The Referendum Thread

[BoWSaint]

I would agree with that, but on that note, surely that suits BT much better than Yes so in terms of that they will be happier witb last night?

All the polls still show a No vote winning. Therefore they will be happy to maintain the gap and not rock the boat?

FWIW, I dont think either 'won' but i would say i wasnt as impressed with Salmond as i have previously been. Not sure if pressure got to him as pretty much everyone expected him to comfortably but AD in his place. I think last night was the last chance for YES to make the last surge towards a win, presonally cant see it happening now.

But all the undecided voters can't stay undecided on the day. They have to choose a box (if they choose to vote) and it doesn't matter that they were undecided until the moment they walked into the polling booth, their vote counts just as much. With so many undecided it still could swing. Still another debate on BBC to go too!

[Stuart Dickson]

Aye, but by whom and on what authority?

Oh, yes, that's right....by a number of leaders of Westminster-based political parties on, er....no authority whatsoever.

What they've basically been saying is that its their ball, and Scotland won't be getting a game.

Well, that's not quite correct, is it?

Firstly, it ain't their ball any more than it is Alex Salmond's or the future leader of an independent Scotland, whoever that might be. Secondly, if one of them comes to power after the next general election, they will be there to represent the people of the UK. If, as seems eminently possible, Scotland being prohibited from using the pound would impact adversely on trading partners in the UK, then I suspect they might have to reconsider this particular position.

Personally, I'm all for a seperate currency in a Scottish republic, but we'll just have to campaign for that in due course.

Well what was said last night Drew made logical sense. Darling said it's not Scotland's currency - it belongs to the UK. Scotland was seeking to withdraw from the UK therefore it wouldn't have any claim to Sterling.

I'm going through a divorce right now. Now my ex wife and I shared credit cards amongst other things - I was the primary card holder. When she left I stopped her card and reverted my account to my name only. It seems only reasonable that the Bank of England would do the same.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Here is an article for our war hungry Unionist voters

TAXPAYERS in Scotland will face a multibillion-pound bill to pay for a new generation of nuclear weapons if plans to renew Trident are backed, Veterans Minister Keith Brown has warned.

The UK Government is due to make a decision about renewing the programme in 2016.

The Scottish Government has set out plans to remove Trident from Scotland if the country backs a Yes vote in the independence referendum.

Speaking during a debate at Holyrood, Mr Brown said the decision on renewal appears to have already been made, with the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backing the retention of Trident.

The cost of renewal will also have implications for the UKs conventional defence forces, Mr Brown added.

The Scottish Government position is that Trident should be removed from an independent Scotland by 2020 - before we are hit with a share of the further £100 billion in lifetime costs, at 2012 prices, which are estimated for its replacement, he said.

We will also propose a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland, ensuring they would never return.

As the Trident Commission reported, when spending reaches its peak in the next decade, taxpayers will be spending nearly £4 billion a year on nuclear weapons at 2012 prices, the equivalent of swallowing up almost one third of the entire current defence capital budget - with clear implications for other defence projects.

That is money which could and will be far better spent on other priorities - something underlined by statistics showing one million people in Scotland are living in relative poverty.

Mr Brown said the costs would also impact on other defence spending, such as helicopter support and equipment for troops, and could result in delays or cancellations to other defence projects.

Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said the SNP had chosen to focus on 5% of the total defence budget.

Perhaps they (the Scottish Government) are hunting for a game changer which resurrects their campaign for September, he said.

They imply that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you support independence. I would put aside that in this chamber we are all disarmers - some are multi-lateral disarmers, some are unilateral disarmers.

On the Labour benches there are many people who support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but their commitment to this cause has been questioned, and I think that is unfair.

Mr Rennie went on to state that the Government had not taken account of the significant economic loss if Trident were to be removed, given the number of people employed in the Faslane area.

Green co-convener Patrick Harvie said: Consistently, the majority of Scotlands people, the representatives at Westminster and here in this Scottish Parliament have opposed current UK policy on the nuclear weapons which are based here.

