Scottish Independence Referendum |OT| 18 September 2014 [Up: NO wins]

Where do you stand on the issue of Scottish independence?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think most people don't care about the NHS as long as it's still free at the point of use - which it obviously is. The fact that the building you're getting your "free" liver transplant in is owned by Tesco rather than the government is probably not something many people give two shits about, broadly. Other than some shouty guy on Question Time with a Yorkshire accent.

I don't think many people care intrinsically about whether the NHS is fully state-run or part-owned and -run by private companies, but they do deeply care at the point it impacts the quality of healthcare they get. This means that it actually is a pretty deep political issue, because of the sheer weight of the argument quite frequently seen in public that NHS will get worse as a result of part-privatization. When groups like the BMA and Royal College of Nursing consistently speak out on the issue, it sinks in after a while. I think it'd be very foolish to underestimate the resulting strength of public opinion. If I remember rightly, the state of the NHS is the third most important issue overall to the British public after the economy and immigration respectively, and I think the Conservative's NHS policies are usually listed as by far the most unpopular thing they've done.
 
I know right? Salmond is treating it like meeting their share of debt obligations would be a quid pro quo for the currency union.

Quid pro quo, geddit?

...

I'll get me coat.

Edit:



I think that's a funny way of looking at it. As Cyclops said, that money has already been spent, some of it on Scotland. So, yes a proportion of it is Scottish debt if we're going to start dividing the country up. As to what a "fair" way to divide it would be? Well, I feel we're never going to get an actual answer to that question.

And again with the "insists"? I addressed this in a post up the page: the rUK simply would be the successor state, going by precedents set by other countries.

By the same token, Scotland has already spent some of it's money on UK assets including the BOE and the pound but people seem to be extremely happy with the concept of telling them to fuck themselves when it comes either of those.

Can't have it both ways, it's either sharing a proportional amount of the assets and debt or not.
 
Care to tell the French and the Germans they're not independent?

Germany's economy comprises ~30% of the Eurozone, France's is a bit above 20%. They're the two largest economies in the Eurozone by a fair way. Scotland's economy would be something like 8% of a Stirlingzone wouldn't it, compared to the UK with 90+%?

I don't think it's a great comparison.
 
Germany's economy comprises ~30% of the Eurozone, France's is a bit above 20%. They're the two largest economies in the Eurozone by a fair way. Scotland's economy would be something like 8% of a Stirlingzone wouldn't it, compared to the UK with 90+%?

I don't think it's a great comparison.

Germany is 25.2% of the Eurozone, France is 19.9%. Scotland represents ~9% of the United Kingdom's economy, with some variance (±0.3%) on whether you attribute oil according to International Maritime Boundaries or the current definitions of English and Scottish waters. That makes Scotland somewhere between Spain and Italy in terms of relevance, but that's not a great comparison, because even if Spain only represent 7.8% of the Eurozone economy, the other 92.2% is strongly divided and don't necessarily have a clear incentive to all do the same thing, so Spain's influence is made stronger by the fact there are ample opportunities for coalitions with various internal blocs. Scotland's market would always be compared solely against England's.
 
By the same token, Scotland has already spent some of it's money on UK assets including the BOE and the pound but people seem to be extremely happy with the concept of telling them to fuck themselves when it comes either of those.

Can't have it both ways, it's either sharing a proportional amount of the assets and debt or not.

It's been said plenty on the previous page: sterling is not an "asset".

I mean, I guess Scotland would be entitiled to a share of the BOE. Like, the physical building, but I'm not sure how that'd be divided up in practice. It's looking like it's not going to come to that anyway.
 
I'm from London UK, and I'm just interesting in asking this to my Scottish brothers.

Are you sick or even care at all that a bunch of "celebs" made a letter and all signed it asking you to stay together?

Like I was watching the news and saw what they'd done, and I just laughed as to be perfectly honest, I would find it even more appealing to leave with stunts like that being pulled.

It's not even like they make a Valid point they're just using the
OH I'M FAMOUS, LISTEN TO ME, DO WHAT I SAY.

I find it insulting.

