rolling Scottish independence debate/news thread
Ok so I thought it might be time we had one of these, maybe there has been one before, but thought it would be time to start a fresh thread. We're about a year and a half away now from the referendum which is yet to have a specific date set.
Pro-independence campaign headed by Blair Jenkins: http://www.yesscotland.net/
Pro-UK campaign headed by Alistair Darling: http://www.bettertogether.net/
Useful news sites:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16630456
http://newsnetscotland.com/
Most recent poll by Ipsos-Mori February 2013 (couldn't find any other recent polls):
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes: 34%
No: 55%
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Should Scotland be an independent country?
just quickly so everyone can know how people stand at the moment.
Yes
No
This i just personal preference
Being half-english, half-scottish, and having lived in both/love both places.
Having said that, if somehow this referendum ends in an overwhelming majority vote in favour of independence, I'd say fair enough. Having lived in Scotland for the past 3 years and conceived of predominantly as an 'English' type, I'd say that the sad thing is that this referendum most likely will come down to some irrational hatred of 'the English' (whatever that means) rather than any actual substance...
There's no chance of the Yes Scotland campaign playing the
'irrational hatred of the English' card. And if it doesn't come from them or the SNP (who've never bothered with that route in the past) then I'm not sure where it's expected to come from. There ain't no UKIP style element to the campaigning that will be tipping the balance.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen Better Together campaigning that has dredged up the cringey 'don't trust yourself' tropes.
Don't know
I'm not scottish/don't live in Scotland
so my view isn't valid.
You don't have to fulfil either of those criteria
to have a valid opinion.
Not having the right to vote =/= having the right to an opinion. Things would be unnecessarily insular if the whole debate happened in complete isolation.
There's a 'not' missing before the second 'having', but you get the gist.
Yeah, But my opinion is that.
I know its an issue dear to your heart, but I honestly don't have an opinion on it, apart from that a referendum is right. I do, however, like reading other people's opinions, which is why I'm in this thread.
's cool.
Can't believe that %'s are in 89's in scotland
Get rid of them, that's bollocks
Glasgow Uni (my uni incidentally) held a mock referendum a couple of weeks ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/feb/22/scottish-independence-mock-referendum
Results were:
No 62%
Yes 38%
Only around 10% of the University voted so it is difficult to deduce anything from it, making the whole thing a wee bit pointless. The result was unsurprising to me anyway.
Chill out, Wza.
Anyway, I'm all about the English referendum these days:
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6904-an-english-referendum
:D
3. Under the Callaghan plan the Scots, if they are given (sic) their own Parliament, will still have the right to send their hairy MPs to Westminster, where they will be free to meddle in English affairs, while the English will be unable to offer mature guidance in the theirs.
a. Is this right?
b. Is this decent?
c. Is this not absolutely iniquitous?
I'd really prefer it if both sides weren't allowed to campaign
until maybe an hour or two before the polls open. The next year and a half will be unbearable.
totally with you there
the canvassing around Glasgow uni was a taste of things to come.
Happy to give-'em-enough-rope for the time being, tbh.
The latest scare story was that Scotland would have to pay more in to Europe. Doesn't sound good, eh? Except that the reason (which received significantly less fanfare from the usual suspects in the press) was due to a projected increased GDP per head. What a horrible thought. It's like someone saying "Yeah, you wouldn't like a bigger salary cos you'd be in a higher tax bracket." It's come to something when the case for a No vote boils down to some sort of warning against being well off.
Before that, there was an attempt to deny any legacy link at all between the current UK and a future independent Scotland. "14000 treaties to renegotiate" they howled. Except that a whole raft of the countries in those treaties don't exist any more. And if there's no trace of successor state to be had, that'd apply to the national debt too, right, or is this line of scare tactics just based on the usual set of contradictions?
Top comedy.
the main reason I'll be voting for independence
is shabs n bants
I want to see what'll happen
I have a large amount of Scottish family, missus, inlaws and friends
I'm like plastic-jock-extreme (tm).
95% of them don't want independence.
Two of them are SNP-obsessed YES campaigners.
If I was Scottish, I'd vote yes, even though I don't think it makes great economical sense. And Scotland might have to leave Europe. And being a population of 5m on a world stage is a bit daunting.
But it's not about the practical, it's about the passion of independence, which I can understand.
The concern trolling stuff by Unionists is daft.
Re: Europe?
The BBC reported that 'a Better Together spokesperson' (who obviously wanted to remain nameless) said that: Nicola Sturgeon "was humiliated when her host, the Irish foreign minister, said that Scotland would have to go through a lengthy application process". And "Time and again [European Commission President] Barroso has made it clear that a separate Scotland will have to apply to the EU as a new state."
Nice try, Beeb, but the Irish foreign minister wrote directly to Sturgeon to point out how you've severely skewed the story.
http://www.scotreferendum.com/2013/01/26/irelands-minister-for-european-affairs/
The handwaving and misquoting of the Barroso comments are par for the course. In actual fact, The European Commission’s official position is that President Barroso’s comments have also been misrepresented. He expressed no view about Scotland.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/a-letter-from-the-european-commission/
Scotland is currently a part of the EU and there's no good reason why that would change. Transition? Sure. Withdrawal? Nah. The rest of the UK, with an emboldened UKIP, after the 2016 referendum on EU membership? Now /that's/ uncertainty and doubt about a future relationship with the EU.
Re: Economical sense?
2011-12 GERS figures:
With 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generated 9.9% of UK revenues but received 9.3% of UK public spending back from the UK Government.
Ignore those figures if you want. Fine. But that raises the question of why Westminster is so keen for the rest of the UK to be shacked up with Scotland, if it's such a drain?
Re: Population on a world stage?
Scotland doesn't even have a small population! With 5.3m people, it'd be /above/ the median population of all the countries in the world: 117th out of 243. Just above Norway, Ireland and New Zealand. Just below Finland, Denmark and Slovakia. (rUK would be down from 22nd to 26h - between South Korea and Spain instead of between Italy and France). In terms of just European populations - Scotland would still be above median size - 24th out of 50, with rUK only dropping from 4th to 5th.
