from a legal and technical point of view.
How this guy has a failed argument I am not exactly sure.
It's nonsense to say "please stay with us", and then in the next breath, "if you leave, then bugger off! completely". It's playground politics. We really need some grownups in parliament.
Problem is no one really knows what will happen if there is an independence vote as is the only point at which serious negotiations will occur. Scotland is unlikely to want to take debts in a foreign currency as exchange rates have a huge impact on this debt and rYK wont let them leave with none
It would be better if there was a mature debate about what will clearly be very difficult issues to resolve and will involve compromise
Expect the same over the EU when folk will argue we can leave the EU but keep all the free trade yet stop immigration and not have to harmonise on rules and others will say we will be free and great once more
the reality being somewhere between the two extremes, as it will be here.
I do think the UK govt needs to be careful as they do look like they are trying to bully tbh
teamhurtmore - Member
Aye, because just like last time,Westminster was of the forgiving nature after the devolution vote in the 70's. Describing the majority party proceeding with a policy that everybody who voted for them knew was THE central pillar of their existence as a "vanity project" is exactly the same patronising attitude shown by so many of your countrymen who have so much advice to give us simple teuchters.
Surprised the half track panzer bread maker hasn't shown up yet
[b]Here's how I see it:[/b]
So Scotland want more self control - great most people would say, sure, fantastic, go for it, we'll support you.
Instead what seems to be happening is that AS and the SNP (seemingly by his demeanor on a massive personal power trip) are stirring up nothing more than trouble and bad feeling.
The UK Government (rightly and at the current will of the people as they have not yet voted for independence or any sort of pre-independence negotiations) won't waste massive amounts of money and time negotiating before the result of any referendum is known, yet, are being goaded all the time by AS who makes increasingly louder noises like a spoilt child stuck in a trolley in the Tesco sweets aisle.
Eventually when AS's claims become potentially unsettling for the UK as a whole the UK Government are forced to react. When that reaction is expressed as an opinion which AS does not agree with then the 'English' are accused of bullying, repression and scare tactics.
If independence goes ahead then the end result could be that an independent Scotland would not really be independent in the true sense of the word at all. They would have lost all of the significant benefits that come from being part of the Union whilst still being controlled by the UK (if they keep the pound), or by Germany, Brussels and the EU if they go the Euro route.
Surely any Scot not of the 'FU' mentality can see that for both sides, independence is not the way to go?
Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's put to bed will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.
Problem is no one really knows what will happen if there is an independence vote as is the only point at which serious negotiations will occur
Agree entirely, which is why Tory/Labour/LibDems ruling out currency union at this stage, without any consultation with the people they claim to represent (as opposed to just the oil and finance companies,) is just nonsense.
Getting serious now
Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.
Let's hope so. And that's the resolution that the UK Parliamentary parties should be offering, and pushing for, rather than the patronising "we'll screw you if you leave" tone of talk of "ruling out a currency union".
An independent Scotland would be at the whims of larger countries in Europe, just as Ireland is. They're much stronger within the UK. As are we. Our politicians should not be threatening to make that even worse, for all countries concerned, by ruling out currency union.
half track panzer bread maker
😀
They would have lost all of the significant benefits that come from being part of the Union
I keep seeing this phrase but no one seems able to articulate what these benefits actually are.
Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we'll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay.
Indeed
There will be many hard negotiations to have during the divorce and no one knows how it will end up
Better to say nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in...its not a great message mind.
teamhurtmore - Member
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.
All said by you while describing the SNP manifesto as the book of dreams and the vote itself as a vanity project.Do you take in ironing?
Bearing in mind the post above yours claims
Surely any Scot not of the 'FU' mentality can see that for both sides, independence is not the way to go?
Shows exactly the mindset of the NO campaign, so dream on.
Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we'll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay
Andy Murray will forfeit his right to be British.
If you read the Treasury analysis, you will see Osborne is merely acting on unequivocal independent Treasury advice. [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-assessment-of-a-sterling-currency-union ]See pdf to download here[/url]
mefty - Stop posting links to detailed analysis of the issues. You bully.
Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.Let's hope so. And that's the resolution that the UK Parliamentary parties should be offering, and pushing for, rather than the patronising "we'll screw you if you leave" tone of talk of "ruling out a currency union".
Yes but until the elephant in the room that is 'Full Independence' has been ruled out then further devolution negotiations would never have been truly successful (as there would still have been too many trouble making people pushing for independence and too many unresolved independence issues getting in the way).
This is why the vote for full independence (as opposed to greater devolution) had to happen first, to rule out independence for the foreseeable future, so that then, the Scots can move forward towards proper, positive and focused talks around more self control, greater powers of devolution and increased Scottish self governance.
They are not ruling out currency union, they are ruling our currency union as outlined by AS and co. They are different things. There is a current theme here - you cannot * have one side of a currency union (the benefits) without the other side (the obligations). That is all that Carney and co are saying. And they are correct to use Europe as an example of why this is the case. The euro zone cannot survive without greater levels of monetary and fiscal integration and lower levels is national independence - that is as clear as saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
* this is nothing more than a kids argument.
Kelvin - I 100% agree with what should be being offered BTW. But again that is not what IS being offered. When I suggested that a year ago (ie saying what you are saying) the trolls flamed me for not respecting the wishes of the Scots!!! Funny where the strongest consensus has been all along!!!!
The analysis sets out that the UK is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history, and the current arrangements bring significant benefits to Scotland. Taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK to the benefit of all parts of the UK. Risks are pooled and the UK has a common insurance against uncertainty. Within a sterling currency union, an independent Scottish state would find it more difficult to adjust to the effects of economic challenges, such as a fall in the global price of oil, than Scotland is able to as part of the UK.In turn, the continuing UK would become exposed to much greater fiscal and financial risk from a separate state, creating risks for continuing UK taxpayers. The subsequent experience of the euro area in the financial crisis highlights the challenges of creating a durable currency union. The analysis concludes that, in the event of a vote for independence, the Treasury would advise the UK government against entering into a currency union. The UK pound is one of the oldest and most successful currencies in the world. If people in Scotland vote to leave the UK they are also voting to leave the UK pound.
Quite a neat summary from that link.
Bllx, 78 pages and coffee time almost over. Hope the exec summary is good and better than the one in the BoD!
Thanks for the link Mefty
duckman - Member
teamhurtmore - Member
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.All said by you while describing the SNP manifesto as the book of dreams and the vote itself as a vanity project.Do you take in ironing?
It is x2 QED. The truth is not always palatable is it?
No, but am a dab hand with starch and as steam iron as the boys know!!!
Just to reiterate the point on Scotland having to join the EU as a new state (and fulfil entry criteria) - lets defer to the President of the EU:
But [i] what would he know?[/i]
Is there an alternative nationnalist party that doesn't envisage joining the EU? After all, having just left one unrepresentative union you wouldn't want to get entangled in an even worse one...
teamhurtmore - Member
They are not ruling out currency union, they are ruling our currency union as outlined by AS and co. They are different things..
So in clarification (page 10) from the Treasury:
On the basis of the scale of the challenges, [b]and the Scottish Government’s proposals for addressing them, [/b]HM Treasury would advise the UK Government against entering into a currency union.
winston_dog - MemberThe rules for "new" members are different from what went before.
I can't view the video as I say, but the treaties have not changed. It is an irony of the euro- you're required to commit to joining it, but actually prevented from joining til you meet the criteria of your accession treaty. All very practical.
But as Kaesae showed us, one youtube video is more important 😉
kelvin, the conclusion today from the BBC's Douglas Fraser (Scottish. Economics and Business editor)
[b]But this crunch point also demonstrates the rUK can (also*) choose to assert its interests. Its politicians will see it as their duty to fight for them[/b].
* my addition!
I have not had time to read all the pages so apologies if this has been said already but, if nothing else, does this not demonstrate that the SNP's plans are a bit 'wooly'. Their White Paper read as a bit of a wish list without any decent alternatives. Currency is a major element of independence and they seem to have not fully thought it through.
(for transparency, eligible voter here who, if the vote was today, would be voting No.)
Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.
In the event of a No vote, why on earth would Westminster even consider giving more devolution? Much more likely the contrary will happen - pulling back of powers, and the Barnett formula is dead anyway.
