The Referendum Thread

[oaksoft]

1. True, you can't predict the future, however you can study the form and make your best educated guess based on past results. In this case we know that prior to the Union Scotland was an industrial backwater, a bankrupt nation, and a nation ripped apart by internal prejudice and bigotry and constant wars whether they be between clans, or the English. We also know that the subsequent 300 years of Union with the English has seen our greatest prosperity .

2. Scotland will never "make it's own decisions" regardless of whether it's governed through Westminster or Brussels. Especially not since the Yes campaign are seeking support on the basis that they will now seek membership of the EU and of NATO and they will seek to retain the pound.

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. You can't realistically compare Scotland now with Scotland in the 1600's.

As for your second paragraph?

Are you suggesting an independent Scotland would be unable to reverse the bedroom tax?

Are you suggesting we couldn't alter our entire welfare state?

Are you suggesting we couldn't alter our tax rates?

Are you suggesting we couldn't control our own pension solutions?

Are you suggesting we couldn't remove Trident?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make the decision to remove Nuclear power from our shores in favour of renewables?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make the decision NOT to go to wars we don't agree with?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make up our own border and immigration policies?

Are you suggesting we wouldn't be able to borrow on the open markets?

These are just a few things we don't have control over now which are important decisions for a country to be able to control.

It's farcical that another country should be controlling these things.

[Stuart Dickson]

 

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. You can't realistically compare Scotland now with Scotland in the 1600's.

 

As for your second paragraph?

Are you suggesting an independent Scotland would be unable to reverse the bedroom tax?

Are you suggesting we couldn't alter our entire welfare state?

Are you suggesting we couldn't alter our tax rates?

Are you suggesting we couldn't control our own pension solutions?

Are you suggesting we couldn't remove Trident?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make the decision to remove Nuclear power from our shores in favour of renewables?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make the decision NOT to go to wars we don't agree with?

Are you suggesting we couldn't make up our own border and immigration policies?

Are you suggesting we wouldn't be able to borrow on the open markets?

 

These are just a few things we don't have control over now which are important decisions for a country to be able to control.

It's farcical that another country should be controlling these things.

The Yes campaign has already accepted that an Independent Scotland will not be able to remove Trident and even the UK with our veto cannot set our own immigration policies when it comes to EU rules on freedom of movement.

As for the rest well it's a matter of cost v expenses. I doubt Scotland will have sufficient credit rating to borrow at the same favourable rates the UK gets. You would be able to create your own pension solutions but if you are intent in wiping out unpopular taxes you are either going to have to cut funding for things like pensions or you are going to have to raise taxes.

On Saturday I heard one Yes supporter make the best case I've heard so far for Independence. He said an Independent Scotland would get a larger subsidy from the EU. He backed that up with figures from the EU over how much Ireland gets. He may well be right actually. It was difficult to make a case against it - but to say how independent are you when you have to rely on handouts to make ends meet.

[irvine_buddie]

The Yes campaign has already accepted that an Independent Scotland will not be able to remove Trident and even the UK with our veto cannot set our own immigration policies when it comes to EU rules on freedom of movement.

Have they? Surely this would be big news if they had admitted that as it's a big part of their campaign for indepedence.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The whole point is that an independent Scotland would find it easier to change things like Trident, welfare or even membership of the EU.

Tory boys - Just think of all the things you dislike about life in GB just now, politically and socially. It would be a lot easier to convince a nation of 6 million than a "united kingdom" of 60 million.

[Callum Gilhooley]

The Yes campaign has already accepted that an Independent Scotland will not be able to remove Trident and even the UK with our veto cannot set our own immigration policies when it comes to EU rules on freedom of movement.

As for the rest well it's a matter of cost v expenses. I doubt Scotland will have sufficient credit rating to borrow at the same favourable rates the UK gets. You would be able to create your own pension solutions but if you are intent in wiping out unpopular taxes you are either going to have to cut funding for things like pensions or you are going to have to raise taxes.