Man this Baroso thing is really difficult to come to terms with for the nats
"Now what I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules. That is obvious."
Asked specifically about Scotland, he said: "For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU."
He's climbing down from sayin it directly for legal an political reasons. Eithe way the snp now accept that they would have to reapply.
The Yes people consistently accuse Better Together of scaremongering but there's a point I've seen about te rest of the UK being very euro sceptic. This is quite interesting as
1. It's scaremongering
2. It's saying the political landscape of Scotland is different enough from the rest of the Uk as whole to make enough of an impact to alter the outcome of an election or referendum on eu membership.
3. Scotland's arguments for leaving the UK are curiously similar to UKIP's arguments about leaving Europe.
*3. Yes Scotland
1. Diddums.
2. No, it's not saying that.
3. No they're not.
It should only be about what's practical. This is a whole country not some single 18 yr old trying to work out if he should go out with that girl he met in the club last night.
I really don't want it to happen.
But I think I am reconciled that if the vote is yes, that's what the people want, and yeah it'll happen. I think I've mellowed about the anger it'll cause me, because I don't think it will really affect me in my line of work, and if it did it will just make things very interesting for a while - splitting the oil is going to be a legal clusterfuck, that's for sure. Especially when the company I work for is "Scottish" in 50 countries around the world.
#wza
Clarification and Expansion:
`` Especially when the company I work for is "Scottish" in 50 countries around the world.``
What I mean by that is that the majority of the work my company does is in other countries, for other countries. The work I do right now is linked, but not the same as, the North Sea - the onshore plants I am working at are most certainly in Scotland. The offshore platfroms are a little more contentious, that's for sure.
Sorry, but I don't follow the clarification of that last line.
As I understand it (and you'll rightly correct me if I'm wrong), Exclusive Economic Zones are defined by the 'UN Convention on the Law of the Sea', and conventions specific to the North Sea were established in the sixties to draw up divisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil#Licensing
And, because Scotland and England (and Wales) have separate legal systems, two acts in the sixties defined what is classed as Scottish and what isn't. So not much room for legal wrangling over geography to be had.
What was/is the anger thing about, by the way?
isnt something like 90% of it in scottish waters?
pretty much the well established split, yeah
I meant more that sure, that's the way they are split up
but the real proof will come from when they try to split them up. The British Government will likely have something to say about it, what with it being quite a big bringer of taxation. I am only saying this from the feeling in the industry - the legal point you've made there seems solid enough. I profess no more real knowledge than that. Though I do intend to read up on it a lot, probably starting with the heretic The McCrone Report :D
As for anger; I have moved my position from being angry at the propect of it and toward people for it to understanding why and being anticipatory of a Yes vote, and how I will deal with that. And, dare I say it, moving my position on the vote in the mean time.
Fair enough.
And, oh boy, thank goodness someone else has bought up the McCrone Report. :-D
For good measure, to ramp up the cry over foul play, I'll throw in the shenanigans connected to the 1979 referendum.
There's a common thread through much of these things. Maybe thirty five years ago the warm glow of Empire was some comfort, but as we approach the middle of the 21st century, a Union Dividend (if one ever even existed) garnered from being a partner in the /political union/ of the UK isn't so easy to identify. A /personal union/ would suffice. #wheresmyhighspeedrailconnection #putupwiththequeenforthetimebeing
I guess the point that I was trying to make previously was that despite not really wanting independence myself
I am much more understanding why people do want it - I used to be enraged (by you, and other friends) who I see as educated thinking the exact opposite to me. I imagine it was partly because I was just annoyed at someone having a differing opinion, but also because it implied that despite thinking I was an intellecutal peer to those thinking Yes, was I actually missing something? It was partly pride, I guess too.
But now I see the arguments much more clearly, and this is actually tied into a personal development in my life outside of these debates. I have been working a lot harder on empathy and the view points of others. What this has meant has been a mellowing on the actual hardcore personal nature of it all, and also a mellowing towards the idea of an independent state. I don't think I agree with the disolution of the Union, but I can now see without prejudice the positives.
You can take this as a victoy, if you want Wza. :D
A very interesting post. Nice one.
I can totally see why people wouldn't wanna make 'the jump'. There are valid arguments on both sides, (and maybe I'm bound to say this) but the outright lies that are being propagated are a highly unedifying. Not that the Yes side is squeaky clean or have done a great job of providing the answers to everything (yet). But j f c, there's some bitterness and bile coming from the Better Together side. That tactic didn't do Labour any favours in the 2007 election, so that it's being employed now rather points to a paucity of ambition, imo.
^this, but written better: www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/with-enemies-like-the-better-together-campaign-who-needs-friends.20449422
Traditional with referendums (referenda?) though isn't it?
Both sides tend to talk a reasonable amount of crap and very little of value is added to any debate, but the conservative campaign (with a little c) seem to generally be very aggressive in not only defending their position, but attacking the alternative.
Yup. 'kin hell, that AV referendum was a sack of balls from start to finish.
I know people who say firmly that Yes Scotland should be more aggressive. I struggle to wholeheartedly agree. Aggression rarely attracts widespread support. There's time enough for the excesses of most arguments to play themselves out.
Seeing a teenager aghast at the ranty old male (capital S) Socialist speakers at an independence rally, and comparing that to the response that Margo MacDonald and Alan Bissett got was pretty stark.
Hopefully the White Paper, due to be published later this year, will focus minds on the job in hand and cut out much of the extraneous fluff.
http://nationalcollective.com/2012/11/08/timeline-to-independence/
You have rather more faith in campaigners
and politicians that I do.
Give it time,
I'm sure I'll become utterly jaded at some point
Will the Scottish take Gove back?
If so, sure!