If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.
The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.
Or they are keeping this as the final trump card - they are [s]nasty bullies[/s] better bridge players after all!!
Or they are keeping this as the final trump card
I hope so. Devo Max always seemed a great option to me. I know that is off the table but more powers would seem a logical compromise.
Careful frank, you get flamed for saying things like that!!! 😉
Nope, I agree completely - more powers, and importantly more powers which can't be pulled back whenever Westminster feels like it. Really, the UK needs a more federal system, why Should Scotland have a better deal than Wales, NI, the North, the Southwest, etc.
But without that option on the table, independence is the best choice.
I think federalism within The EU is a better idea
We do need more local powers whilst also clubbing together
Franksinatra - thats where Salmond shot his own fox, isn't it?
Instead of calling for devo max (which there's little doubt the govt would have had to give) Salmond went in riding two horses, a vote on both independence AND devo max, but came out again riding one lame pony when Cameron called his bluff with a vote on all or nothing!
I think federalism within The EU is a better idea
We do need more local powers whilst also clubbing together
I like mild curries that are also spicy.
My dream home is on the penthouse floor of a bungalow.
My interests are going out and quiet nights in.
And so to sum up, I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland. There is no evidence that adequate proposals or policy changes to enable the formation of a currency union could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments in the foreseeable future.
THM - McPherson's letter is far more damning than anything in the report. - not limited to "present proposals".
Didn't see this posted yet. Text of Osbourne's speech is available here:
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-on-the-prospect-of-a-currency-union-with-an-independent-scotland ]Linky[/url]
I am not convinced that federal systems with local powers are a contradiction in terms though your critique was amusingly done.
ninfan - Member
Franksinatra - thats where Salmond shot his own fox, isn't it?Instead of calling for devo max (which there's little doubt the govt would have had to give) Salmond went in riding two horses, a vote on both independence AND devo max, but came out again riding one lame pony when Cameron called his bluff with a vote on all or nothing!
Hang on, ninfan, I thought he was the canniest and most able politician in the UK. Or perhaps, it really is true that Scotland (and the rUK) really did/do deserve better! 😉
The problem is that this whole mess is affecting us all. So CMD is not blameless either. Indeed that was the final conclusion of the Scotsman article that I posted last night. Seeing AS with his pants down is amusing for a split second but ultimately it is an ugly and unsatisfactory distraction for everyone. Perhaps we get the politicians we deserve though?!?!
THM moans at AS and has a friend in Zulu
ah all is well in the world of the right [eous]
As we see the floods rising in Toryland (Thames valley), do you think they've noticed yet that most of the high ground is in Scotland?
Excellent work by George today - this really isn't going to end well for the Bitter Together lot, if the immediate reactions from my chums in the 'undecided' camp are anything to go by 🙂
In the event of a No vote, why on earth would Westminster even consider giving more devolution? Much more likely the contrary will happen - pulling back of powers, and the Barnett formula is dead anyway.If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.
The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.
the good old "Project Fear" line, vote no and they will shaft you
THM, did you come home from work early one day and find Alex Salmond's trousers on the stairs? It would explain a bit... 8)
No, funnily enough, he's shafting those north on the border first. We are just dealing with the unpleasant spillage so far. 😉
(It is becoming increasingly embarrassing for the alma mater though. Did the department not teach basic monetary economics/functioning of central banks etc well in those days? Pity to trash the reputation of such a fine establishment)
all or nothing
Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.
If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.
Still plenty of time till the referendum so there's no need for the No campaign to play all its cards at once. At the moment we're seeing the SNP's bluff being called on currency, and the fact they have been so aggresive and insulting in their response shows how desperate they are, and how there is no plan B
I predict devo max will be put on the table sometime in the summer. Then it will be fresh in the minds of the voters when the big day comes, and hopefully we'll have see the last of Salmond and his ilk.
Yeah I'd agree with that-Salmond et al wanted a three way vote wih devo max in there- for some reason the Uk govt wanted devo max removed? So they could use it towards the end of their vote no campaign?
I doubt it very much..
Let's hope so Kenny!