On Saturday I heard one Yes supporter make the best case I've heard so far for Independence. He said an Independent Scotland would get a larger subsidy from the EU. He backed that up with figures from the EU over how much Ireland gets. He may well be right actually. It was difficult to make a case against it - but to say how independent are you when you have to rely on handouts to make ends meet.

I must have missed that .

[oaksoft]

The Yes campaign has already accepted that an Independent Scotland will not be able to remove Trident and even the UK with our veto cannot set our own immigration policies when it comes to EU rules on freedom of movement.

As for the rest well it's a matter of cost v expenses. I doubt Scotland will have sufficient credit rating to borrow at the same favourable rates the UK gets. You would be able to create your own pension solutions but if you are intent in wiping out unpopular taxes you are either going to have to cut funding for things like pensions or you are going to have to raise taxes.

On Saturday I heard one Yes supporter make the best case I've heard so far for Independence. He said an Independent Scotland would get a larger subsidy from the EU. He backed that up with figures from the EU over how much Ireland gets. He may well be right actually. It was difficult to make a case against it - but to say how independent are you when you have to rely on handouts to make ends meet.

More guff, outright lies, distortion of the truth and guesswork disguised as fact from Dickson.

Nothing of what you've said here deserves a moments consideration.

[faraway saint]

More guff, outright lies, distortion of the truth and guesswork disguised as fact from Dickson.

Nothing of what you've said here deserves a moments consideration.

How long did it take you to consider this response then?

Less than a moment?

Wow!

[oaksoft]

How long did it take you to consider this response then?

Less than a moment?

Wow!

I went 3 seconds over the limit but I felt it was worth it.

BTW I said "deserved".

[stlucifer]

I've refrained from making my intentions public till now but, as it's a decision that will live with us forever, I feel we can't NOT vote for independence.

Mark my words. A NO vote will be a red flag for the bulldog to bite us on the erse!

Forget the so called benefit we get from the Barnett formula. This is actually a myth anyway as we are positive contributors to the treasury.

Vote no and the UK Government will take it as a sign that Scotland can be treated like a backwater state worthy of no more than lipservice,. AND.... They would be right.

Too many are afraid of taking that final step as they would no longer be able to blame the big bad English for any perceived ills or failings.

The vote taken in the seventies should have been, indeed some suggest it was, a resounding YES. That mistake needs to be rectified.

Once that bullet has been bitten we can go forward and give that nanny state party that is the SNP the same bullet and have a proper government which most in Scotland can go forward with.

[irvine_buddie]

Wether the SNP have admitted it or not, there as pretty much zero chance of Trident being moved out of Scotland. Faslane is a unique site and there is nowhere else in Britain capable of housing a site like Faslane and Coulport to support the Submarines. Even if they could, it would cost billions and take years to decomission HMNB Clyde and to build a suitable base in England

Edited October 29, 2013 by irvine_buddie

[stlucifer]

Wether the SNP have admitted it or not, there as pretty much zero chance of Trident being moved out of Scotland. Faslane is a unique site and there is nowhere else in Britain capable of housing a site like Faslane and Coulport to support the Submarines. Even if they could, it would cost billions and take years to decomission HMNB Clyde and to build a suitable base in England

Faslane may well be unique but it IS in Scotland.

IF Scotland were to vote for independence and were to decide that they wanted no part in nuclear proliferation the rest of the UK would have, short of invasion, no other recourse other than remove them from a then self governing, sovereign state.

In fact I think the costs could, theoretically, be incurred by both parties by ratio meaning the brunt of that cost could fall on the remaining parts of the UK.

Where Engurland decide to stick them is neither here nor there.

Edited October 29, 2013 by stlucifer

[saintnextlifetime]

I've refrained from making my intentions public till now but, as it's a decision that will live with us forever, I feel we can't NOT vote for independence.

Mark my words. A NO vote will be a red flag for the bulldog to bite us on the erse!

Forget the so called benefit we get from the Barnett formula. This is actually a myth anyway as we are positive contributors to the treasury.

Vote no and the UK Government will take it as a sign that Scotland can be treated like a backwater state worthy of no more than lipservice,. AND.... They would be right.