Christ, I had no idea he was Scottish.
oh yes. On a more serious note
if it does happen, it will be interesting to see what the actual comeback will be for the large number of Scots working in England - one would hope people just won't give a shit, but if we're still in austerity/depression etc I wonder if the tabloid press might start whipping up 'why have THEY got YOUR jobs?' rhetoric against Scots working here.
'Might start'?
Seen Kelvin McKenzie on QT or heard Paxman lately?
More serious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Scottish_sentiment
Less serious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_mafia
Paxo: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/18/uk.scotland
+ the 'English Referendum' link referencing an old Punch article...
I sort of meant in terms of 'the man on the street'
I mean, there's always been the odd fruit but it's ludicrous to even begin to compare anti-English sentiment in Scotland (which in itself is greatly exaggerated, of course) to anti-Scottish sentiment in England.
It would be a hilarious irony if right wing tabloids deployed anti-immigrant rhetoric against Scottish Tories, but I suppose for that reason I can't really see it happening while there are people like Gove who the Mail are fans of though it might be something fringier rightwing parties tap into.
Even if there's no ill feeling, it'll be interesting to see what will happen to the so-called 'Scottish Raj' after a generations or so; I suppose as much as anything else it would inevitably mean a reduction in the number of Scots in English politics... would that mean a lot more Scots in Scots politics..?
Pretty much every Scottish person i know couldn't give a shite either way.
The media are definitely making this into a much bigger deal than it is.
Not your strongest work.
?
Being totally honest, mate. Don't take it as a dig at Scottish people, as it's obviously not. Guess it's comparable to, say, when there's a general election here. The media and online n00bs really get quite heated about it, but the average joe couldn't really give a shit. I'd be surprised if there was a 50% turnout anyway.
Acutally, and I know you're trolling, but if anything was to get the Average Joe (surely Jock) voting
it's something like this. It has all the trappings of something that would excite an imbicile in both directions - yes and no.
I prefer his (only five months) earlier work.
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4417664
«needlessy-agressive simpletons» :-D
I had a good to and fro in that thread with Gorkys about oil.
That was actually the spark that made me read more about it.
yes...and you sucker punched me
by only revealing you worked in the industry at the end..
bastard
c|:D
:-)
Wonder if his Croatian mates are yearning for a reunified Yugoslavia?
dont forget his Polish pals
Quick question:
Why has there not been a N.Irish referendum
Probably because it's a can of worms that nobody's entirely keen on opening.
Have they got a political party committed to giving them one?
A referendum on what?
Their independence? Or their union with Ireland? Or their staying in the Union?
Everything.
There was one on the constitution Of Ireland in 98.
If they want independence they should be allowed to have it.
They'll suffer as a result, but that's their decision to make.
Calm down, Lord Fraser. No need for your threats.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/13/scottish-independence-england-would-bomb-scottish-airports-to-defend-itself_n_1341629.html
Amazing.
I retract what I said about dreading the campaign from both sides, if it's all going to be this good then I'm all for it.
The referendum will take place on Thursday 18th September 2014
Cool.
aw shit
I'm busy
Hmm interesting
Of slight interest, this date falls between two large events in Scotland
The Commonwealth games will be held in Glasgow in July/August, and the Ryder Cup is coming to Gleneagles a week after the referendum.
I'm assuming that the Yes campaign are (not unreasonably) hoping that patriotism/national pride will be at a high during this time.
That is interesting
God I hope they get independence
CLOSE THE BORDERS
:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8385117.stm
Top ten unionist myths - DEBUNKED
what do all you guys make of this, be you colonial oppressors or freedom fighters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4PoQbgUiA
This is pretty much all of the points I have to make
when discussing Scottish independence with skeptics in a nice handy 12 minute video.
only just got around to watching it.
nicely undoes the efforts at scaremongering thus far.
now, if you'll excuse me, i need to get back to fapping furiously over re-runs of the snp conference and braveheart.
more seriously,
i'd be interested to see what those in favour of the union think about it (or what they see as being key issues yet to be addressed).
they banned it from youtube!
as far as I know the video was banned on "copyright grounds"
but the Unionists freely admitted that that was NOT why they banned it (though obviously they used that as an excuse to get it taken down sharpish).
I think it's pretty pathetic that they're essentially trying to ban a video showing what points they have made that are completely wrong - if the tables were turned and the Independence supporters banned THEIR video it'd be in all the papers and they'd have a field day over it.
They even managed to wrangle out an entire article over the fact Nicola Sturgeon said if people didn't vote for Independence they were 'crazy'. Sigh.
? Reinstated?
It's there atm.
there's at least (that I've discovered today) 4 different uploads from different users
people must have downloaded and re-uploaded and there's copies elsewhere outside of youtube. Perhaps the original one was reinstated also, I'm not sure.
That video's really cheesy
Like the wza
Hahaha debunked
10. The places mentioned are actually crown possessions without sovereignty. An independent Scotland would be a sovereign state over which the UK could exercise no legal authority. The actual border arrangements mentioned are due to a specific agreement between the UK, Ireland and those crown possessions . You can find out more about the actual legal and constitutional status here on the official website of the relevant government department http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/customs-travel/Enteringtheuk/arrivingatukborder/travellingtocommontravelarea/
We don't require passport checks for travel within this area. However since independent Scotland would not be party to this agreement -and would have an international border with the UK- I'd be really interested to hear why the creator of this video is competent to pre-empt how the UK government is going to police it's new international border.
Gonna go shower will DEBUNK the rest at my convenience.
I don't get why this is even an issue for some people
there's no passport controls between France and Spain (for example)... why would it be any different between Scotland / England?
The UK isn't part of the Schengen area (the subject of another multilateral agreement like the one Scotland and the UK would have to have in order to waive the requirement for passport control...)
yeah I know
I just don't think it's a stretch to imagine we would have the same kind of agreement in place in the case of independence
Well it's rather futile to speculate and utterly misleading to ignore the reality of immigration law
like the dude in the video
lol ok
:-)
14:30 - rage, frustration and confusion
14:31 - personal dig successfully deployed
14:32 - realisation of poor posting hits home
14:33-15:00 - googling for something to save face
15:01 - TRUTHBOMB Y'ALL, KTHXBYE
the promised evisceration of the remaining nine parts of that top ten is shaping up to be a real treat.
