The Referendum Thread

[salmonbuddie]

The truth is out there......and so are those two, apparently!

[Lord Pityme]

Dicko is up there with (call me) Dave Cameron in driving many switherers towards a yes vote!

Good job the tories never got their way in deciding the exact text of the ballot papers... sees Dave C had done his resech into the scottish phyche and wanted to have the "Aye"... "Naw" option. hedging his bets scottish people are more like to say "Naw" when put on the spot.

[RickMcD]

A number of unionists on here ( and elsewhere) constantly accuse and equate anyone espousing Scottish independence with the Nazis. Lowlife indeed...

I agree with you entirely. All that Nazi talk is a disgrace but politically motivated people tend to go overboard regularly. I don't like any political party so don't have an axe to grind.although I think Scotland should stick with the Union.

[madball]

It's a strange one for me... ideolically I side with SNP only on the issue of independence, not out of some irrational hatred of the English but rather about our ability to self-determine our own future, whereas politically I fear for Scotland letting SNP or Labour be in charge post independence. It certainly would be interesting to see who most of the electorate blame for things going wrong when Westminster is out of the road and the parties that they vote for can't blame others. So I'm pretty much split between either camp on this, but I probably need to see more information from both sides (and particularly the No camp) on what a separation looks like, minus scaremongering (just the facts), as opposed to the political will and landscape in Scotland post split as that is all bluster until we know what the financial divorce settlement looks like, to determine how I vote.

[RickMcD]

BP have done survives in the outer Clyde which suggests there is large oil fields. The UK government won't let drilling be done because our submarines use this area for going back and forth to their base. One of the first things a Scottish government would do is to move these dangerous over priced subs out of Scotland leaving the way for drilling which could create another oil boom with lots of jobs.

There's enough oil around in the North Sea and elsewhere. What F**kwit wants drilling anywhere near the Clyde?

[Denbud]

There's enough oil around in the North Sea and elsewhere. What F**kwit wants drilling anywhere near the Clyde?

Beats the shiite out of fracking in lancashire

[salmonbuddie]

 

There's enough oil around in the North Sea and elsewhere. What F**kwit wants drilling anywhere near the Clyde?

I'd start with BP if LS's post is factually correct......damn sight easier than the Atlantic's going to be.

[RickMcD]

Beats the shiite out of fracking in lancashire

I suspect fracking will be huge fairly soon.

[Vambo57]

It's not minutae. Look at what Jim Sillars said about Quantitative Easing on Question Time. He's right. The UK are the debtor and the creditor for a huge part of our £1T deficit and logic would suggest that if that is the case we could write off large chunks of that debt, if we were willing to devalue Sterling on the FX markets.

If Scotland vote for Independence, Scotland won't have that dilemma. Scotland will walk away with it's share of the debt and the Bank Of England will be the creditor with little prospect of any of the debt being written off. How much independence do you REALLY think that will give you?

So we walk away with the same debt as HALF of one of England's cities?.... jings crivvens help ma Boab!

Rest assured Dicko, YOU helped me make my mind up to vote YES.

How do you like them apples?

Big oil reserves possibly in the Clyde. We vote for independence, Salmond tells the Royal Navy to do one and get tae' fcuk, and all that lovely oil and associated revenue is achieved by.... British Petroleum.

Hmm. I remain undecided. I genuinely am on the fence, although every time Salmond or Sturgeon open their gobs I side with retaining the union.

Poz, you should know by now... A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE IS NOT A VOTE FOR THE SNP. There will be elections after the Referendum, where whoever wins it, can tell the RN to f**k off!

Edited January 28, 2014 by Vambo57

[Lord Pityme]

I agree with you entirely. All that Nazi talk is a disgrace but politically motivated people tend to go overboard regularly. I don't like any political party so don't have an axe to grind.although I think Scotland should stick with the Union. Ya natsi bastards!

