Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

[newbie]

Your use of the term "our" reminds me to point out that, if/when these negotiations do take place, those conducting them will be negotiating on behalf of (what they see as) their interests, ie the ruling class of rUK or iS, rather than the interests or wishes of the people.

of course, that's why I highlighted how loaded it is. But I really didn't know how else to put it without writing an essay

 

[andysays]

of course, that's why I highlighted how loaded it is. But I really didn't know how else to put it without writing an essay

Yes, I'm not suggesting you don't realise this, I just thought it warranted stressing further/being made even more explicit.

 

[andysays]

Calling it iS makes it sould like an apple sponsored islamic state btw

I can see the Daily Mail headlines now...

 

[newbie]

Yeah, there's clearly some overlap (conjures up a picture of those who are members of both running back and forth from one side of the table to the other during the negotiations...)

I posted about elections further up, but some 'expert' (another loaded term) on the radio said that the 2015 elections will take place as expected, that Scottish MPs will abstain on matters affecting rUK only but will vote on matters affecting Scotland. Loading the dice or what? I doubt whether, in practice, it will make much difference, but the principle, that Scottish voters are represented (and another) on both sides of the table and the rest of us on one side only, cannot be right.

I can't remember who he was, and his certainty on what will happen is as baffling as many of the certainties expressed on this thread. I don't think there'll be an outbreak of happiness and joy this side of the border if the implications of that sink in.

that the ruling class will dominate both sides of the table, and especially that the 500 people who own almost all of Scottish land will probably also own the table, well that probably won't be allowed to sink in.

 

[butchersapron]

But I've never been to me.

Idris working his voodoo very effectively today i see.

 

[coley]

it's as though they want people to vote 'yes'.

Always had a sneaking suspicion this is the case esp,after Blairs attempts to get rid of the NE.

 

[Idris2002]

Idris working his voodoo very effectively today i see.

Muh wha ha hahahahaha

 

[quiquaquo]

Always had a sneaking suspicion this is the case esp,after Blairs attempts to get rid of the NE.

That one passed me by, what did the bastard want to do the North East in particular?

 

[danny la rouge]

Muh wha ha hahahahaha

Do Clegg next! Do Clegg!

 

[Idris2002]

Do Clegg next! Do Clegg!

Well, I don't normally do requests, but in this case. . .

 

[coley]

That one passed me by, what did the bastard want to do the North East in particular?

We had a vote on a regional assembly, IIRC it was turned down by three quarters of those that voted mainly because it seemed that it was designed to shift responsibility for the region from Westminster to Brussels via the "council for regions" or some such.
Wouldn't be surprised if the establishment elite don't want to get rid of Scotland while crying lots of crocodile tears.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I posted about elections further up, but some 'expert' (another loaded term) on the radio said that the 2015 elections will take place as expected, that Scottish MPs will abstain on matters affecting rUK only but will vote on matters affecting Scotland. Loading the dice or what? I doubt whether, in practice, it will make much difference, but the principle, that Scottish voters are represented (and another) on both sides of the table and the rest of us on one side only, cannot be right.

I can't remember who he was, and his certainty on what will happen is as baffling as many of the certainties expressed on this thread. I don't think there'll be an outbreak of happiness and joy this side of the border if the implications of that sink in.

that the ruling class will dominate both sides of the table, and especially that the 500 people who own almost all of Scottish land will probably also own the table, well that probably won't be allowed to sink in.

For someone who writes such long posts about political matters you have staggeringly little understanding of the subject

 

[Sasaferrato]

is that because your arguments won't stand the slightest scrutiny?

No. It is because the whole business has become very acrimonious.

The arguments for a 'NO!' vote are many and self evident.

Higher prices, as evidenced by statements from companies such as John Lewis.

Either using the €, or a stand alone currency which would be on par with the Zimbabwean Dollar.

Compulsory enrolment in Schengen, meaning a need to maintain border controls between Scotland and England and N.I.

Huge spending promises, with no hard figures as to how they would be funded.

The ongoing insistence that Scotland would be in currency union with the residual UK is delusional, yet Salmond insists that it will happen. Let us assume for a moment that it did happen, the B of E would be controlling the flow of money and interest rates. An independent country without control over its own finances? Risible.

Money is already flowing out of Scotland, and B of S and RBS have stated that their HQ's would move south, and of course, that is where their CT would be paid, not in Scotland.

 

[Sasaferrato]

And has Salmond or anyone else on the yes side threatened London with "meet our demands or we shoot this wee dug"?

The 26 counties remained heavily dependent on UK up until the 1970s, when EEC membership allowed the state to diversify its export markets - but the Irish state also displayed room for manouevre within that dependency, by remaining neutral during the war (a legitimate and necessary action, by the way) and pursuing an independent foreign policy after the war (which is why you often had Irish troops in UN missions) and also building an independent economic development strategy after 1960 and Sean Lemass' Programme for Economic Expansion.

