The Referendum Thread

[oaksoft]

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.

Trident is not a independence issue.

It is an SNP issue and this depends on them being re-elected in 2016 or whenever.

Independence is about where the DECISION on that issue will take place.

By Scots in Scotland, elected by Scots voters or by another countries parliament?

[oaksoft]

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.

That is exactly correct. Rightly, we'll see very little change in the short term.

This is purely about where decisions are being made and by whom.

In reality, the debate is as simple as it could possibly be and it's frustrating that it's being muddied by both sides. This is the reason why people are confusing the SNP with independence and Labour with BT.

Both Independence and BT are outside party politics.

[bluto]

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.

And I also wouldn't say he's right or wrong on THAT either... Most people believe Trident's a waste of defence money.

About HS2, though... Part of the reason HS2 makes sense in a British context, is that the rail lines are so congested currently and to upgrade them (ie NOT have HS2) would mean huge north/south rail disruption for years.

I suppose a yes vote would mean that no one would ever need to travel by rail south of Gretna/Berwick ever again, though....

Or am I missing something?

[bluto]

Both Independence and BT are outside party politics.

No they're not.

It's ALL politics.

[salmonbuddie]

Notwithstanding the number of times we'll hear differently, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield are not in the North of the UK.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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.

Its a single issue that isnt about party politics or any other issues that will decided through the "normal" political process of voting for politicians and then having a parliament take decisions and legislate.

You've been away too long if you think Scotland is a wee parochial country with regional infighting. There are people from the "near east" who manage to live and work in weegieland you know.

BTW, you're still rather short on fact with that post I've quoted.

[stlucifer]

The "Yes Campaigners" act as though they are preaching from Mount Sinai and as though Herr Salmond is the second coming of the Lord...

Not true by a long shot. I know of many "Yes campaigners" who have a deep mistrust of Salmond and his nanny state policies and who, if independence is achieved, will ditch the SNP faster than Saints lose a lead. Myself included.

Edited October 30, 2013 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

No they're not.

It's ALL politics.

I'm entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to be wrong.

I'll put you out of your misery. I said they had nothing to do with PARTY politics.

Edited October 30, 2013 by oaksoft

[bluto]

Its a single issue that isnt about party politics or any other issues that will decided through the "normal" political process of voting for politicians and then having a parliament take decisions and legislate.

You've been away too long if you think Scotland is a wee parochial country with regional infighting. There are people from the "near east" who manage to live and work in weegieland you know.

BTW, you're still rather short on fact with that post I've quoted.

I spend about six months a year in Scotland, living in and travelling to all parts - NOT isolated in a central belt bubble. I'm not the one who mentioned 'parochial' nor who posted in a 'parochial' manner.

And so I don't need to tackle the player, not the ball, to make any slight point I fancy making.

The facts I alluded to (didn't think I'd need to spell it out, gave credit to the nous of participants in this thread) was that the voting instincts of the highlands, islands and Borders have always been different from that central belt. The facts were the votes, the historic difference between the areas.

Which, given the context here - let alone the reason I brought them up, must be of some import, surely?

[bluto]

I'm entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to be wrong.

I'll put you out of your misery. I said they had nothing to do with PARTY politics.

I know what you said/posted.

That's a sadly, transparently, sleekit way for you to ignore the point I made about ALL decision making being necessarily about politics. Everyone always has an agenda.

The labels are irrelevant only if you wish them to be and want to deny reality. Or want to pull the wool over other people's eyes.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I spend about six months a year in Scotland, living in and travelling to all parts - NOT isolated in a central belt bubble. I'm not the one who mentioned 'parochial' nor who posted in a 'parochial' manner.

And so I don't need to tackle the player, not the ball, to make any slight point I fancy making.

The facts I alluded to (didn't think I'd need to spell it out, gave credit to the nous of participants in this thread) was that the voting instincts of the highlands, islands and Borders have always been different from that central belt. The facts were the votes, the historic difference between the areas.

Which, given the context here - let alone the reason I brought them up, must be of some import, surely?