Too many are afraid of taking that final step as they would no longer be able to blame the big bad English for any perceived ills or failings.

The vote taken in the seventies should have been, indeed some suggest it was, a resounding YES. That mistake needs to be rectified.

Once that bullet has been bitten we can go forward and give that nanny state party that is the SNP the same bullet and have a proper government which most in Scotland can go forward with.

The vote in the 7ts for a devolved government was a YES , however , Jim Calaghan , had changed the rules for the vote in that , 40% of the total electorate had to vote YES. This meant that the bill would never go thro' as little more than 40% of the electorate vote at the best of times , total. .

I don't get why you refer to that vote , tho'. .

[Stuart Dickson]

Faslane may well be unique but it IS in Scotland.

IF Scotland were to vote for independence and were to decide that they wanted no part in nuclear proliferation the rest of the UK would have, short of invasion, no other recourse other than remove them from a then self governing, sovereign state.

In fact I think the costs could, theoretically, be incurred by both parties by ratio meaning the brunt of that cost could fall on the remaining parts of the UK.

Where Engurland decide to stick them is neither here nor there.

There is absolutely no chance of Faslane being decommissioned.

Consider this. Salmond claims that Scotland's defence will be provided by NATO. He insists that an Independent Scotland would get NATO membership. Yet with his other face he claims that he is going to be able to tell NATO that Scotland don't want to host any nuclear missiles here, and he tells the public that he's going to tell NATO that they'll need to close one of the central planks of their strategic defence capability because Scots have gone a bit NIMBY on NATO. Now the fact is that many SNP members are already conceding that Salmonds claims won't be possible and that Scotland will have to continue to host Trident and possibly any replacement at Faslane for many, many years to come regardless of how the Independence vote goes. And if you read some of the chest beating coming from Westminster it also appears that NATO are backing a plan that would see the remainder of the UK annex Faslane, in much the same way that the UK annexed part of Spain by retaining Gibraltar, if the vote goes the wrong way in 2014.

There is an excellent article online by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore who has highlighted the history of the Independence campaign in Scotland over the last 80 years and which shows just how watered down Alex Salmonds version of Independence has become as he bids to make a yes vote marketable. He shows how the Independence campaign had called for the setting up of a Scottish Republic, bombs were exploding in post boxes because Scottish Nationalists didn't like the EIIR logo on them claiming that Queen Elizabeth wasn't the second monarch of that name to reign over Scotland. These days Salmond claims Independence means retaining the Windsors are our Monarchs. Scottish Independence was supposed to be about controlling our own currency. Salmond moved that to us adopting the Euro, then when that proved unpopular he's decided we'd be better off retaining the currency which is regulated by the Bank Of England who will respond solely to the economic needs of the UK Government and to the will of the UK Chancellor when setting interest rates and monetary policy. Moore even highlights how Salmond has moved from talk about Independence within Europe, to over the last two months claiming that Independence for Scotland will strengthen the bonds with the rest of the United Kingdom. I can see John MacCormack and Professor Douglas Young turning within their graves Salmond has also stopped referring to the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity since the collapse of the Icelandic and Irish economies and now only refers to Norway - who have neither adopted another nations currency or joined the EU.

The best thing that could happen to the Yes campaign would be for Salmond to back away from the campaign in the same way that David Cameron tends to keep the whole thing at arms length.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[salmonbuddie]

There is absolutely no chance of Faslane being decommissioned.

Consider this. Salmond claims that Scotland's defence will be provided by NATO. He insists that an Independent Scotland would get NATO membership. Yet with his other face he claims that he is going to be able to tell NATO that Scotland don't want to host any nuclear missiles here, and he tells the public that he's going to tell NATO that they'll need to close one of the central planks of their strategic defence capability because Scots have gone a bit NIMBY on NATO. Now the fact is that many SNP members are already conceding that Salmonds claims won't be possible and that Scotland will have to continue to host Trident and possibly any replacement at Faslane for many, many years to come regardless of how the Independence vote goes. And if you read some of the chest beating coming from Westminster it also appears that NATO are backing a plan that would see the remainder of the UK annex Faslane, in much the same way that the UK annexed part of Spain by retaining Gibraltar, if the vote goes the wrong way in 2014.