Just pointing people to some objective facts on the current state of UK border controls
Sorry to bombard you with the truth of the matter, buddy.
I'm currently in a Japanese restaurant and intend to go for drinks then see some comedy. I will be back tomorrow when I will respond to your queries.
ok this thing is really tedious
10/ my points above. you've not responded to them? Do you guys basically think that notwithstanding the absence of an actual agreement that there would definitely not be border controls? Genuinely would like to know how you can guarantee that this would not be the case.
9/ This one "An independent Scotland would not be granted access to the EU".
You'll probably try to have a go at this for being semantics or something but this "myth" blatantly misrepresents the debate as well as the position of the 'No' campaign. The real issue, as it has featured in arguments between the two sides, is whether Scotland would automatically remain a member by virtue of status as a successor state - and not the eventual outcome of other member states' consideration of such an application, as this excerpt suggests. As a matter of record, the President of the European commission has stated several times that Scotland would not be a successor state but a new state and would therefore have to apply for membership. Scotland would be a new state. It would have to apply for membership. Even the SNP accepts this now.
Given the above, I think it's incumbent on the anti-UK campaign to answer the particularly worrying questions this raises:
- how would Scotland negotiate an opt-out on the Euro (which all new member states are required to sign up to)?
- same for the Schengen area. I mentioned this above. If Scotland can't negotiate out of the Schengen agreement, this seriously raises the possibility of border controls between Scotland and the UK.
- How are you going to retain the rebate worth £135 per household?
Scotland may well be able to negotiate around these sorts of issues but flat out denial that these issues even exist until recently hardly gives voters confidence. Retaining a similar level of rebate is also widely regarded as impossible (e.g. by Lord Kerr, the independent peer who originally negotiated UK membership).
8/ The conclusions of this point obviously depend on the financial modelling used. The widely quoted £1200 deficit figure was from a non-partisan, independent organisation, was it not? Not the No campaign or the Unionists. Here are some of the very worrying discrepancies around the SNP's financial modelling http://www.bettertogether.net/page/-/images/swinney.jpg/@mx_572
7/ Going to sleep soon. This point is quite boring and I honestly don't really know what's been said by who about defence jobs. The SNP are pretty dodgy on NATO though and I think the suggestion that Scotland would have anywhere near as comprehensive a national defence package as the UK requires pretty robust justification.
6/ The one about post-war political history, right.
1945 - this was obviously a historic landslide victory, no brainer that this would still be Labour.
1950 - the video is wrong!
Througout the '50s Scotland was actually majoratively Tory. this is obviously a very different political makeup to today. It's pointless to even be discussing this since the argument put by left wing unionists is that the UK is overall more electorally 'left' as a result of Scottish votes, in modern times - not that Scotland is always the decisive battleground in general elections.
The video noticeably (and conveniently!)misses out general elections such as Harold Wilson's 1964 extremely slim overall majority of 4 which was only because Labour seats included Scotland where they were ahead of the Tories by 19 seats (majority of 15 when you include the liberals).
They also missed out a 1974 general election.
I can't be arsed going through all of these but based on a quick sum for 2010, if we take out Scotland the threshold required for an overall majority (which no party originally got) would become 297. Which is what the Tories got in England alone. So we would have not even a coalition but a Tory majority government!
So yeah bit of a fabrication to say Scotland doesn't affect the outcome of UK general elections.
5/ They're comparing him to Chavez and suggesting someone who has any sort of democratic mandate can't possibly be a dictator. I don't need to discuss this...
4/ They've just compared the amount given to bail out two banks to Scotland's share of UK GDP. This is such a non-sensical point I can't even respond. The further implication that an independent Scotland could have stopped the global banking crisis is so, so stupid.
3/ This 'myth' has conflated the supposed anti-English accusations of the No side with the argument over who is enfranchised/disenfranchised by the SNP in the referendum. Is this because they couldn't find a clip of anyone making the xenophobia argument they're claiming Unionists peddle?
2/ There are unanswered questions though? See above, see the many questions being asked.
1/ Nicola Sturgeon's favourite film is Braveheart. That's just a fact. Sorry!
--
The SNP and its entire aesthetic is really gross and they have shit policies and they're delusional.
:D
that was really good. i wouldnt have done it anywhere near as well.
bet thewza doesnt reply
only saying this so he has to so he can prove me wrong or something.
aw
Bump in case Wza/hedgehog/japes etc want to come back on this
and further defend this ludicrous video.
my issue was just with the passport controls :D
still can't imagine it being much of a problem
my thoughts fwiw
10 Passport Controls
I don't think they will happen or that it's a big deal.
09 Scotland would not be granted access to the EU
it's been established that we'd have to apply as a new member now, no? I reckon we're a shoe-in.
08 Scotland is subsidised by Westminster
depends whose numbers you believe
07 Scotland would lose military jobs
fuck knows about that. But I wouldn't suddenly be worried for my safety without the UK.
06 We'd be dooming England to Tory Rule
couldn't really care who England votes for, but it seems quite important that Scotland doesn't have the ability to influence elections.
05 Alex Salmond is a dictator
eh... no
04 Scotland couldn't have survived the banking crisis
fuck knows.
03 Independence is just anti-Englishness
don't think it is
02 Unanswered questions
agree. although I can't imagine you could ever create a new country and answer every single question, as long as we get answers to the important ones I'd be satisfied.
01 We love Braveheart
I don't.
But the point is that this video is a very poor characterisation of Better Together/Yes campaign
The points around Alex Salmond being a dictator, anti-Englishness etc isn't where their arguments have traction or the focus of anyone's campaign.
It's a cheap (as well as erronous) video and I'm a bit surprised that people have been impressed by it.
``The points around Alex Salmond being a dictator, anti-Englishness etc isn't where their arguments have traction...``
You might need to have a word with yer HQ about this because I don't think they got the memo and it seems to be very much the focus of many Lab and BT lines of attach.
