The Referendum Thread

[oaksoft]

So what currency is the fall back if you are denied the chance to use Sterling as a defacto currency?

The point is that the SNP published a White Paper which assumes EU membership when precedent in Montenegro suggests otherwise. They've assumed Sterling will be the currency despite Westminster politicians saying no. They've assumed NATO will allow membership to a nation telling them they can't put defence weaponry in Scotland. They've assumed oil production figures that the institute of fiscal studies disagrees with. And like all great Disney fairytales it rounds up its work of fiction promising lower taxes, free childcare, higher pensions and the scrapping of the under occupancy supplement.

All that's missing is Salmond claiming the SNP will ensure Scotland will win the World Cup in 2020. I'm told they a actually had this in the first and second draft but once Sturgeon started to sober up she realised that was just too ridiculous.

There is NO precedent for what is about to happen.

None.

Straight out of the mouths of both the BT campaign and the EU.

You appear to have missed the memo.

[bud77]

There is no real precedent here, so it is really just whataboutery isnt it?

We are currently EU citizens, are you suggesting that he EU will tell us that they don't want the country with the largest coastal waters and the largest oil and gas reserves in the EU?

I dont think anyone is proposing joining the Euro.. apart from you?

Just like the SNP manifesto, ifs, buts and maybes - except they are doing their usual with the Scottish electorate, dodge the difficult questions and shouting even louder.

Salmond finally admitted there was no legal advice regarding the EU despite trying to imply otherwise and then trying to refuse freedom of information requests. He is also a career politician - are these really people we are meant to just blindly trust without question ? I would give the plans a lot more consideration if the SNP were more honest and transparent about their plans including costs and the possible pitfalls instead of implying that independence will lead us all to the promised land.

Scotland is not a signatory of the EU treaty, the signatory is the UK and we are members because we are currently part of the UK. Spain have indicated that they would make make any membership application from Scotland very difficult at least and could possibly vote against it. That's all it takes to reject the application, one member nation voting against.What would it take to get Spain on side, giving them massive fishing rights in Scottish waters ? If we were to become a member one of the main requirements is to commit to joining the EURO, that's not me saying we should, it is a condition of new membership, but there's conditions to that in that the country must have it's OWN, stable currency and be a member of the ERM for 2 years. Scotland would fail those conditions by using sterling so couldn't meet the EURO requirements of membership,

And before we get another 'but we're already members' argument. We are already members of the UN and NATO as part of the UK, yet the manifesto states we would apply to join both. Shouldn't that be the same as the EU argument, Dear Mr UN/NATO, we are one of the founding members of your organization so gonnae gie us wir seat.

[Edinbuddie]

He is also a career politician - are these really people we are meant to just blindly trust without question ?

And therein lies the problem for a lot of the electorate. This will be decided by the people but our decisions will all be based on how we view the outcome of a 'game' (and politicians do view it as a game) of career politician v career politician.

You've asked the question of Salmond (who I've no time for at all) but it's exactly the same for Carmichael, Darling etc. These are career politicians, doing their job and if it's a no vote, I'll be astonished if there aren't honours galore being handed out to these guys. So, putting aside the politics for a second, there is massive self interest on both sides.

Many people already have entrenched views on this already & won't be swayed. I spotted a sports journalist on Twitter bemoaning the cost of the Kelpie sculptures at the side of the M9 and suggesting that this money could've been used to help schools, nurses etc. a fair enough point in some ways. But that was on the same day that Sky Sport News reported that £185m of taxpayers money is going to be used to reconfigure the Olympic Stadium in London for the Rugby World Cup and for West Ham to use (including a suggestion of retractable seating FFS!!).

Politicians will plead poverty, promote austerity, favour their own causes and claim that we're all in it together when it suits them, but can find money for all sorts of nonsense, and it's all down ideaology and political choice. Don't kid yourself that the majority of career politicians give a monkeys about much outside their own self interest.

[Lanarkshire_Bud]

Has Alistair Carmichael been spotted since last night? I fear for his safety after that bloodbath Sturgeon dished out.....I very nearly felt bad for him.

[bud77]

For the majority of my lifetime Scotland has been ruled or jointly ruled by Tories.

For the majority of that time Wales and Scotland have voted overwhelmingly for Labour and Northern Ireland haven't voted the Tories in anyway.

That's 3 out of 4 constituent nations consistently voting for someone other than the Tories and the English vote carrying the day.

That is a democratic deficiency and is hard to defend.

As for your point about coalition, Scotland didn't vote Lib Dem either.

Neither did Northern Ireland or Wales so I'm not sure what your point is in this regard.

