The Referendum Thread

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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

Bluto now your resorting to made up scare stories like the better together campaign or colonel dicko.

Lets have a debate based on facts - although I think the prospect of dicko sloping off to england in the event of a yes vote is probably the end of any debate

[saintnextlifetime]

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.

Mmm , dunno. .

The Scotland fitba' team returned from Germany in 1974 , undefeated and to a rapturous reception. At the next election , Scotland returned 11 SNP MP's to Westminster after only returning 2 at the previous election. The English Labour party panicked and offered Scotland the Devo' vote which , as mentioned above was derailed by Jim Callaghan . The failure to gained devolution caused apathy towards the cause and prompted Jim Sillars to label Scots as "90 minute Nationalists". .

In any event , the Hanoverian government in Westminster breathed a sigh of relief and her vassal state stayed firmly in her grip. .

[Stuart Dickson]

Mmm , dunno. .

The Scotland fitba' team returned from Germany in 1974 , undefeated and to a rapturous reception. At the next election , Scotland returned 11 SNP MP's to Westminster after only returning 2 at the previous election. The English Labour party panicked and offered Scotland the Devo' vote which , as mentioned above was derailed by Jim Callaghan . The failure to gained devolution caused apathy towards the cause and prompted Jim Sillars to label Scots as "90 minute Nationalists". .

In any event , the Hanoverian government in Westminster breathed a sigh of relief and her vassal state stayed firmly in her grip. .

And Jim Sillars was right in his conclusion that disappointed him greatly. Scots do not want Independence. No matter how the natsi's tried to spin it support for independence has never swelled beyond 1 in every 3 and as a nation we've moved on from the days of being influenced in the way we vote by the success or lack of it on the football pitch.

[Stuart Dickson]

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.

Erm - aye right....

Senior Nato officials have warned Alex Salmond's government that an independent Scotland would be barred from joining Nato if there were any disputes over the basing of nuclear weapons on the Clyde.

The Guardian can reveal that a small group of Scottish civil servants travelled to Nato HQ in Brussels last month to discuss Scotland's options for joining the alliance if Salmond wins next year's independence referendum. They argued that an independent Scotland should be given special treatment because it was already a significant part of an existing, founder member of Nato, the UK.

It is understood that Nato officials said it might be possible to allow Scotland to start fast-track talks – but in a blow to Salmond's anti-nuclear strategy, the Scottish delegation was also told that no new member would be allowed to join Nato if that state had unresolved military or territorial disputes with other countries.

Under article 10 of the Nato treaty, one assistant general secretary of Nato said at the meeting on 6 July, new applicants also have to show a history of stable defence policies and structures as a minimum entry requirement. Article 10 also implies that every Nato member accepts the alliance's nuclear first-strike policy.Official sources in Edinburgh and London confirm that these issues were seen as coded warnings that the Scottish government's determination to close down the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane on the Clyde would be a major obstacle to Scotland's application.

Lord Robertson, a former secretary general of Nato and a defence secretary in Tony Blair's government, said Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were expected to resolve disputes over Transylvania and crossings over the Danube before starting their Nato membership process.

"You're not expected to import problems with your neighbours into Nato and that's a very clear warning signal," Robertson said. He said Faslane's continued operations were integral to Nato's strategic concept.

He said Salmond knew there was an unbridgeable contradiction between Salmond's desire to join Nato and his pledge to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. "He's taking the Scottish people for fools by claiming that [the SNP] would want Scotland to be in Nato but laying down conditions that would make it impossible. It's a confidence trick both on their membership and the Scottish people."

Salmond has made closing down the nuclear facilities at Faslane a cornerstone of his independence campaign. In an appeal to leftwing voters, the first minister has promised to make that non-nuclear policy legally binding in a new written constitution after independence.

But becoming a full member of Nato is regarded as an essential part of Salmond's plans to persuade sceptical middle-ground voters that an independent Scotland would still remain part of mainstream and powerful international institutions.