Labour are a cheap (as well as erronous) party and I'm a bit surprised that people have been impressed by them. ::fistpump::
unfortunately the majority of my 'better together' friends on facebook share links
to articles that are specifically aimed at Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon or sometimes the entire SNP though usually just Salmond.
Also the pro-Union people who 'troll' the Yes Scotland page (I have to use the word 'troll' because none of them ever make a respectful argument, they simply say we're all idiots, Alex Salmond is a poor leader and that we are anti-English, it gets very tiring) all post the same arguments that generally sum up to be "Alex Salmond is mad with power" and that we all "love Braveheart and 'freeeeeeeeeedom' is our motto".
The articles are usually about him specifically, how he's "mad with power" or has questions that remain "unanswered" etc etc.
The links are shared directly from the "Better Together" page and as those are the articles I see coming up time and time again it's hard not to take the opinion that a fair amount of pro-Unionists are under the impression that the Independence movement is strictly an SNP thing, pushed solely by Alex Salmond.
I can understand why people take that view as that is what mostly gets publicised but there are various different Independence parties/organisations that have little or nothing to do with SNP (Scottish Socialist Party, Yes Scotland, the Solidarity movement, Scottish Green party, Women for Independence to name a few) and many Independence supporters say they would not vote for SNP after Independence (i.e. they're supporting them UNTIL we get independence) or have not nor will they ever vote SNP and their views on independence are completely separate to the party and its leader, it just so happens that Alex Salmond/the SNP are at the forefront of the movement.
I don't think I've seen a Better Together post shared that has been about anything other than Salmond/the SNP and most posts are generally taking a dig at him directly as opposed to saying why independence would be bad for Scotland. This could just be due to the quality of the posts/articles my friend fixate on though.
Anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of those other posts around - it's just no one pro-Union (from my select group of people on Facebook or the pro-Unionists that post on Yes Scotland) ever posts them so from my view point, many pro-unionists think this is all about Alex Salmond and it's very disheartening to see the same thing over and over again.
That is why this myth had to be 'debunked' - it comes up a LOT.
one of my friends main objections to independence
is that Alex Salmond has a big face
I have to agree with them there
oh dear
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/09Xl92P4R8bBL/439x.jpg
that's a good point
Roll up! Roll up! The circus is in town...
10. It's not about guarantees, it's about choices. What it's definitely not about is nonsense about pointless scare stories about passports and border controls and ``my granddaughter lives in Southampton and I don't want her to become a foreigner."
9a. You can quote Barroso until you're as blue in the face as a Tory, bu there's no precedent, so meh. FWIW, I think the SNP were a bit gung ho with their language. But the point stands. The EU have offered to cleared things up if the UK asked the question. But it won't. Which kinda feeds into the point at hand.
9b. One important point: If Scotland is gonna be a new state starting from scratch with no formal successor state rights, that implies no successor state responsibilities, yeah? So no share of the UK national debt etc. A clean balance sheet. Negotiating rebates and soforth seems like a pointless worry if we're going down that road.
8. Make yer mind up, Darling. http://imgur.com/XiKrO9O
7a. ``Going to sleep soon. This point is quite boring.`` = I'll be honest I'm a bit stuck on this one.
``I honestly don't really know what's been said by who about defence jobs.`` = I'll conveniently ignore the FUD that's been wafted about re: defence jobs.
7b. ``The SNP are pretty dodgy on NATO.`` Not gonna pretend I agree with everything the SNP say about NATO membership etc, but I'll be happy when there isn't a pointless and outdated WMD liability 30 miles from my front door.
7c. ``I think the suggestion that Scotland would have anywhere near as comprehensive a national defence package as the UK requires pretty robust justification.`` I don't. Baecause that's a claim you just made up so I won't dignify your twisting of the reality with a fuller answer.
6. ``It's pointless to even be discussing this.`` Glad we agree. And I've made a bucnh of the points you have before when people get too carried away with claims about England becoming a Tory fiefdom and Scotland becoming a Socialist paradise.
5. Hello, Anwar Sarwar. Grow up, ya big dafty.
4. ``The further implication that an independent Scotland could have stopped the global banking crisis is so, so stupid.`` The further implication that an independent Scotland could have stopped the global banking crisis is so, so non existent. But full marks for attempting to create /another/ random made up alleged claim. You fully understand that an independent Scotland wouldn't have full liability for a UK RBS, etc. There are precedents for cross-border business liabilities all over the shop.
3. I think you should just knock your racism on the head an move on, yeah?
2. If your questions are going unanswered it's because most of them are founded on made up bogeyman claims about what YesScotland is saying. You're basically being golden-era Bamnan. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna spend more time than I have to trying to nail jelly to the wall.
1. :-D
guys
i don't think you'll ever agree on what to call your children tbh
True. But as long as we remember that we're all Jock Tamson's bairns.
Everything will turn out rosy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Tamson%27s_Bairns
;-)
isn't this the wonderful thing about the independence debate?
pro-Unionists post things, pro-independence debunk them, pro-unionists debunk the debunking, then pro-independence debunk the debunking of the debunk, then...........oh God when will it end?
we need a slam-debunk
SLAM DEBUNK THA FUNK
Debunk
Shit
?
*Bowie
shit
``I'm currently in a Japanese restaurant and intend to go for drinks then see some comedy.``
Why wasn't the country of origin of your drinks as pass-remarkable as your chosen cuisine?
Is it because you were planning on drinking Tennent's Super but couldn't bare to admit that fact to yourself because you HATE SCOTLAND!?!?!
Seriously thinking about moving north of the wall if Scotland gets independence.
They appear to have their priorities in order.
#northofthewall #oldgods
I'm No
If only for the hot unionist chicks
Eugh
actually no that's fine
English but have lived in Scotland and would be pro-independence if I was Scottish
As it is I am still but:
The makeup of parliament without Scotland is just terrifying
SNP as a party and their policies other than independence seem questionable - Time to turn Scotland into a centre right tax haven, yay!