FIFY

[bluto]

I probably need to see more information from both sides (and particularly the No camp) on what a separation looks like, minus scaremongering (just the facts),

The problem for the both camps is that there can be NO FACTS for the hypothetical situation. I've tried to engage on this thread and suggest where areas of concern might be (as did Zurich Alan) but there's been no meaningful response from Yes voters, no discussion on these, just depressingly dismissive comments.

Everything will be alright on the night, it seems.

I have faith in Scots that may indeed eventually be the case, but after what cost... and it's right here, madball, that you'd want me to offer facts - but no one can provide them... so I won't continue scaremongering.

Anyway, according to politically incorrect oakstur, my opinion is invalid simply because I am too old.

[Stuart Dickson]

It's a strange one for me... ideolically I side with SNP only on the issue of independence, not out of some irrational hatred of the English but rather about our ability to self-determine our own future, whereas politically I fear for Scotland letting SNP or Labour be in charge post independence. It certainly would be interesting to see who most of the electorate blame for things going wrong when Westminster is out of the road and the parties that they vote for can't blame others. So I'm pretty much split between either camp on this, but I probably need to see more information from both sides (and particularly the No camp) on what a separation looks like, minus scaremongering (just the facts), as opposed to the political will and landscape in Scotland post split as that is all bluster until we know what the financial divorce settlement looks like, to determine how I vote.

That's the problem though - we know what a no vote looks like. It looks like it does today. We simply carry on as is. Now some people don't like that and want a change but it's up to the Yes campaign to show hard evidence of what separation looks like - and it's the No campaigns job to challenge them on unsubstantiated claims. They can't simply make airy fairy claims about using sterling on our own terms, being in the EU on our own terms and being part of NATO while telling the same organisation that we're going to put a big hole in their strategic defences by telling them to take their nuclear subs and f**k off. They also need to show hard evidence of costings for this free childcare they keep promising, and they need to show hard evidence of how Scots can be better off financially - like they claim - whilst the government spends more per head on government run services than in any other part of the UK.

As I keep saying a yes vote is irreversible. If Independence turns out to be a complete f**k up we're all going to be stuck with it - you, me, our kids, our grand kids. If you vote yes and in 10 years time you find that the rest of the UK has f**ked you over you can get another referendum and change your vote next time.

[pozbaird]

So we walk away with the same debt as HALF of one of England's cities?.... jings crivvens help ma Boab!

Rest assured Dicko, YOU helped me make my mind up to vote YES.

How do you like them apples?

Poz, you should know by now... A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE IS NOT A VOTE FOR THE SNP. There will be elections after the Referendum, where whoever wins it, can tell the RN to f**k off!

I'm intelligent enough to know what a vote for independence means. Personalities are coming into it though, they always do. I side with no party, and always vote based on my perception of the candidate's calibre in my area. This has actually seen me vote Tory once in my life - for Annabel Goldie, who I thnk is an astute and able politician. I once needed my MP to fight on my behalf for a just case against a local authority - and my MP came through for me. He was Labour, I voted for him the next time there was an election. I voted Lib Dem up here in Cumbernauld because their candidate was a local guy who had been in the marines, worked and lived in the area, and looked like he had a bit of dig about him. I have also voted SNP a few times, again, based on the individual candidate.

I am very happy in my own skin at the rationale I apply when voting, and never blithely vote for any party time after time, even if they put up a monkey rattling a tin drum as a candidate. I have been in the company of Alex Salmond through my wife's work, and had him down as a smart cookie, a clever politician and a smooth operator... I now happen to think he's losing the plot somewhat and (my own opinion!) I think once you go beyond Salmond and Sturgeon, the SNP are sorely lacking in substance.

My heart tells me independence. My brain tells me 'need to hear more facts'. I feel Salmond and Co are actually shitting it that the 'yes' vote wins the day, and that the whole thing is driven by ideology, and deep down he knows we will be walking a razor's edge under independence.

Fortunately, to assist me in making up my mind, I can count on the advice of maybe six or seven people I know who are, or were, at the sharp end of massive organisations which are extremely political beasts, and these people have no alliegiance to one party or another.