The threat to close Faslane is one of the biggest obstacles facing a deal between the Scottish and UK governments over independence, because of its strategic significance and the immense cost of relocating the Trident fleet and its warheads to a new base in England or Wales.

Nato officials stressed that any decision on accepting new members would be political, requiring a unanimous decision by member states, adding to the pressure on Salmond over resolving any conflicts on defence policy with the UK.

Although an independent Scotland would be seen as a new state and required to apply as a new member, in principle it could be possible for the Scottish government in Edinburgh to start talks about joining Nato while those bilateral discussions were going on.

That would boost Salmond's case that it is in Nato's interests for Scotland to be a full member of the alliance, because of its strategic position in the north-east Atlantic and its oil reserves.

The Guardian revealed last month that Ministry of Defence officials were studying plans to force Scotland to designate Faslane and the nearby nuclear warhead base at Coulport as sovereign UK territory, provoking a furious reaction from nationalists and anti-nuclear campaigners.

During the lengthy meetings, Nato officials added that in the event of a yes vote, the UK and Scotland would have a large number of significant defence issues to resolve in the 18 months before independence day — set by Salmond as taking place in March 2016, and before Scotland applied to join Nato.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of UK defence policy studies at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, who has analysed the Scottish government's defence strategy, said Trident's future would be of critical importance.

Chalmers said other Nato members would expect London to take the lead in settling the Trident issue and all other defence questions before they seriously entertained Scottish membership.

He said that pragmatists in the SNP accepted that would likely involve a long-term basing deal with the UK to keep Trident on the Clyde, but that would not be as dramatic as a sovereign basing agreement which would see Faslane declared to be UK territory.

Although Nato members would be keen for Scotland to join quickly and smoothly, "people would want Scotland to be a member but it would be in terms of not wanting any problems to be imported [into the alliance], but the main judge of the importing problems question would be London.

"I can't see a scenario with Scotland being a problem for Nato, provided it had sorted out any bilateral problems with England." He said no-one in Nato wanted to see Scotland being left outside the alliance.

• This article was amended on 15 August 2013. The earlier version said Alex Salmond had "made closing Faslane a cornerstone of his independence campaign", using "Faslane" as shorthand for the nuclear weapons facilities on the Clyde. The Scottish National party has asked us to clarify that it would continue to use Faslane as a naval base and a Scottish defence force headquarters after independence: it would close Faslane's nuclear facilities but not the entire base.

[Stuart Dickson]

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.

No - I've been away on a three week holiday to Florida where I stayed in luxury resorts having a great time - and funnily enough, apart from some news coverage in the US about Scotlands under provision of power generating plants there was little mention of this backwater. I hadn't realised that Michael Moore had been part of the government reshuffle but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the point he made. The version of Scottish Independence being punted by Alex Salmond and his friends is about as far removed from actual Independence under any definition as it is possible to get. Imagine going into the referendum taking attempting to argue the position that Scotland should exit from the United Kingdom so we can have stronger trading links with the countries we are breaking from. Imagine going into the referendum taking the position that Independence means being totally reliant on the Bank of another country to set interest rates on your behalf - rates that will be based on the economic policies and performance of another country that you have absolutely no political influence over. Imagine going into a referendum arguing that you will be completely reliant on other countries to provide defence to your country, while you tell them to take their arsenal and get the f**k out of your country. Imagine going into a referendum claiming that you can be independent when what will become a foreign government own and control 82% of the shareholding of your only major national bank. It's akin to an 8 year old child declaring his independence from his parents whilst his only income is the pocket money his parents give him, and where it's his parents who feed him, house him and clothe him.

Moore's speech

As for Iceland and Ireland - . Both have been severely f**ked for years, both are now paying huge interest repayments to countries like the UK, and the only reason both are showing greater rates of recovery is because they really did plummet to the absolute bottom where the only way was back up. The UK has never sunk to the depths that those two countries reached. I doubt you'd find many people in Scotland who have any great wish to have gone down the same route as either of those countries - a fact that would explain why Alex Salmond has conveniently forgotten about the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity and why he's tried so desperately to delete all reference of the ridiculous comparisons he used to make from history.