How to destroy your point.

But that's absoluitely brainless. In a free country with a diverse population and range of beliefs and interests and a sizeable list of parties and candidates you'll almost never see one party getting more than 50%.

BTW we have a list system which tries to rectify that in Scotland. It's the reason the Greens and Tories have MSP's.

Westminster doesn't have that so although both have deficits you can easily compare one to the other and see that ours is a more representative system..

[salmonbuddie]

Without Scotland there is no UK. By definition. Whatever Scotland is required to do, there is a compelling legal argument that rUK will also have to do.

[salmonbuddie]

 

 

Just like the SNP manifesto, ifs, buts and maybes - except they are doing their usual with the Scottish electorate, dodge the difficult questions and shouting even louder.

 

Salmond finally admitted there was no legal advice regarding the EU despite trying to imply otherwise and then trying to refuse freedom of information requests. He is also a career politician - are these really people we are meant to just blindly trust without question ? I would give the plans a lot more consideration if the SNP were more honest and transparent about their plans including costs and the possible pitfalls instead of implying that independence will lead us all to the promised land.

 

Scotland is not a signatory of the EU treaty, the signatory is the UK and we are members because we are currently part of the UK. Spain have indicated that they would make make any membership application from Scotland very difficult at least and could possibly vote against it. That's all it takes to reject the application, one member nation voting against.What would it take to get Spain on side, giving them massive fishing rights in Scottish waters ? If we were to become a member one of the main requirements is to commit to joining the EURO, that's not me saying we should, it is a condition of new membership, but there's conditions to that in that the country must have it's OWN, stable currency and be a member of the ERM for 2 years. Scotland would fail those conditions by using sterling so couldn't meet the EURO requirements of membership,

 

And before we get another 'but we're already members' argument. We are already members of the UN and NATO as part of the UK, yet the manifesto states we would apply to join both. Shouldn't that be the same as the EU argument,  Dear Mr UN/NATO, we are one of the founding members of your organization so gonnae gie us wir seat.

Meant to quote this in the above (blame the phone!)

[bud77]

That sounds like a great opportunity to just , er , no bother , er joining , the European Union , after all , if we get independence , then why would we leave one Union only to jump into another one. .

If l remember correctly , it was mostly Englandshire that voted for the EEC back in the 7ts(remember , none of them voted for the EU). Given a vote on the EU today , how many would say yes. .

Well that is really a question for the yes camp as they are the ones who are making all the noise about being in the EU. I've said it before, what is so independent about being in the EU, having the currency controlled by a foreign country and having a foreigner as head of state ?

And therein lies the problem for a lot of the electorate. This will be decided by the people but our decisions will all be based on how we view the outcome of a 'game' (and politicians do view it as a game) of career politician v career politician.

You've asked the question of Salmond (who I've no time for at all) but it's exactly the same for Carmichael, Darling etc. These are career politicians, doing their job and if it's a no vote, I'll be astonished if there aren't honours galore being handed out to these guys. So, putting aside the politics for a second, there is massive self interest on both sides.

Many people already have entrenched views on this already & won't be swayed. I spotted a sports journalist on Twitter bemoaning the cost of the Kelpie sculptures at the side of the M9 and suggesting that this money could've been used to help schools, nurses etc. a fair enough point in some ways. But that was on the same day that Sky Sport News reported that £185m of taxpayers money is going to be used to reconfigure the Olympic Stadium in London for the Rugby World Cup and for West Ham to use (including a suggestion of retractable seating FFS!!).

Politicians will plead poverty, promote austerity, favour their own causes and claim that we're all in it together when it suits them, but can find money for all sorts of nonsense, and it's all down ideaology and political choice. Don't kid yourself that the majority of career politicians give a monkeys about much outside their own self interest.

The question is (as proposed by the SNP) 'Should Scotland be an independent country ?' To me that puts the onus on the proposer to put forward a case to convince the electorate to vote yes but does not necessarily mean anyone should put forward a case for staying in the union. I do think that constitutional reform is required in the UK (starting with a proper constitution) but how can you start that until the referendum is decided ?

As things stand the SNP have failed, so far, to convince me for many reasons:

Trust - I'm cynical about most politicians but Alex Salmond takes dodging questions to a new level and uses bluster and attack tactics to avoid giving a straight answer. The SNP are also the most secretive government Scotland have had since the assembly began, continually denying freedom of information requests and being forced by the commissioner to provide the answers And don't even start me on Goodwin, Trump, Murdoch or windfarms.