Wasn't being parochial, maybe your original post wasn't very clear about the point(s) you were making

I'm aware that Scotland's rural areas have traditionally voted in a different manner to the industrialised and urban central belt. Shame that the decision on who governed all of the country was dependent on how the patrons of England voted

[bluto]

Wasn't being parochial, maybe your original post wasn't very clear about the point(s) you were making

Hah! Ah'm thick, noo...

[Stuart Dickson]

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.

Really? Is there a proposal to change the voting system too? Because from where I am looking Hollyrood appears to be made up of some MSP's who were elected by the public, and a hell of a lot of list MSP's who were put in there at the grace and favour of a political party. And "English Parliament" - seriously?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

Wasn't being parochial, maybe your original post wasn't very clear about the point(s) you were making

I'm aware that Scotland's rural areas have traditionally voted in a different manner to the industrialised and urban central belt. Shame that the decision on who governed all of the country was dependent on how the patrons of England voted

It's true to say that in the last 30 years it has generally been the voters in middle England who have held the swing over who got into power. However in the current parliament it's probably more true to say that if Scotland hadn't continued to blindly follow Gordon Brown and his short sighted bust and bust policies the Conservatives would most likely have won enough seats for the parliament not to have been crippled by a coalition with the Lib Dems. Indeed had Scots voted for the SNP as heavily as they did the following year you could well have seen the Scottish National Party sitting in power in Westminster in a coalition with the Conservatives.

[stlucifer]

Spoken like a true "Yes Man"...

Edited like a true "better together" man.

Just take the bits that suit your agenda?

Edited October 31, 2013 by stlucifer

[salmonbuddie]

Ignore him/her, mate, he/she's adding two thirds of fekk all to the debate. But isn't "pishing all over it" coz he/she doesn't do that. According to him/her.

Edited for autocorrect - can you switch it off?

Edited October 31, 2013 by salmonbuddie

[oaksoft]

"English Parliament" - seriously?

It's true to say that in the last 30 years it has generally been the voters in middle England who have held the swing over who got into power.

Erm....yes really as you just explained a single post later.

[oaksoft]

Edited for autocorrect - can you switch it off?

Yeah. I'm finding it almost impossible to swear in my posts without it thinking I want to call someone a "twit".

It's getting on my tots.

[murray street]

I spent six days in Scotland last year, so I don't have a cùnts clue about the Scottish Referendum, I live and work in England so I am not going to make a complete tit of myself trying to wax lyrical about a subject I don't have any inalienable right to comment about, I am staggered at the arrogance of english based posters in this thread making rip roaring cùnts of themselves, you would think that after the FREE PALESTINE debacle, certain loudmouths would wind their necks in.

[oaksoft]

you would think that after the FREE PALESTINE debacle, certain loudmouths would wind their necks in.

…and yet here you are bashing your gums again. Oh well.

[murray street]

…and yet here you are bashing your gums again. Oh well.

If I could afford the wood I would have your mouth boarded up.

[Stuart Dickson]

No I didn't - you've selectively quoted. I went on to say that in the current parliament Scots actually prevented the SNP holding power at Westminster.

[Charlotte Saint]

It's true to say that in the last 30 years it has generally been the voters in middle England who have held the swing over who got into power. However in the current parliament it's probably more true to say that if Scotland hadn't continued to blindly follow Gordon Brown and his short sighted bust and bust policies the Conservatives would most likely have won enough seats for the parliament not to have been crippled by a coalition with the Lib Dems. Indeed had Scots voted for the SNP as heavily as they did the following year you could well have seen the Scottish National Party sitting in power in Westminster in a coalition with the Conservatives.

Can i have some of what you're smoking.

[oaksoft]

If I could afford the wood I would have your mouth boarded up.

Is your species not supposed to be hibernating by now?

[Stuart Dickson]

Can i have some of what you're smoking.

I don't understand the scepticism. In 2010 prior to the General Election the Conservatives entered into talks with all the small minority parties including the SNP just incase there was a need to form a coalition. Had Scotland not voted to send 52 Labour and Liberal politicians to Westminister and only 6 SNP and instead voted in the manner they did a year later there is every possibility that the coalition government running Westminster right now could have been one between the Conservative Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. Indeed if you follow the political bloggers who know their stuff if Scotland votes to retain the Union then by the time the 2015 election comes around the belief is that any party with just 20 seats would be able to join in a coalition to keep the Conservatives in power.