There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference attended by 120 governments in Mexico.

A written constitution can achieve this in Scotland.

But not only that, it can challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament to multilateral disarmament is in any way compatible with the UK policy of unilateral rearmament.

Labour MSP Iain Gray said: The Governments position that Trident should be moved to England, then Scotland should join Nato and thus position ourselves four-square behind Natos nuclear deterrent, which would of course include the very Trident that we had just expelled.

It is hypocritical to say that we shouldnt have nuclear weapons, and then want to belong to Nato.

Conservative MSP Annabel Goldie said: We cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

The fact is that since acquiring Trident, and its predecessor, Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict.

At present, as part of the UK, we have a strong defence capability. An independent Scotlands defence capability would be much more limited, giving it much less clout, and much less influence, on the international stage.

[Stuart Dickson]

So rUK's stance is that they will quite willingly and openly cut off their nose to spite their face?

We don't care how sensible or beneficial a currency union is for us we will stubbornly oppose this purely to win an argument even if it does untold damage to our country.

Acting like kids!

Is it cutting it's nose off to spite it's face or stopping the Scottish Government from borrowing money on the rUK credit card?

I don't like currency unions myself. I always said that the Euro was a bad idea and that the only way you could make it work would be if all the member states were governed by one government following the same economic policies. I'm a daft Pipefitter, but it didn't take the EU long to prove me right. I can understand why the Bank Of England would be against the idea of a currency union, I can see why the rest of the UK would be against it too - and to be perfectly frank I can see why Salmond is desperate for Scotland to get a currency union because it will allow him to borrow money at someone elses expense - like Greece did to Germany.

I think we can take it as read that if it ever got to the stage of negotiations this would be a HUGE sticking point. To go into the referendum with no stated Plan B is utterly bonkers

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

For our war Hungary Unionists voters who seem oblivious to Westminster sending out young men to be slaughtered maimed in battle fields that have nothing to do with them.

TAXPAYERS in Scotland will face a multibillion-pound bill to pay for a new generation of nuclear weapons if plans to renew Trident are backed, Veterans Minister Keith Brown has warned.

The UK Government is due to make a decision about renewing the programme in 2016.

The Scottish Government has set out plans to remove Trident from Scotland if the country backs a Yes vote in the independence referendum.

Speaking during a debate at Holyrood, Mr Brown said the decision on renewal appears to have already been made, with the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backing the retention of Trident.

The cost of renewal will also have implications for the UKs conventional defence forces, Mr Brown added.

The Scottish Government position is that Trident should be removed from an independent Scotland by 2020 - before we are hit with a share of the further £100 billion in lifetime costs, at 2012 prices, which are estimated for its replacement, he said.

We will also propose a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland, ensuring they would never return.

As the Trident Commission reported, when spending reaches its peak in the next decade, taxpayers will be spending nearly £4 billion a year on nuclear weapons at 2012 prices, the equivalent of swallowing up almost one third of the entire current defence capital budget - with clear implications for other defence projects.

That is money which could and will be far better spent on other priorities - something underlined by statistics showing one million people in Scotland are living in relative poverty.

Mr Brown said the costs would also impact on other defence spending, such as helicopter support and equipment for troops, and could result in delays or cancellations to other defence projects.

Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said the SNP had chosen to focus on 5% of the total defence budget.

Perhaps they (the Scottish Government) are hunting for a game changer which resurrects their campaign for September, he said.

They imply that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you support independence. I would put aside that in this chamber we are all disarmers - some are multi-lateral disarmers, some are unilateral disarmers.

On the Labour benches there are many people who support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but their commitment to this cause has been questioned, and I think that is unfair.

Mr Rennie went on to state that the Government had not taken account of the significant economic loss if Trident were to be removed, given the number of people employed in the Faslane area.

Green co-convener Patrick Harvie said: Consistently, the majority of Scotlands people, the representatives at Westminster and here in this Scottish Parliament have opposed current UK policy on the nuclear weapons which are based here.