Also GG on the commonwealth games, they were rad.

Depends on the celebrity. I find Sean Connery wading into the debate more annoying than someone like JK Rowling.
 
I don't think many people care intrinsically about whether the NHS is fully state-run or part-owned and -run by private companies, but they do deeply care at the point it impacts the quality of healthcare they get. This means that it actually is a pretty deep political issue, because of the sheer weight of the argument quite frequently seen in public that NHS will get worse as a result of part-privatization. When groups like the BMA and Royal College of Nursing consistently speak out on the issue, it sinks in after a while. I think it'd be very foolish to underestimate the resulting strength of public opinion. If I remember rightly, the state of the NHS is the third most important issue overall to the British public after the economy and immigration respectively, and I think the Conservative's NHS policies are usually listed as by far the most unpopular thing they've done.

I don't doubt this is true, but I suspect that has more to do with an incredibly intrenched belief rather than direct ramifications. By a lot of metrics (waiting times being the most politically potent), things are better now than in 2010 - and I strongly suspect that where the "privitisation" elements removed from their changes since 2010 with the rest remaining (reorganisations etc), they'd still have absolutely toxic NHS popularity ratings.

By the same token, Scotland has already spent some of it's money on UK assets including the BOE and the pound but people seem to be extremely happy with the concept of telling them to fuck themselves when it comes either of those.

Can't have it both ways, it's either sharing a proportional amount of the assets and debt or not.

I'm confused - how does Scotland "spend money" on the £? It's a currency, a tool; It's an "asset" only insomuch as it's a useful tool, but it didn't cost Scotland (or London or Cornwall or any other arbitrary part of the UK) money to produce in the same way HS2 or a tank does.
 
I don't doubt this is true, but I suspect that has more to do with an incredibly intrenched belief rather than direct ramifications. By a lot of metrics (waiting times being the most politically potent), things are better now than in 2010 - and I strongly suspect that where the "privitisation" elements removed from their changes since 2010 with the rest remaining (reorganisations etc), they'd still have absolutely toxic NHS popularity ratings.

uh what

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ting-times-in-NHS-at-worst-for-six-years.html
 
By the same token, Scotland has already spent some of it's money on UK assets including the BOE and the pound but people seem to be extremely happy with the concept of telling them to fuck themselves when it comes either of those.

Can't have it both ways, it's either sharing a proportional amount of the assets and debt or not.

Whilst Scotland does add value to the pound it also has received benefits from doing that whilst in the Union. I think you can look at the currency aspect as a subscription. If you subscribe to something you get the benefits of it. If you stop subscribing you lose the benefits of it. You can't go "oh but but all dat money I paid for my subscription should entitle me to get the benefits till I no longer want the benefits".

It is pretty clear that rUK does not want a Currency Union. I love the way some talk about "fair share of the assets" (even though currency isn't an asset), how the hell is forcing a currency union on the remaining 90% of the UK in any way "fair". If Scotland wants Independence then it should be full independence. Scotland wants to be free from Westminster control, I understand that. But if that is what you want then why are you so keen to give Westminster the reigns to your damn economy ? I don't even know why Salmond is banging on about the pound, not a few years ago he called the pond a "millstone around Scotland's neck" Oh wait he said that before another currency union called the Euro went tits up.
 
Hands up! I heard something on LBC t'other day about that in a discussion and no one took the person up on it so I assumed it was true! It may well have been about local figures specific to an area though. Anyway, apologies!
The Tories have been saying waiting times have come down but stats were dodgy, remember the arguments in pmq's? Anyway yeah it is hard to argue that waiting times have gone any way other than up unfortunately. They need to get a bloody grip.
 
The Tories have been saying waiting times have come down but stats were dodgy, remember the arguments in pmq's? Anyway yeah it is hard to argue that waiting times have gone any way other than up unfortunately. They need to get a bloody grip.

I seem to remember that afterwards, on the Daily Politics, they had this bizarre discussion wherein one person was saying that "For those waiting over 32 weeks, the waiting times have gone up" and the other one saying "Yeah but for those over 16 weeks, they've gone down!" or whatever. It's possible they're both true, which I guess shows how unilluminating the stats are when broken down like that.
 