The white paper is full of promises (and we all know what politicians are like about keeping those) but very short on actual information showing the pros and cons, costs and benefits to allow me to make a yes decision to the most important question Scotland has been asked in 300 years. It plays to the heart but this isn't a decision that we can decide in 5 years time that we made a mistake and want to go back, so the Scottish government have a moral responsibility to be honest and open about everything including any down side. Instead all we have been getting as an answer to any questions asked is 'It's scaremongering, just trust us and everything will be fantastic'

Economics - Swinney has privately said the set up costs for an income tax system under independence would be £600 million, there will be 90 embassies set up and many more government machines to bet set up and maintained plus a lot of 'freebies' to be handed out. How much will this cost and how will it be paid for ?

The SNP in general - they have put all but the most basic functions of government on hold for the last 2 years to argue for independence. A lot has been said about 'We could do that in an independent Scotland'. What about now ? Sturgeon admitted they have the powers to give 'free' childcare but won't because all the benefit would go to Westminster. What about the benefit of getting more people working ? What about the benefit of actually being seen to have Scotland's best interests at heart instead of the party's aim of independence at heart ? The SNP are failing themselves by not using the powers they currently have for the good of the people just as much as they are failing the people they claim to care so much about.

[Stuart Dickson]

 

There is NO precedent for what is about to happen.

None.

Straight out of the mouths of both the BT campaign and the EU.

You appear to have missed the memo.

That not true though. There is precedent and we can see how Europe, the UN and NATO dealt with it. I'm not sure why politicians won't come out an unequivocally deal with it - maybe it's part of a strategy that plays with the Spanish situation too - but it's there for all to see.

[Stuart Dickson]

Without Scotland there is no UK. By definition. Whatever Scotland is required to do, there is a compelling legal argument that rUK will also have to do.

Compelling in your head perhaps but in reality we can see what happened in Serbia and Montenegro where the group seeking Independence lost the legal right of susseccion.

[Thorizaar]

But that's absoluitely brainless. In a free country with a diverse population and range of beliefs and interests and a sizeable list of parties and candidates you'll almost never see one party getting more than 50%.

BTW we have a list system which tries to rectify that in Scotland. It's the reason the Greens and Tories have MSP's.

Westminster doesn't have that so although both have deficits you can easily compare one to the other and see that ours is a more representative system..

I agree it's more representative. The context of the point though was that most Scots didn't vote Tory for Westminster and the poster correctly responded to that by pointing out most Scots didn't vote SNP either.

[Drew]

And you're happy enough to accept everything Salmond says as gospel ?

Absolutely not. I'm no Salmond fanboy, but I'm willing to acknowledge much of the aspirational content of the white paper without looking for any source (however spurious) with which to rubbish it.

[Edinbuddie]

Well that is really a question for the yes camp as they are the ones who are making all the noise about being in the EU. I've said it before, what is so independent about being in the EU, having the currency controlled by a foreign country and having a foreigner as head of state ?

The question is (as proposed by the SNP) 'Should Scotland be an independent country ?' To me that puts the onus on the proposer to put forward a case to convince the electorate to vote yes but does not necessarily mean anyone should put forward a case for staying in the union. I do think that constitutional reform is required in the UK (starting with a proper constitution) but how can you start that until the referendum is decided ?

As things stand the SNP have failed, so far, to convince me for many reasons:

Trust - I'm cynical about most politicians but Alex Salmond takes dodging questions to a new level and uses bluster and attack tactics to avoid giving a straight answer. The SNP are also the most secretive government Scotland have had since the assembly began, continually denying freedom of information requests and being forced by the commissioner to provide the answers And don't even start me on Goodwin, Trump, Murdoch or windfarms.

The white paper is full of promises (and we all know what politicians are like about keeping those) but very short on actual information showing the pros and cons, costs and benefits to allow me to make a yes decision to the most important question Scotland has been asked in 300 years. It plays to the heart but this isn't a decision that we can decide in 5 years time that we made a mistake and want to go back, so the Scottish government have a moral responsibility to be honest and open about everything including any down side. Instead all we have been getting as an answer to any questions asked is 'It's scaremongering, just trust us and everything will be fantastic'

Economics - Swinney has privately said the set up costs for an income tax system under independence would be £600 million, there will be 90 embassies set up and many more government machines to bet set up and maintained plus a lot of 'freebies' to be handed out. How much will this cost and how will it be paid for ?

The SNP in general - they have put all but the most basic functions of government on hold for the last 2 years to argue for independence. A lot has been said about 'We could do that in an independent Scotland'. What about now ? Sturgeon admitted they have the powers to give 'free' childcare but won't because all the benefit would go to Westminster. What about the benefit of getting more people working ? What about the benefit of actually being seen to have Scotland's best interests at heart instead of the party's aim of independence at heart ? The SNP are failing themselves by not using the powers they currently have for the good of the people just as much as they are failing the people they claim to care so much about.