There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference attended by 120 governments in Mexico.

A written constitution can achieve this in Scotland.

But not only that, it can challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament to multilateral disarmament is in any way compatible with the UK policy of unilateral rearmament.

Labour MSP Iain Gray said: The Governments position that Trident should be moved to England, then Scotland should join Nato and thus position ourselves four-square behind Natos nuclear deterrent, which would of course include the very Trident that we had just expelled.

It is hypocritical to say that we shouldnt have nuclear weapons, and then want to belong to Nato.

Conservative MSP Annabel Goldie said: We cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

The fact is that since acquiring Trident, and its predecessor, Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict.

At present, as part of the UK, we have a strong defence capability. An independent Scotlands defence capability would be much more limited, giving it much less clout, and much less influence, on the international stage.

[Stuart Dickson]

Here is an article for our war hungry Unionist voters

TAXPAYERS in Scotland will face a multibillion-pound bill to pay for a new generation of nuclear weapons if plans to renew Trident are backed, Veterans Minister Keith Brown has warned.

The UK Government is due to make a decision about renewing the programme in 2016.

The Scottish Government has set out plans to remove Trident from Scotland if the country backs a Yes vote in the independence referendum.

Speaking during a debate at Holyrood, Mr Brown said the decision on renewal appears to have already been made, with the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour backing the retention of Trident.

The cost of renewal will also have implications for the UKs conventional defence forces, Mr Brown added.

The Scottish Government position is that Trident should be removed from an independent Scotland by 2020 - before we are hit with a share of the further £100 billion in lifetime costs, at 2012 prices, which are estimated for its replacement, he said.

We will also propose a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland, ensuring they would never return.

As the Trident Commission reported, when spending reaches its peak in the next decade, taxpayers will be spending nearly £4 billion a year on nuclear weapons at 2012 prices, the equivalent of swallowing up almost one third of the entire current defence capital budget - with clear implications for other defence projects.

That is money which could and will be far better spent on other priorities - something underlined by statistics showing one million people in Scotland are living in relative poverty.

Mr Brown said the costs would also impact on other defence spending, such as helicopter support and equipment for troops, and could result in delays or cancellations to other defence projects.

Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said the SNP had chosen to focus on 5% of the total defence budget.

Perhaps they (the Scottish Government) are hunting for a game changer which resurrects their campaign for September, he said.

They imply that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you support independence. I would put aside that in this chamber we are all disarmers - some are multi-lateral disarmers, some are unilateral disarmers.

On the Labour benches there are many people who support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but their commitment to this cause has been questioned, and I think that is unfair.

Mr Rennie went on to state that the Government had not taken account of the significant economic loss if Trident were to be removed, given the number of people employed in the Faslane area.

Green co-convener Patrick Harvie said: Consistently, the majority of Scotlands people, the representatives at Westminster and here in this Scottish Parliament have opposed current UK policy on the nuclear weapons which are based here.

There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference attended by 120 governments in Mexico.

A written constitution can achieve this in Scotland.

But not only that, it can challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament to multilateral disarmament is in any way compatible with the UK policy of unilateral rearmament.

Labour MSP Iain Gray said: The Governments position that Trident should be moved to England, then Scotland should join Nato and thus position ourselves four-square behind Natos nuclear deterrent, which would of course include the very Trident that we had just expelled.

It is hypocritical to say that we shouldnt have nuclear weapons, and then want to belong to Nato.

Conservative MSP Annabel Goldie said: We cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

The fact is that since acquiring Trident, and its predecessor, Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict.

At present, as part of the UK, we have a strong defence capability. An independent Scotlands defence capability would be much more limited, giving it much less clout, and much less influence, on the international stage.

Zzzzzz

Too long - did not read - and you posted it twice you boring f**k!

Edited August 6, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Zzzzzz

Too long - did not read - and you posted it twice you boring f**k!