Probably just move north of the border if yes wins (probably lose though)
See Top Ten Unionist Myths Video above
The result of all (or close to all?) of the UK General Elections would have been the same even without Scottish MPs.
and post-independence the SNP will probably cease to exist so I doubt that they will have a chance to make Scotland a centre-right tax haven, of course SNP members who believe that pursuing policies that would lead to Scotland becoming a tax haven will probably form A centre-right party. I can't see any party getting a mandate to do that though as the majority of Scottish people have social democratic values.
Also presuming Scotland continues to have some form of proportional representation post-independence I doubt any government, which will probably be a coalition in most cases (with the 2011 Scottish elections being an odd exception), would get a mandate to do that
All fair enough points
But the margins involved in elections make a big difference, a very tight win (or having to form a coalition) =/= a landslide victory
I agree broadly with your middle point but it seems to me that the Tory vote is creeping up in Scotland and it doesn't seem likely that were the SNP to breakup all their voters would rush back to Labour. I was frankly surprised by the amount of pro-union support I found in Scotland as I associate it quite strongly with the conservatives. Which leads to another point, if the YES vote just scrapes in, will the 'conservative and unionist party' not become the obvious place for a large number of disgruntled NO voters to look to?
Anyway it strikes me it'll probably end up being a tight NO call, lot of time left until then mind.
http://www.facebook.com/YesScotland/posts/588275171183397
"Panelbase poll for Sunday Times and Real Radio shows increase of 2 points in Yes vote since Jan - the narrowest gap in the campaign so far. Now we only need a swing of just over 5% to win in 2014.
Headline figures:
Yes at 36% (+2 since Jan)
No at 46% (-1)
Don't know 18% (-1)"
Have to say that even though I'm pro-independence I have thought for a long time that the Yes vote would lose the referendum. Recently I'm starting to believe that the Yes vote could win, the swing needed to the Yes vote is very small and achievable especially when the Tory cuts start to bite and the economy remains stagnant. Also the amount of people that said don't know could be promising.
Anyone know or can guess what would happen if the Yes vote only narrowly got a majority. Say 51 or 52%?
The coalition government will do more for the Yes campaign than anything else.
I can quite easily see the state of the economy in 2014 tipping the balance in favour of the Yes vote.
If the Yes vote won narrowly, all the (London-based) press would claim that it doesn't equal a mandate, and they'll make a big thing of the turnout if it's lower than 80% (even though that's higher than just about every general election since the war).
If it's a narrow No vote with a low turnout, they'll say that this shows disinterest in Independence.
Me, who lives 6,000 miles away, says
I already think of the Scots as Scots.
I'll give you a for instance. The English were capable soldiers in WWII; meanwhile, the Scots were kick-ass soldiers. (It's been said the Nazis feared bagpipes more than anything.)
Your accent is more musical. I watch Braveheart and think "it probably went down exactly like this." ;) Who needs English football when you guys have Celtic v Rangers?
That said. My mind is comforted by the fact the UK includes Scotland. Where the Euro Union seems like horrible wishful thinking, the Scotland, England, Wales union seems natural-- the way God intended.
I like this post a lot
When the Scots Nats lose, will TheWza finally get a new hobby?
You're living in the past, pal.
I'm in no danger of being the main instigator of these threads. And since vikkers left, they've not been nearly as much fun, so I've not been inclined to put much effort in to them.
Also, you're late. DD had a dig earlier today (even though I'd done one on myself way before that).
No plans for any new interests then, understood.
Your concern about the scrag end section of my CV is truly touching.
Does it put your mind at ease knowing that I've got Simon Quinlank on speed dial?
This is the worst thread to keep bumping on a (kinda) Friday.
He says, bumping the thread.
Weird saltire/swastika thingy from the Scotsman/Scotland On Sunday.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=449318045143487&set=a.233148850093742.56160.199573770117917
c.f. http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/whisper-it-kkk-roots-are-scottish-1-653986
And seeing as all the best truthbombs come with a carefree summary of the offline stuff I'm about to do (the one upthread @ 24 Mar '13, 18:30 was a classic of the genre), so it's important that you know I'm going out for a bit of a bike ride followed by a Sri Lankan meal out.
might help if you kept to the mainstream debate and not barrel scraping with offensive slogans you've seen and all that
I'm currently in bed in a towel.
going out for coffee later
Think you forgot that you posted one of those ah ho ho took you long to reply!!! replies. http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4426989#r7413604
?
are you high on banana peel?
but, giving the benefit of doubt on that...
why it's not barrel scrapping to bring this up:
http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/bad-news-day-when-the-front-page-becomes-the-story/
more pertinently, why this is mainstream and how it fits into a narrative that has been adopted by persons and institutions that really ought to know better than to behave like The Mail et al:
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/7128-political-porn
me>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the SNP
If the SNP get in to power in Scotland, will you leave the country?
Oh...
leave Scotland? leave the UK?
I'll be living in Scotland but might move to another part of the UK, dunno.
Hmm... Interesting...
http://nationalcollective.com/2013/04/07/dirty-money-the-tory-millionaire-bankrolling-better-together/
Makes the various howls and conjecture about Brian Souter look particularly hollow.
As expected, it's barely reported or nicely spun by the usual suspects. Best effort is, predictably, from the Scotsman which manages to turn this into an alleged source of pressure for the Yes side!
www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-yes-group-pressured-over-1-1m-gifts-1-2882221
Props to the Labour-loyal Record, though,
for suggesting that who publishes their info first is the most important thing rather than paying any attention to what that info actually is.
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-campaign-steals-march-1817731
And the principal donor to Better Together has wheeled out the lawyers...
``Lawyers acting on behalf of Vitol and multimillionaire and principal donor to Better Together - Ian Taylor threatened legal action against the National Collective claiming that it was grossly defamatory.``
https://www.facebook.com/nationalcollective/posts/639503279410174
Even the google cache and archive.org record of it is erased or redirects. SRS BSNSS.