If I could paraphrase this bud77, would it be fair to say that you don't like or trust the SNP or their senior politicians, you think they put the interest of their party before those of the country, you have never voted for them and will never vote for them?

That's fine, you've obviously made your mind up and nothing anyone says is going to change that.

What I'm suggesting is that - yes, the SNP and their politicians will put their party and their own self interest first BUT so will every other major political party and their politicians in the UK. We have an adversarial political system, which I would argue is neither mature nor the most efficient way to govern the country.

You're lambasting the SNP/Scottish Government regarding self interest, lack of clarity and honesty, not having the best interests of the people at heart etc. I largely agree with that but what I'm also saying is that is exactly what's been going for decades/centuries at Westminster and what will continue to go on for the foreseeable future.

If you're saying that you prefer the current system, with self serving UK politicians governing Scotland, rather than self serving Scottish politicians, then that's fine.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Edinbuddie

[salmonbuddie]

Compelling in your head perhaps but in reality we can see what happened in Serbia and Montenegro where the group seeking Independence lost the legal right of susseccion.

Shouldn't but can't resist - Serbia's not in the EU, it's applying for membership, Scotland is already in.

Can you see the difference between the two scenarios yet?

We're already EU citizens, are they going to take that away from us? No? Didn't think so.

Edited November 28, 2013 by salmonbuddie

[oaksoft]

That not true though. There is precedent and we can see how Europe, the UN and NATO dealt with it.

Tell BT and the EU then.

[oaksoft]

I agree it's more representative. The context of the point though was that most Scots didn't vote Tory for Westminster and the poster correctly responded to that by pointing out most Scots didn't vote SNP either.

I understand his context.

It's just a ridiculous thing to bring up.

[oaksoft]

The question is (as proposed by the SNP) 'Should Scotland be an independent country ?' To me that puts the onus on the proposer to put forward a case to convince the electorate to vote yes but does not necessarily mean anyone should put forward a case for staying in the union. I do think that constitutional reform is required in the UK (starting with a proper constitution) but how can you start that until the referendum is decided ?

I say this with all honesty, I hope the No campaign stick to this strategy because it is the best bet for the Yes campaign.

[zurich_allan]

Just because the term 'precedent' is being thrown around, and I'm not trying to infer that the EU issue would be resolved one way or the other as a result of this (in reality it is a horrendously complex issue, and not as simple one way or the other as many on here seem to think whether from the yes or no camp), but there is no legal doctrine of stare decisis / precedent within the EU. They have complete autonomy to either follow past decisions or depart from them without comeback or legal consequence. So what has gone before is not necessarily a good indicator of future conduct.

[stlucifer]

Exactly Zurich. There is NO precedent. This just proves that the scaremongering tactics of the BT campaigners is a pathetic attempt to frighten people into their camp. The fact of the matter is that there has never been a case where an already recognised country decides to part company from other countries. THE BALL IS UP IN THE AIR AND i have no doubt the EU countries will take the economic sensible decision to allow Scotland to take it's place at the table.

What amazes me is that those against independence have no positive arguments for the status quo. Better together? In what way? Perhaps they shoulld have been more honest and entitled their campaign "Frightened to be apart" as that is all they seem to put forward as an argument.

By the way. Well done to Nicola Sturgeon for wiping the floor with Alistair Carmichael. 2 for 2 for the SNP.

[Stuart Dickson]

Shouldn't but can't resist - Serbia's not in the EU, it's applying for membership, Scotland is already in.

Can you see the difference between the two scenarios yet?

We're already EU citizens, are they going to take that away from us? No? Didn't think so.

Serbia and Montenegro had applied for EU membership and had been granted candidate status. When Montenegro opted to become independent Serbia were granted legal right of succession and Montenegro were told to apply again.

As for your second point Montenegro adopted the Duetche Mark in 1996 as it's de-facto currency. When Germany moved to the Euro in 2002 so did Montenegro. Since that day they've been in constant conflict with the ECB and the European Commission because they failed to meet strict ERM criteria. In 2010 this reached the stage where the ECB told Montenegro to stop using the Euro. Negotiations are still terse and ongoing three years on. Montenegro are still using the Euro as a de-facto currency and the ECB continues to threaten to stop distribution of Euros in Montenegro.