As a mainly left leaning socialist country, I really see no benefit for the Scottish in remaining part of the right-wing neo-liberal UK. Economically they will be fine as they are, after all a developed western country. They have all the institutions and infrastructure in place. Anyone who thinks their country will somehow collapse and need bailing out is either scaremongering or ignorant. If I was Scottish I would be insulted being told what basically amounts to "You couldn't go it alone, you're too small and unable to stay afloat without us".

I have yet to see one solid case as to way the the Scottish should remain part of the UK. In fact it's the rUK that has more to lose, decreased world presence politically and economically. That's why they are so nervous and against it. They don't give a fuck about Scotland only their own interests.

This whole pound debate is also a joke. Salmond repeatedly said that Plan B is in their manifesto. Which it is, along with plans C, D & E. The reason the No campaigns has chosen to place all their eggs in this one basket shows they have no other relevant points to make. Outside of nostalgic sentimental drivel like shared history and culture.
 
As a mainly left leaning socialist country, I really see no benefit for the Scottish in remaining part of the right-wing neo-liberal UK. Economically they will be fine as they are, after all a developed western country. They have all the institutions and infrastructure in place. Anyone who thinks their country will somehow collapse and need bailing out is either scaremongering or ignorant. If I was Scottish I would be insulted being told what basically amounts to "You couldn't go it alone, you're too small and unable to stay afloat without us".

I have yet to see one solid case as to way the the Scottish should remain part of the UK. In fact it's the rUK that has more to lose, decreased world presence politically and economically. That's why they are so nervous and against it. They don't give a fuck about Scotland only their own interests.

This whole pound debate is also a joke. Salmond repeatedly said that Plan B is in their manifesto. Which it is, along with plans C, D & E. The reason the No campaigns has chosen to place all their eggs in this one basket shows they have no other relevant points to make. Outside of nostalgic sentimental drivel like shared history and culture.

So if it's in the manifesto why didn't he say what it was during the debate? The audience were clearly getting annoyed by his sidestepping. Is it because plans B through E are terrible and no-one would want to do them?
 
Full disclosure here - I'm a Scot, proud to be but live in England so I have no say in the election.

I'm split on the issue of independence - part of me would love to see Scots go it alone and soar or fall on their own merits and choices, but the realist within me is aware that Scotland is not the land of milk and honey that the SNP wants to characterise it as. I think the Yes vote would be more honest - and would probably get more votes - if it came out and said 'you know what, the first few years are going to be tough. We're going to have to negotiate on a lot of different things and somethings might not go our way. But we'll be independent and that's pretty amazing.'

Instead, they seem to be simply saying everything will work out the way we want. It might well do, but it might also not and I would like them to be honest about the fact and explain to the voters what they will do and how it can affect them. Claiming that they are different from all the MPs down in Westminster and then not trusting the electorate to be aware that it will be tough is a little bit off.

On the other side, I would love to hear the Better Together make an emotional appeal to people about what the UK is that doesn't boil down to simply you might be a few pounds better off keeping with the UK. I enjoy being part of the UK, I like having been able to go to Leeds for University, working in England and sharing a common approach to life with my wife and kids. The union has been successful in many ways - but also committed some acts that I'm not proud of - and Scotland has been able to push some of its people and issues forward in many ways through that Union that may not have been possible without it.

Also, the idea that Scots as a whole are left-wing and massively different from the English in their outlook isn't completely true. See document below


http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/scotcen-ssa-report.pdf

Final point - whatever happens, I hope it doesn't divide Scots into two opposing groups.
As Burns pointed out,

That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brithers be for a' that.
 
I'm split on the issue of independence - part of me would love to see Scots go it alone and soar or fall on their own merits and choices, but the realist within me is aware that Scotland is not the land of milk and honey that the SNP wants to characterise it as. I think the Yes vote would be more honest - and would probably get more votes - if it came out and said 'you know what, the first few years are going to be tough. We're going to have to negotiate on a lot of different things and somethings might not go our way. But we'll be independent and that's pretty amazing.'