A pity the UK PM and SoS for Scotland aren't backing it then, it really might be successful if they were:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-to-annex-trident-base-in-independent-scotland-not-credible-says-no-10-8701485.h

There is an excellent article online by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore who has highlighted the history of the Independence campaign in Scotland over the last 80 years and which shows just how watered down Alex Salmonds version of Independence has become as he bids to make a yes vote marketable. He shows how the Independence campaign had called for the setting up of a Scottish Republic, bombs were exploding in post boxes because Scottish Nationalists didn't like the EIIR logo on them claiming that Queen Elizabeth wasn't the second monarch of that name to reign over Scotland. These days Salmond claims Independence means retaining the Windsors are our Monarchs. Scottish Independence was supposed to be about controlling our own currency. Salmond moved that to us adopting the Euro, then when that proved unpopular he's decided we'd be better off retaining the currency which is regulated by the Bank Of England who will respond solely to the economic needs of the UK Government and to the will of the UK Chancellor when setting interest rates and monetary policy. Moore even highlights how Salmond has moved from talk about Independence within Europe, to over the last two months claiming that Independence for Scotland will strengthen the bonds with the rest of the United Kingdom. I can see John MacCormack and Professor Douglas Young turning within their graves

Michael Moore the Scottish Secretary, you say? Someone tell STV. And the Government.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/242231-liberal-democrat-mp-michael-moore-sacked-as-scottish-secretary/

And point us to this article if you don't mind or is it another of these ones that only exists in your head?

The current story is that he was pushed because he refused to promote the No campaign's lies any more e.g. on the EU:

Moore said that he saw “no reason to believe that any country around Europe would have an in-principal objection to any new Member State coming forward”. This interview, given by Michael Moore to the Catalan News Agency, took place just weeks after he was sacked by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The timing of these comments suggest he has had a conflicting view to his UK colleagues for some time on how to argue the case for a No vote. He was clearly unwilling to push the No Campaign’s scare stories to the point where his personal credibility would be irrevocably damaged. His successor Alistair Carmichael MP will face the same dilemma.

From:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/no-campaign-eu-membership-myth-falls-apart/

Salmond has also stopped referring to the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity since the collapse of the Icelandic and Irish economies and now only refers to Norway - who have neither adopted another nations currency or joined the EU.

They may have collapsed but it appears they're recovering better than the UK's

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/

Interesting how many European nations of a comparable population to Scotland are above the UK in that table

The best thing that could happen to the Yes campaign would be for Salmond to back away from the campaign in the same way that David Cameron tends to keep the whole thing at arms length.

No, StuD, the best thing that could happen is that the No campaign puts you in charge.

[salmonbuddie]

The vote in the 7ts for a devolved government was a YES , however , Jim Calaghan , had changed the rules for the vote in that , 40% of the total electorate had to vote YES. This meant that the bill would never go thro' as little more than 40% of the electorate vote at the best of times , total. .

I don't get why you refer to that vote , tho'. .

Saw the 70's vote mentioned earlier in this thread in the same context, snlt, almost as if people think it was an independence vote

[Charlotte Saint]

There is absolutely no chance of Faslane being decommissioned.

Consider this. Salmond claims that Scotland's defence will be provided by NATO. He insists that an Independent Scotland would get NATO membership. Yet with his other face he claims that he is going to be able to tell NATO that Scotland don't want to host any nuclear missiles here, and he tells the public that he's going to tell NATO that they'll need to close one of the central planks of their strategic defence capability because Scots have gone a bit NIMBY on NATO. Now the fact is that many SNP members are already conceding that Salmonds claims won't be possible and that Scotland will have to continue to host Trident and possibly any replacement at Faslane for many, many years to come regardless of how the Independence vote goes. And if you read some of the chest beating coming from Westminster it also appears that NATO are backing a plan that would see the remainder of the UK annex Faslane, in much the same way that the UK annexed part of Spain by retaining Gibraltar, if the vote goes the wrong way in 2014.