As I've shown already the EU isn't slow to threaten members with being kicked out of the Union. It happened with Greece most recently who were told if they held a referendum on the second European bail out they'd be out on their arse. So yes the EU can and will withdraw citizenship and it can and will stop countries from using its currency. There are no guarantees yet the white paper makes the assumption without proof backing the claim that they will get EU membership, NATO membership and use of Sterling all in Alex Salmond terms. This is frankly absurd and it diminishes the credibility of the whole document.

I can take Zurich point on EU law but that in itself shows the ridiculous nature of the SNP claims. Spain are not going to stand aside and wave Scotland in when they have their own agenda in Catalonia.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[bud77]

If I could paraphrase this bud77, would it be fair to say that you don't like or trust the SNP or their senior politicians, you think they put the interest of their party before those of the country, you have never voted for them and will never vote for them?

That's fine, you've obviously made your mind up and nothing anyone says is going to change that.

What I'm suggesting is that - yes, the SNP and their politicians will put their party and their own self interest first BUT so will every other major political party and their politicians in the UK. We have an adversarial political system, which I would argue is neither mature nor the most efficient way to govern the country.

You're lambasting the SNP/Scottish Government regarding self interest, lack of clarity and honesty, not having the best interests of the people at heart etc. I largely agree with that but what I'm also saying is that is exactly what's been going for decades/centuries at Westminster and what will continue to go on for the foreseeable future.

If you're saying that you prefer the current system, with self serving UK politicians governing Scotland, rather than self serving Scottish politicians, then that's fine.

So far I have never voted SNP as I have listened to them bluster for years and blame all Scotland's problems on Westminster while failing to use the full extent of the powers they currently have. That doesn't mean that I would never vote SNP or indeed vote against independence. The SNP, like most politicians, are treating the electorate like children by refusing to give full and frank information so we can make an informed decision on something that won't just affect me, or my children, or grand children or great children but the entire future of the country.

I did say in the post you quoted

I do think that constitutional reform is required in the UK (starting with a proper constitution) but how can you start that until the referendum is decided ?

I'm not entirely happy with the status quo but I do think, at the moment, it is a better option to remain with what we have than to blindly follow the yellow brick road to independence as the reality will not be promised land.or the pits of Mordor but somewhere in between.

Perhaps it's not about the electorate trusting the politicians but the politicians trusting the electorate.

[saintnextlifetime]

Well that is really a question for the yes camp as they are the ones who are making all the noise about being in the EU. I've said it before, what is so independent about being in the EU, having the currency controlled by a foreign country and having a foreigner as head of state ?

.

.

.

Yes ,l believe that Scotland should be a an independent , sovereign state . Like the Norwegian model and not a Vassal sate. .

We had to gain Devolution before we could get independence , properly on the table , so , independence in Europe could be a stepping stone to full independence. .

Edited November 28, 2013 by saintnextlifetime

[saintnextlifetime]

Without Scotland there is no UK. By definition. Whatever Scotland is required to do, there is a compelling legal argument that rUK will also have to do.

What. .

[salmonbuddie]

There is an assumption that rUK will inherit the UK rights to everything in the event of the Treaty being rescinded. It strikes me there is a very good case to be made that when one becomes two, both are treated the same.

[salmonbuddie]

Serbia and Montenegro had applied for EU membership and had been granted candidate status. When Montenegro opted to become independent Serbia were granted legal right of succession and Montenegro were told to apply again.

As for your second point Montenegro adopted the Duetche Mark in 1996 as it's de-facto currency. When Germany moved to the Euro in 2002 so did Montenegro. Since that day they've been in constant conflict with the ECB and the European Commission because they failed to meet strict ERM criteria. In 2010 this reached the stage where the ECB told Montenegro to stop using the Euro. Negotiations are still terse and ongoing three years on. Montenegro are still using the Euro as a de-facto currency and the ECB continues to threaten to stop distribution of Euros in Montenegro.

As I've shown already the EU isn't slow to threaten members with being kicked out of the Union. It happened with Greece most recently who were told if they held a referendum on the second European bail out they'd be out on their arse. So yes the EU can and will withdraw citizenship and it can and will stop countries from using its currency. There are no guarantees yet the white paper makes the assumption without proof backing the claim that they will get EU membership, NATO membership and use of Sterling all in Alex Salmond terms. This is frankly absurd and it diminishes the credibility of the whole document.

I can take Zurich point on EU law but that in itself shows the ridiculous nature of the SNP claims. Spain are not going to stand aside and wave Scotland in when they have their own agenda in Catalonia.

Whataboutery. Candidates versus members. Can you see the difference yet?

We're already EU citizens. Are they going to take that away from us? No? Didn't think so.