Armando Iannucci did some tweet saying he was disappointed how both campaigns have been focussing on the next five years, when really this should be a larger discussion of what independence would really mean over, say, the next 100 years.

I think that's a fair point. Both sides have been pretty short-termist in their outlook.
 
As a mainly left leaning socialist country, I really see no benefit for the Scottish in remaining part of the right-wing neo-liberal UK. Economically they will be fine as they are, after all a developed western country. They have all the institutions and infrastructure in place. Anyone who thinks their country will somehow collapse and need bailing out is either scaremongering or ignorant. If I was Scottish I would be insulted being told what basically amounts to "You couldn't go it alone, you're too small and unable to stay afloat without us".

I have yet to see one solid case as to way the the Scottish should remain part of the UK. In fact it's the rUK that has more to lose, decreased world presence politically and economically. That's why they are so nervous and against it. They don't give a fuck about Scotland only their own interests.

This whole pound debate is also a joke. Salmond repeatedly said that Plan B is in their manifesto. Which it is, along with plans C, D & E. The reason the No campaigns has chosen to place all their eggs in this one basket shows they have no other relevant points to make. Outside of nostalgic sentimental drivel like shared history and culture.

The first point you make is a bit weird. I'm a Welshman (well, half Australian half Welsh), and a left-leaning one at that, so I'm not speaking from an English perspective or a Conservative one, but my experience is that Scotland is not really significantly any more left than the rest of the United Kingdom - polling consistently reveals this, and I think someone has provided a specific link in a post just above me. As a whole, I actually think the political leaning of the United Kingdom is mildly towards the left. This is the country that helped give birth to the international labour movement and still fosters institutions like the NHS and the BBC. The problem isn't the United Kingdom, it's more that the political dynamic of the United Kingdom is really heavily weighted towards the Home Counties. It's not Scotland that's getting fucked over by England, it's Scotland and Wales and Yorkshire and the North-west and the Midlands getting fucked over by the political centrifuge of the south.

Now, I'll admit that's problematic, and I hate it too. But I just don't see how Scotland leaving really improves the situation. At the point Scotland leaves, but stays in the pound and tries to stay in a common market with the rUK, which it will have to given the rUK will dominate it economically, it won't really be meaningfully independent, in the sense that it's monetary policy and financial regulations will still be decided almost entirely by London and the Home Counties, as it was before. Yes, Scotland will have control over education and healthcare and policing and so on, but... in every meaningful sense, it already has full control over all those things because of the devolution process. All of the main complaints Scotland levies (too rightwing, too neoliberal) are economic, and Scotland's independence just won't meaningfully shift that status quo because their economy is just going to dwarfed by the rUK and basically permanently in its orbit.

So what does? Well, the strangest thing is how Scottish nationalists cast it as "us vs. them", because I feel it completely undermines the political scene in Scotland. They have allies - the Welsh, the Yorkshiremen, the Cumbrian, the Cornishman, the Brummie, the Geordie, the Mancunian and all of the other peoples of the United Kingdom who dislike the Home Counties domination. I think a much more successful future for Scotland lies in remaining inside the United Kingdom, but in spearheading a movement for change amongst this group. In fact, that's already happening behind the scenes - Glasgow is the nominal head of the current group of major British cities petitioning central government for more local powers. The end result of this is a Scotland which gets the maximum amount of influence over both economic and governmental policy, insofar as that as part of a bloc of the peripheries, it exerts a lot more clout than it would otherwise. I feel like an independent Scotland would simply be doomed to be the Norway to the European Union - still having to abide by every regulation the EU passes and still totally at the whim of the decisions made in the Common market, but with absolutely no influence over what those regulations and decisions are.

Seems to me like the Welsh have it more or less right - push for devolution, but at the same time take places like Cardiff and ally them with Manchester and Liverpool and push for a balanced United Kingdom. Hefyd, peidiwch byth â gadael dyn y tu ôl i, rydych bastards. Beth ddigwyddodd i undod Celtaidd?
 