There is an excellent article online by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore who has highlighted the history of the Independence campaign in Scotland over the last 80 years and which shows just how watered down Alex Salmonds version of Independence has become as he bids to make a yes vote marketable. He shows how the Independence campaign had called for the setting up of a Scottish Republic, bombs were exploding in post boxes because Scottish Nationalists didn't like the EIIR logo on them claiming that Queen Elizabeth wasn't the second monarch of that name to reign over Scotland. These days Salmond claims Independence means retaining the Windsors are our Monarchs. Scottish Independence was supposed to be about controlling our own currency. Salmond moved that to us adopting the Euro, then when that proved unpopular he's decided we'd be better off retaining the currency which is regulated by the Bank Of England who will respond solely to the economic needs of the UK Government and to the will of the UK Chancellor when setting interest rates and monetary policy. Moore even highlights how Salmond has moved from talk about Independence within Europe, to over the last two months claiming that Independence for Scotland will strengthen the bonds with the rest of the United Kingdom. I can see John MacCormack and Professor Douglas Young turning within their graves Salmond has also stopped referring to the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity since the collapse of the Icelandic and Irish economies and now only refers to Norway - who have neither adopted another nations currency or joined the EU.

The best thing that could happen to the Yes campaign would be for Salmond to back away from the campaign in the same way that David Cameron tends to keep the whole thing at arms length.

Serious question Stuart. If the Yes vote wins and Scotland does become an independent state, would you emigrate or stay put?

[Stuart Dickson]

A pity the UK PM and SoS for Scotland aren't backing it then, it really might be successful if they were:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-to-annex-trident-base-in-independent-scotland-not-credible-says-no-10-8701485.h

Michael Moore the Scottish Secretary, you say? Someone tell STV. And the Government.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/242231-liberal-democrat-mp-michael-moore-sacked-as-scottish-secretary/

And point us to this article if you don't mind or is it another of these ones that only exists in your head?

The current story is that he was pushed because he refused to promote the No campaign's lies any more e.g. on the EU:

Moore said that he saw “no reason to believe that any country around Europe would have an in-principal objection to any new Member State coming forward”. This interview, given by Michael Moore to the Catalan News Agency, took place just weeks after he was sacked by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The timing of these comments suggest he has had a conflicting view to his UK colleagues for some time on how to argue the case for a No vote. He was clearly unwilling to push the No Campaign’s scare stories to the point where his personal credibility would be irrevocably damaged. His successor Alistair Carmichael MP will face the same dilemma.

From:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/no-campaign-eu-membership-myth-falls-apart/

They may have collapsed but it appears they're recovering better than the UK's

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/

Interesting how many European nations of a comparable population to Scotland are above the UK in that table

No, StuD, the best thing that could happen is that the No campaign puts you in charge.

You struggling to read again. Nowhere in my post that you've quoted did I claim that Michael Moore had said Scotland couldn't gain membership of the EU. Read it again - what Moore was highlighting was just how far the Independence movement had shifted from it's founding principals in order to try and gain some credibility and some votes. Even in the mid 80's the idea that an Independent Scotland would retain the Queen as our Head of State would have been utterly absurd, almost as absurd as the idea that Scotland would gain independence from the rest of the UK at Westminster, only to go cap in hand to Brussels or the notion that Independence would mean tying ourselves to the economic policies being set by the Bank Of England - but Salmond is doing them all. Moore went on to highlight that Salmond is still shifting - bizarrely now claiming that Scottish Independence will mean STRONGER ties with the rest of the United Kingdom - try squaring that up with the history of the Scottish Nationalist movement.

It's a busted flush Salmonbuddie. Even the SNP know it.

[saintnextlifetime]

Saw the 70's vote mentioned earlier in this thread in the same context, snlt, almost as if people think it was an independence vote

Correct SB, we have never had a vote on independence , not even when it was given up in 1707, with much protest from the local populace. .