You might respond that the Republic of Ireland was and remains an utterly fucked-up and dysfunctional society, and you'd be entirely correct on that point - but that's not the result of Irish independence, it's the result of the failure of the Irish to use their independence properly.

And what makes you think that an independent Scotland would fare any better? The flow of talent out of Eire is in full swing... again, and Salmond, who once held up the example of Eire 'The Celtic Tiger' as a model for Scotland, has gone very quiet on the subject.

As to 'failed state' status, had Scotland carried the load of the failure of RBS and B of S on its own, we would have been dining on bean on toast for a century.

 

[Idris2002]

AThe flow of talent out of Eire is in full swing... .

I know. In fact, I'm something of a . . . swinger myself.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Salmond and the SNP have won already haven't they - Devo Max is in the bag isn't it ?

Unfortunately.

 

[Sasaferrato]

probably because all the ones he knows are old tory twits

'Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it'.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I know. In fact, I'm something of a . . . swinger myself.

It is dreadful, a vicious circle; the people that are needed to bring prosperity, are the people who are leaving.

 

[kebabking]

Unfortunately.

sorry, i don't see whats wrong with devo-max? going by the polls in 2011/2012/2013 if devo-max had either been on the ballot or on the statute books 'yes' would consider themselves fortunate to get 30%...

 

[danny la rouge]

Devo Max is in the bag isn't it ?

No.

What's on offer is not devo max. All that's actually on offer is a timetable to talk about possible extra powers. And the range of proposals that will be talked about do not include devo max.

Darling (head of Better Together) says: "It's not new powers - the powers have already been announced".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099431

 

[coley]

No. It is because the whole business has become very acrimonious.

The arguments for a 'NO!' vote are many and self evident.

Higher prices, as evidenced by statements from companies such as John Lewis.

Either using the €, or a stand alone currency which would be on par with the Zimbabwean Dollar.

Compulsory enrolment in Schengen, meaning a need to maintain border controls between Scotland and England and N.I.

Huge spending promises, with no hard figures as to how they would be funded.

The ongoing insistence that Scotland would be in currency union with the residual UK is delusional, yet Salmond insists that it will happen. Let us assume for a moment that it did happen, the B of E would be controlling the flow of money and interest rates. An independent country without control over its own finances? Risible.

Money is already flowing out of Scotland, and B of S and RBS have stated that their HQ's would move south, and of course, that is where their CT would be paid, not in Scotland.

And all those civil service jobs being relocated in England

 

[coley]

No.

What's on offer is not devo max. All that's actually on offer is a timetable to talk about possible extra powers. And the range of proposals that will be talked about do not include devo max.

Darling (head of Better Together) says: "It's not new powers - the powers have already been announced".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099431

Don't trust the swines, vote yes

 

[Dandred]

Anyone have any idea of what will become of Disclosure Scotland?
Getting a CBC from England/Wales is hard work from out if the UK, the DS is really simple.

 

[Tankus]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

Heh ...genius .......

This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks

He added: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors

No capital flight ?.....nah !

 

[Theisticle]

Nice positive message:

 

[Idris2002]

It is dreadful, a vicious circle; the people that are needed to bring prosperity, are the people who are leaving.

I don't bring prosperity, I BRING THE NOISE.

 

[coley]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

Heh ...genius .......


No capital flight ?.....nah !

They won't even bother locking the doors behind them

 

[littlebabyjesus]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

Heh ...genius .......


No capital flight ?.....nah !

Yet more unrealistic bollocks. The SNP proposes joining the EU, which has very private capital-friendly rules on such things.

On the one hand, the SNP talks big on social justice. On the other, they are cosying up to big business and offering to sell Scottish workers on the cheap by slashing business taxes.

The amount of bullshit coming out from both sides in this campaign is astonishing.

 

[weepiper]

Yet more unrealistic bollocks. The SNP proposes joining the EU, which has very private capital-friendly rules on such things.

On the one hand, the SNP talks big on social justice. On the other, they are cosying up to big business and offering to sell Scottish workers on the cheap by slashing business taxes.

The amount of bullshit coming out from both sides in this campaign is astonishing.

Jim Sillars isn't the SNP. The Yes campaign isn't the SNP.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Jim Sillars isn't the SNP. The Yes campaign isn't the SNP.

Maybe not, but the first government in an independent Scotland will certainly be run by the SNP, so what they say they will do matters, especially as a lot of the things done in the first few years will be very hard to reverse. Will they deliver more social justice than they currently do or less, for instance? I don't think the answer is necessarily more, given some of their ideas about attracting foreign investment.