I'll listen, and make my decision, then get on with living my life under whatever we end up with. No matter what we end up with, at least I know I voted based on a belief garnered from listening to, and being influenced by, people who I've known for over 20 years who know what they're talking about.

[oaksoft]

Anyway, according to politically incorrect oakstur, my opinion is invalid simply because I am too old.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[oaksoft]

Anyway, according to politically incorrect oakstur, my opinion is invalid simply because I am too old.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

That's the problem though - we know what a no vote looks like. It looks like it does today. We simply carry on as is. Now some people don't like that and want a change but it's up to the Yes campaign to show hard evidence of what separation looks like - and it's the No campaigns job to challenge them on unsubstantiated claims. They can't simply make airy fairy claims about using sterling on our own terms, being in the EU on our own terms and being part of NATO while telling the same organisation that we're going to put a big hole in their strategic defences by telling them to take their nuclear subs and f**k off. They also need to show hard evidence of costings for this free childcare they keep promising, and they need to show hard evidence of how Scots can be better off financially - like they claim - whilst the government spends more per head on government run services than in any other part of the UK.

You are correct. Trying to sell the status quo is a hard thing to do when 70% of people want change.

Quite how BT intend to change their minds will become clearer in March when they release their plan.

As for what the Yes campaign needs to do? Actually they don't need to do any fact presentation at all.

They simply need to convince enough people that life will be better and that may well be enough.

The momentum is currently on their side.

[oaksoft]

Anyway, according to politically incorrect oakstur, my opinion is invalid simply because I am too old.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

That's the problem though - we know what a no vote looks like. It looks like it does today. We simply carry on as is. Now some people don't like that and want a change but it's up to the Yes campaign to show hard evidence of what separation looks like - and it's the No campaigns job to challenge them on unsubstantiated claims. They can't simply make airy fairy claims about using sterling on our own terms, being in the EU on our own terms and being part of NATO while telling the same organisation that we're going to put a big hole in their strategic defences by telling them to take their nuclear subs and f**k off. They also need to show hard evidence of costings for this free childcare they keep promising, and they need to show hard evidence of how Scots can be better off financially - like they claim - whilst the government spends more per head on government run services than in any other part of the UK.

You are correct. Trying to sell the status quo is a hard thing to do when 70% of people want change.

Quite how BT intend to change their minds will become clearer in March when they release their plan.

As for what the Yes campaign needs to do? Actually they don't need to do any fact presentation at all.

They simply need to convince enough people that life will be better and that may well be enough.

The momentum is currently on their side.

[pozbaird]

As for what the Yes campaign needs to do? Actually they don't need to do any fact presentation at all.

They simply need to convince enough people that life will be better and that may well be enough.

The momentum is currently on their side.

FFS. Where to start with this post? Oh, here's a good idea to start. Richard Atkinson calls a meeting in a packed corporate suite to convince fans things would be better with his CiC in charge....

REA: 'Vote for my CiC and things will be better'.

FAN: 'Show me why it will be better.'

REA: 'Don't need to. Just trust me, it'll be better. Vote for it.'

FAN: 'Aye, OK then, you've convinced me.'

REA: 'No worries.'

FFS!

[Stuart Dickson]

So we walk away with the same debt as HALF of one of England's cities?.... jings crivvens help ma Boab!

Rest assured Dicko, YOU helped me make my mind up to vote YES.

How do you like them apples?

It's not the size of the debt - it's who you owe it to.

What Jim Sillars was pointing out was that right now we owe a lot of money, but the vast majority of the money we owe we owe to ourselves. It's a bit like the loan SMiSA gave St Mirren to pay for that silly dome. If St Mirren default on payments SMiSA aren't likely to call in the debt and if SMiSA are going to charge interest on the debt it will be at the cheapest most favourable rate available on the market.

However if Scotland votes yes and we retain Sterling we are essentially refinancing our debt with the Bank Of England being able to set the rate at whatever level they like. Now they could play fair and keep the interest rate low - but since that would be unlikely to benefit the rest of the UK economy it seems unlikely.

[Stuart Dickson]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

You are correct. Trying to sell the status quo is a hard thing to do when 70% of people want change.

Quite how BT intend to change their minds will become clearer in March when they release their plan.

As for what the Yes campaign needs to do? Actually they don't need to do any fact presentation at all.

They simply need to convince enough people that life will be better and that may well be enough.

The momentum is currently on their side.

You do know that it is a fact of life that most people don't like change. They talk about change, they appear to want change, but ultimately change scares them. If you want evidence of that just look at the huge number of people who complain about their work place but who never actually apply for another job.

The polls you talk about don't scare me. Ultimately the SNP will have to prove the case for Independence beyond all doubt and if they don't manage it they won't get anything like a majority.

[Vambo57]

I'm intelligent enough to know what a vote for independence means. Personalities are coming into it though, they always do. I side with no party, and always vote based on my perception of the candidate's calibre in my area. This has actually seen me vote Tory once in my life - for Annabel Goldie, who I thnk is an astute and able politician. I once needed my MP to fight on my behalf for a just case against a local authority - and my MP came through for me. He was Labour, I voted for him the next time there was an election. I voted Lib Dem up here in Cumbernauld because their candidate was a local guy who had been in the marines, worked and lived in the area, and looked like he had a bit of dig about him. I have also voted SNP a few times, again, based on the individual candidate.

I am very happy in my own skin at the rationale I apply when voting, and never blithely vote for any party time after time, even if they put up a monkey rattling a tin drum as a candidate. I have been in the company of Alex Salmond through my wife's work, and had him down as a smart cookie, a clever politician and a smooth operator... I now happen to think he's losing the plot somewhat and (my own opinion!) I think once you go beyond Salmond and Sturgeon, the SNP are sorely lacking in substance.

My heart tells me independence. My brain tells me 'need to hear more facts'. I feel Salmond and Co are actually shitting it that the 'yes' vote wins the day, and that the whole thing is driven by ideology, and deep down he knows we will be walking a razor's edge under independence.

Fortunately, to assist me in making up my mind, I can count on the advice of maybe six or seven people I know who are, or were, at the sharp end of massive organisations which are extremely political beasts, and these people have no alliegiance to one party or another.

I'll listen, and make my decision, then get on with living my life under whatever we end up with. No matter what we end up with, at least I know I voted based on a belief garnered from listening to, and being influenced by, people who I've known for over 20 years who know what they're talking about.

That's a good way of doing it Poz.

Its also how I usually vote... a bit of a wanderer (apart from the Tory bit), but on this issue.. I like the idea of who I actually vote for governing me. Even when I voted labour New Labour were in power at Westminster and they were (and are) just like the Tories, pandering to middle England. No more I say!

[Isabella Duke]

So we walk away with the same debt as HALF of one of England's cities?.... jings crivvens help ma Boab!

Rest assured Dicko, YOU helped me make my mind up to vote YES.

How do you like them apples?

Deary me!

[pozbaird]

That's a good way of doing it Poz.

Its also how I usually vote... a bit of a wanderer (apart from the Tory bit), but on this issue.. I like the idea of who I actually vote for governing me. Even when I voted labour New Labour were in power at Westminster and they were (and are) just like the Tories, pandering to middle England. No more I say!

I think it's as good a way as any and stick with it. It's whatever you feel comfortable with. My brother lives down South, and a lot of guys in his work vote Tory, and it's different down there where voting Tory isn't necessarily done by posh toffs. Each to their own. It's difficult - I hated Thatcher with a vengeance, but in my area, Goldie was an intelligent woman with her heid' screwed on. I think the SNP candidate was a spotty Strathclyde University herbert, and the Labour candidate was a 20 stone alcoholic pigeon fancier. I voted for Goldie.

It's a quagmire. I always vote though, always try to weigh up the candidates and at least try to have a reason for voting. Annabel Goldie got trounced by the pigeon fancier though. It was 100% certain the Labour candidate was going to win though. The Labour candidate always won. Labour could have put Josef Fritzel, Jimmy Saville, or Orville the Duck up as their candidate - and would have won by a landslide.

That's democracy in action I guess... Or twats just voting Labour no matter what. Toss of the coin on that one?

[buddiecat]

I'd start with BP if LS's post is factually correct......damn sight easier than the Atlantic's going to be.

when i lived in ayrshire there was talk of oil deposits off arran, and that ardrossan to hunterston would become the service centre for the developments, could be true that the submarine base put an end to that idea - because as fat sally of ibrokes found when he tried to nick a bit of public beach to build his own wee jetty, the clyde estuary is riddled with underwater sensors and any new developments are severely restricted

[oaksoft]

FFS. Where to start with this post? Oh, here's a good idea to start. Richard Atkinson calls a meeting in a packed corporate suite to convince fans things would be better with his CiC in charge....

REA: 'Vote for my CiC and things will be better'.

FAN: 'Show me why it will be better.'

REA: 'Don't need to. Just trust me, it'll be better. Vote for it.'

FAN: 'Aye, OK then, you've convinced me.'

REA: 'No worries.'

FFS!

FFS indeed but it is reality.

Presumably you and Dickson feel the Yes campaign haven't made a case yet.

Presumably you feel they haven't provided any facts yet.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that.

What I'm saying is that if I accept you are both correct then the Yes campaign has not only attracted almost 40% of voters despite providing nothing of what you are seeking AND the momentum is in their favour.

What's happening here IMO is that people are pretty much voting with their hearts and worrying about details till later.

That must be the case because the No campaign is saying there are no facts from the Yes campaign so it must be hearts ruling heads.

Funny thing about hearts though. People will die for what they feel in their hearts. That's why losing the battle for the heart and soul of a person will be fatal.

It's also why Yes voters are typically a hard Yes whereas No voters are typically softer No's.

If either you or Dickson think that average Joe will sit down and digest thousands of pages of legal opinion and "fact" before deciding then IMO you are wrong.

Edited January 28, 2014 by oaksoft

[pozbaird]

FFS indeed but it is reality.

Presumably you and Dickson feel the Yes campaign haven't made a case yet.

Presumably you feel they haven't provided any facts yet.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that.

What I'm saying is that if I accept you are both correct then the Yes campaign has not only attracted almost 40% of voters despite providing nothing of what you are seeking AND the momentum is in their favour.

What's happening here IMO is that people are pretty much voting with their hearts and worrying about details till later.

That must be the case because the No campaign is saying there are no facts from the Yes campaign so it must be hearts ruling heads.

Funny thing about hearts though. People will die for what they feel in their hearts. That's why losing the battle for the heart and soul of a person will be fatal.

It's also why Yes voters are typically a hard Yes whereas No voters are typically softer No's.

If either you or Dickson think that average Joe will sit down and digest thousands of pages of legal opinion and "fact" before deciding then IMO you are wrong.

No, I don't purport to know what the 'average Joe' may or may not need to help them reach a decision. I suspect it will vary dramatically from person to person. It may range from people requiring a lot of information before deciding to someone already deciding because they watched Braveheart on DVD last week. Who can say for sure.

Has anyone on here read every page of the big SNP launch document? I have a friend who had to do so, and had to stop for a lie down when he actually read in the document that we don't need to worry about the BBC in an independent Scotland, we'll still be able to watch Eastenders and CBBC. It actually mentioned Eastenders in the document. He also said that it was pretty much devoid of detail and was merely a wish list that resembled a Christmas letter to Santa Claus.

I'm still undecided though, but as I say, the less waffle I hear from the SNP, the more likely I am to give independence in a Scotland governed by someone other than the SNP some serious consideration. So far, neither the yes or no campaigns are swaying me one way or the other. People I trust who undertake tasks like reading the entire launch document are where I'll look to for some thought on the matter. Conversely though, another long time trusted friend who is high up in a big insurance and finance firm with UK wide interests is firmly in the yes camp, and told me why he is.

I remain undecided and that's the truth.

Edited January 28, 2014 by pozbaird