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You struggling to read again. Nowhere in my post that you've quoted did I claim that Michael Moore had said Scotland couldn't gain membership of the EU. Read it again - what Moore was highlighting was just how far the Independence movement had shifted from it's founding principals in order to try and gain some credibility and some votes. Even in the mid 80's the idea that an Independent Scotland would retain the Queen as our Head of State would have been utterly absurd, almost as absurd as the idea that Scotland would gain independence from the rest of the UK at Westminster, only to go cap in hand to Brussels or the notion that Independence would mean tying ourselves to the economic policies being set by the Bank Of England - but Salmond is doing them all. Moore went on to highlight that Salmond is still shifting - bizarrely now claiming that Scottish Independence will mean STRONGER ties with the rest of the United Kingdom - try squaring that up with the history of the Scottish Nationalist movement.

It's a busted flush Salmonbuddie. Even the SNP know it.

Its only a vote on Independence- becoming a republic would be a different decision whether made by parliament or the voters in the form of a referendum.

EU members pay into a pot of money and it is dished out again.Seems simple unless you pay in more than you get out, in which case you want to quit - its all a bit middleenglandshire. Once again though a decision to stay or leave would be made after and separate from a vote for independence.

Imagine having the ability to make these decisions as a nation and not relying on what is best for a majority elsewhere who have differing priorities. Who knows you might find independence made it easier for you to get away from the EU...

BTW, its not a case of moving from founding principles, its called evolving your policies as politics changes over 80 years or even 30. Only political dinosaurs refuse to evolve. They dont quite end up extinct but they do change their colours and join ukip

[saintnextlifetime]

Its only a vote on Independence- becoming a republic would be a different decision whether made by parliament or the voters in the form of a referendum.

EU members pay into a pot of money and it is dished out again.Seems simple unless you pay in more than you get out, in which case you want to quit - its all a bit middleenglandshire. Once again though a decision to stay or leave would be made after and separate from a vote for independence.

Imagine having the ability to make these decisions as a nation and not relying on what is best for a majority elsewhere who have differing priorities. Who knows you might find independence made it easier for you to get away from the EU...

BTW, its not a case of moving from founding principles, its called evolving your policies as politics changes over 80 years or even 30. Only political dinosaurs refuse to evolve. They dont quite end up extinct but they do change their colours and join ukip

Retaining the Queen as head of state has been policy since at the 7ts. Dicksoft types the most horrendous pile of shite you could possibly imagine and should be given a lifetime ban . .

[Stuart Dickson]

Serious question Stuart. If the Yes vote wins and Scotland does become an independent state, would you emigrate or stay put?

Dunno. There would be other factors in play that would be more important that the political status of Scotland but I've been expanding my options in a number of area's for a lot of years now. Probably the most realistic option right now would be for me to look to relocate over the border. It's only 35 minutes drive from where I live now and the division of the company I work for has it's HQ in Lancashire and there is at least potential that they may close down their only Scottish office if it didn't fancy Scotland being Independent.

[bluto]

Imagine having the ability to make these decisions as a nation and not relying on what is best for a majority elsewhere who have differing priorities. Who knows you might find independence made it easier for you to get away from the EU...

It's amazing how many Scots think exactly the same as that with regard to the wastrels in the Central Belt.

[salmonbuddie]

 

 

You struggling to read again. Nowhere in my post that you've quoted did I claim that Michael Moore had said Scotland couldn't gain membership of the EU. Read it again - what Moore was highlighting was just how far the Independence movement had shifted from it's founding principals in order to try and gain some credibility and some votes. Even in the mid 80's the idea that an Independent Scotland would retain the Queen as our Head of State would have been utterly absurd, almost as absurd as the idea that Scotland would gain independence from the rest of the UK at Westminster, only to go cap in hand to Brussels or the notion that Independence would mean tying ourselves to the economic policies being set by the Bank Of England - but Salmond is doing them all. Moore went on to highlight that Salmond is still shifting - bizarrely now claiming that Scottish Independence will mean STRONGER ties with the rest of the United Kingdom - try squaring that up with the history of the Scottish Nationalist movement. 