@bencooper - I think Westminster took the devo max etc off the table and wanted a simple in/out question has it tied the SNPs hands, if they lose this vote it will be very difficult to come back again, it could even finish the party as a viable force. If they had allowed further devolution the SNP could have taken that claiming a big victory and then had a referendum anyway.
I think the SNP has most definitely not thought out the implications of independence, as posted above it means a new application to join the EU and a firm commitment to join the euro as soon as possible (that is a term for all new EU member state applicants) - an independent Scotland cannot inherit the UK's euro opt-out
Or you could look at it from another angle. Would an independent Alba want to have a currency union with the rest of the union? After all, the Alban Thistle would be backed by oil revenues.
Personally I think that the 'all or nothing' was forced to put an end to the issue once and for all
Had there been a referendum for devo max, then the SNP campaigning would immediately start for devo max plus, then devo max plus plus with a cherry on top, and the cycle of salami slicing neverendum goes on and on for ever with the SNP constantly blaming England for all their woes, and the knock on of constant uncertianty into the future meaning that the UK government can never commit to long term plans as they don't know whats happening with Scotland.
Sooner or later, you're just putting off the inevitable, so why not just get down to it - thats good leadership and good for the rest of the UK - stop messing about, shut up or put up, in or out!
Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post 😆
I think you're totally wrong. I think the reason that DEVO Max wasn't offered is that the UK Government wanted this independence thing cleared up once and for all before moving forward.
Otherwise we'd agree to DEVO Max, and Salmond/SNP would still keep causing trouble by relentlessly banging on about about full Scottish independence and as a result, despite DEVO Max being in place, we'd remain in the current land of limbo 'will they/won't they' for the next few decades.
That's not good for anyone, especially not for Scotland.
the fact they[SNP] have been so aggresive and insulting in their response shows how desperate they are, and how there is no plan B
Do you think the No campaign is being polite and not aggressive?
Do you think they have a plan B ?
It just seems a lot of folk using whatever happens to confirm their own bias.
the facts are largely immaterial
All i would say is I would treat the SNP claims as we hope that x will happen
I would treat the NO campaigns as threats that they may not do as some of them are biting off your nose to spite your face.
No one knows what will happen until after the vote as neither side will negotiate.
Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post [ straw man, ad hom 🙄 ]I think you're totally wrong. I think the reason that DEVO Max wasn't offered is that the UK Government wanted this independence thing cleared up once and for all before moving forward.
SO you agree with them that the UK govt did it but despite that they are totally wrong 😕
Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post
I'm not Scottish, I'm English.
I want the Scots to vote NO to independence.
With that out of the way... the UK government only agreed to a referendum with the proviso that the option that most Scots want, more devolution, wasn't on the voting card. That's a fact. We can all offer our own ideas about why...
kennyp - MemberI predict devo max will be put on the table sometime in the summer
Nope.
Love your work Rebel,devo max wasn't offered in case it hastened an end to the union, it would also force Westminster to discuss further devolved powers with the Scottish Government. That would take away uncertainty,the biggest weapon that the strangely united opposition parties have. If as you say, the UK government wants to move forward, why don't they say? Why are they so slow to outline why we would be better together. Can you link to one positive reason that rUK have used so far...Or is it perhaps just been a look at what the SNP are suggesting would happen and saying "No it isn't/you can't." The paranoid Scots line you trot out (constantly) is entirely a construct of the way the NO campaign has conducted itself.
Again it comes back to English politics. If Scotland got devo max, then it wouldn't take long for Wales ad the North to ask why they can't have devo max too. Far better to shut down the whole idea of decentralised government by letting the SNP have their little referendum which they'll lose.
To repeat
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post [ straw man, ad hom ]
I think you're totally wrong
Your next reply should be entertaining
Duckman, I'll answer at greater length tonight (when not at work) but two quick points:-
1. The No campaign's responses have to be negative by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be the No campaign.
2. The SNP is just as guilty as spreading the fear message ie fear of what they say will happen if Scotland does not secede.
As a Scot, I do think they're out to get us. But they're out to get you too. They're out to get almost everyone. Scottish, English, Welsh, Northern Irish. Does anyone think the Westminster government is acting in your best interests?