So... Vitol and Ian Taylor. Great bunch o' [REDACTED]....
This reads like a film script!: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/01/balkans.warcrimes2
turns out the SNP will have to accept the strategic principle of nuclear weapons or not get into NATO
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/10/nato-alex-salmond-scottish-membership
This will mean Alex wont be able to get Scottish waters nuclear free :(
What if he just said "Fuck it, we're not joining Nato"?
What would the consequences be?
Not a lot I'd imagine.
Unless someone tried to invade Scotland, and that's not looking likely anytime soon, is it?
People in Scotland would have to think about whether they want to be part of NATO?
Well, yeah
I suppose my badly-worded question could be rephrased as: what does Scotland have to gain from joining Nato?
Security
Could argue the existence of NATO would cover that anyway but it'd be a tad hypocritical for a country to celebrate being anti-nuclear whilst being a beneficiary of it. Also it would lose its place as a key decision maker in international affairs. Don't know if people care too much about that or are scared by the prospect. Personally Im a collectivist.
This hypocrisy thing.. Tell me...
...is not owning nuclear weapons whilst being a Nato member more or less hypocritical than the UK et al saying 'we have the right to nuclear weapons, but these states of our chosing at this point in time don't have the right'?
Salmnd (power-crazed dictator that he is) had this to say yesterday:
``It could be argued that membership of Partnership for Peace would enable us to fulfil many of our defence requirements as does Ireland and Finland.``
``But we understand why, in the international community, countries such as Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and indeed the USA - would prefer it if we signalled our intention to be part of the Nato Alliance as an independent country.``
``Such a step would demonstrate clearly our commitment to working closely with those friends and allies.``
``An independent Scotland would not be a global superpower but we would be a good global citizen.``
The Republic of Ireland isn't a member of NATO
Nobody is invading them.
You're a big fan o' Trident then? Or hardcore CND with the opinion that it's all or nothing?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/yes-vote-in-the-referendum-would-take-us-a-step-closer-to-nuclear-disarmament.20750875
Also, the reference to 'Alex' is noted, as if he's the lone voice of disarmament (despite your claim upthread that there's no traction or focus on the anti-Alex thing).
Yeah sorry for mentioning the leader of the SNP when talking about the SNP
My bad
No probs. Now, back to the discussion.
You're a big fan o' Trident then? Or hardcore CND with the opinion that it's all or nothing?
That's not the only reason
Logistically, it would be decades before we could empty coulport and faslane anyway. We would have to lease those bits of land shore water to the UK government, which mans techinically Scottish waters are trident free, but considering I can see the hills of coulport from where I'm sitting, it anything goes wrong over there, regardless of the fact that 'Scottish land is nuclear free', the entire west of Scotland is nonetheless fucked*, which is not really the philosophical objective that is being sought.
*At least us folk in gourock will be evaporated. The poor people of Glasgow and Edinburgh (or wherever the weather system takes it) will have to await their fate, Raymond briggs style.)
I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I can't find a pro-Trident point in ^there.
Sure, there are logistical issues. But they're far from insurmountable. There's a legitimate achievable goal to be aimed for. No one ever said it was gonna be easy. Well, they might have, but they should learn to be more pragmatic.
didn't say I had a pro-trident point to make, chief
Far from it. I now live across the water from these guys, and I'd really prefer they weren't there (NIMBY WIN).
What concerns me is that part of the manifesto could be predicated around a promise that it- in practical effect- is simply impossible to deliver in the short-medium term.
It's also worryingly a bit more than logistical. The UK is going to have to get a waiver from the US of its obligations under the polaris treaty and that makes them a hostage to fortune. Also, back to logistics- a lot of these warheads are assembled in such a way that they are supposed to be left to die in perpetuity (as limited by their half lives) or until detonated. Sure, most are unassembled or only partially assembled, and that shoudl be ok to be transported should we find a suitable home for them. But for the more complex cases, this is untested territory and it would be a shame to say- right lads, we've found a hollowed out hill somewhere in devon into which we're fitting warhead bunkers and a transportation system. let's get these bad boys out of here, and then woops. BOOM.
People are very nervous about this.
Didn't say ya did, did I. ;-)
Fair dues to the rest of the post. It's be nice if these kinds of things were brought up more readily, rather than thinly veiled talk about 'influence' or not-so-thinly-veiled logicfail willy waving.
http://nationalcollective.com/
excellent, another twist.
Indeed.
Mentioned upthread.
A little more bacground on Vitol and Ian Taylor, the cuddly Tory and Better Together donor:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/uk-iran-oil-sanctions-vitol-idUKBRE88P06920120926?irpc=932
The Guardian and Reuters obviously haven't been targeted (or they have less cautious lawyers).
The Herald have had a lawyer's letter, too.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/on-national-collective/
thorough and balanced article about what the break up of the UK could look like and its timescale
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/comment-what-it-will-take-to-break-up-britain-1-2894235
?
'Of course, independence could be made to work: but the process of negotiation, putting the resultant deal into practice, and winding down the inevitable transitional arrangements are each very major tasks. They will only be kicked off after a Yes vote and will certainly not be over by 2016'
No fucking shit Sherlock.
Of all the stupid reason put up against independence, it not being incredibly simple and requiring a bit of work, is the most irritating.
Independance? Nah seems a bit of a hassle pal, lots of negotiations and that.. nah.
don't think that was a 'reason put up against independence'
as much as exactly what the article said it was going to be about in the title.
They should do this stuff for Cornwall
Hold on to your jaunty trilbies, bedwetters, kids, there's been a whole load of bump-worthy happenings from the past week or so...
PLOLitics news: After being offered an extra option on the ballot, but turning it down, claiming it's all or nothing, Labour seem split on what they want. Johann Lamont has taken a leaf out of Ruth Davidson's book and discovered the horn for some sort of Devo Max plan. But her bosses in Westminster acted swiftly to pour cold water on her. She should've cast her mind back to Wendy Alexander being given her P45 after saying in 2008 that she was in favour of a referendum ASAP. The boys down in Westminster don't like it when the Scots wummin think for themselves.