 

It's a busted flush Salmonbuddie. Even the SNP know it. 

No, that'll be you struggling to read- where did I say it was mentioned? I was pointing out up to date stuff about "Scottish Secretary Michael Moore." Just so we're clear, you do know he's no longer the Scottish Secretary? You did get it wrong?

Give us proof of the article's existence, let us see for ourselves when he allegedly said those things and see if it's something else he's since changed his views on. Like Europe, for example.

You also conveniently ignore the turnaround in economic fortunes of the two countries after repeatedly banging on about how Scotland would end up just like them. Nothing to add? You ignore the Faslane stuff I also busted and ts has busted you on the monarchy/BoE/ties stuff quoted. Time for bed, methinks.

[stlucifer]

The vote in the 7ts for a devolved government was a YES , however , Jim Calaghan , had changed the rules for the vote in that , 40% of the total electorate had to vote YES. This meant that the bill would never go thro' as little more than 40% of the electorate vote at the best of times , total. .

I don't get why you refer to that vote , tho'. .

Though it wasn't an independence vote we would have been much further down the route than we are at present AND, when the inevitable final vote happened it would have been far harder for the "UK" parties to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish people when the oil industry was in a far more advantageous position.

[stlucifer]

There is absolutely no chance of Faslane being decommissioned.

Consider this. Salmond claims that Scotland's defence will be provided by NATO. He insists that an Independent Scotland would get NATO membership. Yet with his other face he claims that he is going to be able to tell NATO that Scotland don't want to host any nuclear missiles here, and he tells the public that he's going to tell NATO that they'll need to close one of the central planks of their strategic defence capability because Scots have gone a bit NIMBY on NATO. Now the fact is that many SNP members are already conceding that Salmonds claims won't be possible and that Scotland will have to continue to host Trident and possibly any replacement at Faslane for many, many years to come regardless of how the Independence vote goes. And if you read some of the chest beating coming from Westminster it also appears that NATO are backing a plan that would see the remainder of the UK annex Faslane, in much the same way that the UK annexed part of Spain by retaining Gibraltar, if the vote goes the wrong way in 2014.

There is an excellent article online by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore who has highlighted the history of the Independence campaign in Scotland over the last 80 years and which shows just how watered down Alex Salmonds version of Independence has become as he bids to make a yes vote marketable. He shows how the Independence campaign had called for the setting up of a Scottish Republic, bombs were exploding in post boxes because Scottish Nationalists didn't like the EIIR logo on them claiming that Queen Elizabeth wasn't the second monarch of that name to reign over Scotland. These days Salmond claims Independence means retaining the Windsors are our Monarchs. Scottish Independence was supposed to be about controlling our own currency. Salmond moved that to us adopting the Euro, then when that proved unpopular he's decided we'd be better off retaining the currency which is regulated by the Bank Of England who will respond solely to the economic needs of the UK Government and to the will of the UK Chancellor when setting interest rates and monetary policy. Moore even highlights how Salmond has moved from talk about Independence within Europe, to over the last two months claiming that Independence for Scotland will strengthen the bonds with the rest of the United Kingdom. I can see John MacCormack and Professor Douglas Young turning within their graves Salmond has also stopped referring to the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity since the collapse of the Icelandic and Irish economies and now only refers to Norway - who have neither adopted another nations currency or joined the EU.

The best thing that could happen to the Yes campaign would be for Salmond to back away from the campaign in the same way that David Cameron tends to keep the whole thing at arms length.

There is so much wrong with your arguments that it hardly seems worth debating.

Why should you think that being associated with NATO would mean Scotland would have to accept Nuclear weapons in their own back yard? In fact. I believe it far more likely that any of the major powers would prefer that a small independent nation should NOT have access to weapons of mass destruction.

You try to pick holes in the Nationalists agenda and portray Salmond as the antichrist while accepting everything in the NO camp as Gospel as if it were part of the decalogue brought from Mount Sinai.

Edited October 29, 2013 by stlucifer