Thank goodness for that thought I would have to read your never ending pile of made up shite answer as is the norm on this thread

[TopCat]

Oh FFS are you just taking the piss?

Can there POSSIBLY be any sane person out there who doesn't think the UK government controls BT?

I think the UK govt has better things to be doing. BT is controlled by Scottish people, like Darling and that campaign manager who's name I always forget.

Regardless. There's no appetite for a CU among the UK Govt or the opposition. There's simply not going to be one.

[saintnextlifetime]

Saw a nice simple explanation of the why Salmond is right to avoid questions on a Plan B, C or whatever

It’s like asking me how I’m getting to work

“I’ll take the car”

- But what if you can’t

- but I can it’s the best option

- but what if it’s broken and you can’t use it? What’s your plan B?

I don’t need one I will take the car but I can take the other car, I could take one of three buses, I could take a taxi, I could walk”

So which other method will you choose.

I won’t I’ll take the car

But what is your plan B?

Well any one of a range of options

So what transport will you use

I’ll take the car

But what if it’s broken and you can't

But it isn’t

What’s plan B?

Well there are a range of options

So how are you getting to work?

I’ll take the car

What if you can’t?

But I can

What’s plan B?

Well there are a range of options but I’ll be taking the car !!!!

You aren’t answering my question !!!!

Why should he waste valuable time on options that just aren't going to be required just so his opponents

can stall hours of time with petty arguments about bus routes, prices and convenience etc when he'll never actually need it.

Right , so what your saying is that , the BT campaign no longer have a viable argument so they cling onto and throw doubt at the currency issue because Osbourn said "Itis my pound and you ain't getting it". The patronising bastards really are pathetic.

Almost pathetic also was the comment made last night by a no voter , that , because Scotland has a population of only 5.3 million and London alone has over six million , then apparently that makes it a no-brainier! Lol . He obviously had no f**kin brain . It was almost as bad as some of the stupid , inane pash that Sid used to spout on here .

[BoWSaint]

Well what was said last night Drew made logical sense. Darling said it's not Scotland's currency - it belongs to the UK. Scotland was seeking to withdraw from the UK therefore it wouldn't have any claim to Sterling.

I'm going through a divorce right now. Now my ex wife and I shared credit cards amongst other things - I was the primary card holder. When she left I stopped her card and reverted my account to my name only. It seems only reasonable that the Bank of England would do the same.

Who is paying the debt on your credit cards? Did you ex-wife inherit her share of the debt?

[BuddieinEK]

For all those who think Darling beat the crap out of Salmond last night, stop and think for a second.

Darling spent 2 hours foaming at the mouth attacking Salmond, yelling, using a hectoring tone and using condescending language.

Exactly what he's been accusing Salmond of for 2 years.

He stopped just short of getting his dick out on live TV, walking across the stage and slapping Alex across the chops with it.

All this macho pish may play well with Daily Record readers but the vast majority of undecideds are WOMEN.

On the whole women just don't respond to naked middle aged male aggression.

On that score, Salmond will have come across better.

IMO there will be little or no change in the next set of polls based on last night.

Really?

Had Salmond used his 12 minutes constructively in the way he did his summation... but with facts and reasons to vote yes, i would have respected him for it and he may well have woo'd the undecided.

His sliens and driving on the wrong side of the road line of attack served only to humiliate one person and it wasn't Darling.

Wasted opportunity for sure.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Better Together is fronted by Labour and funded by millionaire Tories, based in England.

[Stuart Dickson]

Who is paying the debt on your credit cards? Did you ex-wife inherit her share of the debt?

Negotiations are ongoing - dragging on a lot unfortunately - and we have no separation agreement as yet. Of course whilst in that position she's still not getting access to my credit card.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Really?

Had Salmond used his 12 minutes constructively in the way he did his summation... but with facts and reasons to vote yes, i would have respected him for it and he may well have woo'd the undecided.

His sliens and driving on the wrong side of the road line of attack served only to humiliate one person and it wasn't Darling.

Wasted opportunity for sure.