Armando Iannucci did some tweet saying he was disappointed how both campaigns have been focussing on the next five years, when really this should be a larger discussion of what independence would really mean over, say, the next 100 years.

I think that's a fair point. Both sides have been pretty short-termist in their outlook.

Agree - as one article I read mentioned, this isn't really being decided by the political point scoring on either side, which actually seems to turn people off (shocking I know) but in pubs and living rooms across the land. If nothing else, at least it shows that people can still be engaged in politics - whenever I meet people down here at the moment, it takes about twenty minutes before they ask my view on independence!
 
I do hope that whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum, the UK has a serious debate about more devolved powers for the regions, and ways of balancing out the UK. George Osborne, of all people, made a recent speech about creating a Northern powerhouse by better integrating the likes of Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds.
 
Armando Iannucci did some tweet saying he was disappointed how both campaigns have been focussing on the next five years, when really this should be a larger discussion of what independence would really mean over, say, the next 100 years.

I think that's a fair point. Both sides have been pretty short-termist in their outlook.

I am not even sure how you could discuss what things will be like in 100 years time. Hell it is hard enough trying to guesstimate what things will be like in 10 months time. At the end of the day if No wins and Scotland stays in the Union then things will carry on. I imagine in about 20 -30 years time you guys will probably get another referendum asking if you want to stay in the Union. It isn't like if you vote No in this referendum that is it for all time you are stuck in the Union for the next 100 years.

If the yes vote wins then Scotland will either sink or swim and I can't honestly see a situation where they would be allowed to rejoin the union if things go tits up. So a yes vote is definitely more of a permanent thing whereas a no vote is more a "maybe next time".
 
I am not even sure how you could discuss what things will be like in 100 years time. Hell it is hard enough trying to guesstimate what things will be like in 10 months time. At the end of the day if No wins and Scotland stays in the Union then things will carry on. I imagine in about 20 -30 years time you guys will probably get another referendum asking if you want to stay in the Union. It isn't like if you vote No in this referendum that is it for all time you are stuck in the Union for the next 100 years.

If the yes vote wins then Scotland will either sink or swim and I can't honestly see a situation where they would be allowed to rejoin the union if things go tits up. So a yes vote is definitely more of a permanent thing whereas a no vote is more a "maybe next time".

History suggests it'll be somewhere between 15 to 20 years before the issue is brought up again in the event of a No vote, and the dwindling North Sea Oil issue will make Yes a much harder sell next time unless Scotlands economy diversifies quite significantly between now and then.
 
I am not even sure how you could discuss what things will be like in 100 years time. Hell it is hard enough trying to guesstimate what things will be like in 10 months time. At the end of the day if No wins and Scotland stays in the Union then things will carry on. I imagine in about 20 -30 years time you guys will probably get another referendum asking if you want to stay in the Union. It isn't like if you vote No in this referendum that is it for all time you are stuck in the Union for the next 100 years.

If the yes vote wins then Scotland will either sink or swim and I can't honestly see a situation where they would be allowed to rejoin the union if things go tits up. So a yes vote is definitely more of a permanent thing whereas a no vote is more a "maybe next time".

Oh sure, I'm not expecting anyone to predict what would happen, I guess I'd just like some more...vision? Reading that back, I'm not sure it makes sense, but I feel like there's a subtle distinction to be made. I just can't quite articulate it.

As for the "maybe next time" issue, I've brought that up before in the thread (and the previous one) when people have been saying things like "it's now or never". The thing is, if there's a No vote there undoubtably will be further referenda on this exact issue further down the line - heck, we had one in the 70s. If it's a Yes vote, I agree that it would be less likely that a 'rejoining' process would take place down the line.
 
Case close.

BurJv7GIYAAd3wg.jpg
 
Oh yeah, for anyone interested in what's going on, I heartily recommend reading over Stuart Campbell's Wee Blue Book : wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook A short, concise, comprehensive, well sourced argument for a Yes vote.

Are you taking the fucking piss?

..recommending a site run by a man who publicly stated he was fucking loving 9/11.

A man who allows intimidation of 'no' supporters, a man who will publicise 'no' supporters personal details such as their home address.