Instead, today he points at Norway and suggests that Scotland could be just like them. Fair enough - except Norway have never been in the EU and their people appear to have no wish to join the EU. They've also retained their own independent currency and they continue to control all their own economic levers - something that isn't in Salmonds vision of an Independent Scotland.

Remaining as part of the UK gives Scotland the best of both worlds, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said today.

With a little over a year to go until voters go to the polls in the independence referendum, Mr Moore was addressing an audience at Glasgow University at an event organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

He said:

In just over 12 months’ time we will be asked to make the most important collective decision ever.

Here in Scotland, together, we will choose between remaining part of the United Kingdom or leaving and going it alone. A fundamental choice.

The outcome will be either an irreversible step to a new state or the continued development of our relationship with the rest of the UK family. It is important for us all to realise the significance of this choice.

Best of both worlds

As a government, over the past few months we have set out evidence that supports our case that here in Scotland we have the best of both worlds within the United Kingdom.

Over the summer we’ve seen Scottish Government Ministers trying out a new sales pitch.

The team who once argued that we should be “Free by 93” now campaign for “an interdependent United Kingdom of five unions”.

Over the next year I will continue to make the case for Scotland in the UK. I will continue to call out the inconsistencies in the nationalist story.

And they will continue to accuse me – and anyone who poses fair questions – of negativity. This is their well-trodden approach, and it is one paved with irony.

After all, what could be more negative than the claim that Scotland’s interests can only be met by leaving the family of nations in which it has thrived and prospered?

Benefits of devolution

Devolution within the United Kingdom has given us a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong voice in the UK Parliament too.

But it is not a static settlement. It is evolving and improving. As Secretary of State for Scotland I was proud to take the Scotland Act through the UK Parliament last year.

The Act amounts to the largest transfer of financial powers from London to Scotland since the creation of the UK. It includes new borrowing powers and, from 2016, a separate rate of Scottish income tax too.

Those of us who support Scotland’s place in the UK family share something fundamental. We value the things that United Kingdom brings to Scotland.

Greater opportunities; stronger security and an unrivalled platform on the world stage. These are worth keeping.

Our vision

Of course, as a government, our vision for Scotland is about more than constitutional change.

It’s about the direction in which our country can go, evolve and thrive to the benefit of each and every citizen.

A rebalanced economy that creates quality jobs and pays for quality public services too.

A fairer society in which the tax burden is eased on lower earners and those striving to get on get the help they need to do so.

A partnership of nations at home and abroad that has the capacity to promote the peace and security that every human is entitled to.

Within the UK, we can achieve these things for Scotland.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[salmonbuddie]

Erm - aye right....

The only named individual in there is Robertson, does he have a party political agenda when it comes to independence? This guy disagrees and doesn't:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/oct/independent-scotland-will-be-natural-nato-member

[salmonbuddie]

 

As for Iceland and Ireland - . Both have been severely f**ked for years, both are now paying huge interest repayments to countries like the UK, and the only reason both are showing greater rates of recovery is because they really did plummet to the absolute bottom where the only way was back up. The UK has never sunk to the depths that those two countries reached. I doubt you'd find many people in Scotland who have any great wish to have gone down the same route as either of those countries - a fact that would explain why Alex Salmond has conveniently forgotten about the Celtic Arc Of Prosperity and why he's tried so desperately to delete all reference of the ridiculous comparisons he used to make from history. 

 

And yet, despite the "huge interest repayments" to the UK, and the UK benefiting from those repayments, they're both above the UK in the table. Not a "rate of recovery" table, a "how well off are you" table. Perhaps they were absolute rock bottom at one point, but they're not now, they're better off than we are. Care to explain?

[stlucifer]

Erm - aye right....

I don't see any concrete evidence within that piece which proves the fact that NATO would bar Scotland from deciding what to do with it's own lands. Salmond has stated that Faslane would still be used as a NAVAL base. Not a NUCLEAR base.

It would be seen as no more than vindictiveness for what's left fof the UK to veto Scotland joining NATO.

There is NO proviso for any member nation being forced to install or retain any nuclear deterent.

Poorly researched journalism or filibustering? You decide.

Edited October 30, 2013 by stlucifer

[bluto]

Bluto now your resorting to made up scare stories like the better together campaign or colonel dicko.

Lets have a debate based on facts - although I think the prospect of dicko sloping off to england in the event of a yes vote is probably the end of any debate

No.

It's based upon facts and observation.

You will have noticed that the MPs from without that Central/ex-industrial region tend to be from parties that are not those voted for by that region? Weegies are loathed by Easterners (?) and vice versa. They don't all agree on the way the country should go forward. Same with the north of Scotland, the borders and the Islands, they resent the concentration of power and prestige always being on the crowded conurbations. They do not share that 'City' perspective. Nor agree with all of its decision making.

In a similar manner, the NW and NE of England, the Welsh, the midlands, Cornish etc... all feel as bitter about London as Scots do...

I think the fantasy peddled on this thread about this being a decision that is above politics, is a way of diverting attention from what you term scare stories. If the money wasted on/diverted from projects within Scotland can't be controlled by a UK Government what chance is there of controlling those who have direct vested interests in where it's spent? If there's not enough money to fund certain aspects of society, WHO makes the decisions about which areas will be hurt? That's political. It's all politics.

Not that I wouldn't trust Mr Salmond implicitly.

However, living in the comfortably soft underbelly of the land - which (cos of the vast energetic population) generates untold wealth (even streets paved with gold...) - I honestly don't mind what happens.

Except for the threat of us getting Dicko. That does keep me awake at night.

Edited October 30, 2013 by bluto

[Seaside Nipper]

Ok, right, path of least resistance for a slacker..........

Where, can I refer to details on what a yes vote gets / grants / proposes the country, no spin , no whatiffery no mibbes aye mibees naw.........I want to start giving this matter some consideration.

Presently it would appear that a YES vote grants a Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate the future for Scotland, Economics, Law, Security , Border controls, the full Bhoona

Presently a NO vote would appear to ensure a future in the Union, whatever that brings again , is subjective and pure speculation.

As a genuine 'undecided' I would like to form a 'logical' choice based on something more than it'll be a laugh or Braveheart soundbites.................is it too early to peruse some unambiguous facts about this wee change folk might vote on ?

Fwiw , my opinion of Salmond is that he is a decent statesman but tends to blow too hard too often, Nicola it seems to me is all about Nanny Statism. I would understand that a YES vote is not necessarily a vote for these two, but nevertheless they are very divisive characters, I think that is a problem for many potential voters

Anyway, concise facts appreciated...............this has to be more than a vote about being brave or being feart

[murray street]

My vote is for the LAHNDAHN WANKBAG party, they are certain to have MSP's in an Independent Scotland, the OId Grammarian Boabysookers 1922 committee are choosing candidates as we speak.

[salmonbuddie]

Ok, right, path of least resistance for a slacker..........

Where, can I refer to details on what a yes vote gets / grants / proposes the country, no spin , no whatiffery no mibbes aye mibees naw.........I want to start giving this matter some consideration.

Presently it would appear that a YES vote grants a Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate the future for Scotland, Economics, Law, Security , Border controls, the full Bhoona

Presently a NO vote would appear to ensure a future in the Union, whatever that brings again , is subjective and pure speculation.

As a genuine 'undecided' I would like to form a 'logical' choice based on something more than it'll be a laugh or Braveheart soundbites.................is it too early to peruse some unambiguous facts about this wee change folk might vote on ?

Fwiw , my opinion of Salmond is that he is a decent statesman but tends to blow too hard too often, Nicola it seems to me is all about Nanny Statism. I would understand that a YES vote is not necessarily a vote for these two, but nevertheless they are very divisive characters, I think that is a problem for many potential voters

Anyway, concise facts appreciated...............this has to be more than a vote about being brave or being feart

Concise fact for me is the opportunity to have a government in power which represents how the country (Scotland) has voted. I've never had one yet and I voted in my first General Election in 1979.

These are the webites of the two organisations, have a browse and see what you think:

http://www.bettertogether.net/

http://www.yesscotland.net/

[salmonbuddie]

No.

It's based upon facts and observation.

You will have noticed that the MPs from without that Central/ex-industrial region tend to be from parties that are not those voted for by that region? Weegies are loathed by Easterners (?) and vice versa. They don't all agree on the way the country should go forward. Same with the north of Scotland, the borders and the Islands, they resent the concentration of power and prestige always being on the crowded conurbations. They do not share that 'City' perspective. Nor agree with all of its decision making.

In a similar manner, the NW and NE of England, the Welsh, the midlands, Cornish etc... all feel as bitter about London as Scots do...

I think the fantasy peddled on this thread about this being a decision that is above politics, is a way of diverting attention from what you term scare stories. If the money wasted on/diverted from projects within Scotland can't be controlled by a UK Government what chance is there of controlling those who have direct vested interests in where it's spent? If there's not enough money to fund certain aspects of society, WHO makes the decisions about which areas will be hurt? That's political. It's all politics.

Not that I wouldn't trust Mr Salmond implicitly.

However, living in the comfortably soft underbelly of the land - which (cos of the vast energetic population) generates untold wealth (even streets paved with gold...) - I honestly don't mind what happens.

Except for the threat of us getting Dicko. That does keep me awake at night.

One of the key points is that independence means we won't waste money on Trident & HS2, that's enough of a saving in itself to fund just about anything we want!

[Seaside Nipper]

Concise fact for me is the opportunity to have a government in power which represents how the country (Scotland) has voted. I've never had one yet and I voted in my first General Election in 1979.

These are the webites of the two organisations, have a browse and see what you think:

http://www.bettertogether.net/

http://www.yesscotland.net/

Which one to click first eh.................decisions decisions..................

[salmonbuddie]

I even gave you the one I don't favour first so no-one could say I'm giving preferential treatment to the Yes campaign. Unless it's a double bluff, of course....

[Seaside Nipper]

I even gave you the one I don't favour first so no-one could say I'm giving preferential treatment to the Yes campaign. Unless it's a double bluff, of course....

Yup, strangely I kinda figured during ponder mode that might have been the representation ..............see those crazed nats.

Interesting that a yes vote is only the starting gun...........................years of transition would imo follow, therefore that would take some fear away from a final decision on the impending doom as forecast by the better together campaign. So, even a YES vote does not instantly change the game, it only formally engages a transition.

Hmmmmmm, maybe that is a point worth the aherm labouring.

[irvine_buddie]

One of the key points is that independence means we won't waste money on Trident & HS2, that's enough of a saving in itself to fund just about anything we want!

Not saying you're right or wrong as I'm firmly stuck on the fence on the issue, but the money spent on Triednt provides alot of jobs in Scotland both at HMNB Clyde and for all the contractors and sub contractors.

[Seaside Nipper]

Not saying you're right or wrong as I'm firmly stuck on the fence on the issue, but the money spent on Triednt provides alot of jobs in Scotland both at HMNB Clyde and for all the contractors and sub contractors.

The Grangemouth of the west !!

[salmonbuddie]

Not saying you're right or wrong as I'm firmly stuck on the fence on the issue, but the money spent on Triednt provides alot of jobs in Scotland both at HMNB Clyde and for all the contractors and sub contractors.

Most of the jobs are in the naval base rather than Trident itself, Faslane will be maintained as a naval base, only the subs (and their payload) will disappear. Coulport will close, though, so, yes, some jobs will be lost, but the amopunt of money "saved" will outweigh any such losses many, many times over.

[salmonbuddie]

Interesting that a yes vote is only the starting gun...........................years of transition would imo follow, therefore that would take some fear away from a final decision on the impending doom as forecast by the better together campaign. So, even a YES vote does not instantly change the game, it only formally engages a transition.

Hmmmmmm, maybe that is a point worth the aherm labouring.

Nail on the head, SN

[irvine_buddie]

Most of the jobs are in the naval base rather than Trident itself, Faslane will be maintained as a naval base, only the subs (and their payload) will disappear. Coulport will close, though, so, yes, some jobs will be lost, but the amopunt of money "saved" will outweigh any such losses many, many times over.

The vast majority of jobs at faslane are dependant on the submarines, it would barely be worth keeping faslane open if they dissapeared.

[irvine_buddie]

Could it not become a tourist attraction?

I'm told there are already camping facilities nearby.....http://faslanepeacecamp.wordpress.com/

You have to admire the dedication of these people to campaign for so long.

I think they'd be better off campaigning outside parliament.. nobody at Faslane makes the decision wether we have Nuc Deterants or not

[Seaside Nipper]

The vast majority of jobs at faslane are dependant on the submarines, it would barely be worth keeping faslane open if they dissapeared.

Faslane, Coulport , Glen Mallon , Glen Douglas ............there is a huge network of scarey stuff , strangely exotic stuff , depending on what floats your boats I suppose. That's just the stuff in the public domain ............................

The thought that these places would just close , well , that's fanciful and extremely unlilkely to be the case following a Yes vote.

[salmonbuddie]

 

The vast majority of jobs at faslane are dependant on the submarines, it would barely be worth keeping faslane open if they dissapeared.

The thinking (at the moment, anyway) is that Faslane becomes the main base for the Scottish navy and it will still be used by NATO, too.

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what-about-faslane

[oaksoft]

Ok, right, path of least resistance for a slacker..........

Where, can I refer to details on what a yes vote gets / grants / proposes the country, no spin , no whatiffery no mibbes aye mibees naw.........I want to start giving this matter some consideration.

Presently it would appear that a YES vote grants a Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate the future for Scotland, Economics, Law, Security , Border controls, the full Bhoona

Presently a NO vote would appear to ensure a future in the Union, whatever that brings again , is subjective and pure speculation.

As a genuine 'undecided' I would like to form a 'logical' choice based on something more than it'll be a laugh or Braveheart soundbites.................is it too early to peruse some unambiguous facts about this wee change folk might vote on ?

Fwiw , my opinion of Salmond is that he is a decent statesman but tends to blow too hard too often, Nicola it seems to me is all about Nanny Statism. I would understand that a YES vote is not necessarily a vote for these two, but nevertheless they are very divisive characters, I think that is a problem for many potential voters

Anyway, concise facts appreciated...............this has to be more than a vote about being brave or being feart

I'm afraid there are no FACTS really to speak of except one simply because you'd be predicting the future - a future which would depend on which party was in power.

The only known FACT is that Independence will mean every single issue which affects our country can be debated and decided in entirety by MSP's voted for solely by the Scottish public. Because the SNP will still be in power at the start, we'd rightly and sensibly keep changes to a minimum in the short term (and possibly long term).

Everything else is up for grabs.

We would have the power to decide whether to remain in Europe, NATO, retain nuclear weapons, go to war, set our own taxes, protect our own fishing industry and waters, decide our own currency and setup a society which Scottish people vote for.

Now which path we go down will depend on whether we subsequently vote in Tories, SNP or Labour etc.

That is why talk about whether we'll be in Nato or the EU is bollox. That will be a choice for whoever governs the country.

This issue is very simple indeed.

Do you want Scots making all of the decisions or do you want the English parliament doing it for us?

Everything else is speculation.