His 12 minutes was to ask questions of darling - what questions would you have liked to see him ask darling?

He was calm and reserved, on purpose it would appear in order to appeal to mostly female undecided voters. Maybe that's why I wasnt impressed with him on first viewing.

[pozbaird]

What I don't understand is that Salmond and his team of advisors must have known that Darling would come out and bang on about the currency issue, 'What IS your Plan B Alex, tell the voters...' etc. All Salmond needed to do was to take him by surprise and have a 'Plan B' answer ready to trot out. Would have stopped Darling in his tracks, and avoided a Paxman-esque situation where he repeated the same question a hundred times. Sure, I agree with Salmond that in the event of a 'yes' vote, it WOULD be in the best interests of both Scotland and rUK to share the pound, but that wasn't where Darling was trying to corner Salmond. He clearly asked what is the plan in the event of a currency union NOT being the done deal that Salmond is portraying.

I had Salmond down as a shrewd operator, a canny politician, but the wheel nuts are loosening on his personal barrow, and the danger is that a wheel falls off before the vote. Surely to goodness both him and his team must have known that simply saying 'but we WILL keep the pound' wasn't going to get the job done. Maybe of course there is no Plan B, but just make something up FFS, and make it convincing. Where would Darling have gone with his line of attack if Salmond had came right out and hit him with some 'Plan B' shit?

I think Darling would have been like the Duracell bunny's rivals when their batteries chucked it.

[BoWSaint]

Negotiations are ongoing - dragging on a lot unfortunately - and we have no separation agreement as yet. Of course whilst in that position she's still not getting access to my credit card.

Are you getting divorced because she is voting yes?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Adam Smith Institute press release indicates that keeping the pound is what we should do even without a currency union

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

[Stuart Dickson]

Are you getting divorced because she is voting yes?

Aye probably Since she's gone though I've discovered just how much of a drain she really was and I'm enjoying a far more profitable and happier life now with new, bigger and better opportunities opening up - she nicked one of my TV's but that was soon replaced with a bigger, better model. Last I heard - from her lawyer - she was scraping around on Gumtree.

She wanted the divorce - hell mend her.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

Adam Smith Institute press release indicates that keeping the pound is what we should do even without a currency union

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

So why did Alex Salmond rule this out as Plan B last night?

[Kendo]

So why did Alex Salmond rule this out as Plan B last night?

He didn't rule it out, his plan A is to keep the pound and this is what will happen if we vote yes.

He doesn't want to open another debate on plan B when plan A will work.

[BuddieinEK]

He didn't rule it out, his plan A is to keep the pound and this is what will happen if we vote yes.

He doesn't want to open another debate on plan B when plan A will work.

Plan A "will" work? For sure.

Our national currently will be underpinned by a foreign countries bank... who will also set the interest rates. What exactly is "independent" about that.

Surely a currency union is affected by the strength of the political union?

[thepaisleypanda]

He didn't rule it out, his plan A is to keep the pound and this is what will happen if we vote yes.

He doesn't want to open another debate on plan B when plan A will work.

how simple! Why didn't the rest of us think of that?

[thepaisleypanda]

Our national currently will be underpinned by a foreign countries bank..

Is that not the scenario we are in just now? (Almost)

[Kendo]

Plan A "will" work? For sure.

Our national currently will be underpinned by a foreign countries bank... who will also set the interest rates. What exactly is "independent" about that.

Surely a currency union is affected by the strength of the political union?

It was good to see that stu dick believes that there is a credible alternative. Interesting that the No campaign are actually suggesting plan B's. You couldn't make it up. There are plenty of options but the best option is the keep,the pound and that is what will happen.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Plan A "will" work? For sure.

Our national currently will be underpinned by a foreign countries bank... who will also set the interest rates. What exactly is "independent" about that.

Surely a currency union is affected by the strength of the political union?

Personally I'd rather we didn't do that. Then again I understand that it would probably only be short term. I also understand that it would be to the benefit of both to be partners in this.