Oh yeah...he also lives in that comfortable middle class English bastion known as Bath.

..the man is a grade A, hypocritical fucking scumbag...he also looks like an inbreed.

XJab.png
 
Scottish Social Attitude Survey came out this week. Some data:

I don't think this is going to come down to the wire somehow.

The only way the No camp could possibly lose this referendum is through apathetic voter attitudes on the day itself. The Yes camp will evidently turn out in huge force but because of poll results so far and in light of the fact that they will just be preserving the status quo, there may be a temptation on the minds of No voters to be complacent.
 
The only way the No camp could possibly lose this referendum is through apathetic voter attitudes on the day itself. The Yes camp will evidently turn out in huge force but because of poll results so far and in light of the fact that they will just be preserving the status quo, there may be a temptation on the minds of No voters to be complacent.

Oh yes, I believe that the Yes camp is filled with passionate people, and they'll all do their bit on the 18th. There's just not that many of them. I mean, look at that unsqueezed figure - one in four saying yes? That's not a yearning for independence. Such movements usually have overwhelming public support (c.f. South Sudan - over 98% voting Yes). And they don't usually have to resort to tricks like this!

 
Got my voting card through the post. It's only valid for me to vote in the designated location, right? Like if I'll be in another city at that time, I'll need an updated card?
 
Got my voting card through the post. It's only valid for me to vote in the designated location, right? Like if I'll be in another city at that time, I'll need an updated card?

The voting location on your card should have a register of voters, and your name will be on that list and nowhere else... That's if they are using standard electoral voting procedures
 
Apparently they removed anyone signing multiple times and people not eligible to vote.
 
Why? Every signature counted towards the total presented here is cross-referenced against the Scottish Electoral Roll.

You can see that in that quoted image that Yes campaigners are openly admitting on social media to having signed the list multiple times, presumably under different names.
 
Nope.

Scotland is a wonderful country. And they should be independant eventually. But it won't work now, and I don't want to see the country suffer through aeons of struggle in a bolshy teenage 'GOD, YOU'RE SO UNFAIR' strop.
 
You can see that in that quoted image that Yes campaigners are openly admitting on social media to having signed the list multiple times, presumably under different names.

I see one campaigner has claimed that, where are the other campaigners claiming this and where are you getting "presumably under different names" from?

YesScotland Website said:
Please note we will remove any multiple entries and that only people on the electoral register in Scotland will be counted towards our target of 1 million signatures. However, if you do not live in Scotland you are very welcome to show your support by signing even if it does not count towards that total.
 
I see one campaigner has claimed that, where are the other campaigners claiming this and where are you getting "presumably under different names" from?

Just one plank daft enough to admit it. If I see any more I might post them, but this OT tends to sink like a stone unfortunately, and I don't want to keep bumping it if no one else is posting.

As for "presumably under different names", the logic runs thus: the Yes Scotland declaration website, from which these one million "signatures" have been collected, states that duplicate names and people not on the Scottish electoral roll will be removed / not counted. If I was a Yesser, keen to inflate the amount of support, it would be trivial for me to sign in my own name, and the name of my mum, my dad, my brother and my sister, if they all live at the same address (or if I simply know their post code). Voila, my one vote is now five votes. They'll all be counted since they're all on the Scottish electoral roll, and because the list is never published due to confidentiality reasons, the rest of my family will be none the wiser that I signed in their name.

Evidence for this? Admittedly just my own cynicism and that one guy on twitter.

Evidence against? Well, it can't be disproven unfortunately, since they can't release the names.

I would just recommend that people view this one million signs with the level of skepticism it deserves.
 
Are you taking the fucking piss?

..recommending a site run by a man who publicly stated he was fucking loving 9/11.

A man who allows intimidation of 'no' supporters, a man who will publicise 'no' supporters personal details such as their home address.

Oh yeah...he also lives in that comfortable middle class English bastion known as Bath.

..the man is a grade A, hypocritical fucking scumbag...he also looks like an inbreed.

I remember him, he used to write for an Amiga magazine.
Sounds like a dick now though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom