The Referendum Thread

[Stuart Dickson]

A letter from America, interesting pov re NATO:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/an-actual-letter-from-america/

I know it's a Yes website but that doesn't take away from the debunking of the NATO myth. With verifiable facts.

Dear oh dear I wonder if Obama publishes the letters he gets from Tiger Tim.

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart, you really have a very twisted mind! According to you anyone who wants Scottish independence is a xenophobe. Can you prove this? Of course not because the vast majority are not.You really must get out of your bunker and mix with normal people.

I am pro-independence because I believe that the UK government since the time of Margaret Thatcher has not had the interests of all parts of the UK at heart. I am not repulsed by the Union Flag but by the uses to which is put by organisations like the BNP and the Orange Order.

Nope. I didn't say that. I actually said that xenophobes would most likely vote Yes. It's a bit like the Scottish UKIP. The Yes Campaign makes veiled xenophobic statements every day appealing for an anti English sentiment to boost its chances at the polls on the same way at UKIPs immigration policies appeal to racists.

Yet another thing UKIP and the Yes Campaign have in common I guess

[Reynard]

just over 200million to set up the entire new scottish state according to Salmond

In 1996 Scottish local government reorganisation cost 261million.

hmm

I dont think Salmond and co havent really been doing their homework here. The wheels have absolute come off their bogey. No clear thinking. No plans, no costings, no currency. Its ridiculous that allegedy smart people would actually go out and vote yes to this half baked drivel.

Thankfully they cant win though.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Reynard

[oaksoft]

As an aside I happen to think our justice system in this country feckin stinks - just how can multiple murderers be allowed to be housed and then escape from open prisons in the UK.

Beggars belief.

Life sentence should mean life.

I'm with you on this one.

I can't see the logic in allowing rapists, paedophiles and murderers to ever walk the streets again.

Same with multiple violent offenders.

It's not even about deterrents. It's about understanding why we'd want this tide of human filth living amongst decent folk.

Maybe someone can justify this in a way which makes sense.

Can it really be just about the cost of housing them?

[oaksoft]

Nope. I didn't say that. I actually said that xenophobes would most likely vote Yes. It's a bit like the Scottish UKIP. The Yes Campaign makes veiled xenophobic statements every day appealing for an anti English sentiment to boost its chances at the polls on the same way at UKIPs immigration policies appeal to racists.

Show us a single veiled xenophobic statement from each of the last 7 days that can be attributed to the Yes campaign and let us make our own minds up.

Edited May 30, 2014 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

just over 200million to set up the entire new scottish state according to Salmond

In 1996 Scottish local government reorganisation cost 261million.

hmm

I dont think Salmond and co havent really been doing their homework here. The wheels have absolute come off their bogey. No clear thinking. No plans, no costings, no currency. Its ridiculous that allegedy smart people would actually go out and vote yes to this half baked drivel.

Thankfully they cant win though.

Well the LSE just rubbished the No campaign's figures as well.

Are you only capable of criticising one side?

BOTH sides are lying on virtually all issues. Sorry are you simply not getting the gist of this?

[Reynard]

Well the LSE just rubbished the No campaign's figures as well.

Are you only capable of criticising one side?

BOTH sides are lying on virtually all issues. Sorry are you simply not getting the gist of this?

One part of them certainly.

But I'm being asked to vote on separation from the UK and the setting up of a new state. I'd like to see proper costings done so that we all know roughly how much its going to cost each and every one of us.

Maybe it doesnt bother you that Salmond and Swinney appear unwiling to talk about this, but it bothers me.

Do you think 200million is a reasonable estimate by Salmond for setting up the entire state apparatus. How did he arrive at this figure?

We could have four brand new shiny scottish states for the price of a tram system. Or two brand new Scottish states for the price of a Holyrood building

The onus is entirely on the yes campaign to inform Scots. Its their baw and their game.

[TopCat]

I know guys who wouldnt piss on the union flag if it was on fire, they have told me they are voting no in September. Bizarre but true - maybe this will stop folks making assumptions on here. I'm not going to hold my breath though...

What's bizarre about that?

[Stuart Dickson]

What's bizarre about that?

He thinks its bizarre cause Tony believes all xenophobes would vote for Independence too.

[Drew]

One part of them certainly.

But I'm being asked to vote on separation from the UK and the setting up of a new state. I'd like to see proper costings done so that we all know roughly how much its going to cost each and every one of us.

Maybe it doesnt bother you that Salmond and Swinney appear unwiling to talk about this, but it bothers me.

Do you think 200million is a reasonable estimate by Salmond for setting up the entire state apparatus. How did he arrive at this figure?

We could have four brand new shiny scottish states for the price of a tram system. Or two brand new Scottish states for the price of a Holyrood building

The onus is entirely on the yes campaign to inform Scots. Its their baw and their game.

This is an assumption on your part.

You are assuming that an independent Scotland would be starting from scratch. This position neglects to take account of the infrastructure and administrative arrangements that are currently shared with rUK, and doesn't take into account the fact that rUK would also have to significantly realign resources, so negotiation as to the best way forward for all parties would be the most sensible, fiscally responsible, and pragmatic approach.

Now, you are, of course, correct to a degree i nyour assertion that the onus is on the YES campaign to to inform Scots, but it is difficult to do this when Westminster will not enter into any discussion as to how future arrangments could be put in place. I can understand why they wouldn't, right enough, but you should perhaps acknowledge the difficult position the YES campaign are in when the calls ring out for more concrete information.

[Stuart Dickson]

I'm not going to claim that I completely understand this - to me GDP is GDP no matter who owns the companies - but apparently a study by Glasgow University has debunked claims about how wealthy Scotland really is. The argument being made is that because most of Scotland's key industries are owned by non Scottish companies there is nowhere near the levels of wealth in Scottish hands and the SNP would like us to believe.

I don't buy into Oaksofts view that both sides are lying. I think the No Campaign, in showing their working, have presented a credible case although some of the assumptions being made may be slightly more pessimistic than necessary. The Yes Campaign are completely unwilling to show their working leaving the impression that actually they've just made it all up - maybe they haven't but unless they show their working and their assumptions they will always lack credibility.

Edit to add the link

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/scotland-wealth-alex-salmond-study

Edited May 30, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

This is an assumption on your part.

You are assuming that an independent Scotland would be starting from scratch. This position neglects to take account of the infrastructure and administrative arrangements that are currently shared with rUK, and doesn't take into account the fact that rUK would also have to significantly realign resources, so negotiation as to the best way forward for all parties would be the most sensible, fiscally responsible, and pragmatic approach.

Now, you are, of course, correct to a degree i nyour assertion that the onus is on the YES campaign to to inform Scots, but it is difficult to do this when Westminster will not enter into any discussion as to how future arrangments could be put in place. I can understand why they wouldn't, right enough, but you should perhaps acknowledge the difficult position the YES campaign are in when the calls ring out for more concrete information.

Drew, what is wrong with presenting a best and worse case scenario. Plan A and Plan B. The SNP have known that they would be fighting the referendum from a position of arguing for the unknown yet on absolutely everything they want to present Plan A as the only option, and of course Plan A in their heads everything will be given to Scotland for free by a benevolent world who just love Scots.

[Drew]

Drew, what is wrong with presenting a best and worse case scenario. Plan A and Plan B. The SNP have known that they would be fighting the referendum from a position of arguing for the unknown yet on absolutely everything they want to present Plan A as the only option, and of course Plan A in their heads everything will be given to Scotland for free by a benevolent world who just love Scots.

That would be akin to the NO camp setting out their compromise option in the event of a YES vote - or, indeed, Westminster embarking on advance contingency negotiations/arrangements. It simply will not happen, and people need to accept this.

It is a far from ideal situation, but it is absolutely inevitable. We will not be furnished with watertight information, or even particularly helpful projections in some aspects. This is why I have been very clear from my intial post(s) on this thread that I realise in voting YES I am taking a leap of faith, but I am willing to do it on account of my hopes and aspirations for our country.

[Stuart Dickson]

That would be akin to the NO camp setting out their compromise option in the event of a YES vote - or, indeed, Westminster embarking on advance contingency negotiations/arrangements. It simply will not happen, and people need to accept this.

It is a far from ideal situation, but it is absolutely inevitable. We will not be furnished with watertight information, or even particularly helpful projections in some aspects. This is why I have been very clear from my intial post(s) on this thread that I realise in voting YES I am taking a leap of faith, but I am willing to do it on account of my hopes and aspirations for our country.

Well how about simply producing their working and their assumptions so we can all make up our minds how realistic or credible it all is Drew. Taking a leap of faith into the hands of people you trust is one thing, but a leap of faith into career politicians.....really? And particularly a career politician who has made so many huge errors of judgement when it comes to the economy over the last 20 years? Not me, absolutely not me.

Oh and this compromise option from the No campaign - has that not already been done? From what I can see all three major parties are committed to giving the Scottish Parliament more powers, a major move towards the Devo Max option that Alex Salmond seemed to want as a consolation prize.

[WirralSaint]

We will not be furnished with watertight information, or even particularly helpful projections in some aspects.

Indeed but when the Government present figures based on the London School of Economics Professor's data which he immediately says is misrepresentation of his work to the tune of x10 or 12 I have problem trusting them. Even if it cost the ridiculous figure they quoted it was still 3 times less than the Olympics cost us for a one off event v the set up of Scottish Government for years....still a bargain.

That story was strangely buried in the who has the right figure crap...I don't care who was closest, in reality it' s likely to have been in the middle sod all change, but the ine FACT in all of it was that The Treasury were caught outright lying and our media chose not to highlight it.

[Stuart Dickson]

Indeed but when the Government present figures based on the London School of Economics Professor's data which he immediately says is misrepresentation of his work to the tune of x10 or 12 I have problem trusting them. Even if it cost the ridiculous figure they quoted it was still 3 times less than the Olympics cost us for a one off event v the set up of Scottish Government for years....still a bargain.

That story was strangely buried in the who has the right figure crap...I don't care who was closest, in reality it' s likely to have been in the middle sod all change, but the ine FACT in all of it was that The Treasury were caught outright lying and our media chose not to highlight it.

The London Olympics made an operating profit of £52.8m all in and all debts were paid off by 2013. There will be an additional cost of £120m to turn the Olympic Stadium into a football venue but Newham Council and West Ham are contributing £55m to that. The London Olympics also meant huge private investment into a run down area in London.and numerous top of the range sports facilities to the area. We also saw gave the UK a new generation of heroes, positive heroes at that whether you want to look at the stories of the likes of Jessica Ennis and Tom Daley, or you prefer the stories of David Weir, Ellie Simmonds or Anthony Kappes. Athletes who had just worked hard all their lives to win a gold medal often overcoming huge personal hurdles. All for less than £13m all in. I would say the Olympic Games was an extremely worthwhile investment for the country - especially since those profit and loss accounts do not take into account the amount of money spent in the economy by visitors to the UK either before, during or after the Games.

Do you really think that the costs of setting up a new HMRC (Scotland) or a new DVLA (Scotland) would have the same net effect for Scotland? Are we going to see a new generation of tax collecting heroes inspiring our offspring? The Olympic Games worked out a bargain - an Independent Scotland is going to be an inefficient pile of shite with a never ending bill for the Scottish taxpayer with absolutely no net benefit - especially since the whole of the Yes Campaign is based on the premise that we come out of one political union to get more embedded in another.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Drew]

Well how about simply producing their working and their assumptions so we can all make up our minds how realistic or credible it all is Drew. Taking a leap of faith into the hands of people you trust is one thing, but a leap of faith into career politicians.....really? And particularly a career politician who has made so many huge errors of judgement when it comes to the economy over the last 20 years? Not me, absolutely not me.

Oh and this compromise option from the No campaign - has that not already been done? From what I can see all three major parties are committed to giving the Scottish Parliament more powers, a major move towards the Devo Max option that Alex Salmond seemed to want as a consolation prize.

You see, this is the problem I have with this thread.

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information from anyone in respect of the potential post-referendum landscape, but folks stil insist on twisting things to reflect their partisan position. That's fine, but it merely leaves us going round in ever increasing circles and getting further away from any meaningful discussion.

It is what it is Stuart. I'll decide on what basis I am willing to take a leap of faith, just as you will decide on what basis you wouldn't be. So it goes.

I'll say this much, it disappoints me greatly that the recent agendas from both sides have focussed on how much better we'd be off financially if we vote one way or another. So much for lofty principles, eh? I am far less concerned about whether I would be £1000 a year better or worse off than I am about living in a socially just society. This is want I aspire to for our country and my children - not whether I can afford a bigger TV or extra holiday in the coming years. Naive idealist? Perhaps. As I say....so it goes.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

You see, this is the problem I have with this thread.

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information from anyone in respect of the potential post-referendum landscape, but folks stil insist on twisting things to reflect their partisan position. That's fine, but it merely leaves us going round in ever increasing circles and getting further away from any meaningful discussion.

It is what it is Stuart. I'll decide on what basis I am willing to take a leap of faith, just as you will decide on what basis you wouldn't be. So it goes.

I'll say this much, it disappoints me greatly that the recent agendas from both sides have focussed on how much better we'd be off financially if we vote one way or another. So much for lofty principles, eh? I am far less concerned about whether I would be £1000 a year better or worse off than I am about living in a socially just society. This is want I aspire to for our country and my children - not whether I can afford a bigger TV or extra holiday in the coming years. Naive idealist? Perhaps. As I say....so it goes.

You see, this is the problem I have with this thread.

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information from anyone in respect of the potential post-referendum landscape, but folks stil insist on twisting things to reflect their partisan position. That's fine, but it merely leaves us going round in ever increasing circles and getting further away from any meaningful discussion.

It is what it is Stuart. I'll decide on what basis I am willing to take a leap of faith, just as you will decide on what basis you wouldn't be. So it goes.

I'll say this much, it disappoints me greatly that the recent agendas from both sides have focussed on how much better we'd be off financially if we vote one way or another. So much for lofty principles, eh? I am far less concerned about whether I would be £1000 a year better or worse off than I am about living in a socially just society. This is want I aspire to for our country and my children - not whether I can afford a bigger TV or extra holiday in the coming years. Naive idealist? Perhaps. As I say....so it goes.

Drew , You wrote

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information

So Stuart is not a reliable source just that he counters every post made to anyone who says they might even vote yes. The lies that come out of Westminster no matter the government over years and years along with fighting needlessly in countries that have nothing to do with the UK sickens me. Look at the state Libya is in , Iraq , Afghanistan is the next one to fall into a mess while we back the rebels in Syria. We might not have liked these countries leaders but if you ask the normal working person in these countries if they could turn back the clock to stability they would jump at the chance.

There is so many reasons why I will be voting yes.

[Reynard]

This is an assumption on your part.

You are assuming that an independent Scotland would be starting from scratch. This position neglects to take account of the infrastructure and administrative arrangements that are currently shared with rUK, and doesn't take into account the fact that rUK would also have to significantly realign resources, so negotiation as to the best way forward for all parties would be the most sensible, fiscally responsible, and pragmatic approach.

Now, you are, of course, correct to a degree i nyour assertion that the onus is on the YES campaign to to inform Scots, but it is difficult to do this when Westminster will not enter into any discussion as to how future arrangments could be put in place. I can understand why they wouldn't, right enough, but you should perhaps acknowledge the difficult position the YES campaign are in when the calls ring out for more concrete information.

Well going by what Swinney himself says that revenue Scotland will cost anywhere between 500-650mn then its safe to say I'm assuming the 200mn figure to be nonsense.

And as you say, it might be nice to see how theyve arrived at this figure too. After all, its Scottish taxpayers that will be footing the bill for all of it. As the SNP have no gone and put a number on the cost, we should be allowed to see how it was arrived at surely? Costing things out, even very loosely, is very important I think.

[Reynard]

Why did Swinney inform his cabinet colleagues that revenue Scotland would cost between 500-650mn to set up? How did Salmond arrive at his 200mn figure for the entire Scottish state to be set up?

[Stuart Dickson]

You see, this is the problem I have with this thread.

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information from anyone in respect of the potential post-referendum landscape, but folks stil insist on twisting things to reflect their partisan position. That's fine, but it merely leaves us going round in ever increasing circles and getting further away from any meaningful discussion.

It is what it is Stuart. I'll decide on what basis I am willing to take a leap of faith, just as you will decide on what basis you wouldn't be. So it goes.

I'll say this much, it disappoints me greatly that the recent agendas from both sides have focussed on how much better we'd be off financially if we vote one way or another. So much for lofty principles, eh? I am far less concerned about whether I would be £1000 a year better or worse off than I am about living in a socially just society. This is want I aspire to for our country and my children - not whether I can afford a bigger TV or extra holiday in the coming years. Naive idealist? Perhaps. As I say....so it goes.

What is you ideal though Drew? And how does it fit the Yes Agenda? And how likely is it that an "Independent" Scotland with 10 or however many elected representatives in a European Parliament of 766 without any of the existing UK vetos manage to achieve those ideals?

[Stuart Dickson]

Drew , You wrote

I have simply tried to highlight the fact that it will be all but impossible to get any reliable information

So Stuart is not a reliable source just that he counters every post made to anyone who says they might even vote yes. The lies that come out of Westminster no matter the government over years and years along with fighting needlessly in countries that have nothing to do with the UK sickens me. Look at the state Libya is in , Iraq , Afghanistan is the next one to fall into a mess while we back the rebels in Syria. We might not have liked these countries leaders but if you ask the normal working person in these countries if they could turn back the clock to stability they would jump at the chance.

There is so many reasons why I will be voting yes.

You do know that the majority of Scottish MP's representing their constituents in the House of Commons in favour of going to war against Iraq don't you?

[Stuart Dickson]

Why did Swinney inform his cabinet colleagues that revenue Scotland would cost between 500-650mn to set up? How did Salmond arrive at his 200mn figure for the entire Scottish state to be set up?

I bet Swinney got his arse booted for that figure and that would be the reason he point blank refused to put any figure on it during his ridiculous radio interview earlier this week.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Stuart and any NO voters could you answer me one question of all the countries in the past 50 years who got independence of which there is many can you show me just one country that regrets its independence and proof that it regrets it.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Isle Of Bute Saint

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart and any NO voters could you answer me one question of all the countries in the past 50 years who got independence of which there is many can you show me just one country that regrets its independence and proof that it regrets it.

Many of those countries have become so inconsequential in the world that whether they do or don't regret it will never be reported. However if you want to look at the list you can see a hell of a lot of countries that became more instable, more war torn and evidently much more corrupt as a result of independence. Countries like Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bangladesh, Burkino Faso, Cambodia, Chad - and I'm not even past the C's yet all back that up.