Entertainment news: Anas Sarwar (he of the 'Dictator' claims, amongst others, and fearsome tactical mastermind of Scottish Labour) has been been pretending he's a bit of a Two Term Barry by pushing some sort of Truth Team thing. Kinda fell at the first hurdle though, by including a handful of lies in the launch speech. D'oh! Also, they dun a video that uses weird dreary graphics that centres on some 100% truth front pages from the Mail, Express and Sun. The inevitable hashtag was inevitably lampooned.
Business news: The Scottish Trades Unions Congress have evidently got a bit sick of the nonsense. They've told Labour to stop mucking about with the mudslinging and have a go at letting us know what the positives of the Union are without on the Tories for support.
Religion news: The Scottish Co-operative Party Chair has had an epiphany. She woke up one morning and decided to shun the dark side. She's gonna be voting Yes. The Scottish Co-operative Party Secretary said "She is not speaking for us, we believe in the union." Who's right? Who knows? Even fewer care. (Co-operative Party members can join the Labour Party, not any other political party. Hmmm, interesting.)
Arts news: National Collective are back up and running after the Tory donor to Better Together who issued the takedown warnings presumably decided that he didn't have the balls to go to court after doing a cry about reports about his 'dirty money'.
Comedy news: Gideon and Danny wrote some sort of WE'RE GONNA TEK YR BANK NOTES short story. Genuinely not sure what the main claims are cos I zoned out when I tried to make sense of the slavering reports.
Regional news: The allegations surrounding Labour's Glasgow City Council leader Gordon Matheson's handling of the George Square fiasco have notched up a level. At the request of the The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, he's now the subject of a formal complaint alleging he repeatedly violated the Councillors' Code of Conduct during the design competition for the £15 million project. They say he's brought Glasgow into "significant disrepute", costing taxpayers £100,000 and architects £200,000 by ignoring the whole process of the design competition, sptitting his dummy out when the experts didn't pick the one he wanted, and came up with his own plan to just replace the red tarmac with some grey playground flooring, or something.
Celeb news: Bill Bailey has come out in support of Yes. Which is roughly as relevant as that other hairy shouty funny man called Bill, who isn't eligible to vote afaik, but who has previously felt it necessary to describe the Scottish Parliament as a joke and call the SNP vicious and racist. Stay classy, Connolly.
Technology news: No linx please, we're British.
Literary news: tl;dr
Seems the gist of your Comedy News
is that the Treasury are saying they'll dictate some pretty onerous terms on Scotland's fiscal policy should they want to keep using currency linked to the British Pound. May just be sabre rattling to try and torpedo some of the Yes campaign's claims around currency, may be something to it (economically it makes sense from the rest of the UK's perspective to keep full control of the currency... lessons learnt from the Euro and all that).
hmmm
the whole George Square thing sounds like a complete Union Terrace Gardens. Any good links out there?
www.restoregeorgesquare.com
www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=839932
www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/political-news/matheson-told-the-judges-this-is-the-winning-design-after-they-disagreed-he-announced-the-whole-project-
www.urbanrealm.com/news/4032/McAslan_delivers_last_word_on_%E2%80%98disastrous%E2%80%99_George_Square_comp.html
+ the usual
500 days...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LbvFckptY
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tJoIaXZ0rw
What do Scottish musicians think!?!?
http://thepopcop.co.uk/2013/05/40-musicians-answer-the-scottish-independence-question/
most of that lot can't even supply a flattering picture
ugh
"Michael Cassidy (03/05/13)
No
For me, the independence question is one of national identity. My nationality is Scottish and if we were to vote for independence then I wouldn’t necessarily feel any more Scottish as a result. I would be lying if I said there wasn’t a part of me that was attracted to a romanticised view of an independent Scotland. This feeling is heightened when I hear a lone piper playing Highland Cathedral or watch a film or documentary celebrating Scotland’s history."
I'm so sick of people equating independence with patriotism. I don't know about others but I have not seen anyone give their reason for voting yes as being because they are patriotic - it seems most of the "no" camp bring the patriotism thing into it.
Quite an interesting piece here about the possible implications of the Conservatives deciding to have a referendum on the EU.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/will-an-eu-referendum-kill-the-scottish-independence-referendum/
It had already struck me that if there was an EU referendum and the result was that the majority of English voters decided to leave, but a majority of those in the other nations decided to stay in (which isn't entirely implausible), there could be an almighty constitutional shitstorm as a result.
In the words of Pete Tong: We continue...
Ernst and Young say prospect of independence brings foreign investment to Scotland, reaching a 15 year high.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-brings-foreign-investment-1-2954191
Looks like the Better Together mob got it wrong when they said foreign investors would run from the "uncertainty" caused by the referendum?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/09/scottish-independence-referendum-george-osborne
Hasn't stopped Alistair Darling cosying up with the Tories to the point of speaking at one of their party conferences.
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4952662/Tory-talk-Darling-is-taunted.html
Maybe that's why Labour in Scotland seem to be trying to distance themselves from it by launching their own splinter campaign United With Labour. Is Better Together falling apart?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/brown-joins-launch-of-labour-campaign-to-preserve-union.21056717
Not that Labour was ever /actually/ united about all of this.
https://www.facebook.com/labourforindependence
And with 615 likes, the entire remaining LibDem support seems to be behind a similar movement.
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalDemocratVotersForIndependence
Meanwhile, the leader of Glasgow City Council, still under investigation for various issues relating to George Square related misdemeanours, is kicking back with a high profile sacking.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/city-leader-sacks-rival-after-allegations-of-disloyalty.21266385
But enough of the downers. We started on a positive, so let's finish on another, twee-as, uplifting note.
http://nationalcollective.com/2013/06/03/project-wish-tree/
Darling of the Tories
www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4961608/Alistair-Darling-of-the-Tories.html