I said yesterday or Monday that many people in this country are voting for the wrong reasons
Where in the post you quoted was there a snide remark about Britain?
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I said yesterday or Monday that many people in this country are voting for the wrong reasons
Where in the post you quoted was there a snide remark about Britain?
Honestly and without trying to stereotype, I would be concerned about the reasons why a lot of people are voting yes. Despite your assertions, I have my doubts - as I said earlier after I watched the 2nd debate (Salmond vs Darling) I was quite surprised that 71% of Scots felt Salmond had "won" that debate, when my opinion from watching it was that he said very little of substance and couldnt answer some very basic questions about what an independant Scotland will look like.
The fact that Darling's points regarding currency were groaned at by the audience, I found baffling - currency has been discussed before, yes, but the fact that - with little over a week until the vote - Salmond still doesnt know what currency you will use, whether EU membership will be easily attainable and other key points... again, if it were my country I would want answers to those sorts of questions before I was prepared to support independence.
I spent 4 years in Scotland and 2 of my brothers live over there... I've often planned to go back permanently.
I'm not massively invested in the vote but my balls say no. That's just my personal opinion... as a Northern Irish Roman Catholic I don't have the most natural of dispositions towards Westminster or England, but i'm very proud to be a part of the UK, I'm equally proud of my Irish heritage but the two go totally hand in hand as far as I see, despite the past and what others would say.
If someone offered me a United Ireland tomorrow I'd lock them up in the looney house... We draw so much from the Mainland and the prosperity of N.I is inseparable from England, I don't see any reason why I'd want to disturb that, conversely it's a tremendous source of pride and enables me so much more, in my experiences.
Scotland is totally different though, it doesn't have the recent religious/war history that muddies the water and equally has a lot more going for it in terms of independent stability than N.I, larger/oil etc.
Will it actually be any better? Better the Devil you know imo... Salmond want's his slice of history and not much else - the upheaval and uncertainty would concern me... which political parties would rise and fall and would they better represent Scotland? It's far from sure.
Scotland already has a very fair level of Devolution and some of those wanting to lay all fault at Westminster's feet are as much part of the problem - that's politics though.
Broadly i'm concerned that a very good and aggressive campaign (I personally find the yes stickers & badges very poor taste and faddy) will carry a lot of people who aren't necessarily concerned with the Pros and Cons but drawing from a stroked sense of nationality and a kind of almost selfish, I can change the future for the sake of it, kind of approach. It's something I can really understand but it's potentially dangerous.
I'd rather they didn't separate, I'd be sad... but I think, much like Ireland when you go to Scotland you know you're in Scotland... it doesn't feel at all like England, there's a very separate and different culture and identity, they'll probably do a grand job of it in the long run.
I'm not massively invested in the vote but my balls say no. That's just my personal opinion... as a Northern Irish Roman Catholic I don't have the most natural of dispositions towards Westminster or England, but i'm very proud to be a part of the UK, I'm equally proud of my Irish heritage but the two go totally hand in hand as far as I see, despite the past and what others would say.
If someone offered me a United Ireland tomorrow I'd lock them up in the looney house... We draw so much from the Mainland and the prosperity of N.I is inseparable from England, I don't see any reason why I'd want to disturb that, conversely it's a tremendous source of pride and enables me so much more, in my experiences.
Scotland is totally different though, it doesn't have the recent religious/war history that muddies the water and equally has a lot more going for it in terms of independent stability than N.I, larger/oil etc.
Will it actually be any better? Better the Devil you know imo... Salmond want's his slice of history and not much else - the upheaval and uncertainty would concern me... which political parties would rise and fall and would they better represent Scotland? It's far from sure.
Scotland already has a very fair level of Devolution and some of those wanting to lay all fault at Westminster's feet are as much part of the problem - that's politics though.
Broadly i'm concerned that a very good and aggressive campaign (I personally find the yes stickers & badges very poor taste and faddy) will carry a lot of people who aren't necessarily concerned with the Pros and Cons but drawing from a stroked sense of nationality and a kind of almost selfish, I can change the future for the sake of it, kind of approach. It's something I can really understand but it's potentially dangerous.
I'd rather they didn't separate, I'd be sad... but I think, much like Ireland when you go to Scotland you know you're in Scotland... it doesn't feel at all like England, there's a very separate and different culture and identity, they'll probably do a grand job of it in the long run.
Having spent a lot of time there I'd be happy to say that despite it obviously not being a country, it's culturally much more different to the rest of Canada than Scotland is to the rest of the UK. It may as well be a totally different country.
I said yesterday or Monday that many people in this country are voting for the wrong reasons
Where in the post you quoted was there a snide remark about Britain?
"Go ask all of the countries that have gained independence from Britain if they'd like to forget all about it."
I will point out at this stage that the reason Scotland entered into our Union in the first place was essentially a financial bailout after your government wasted obscene amounts of money on a failed colony. Without the Union (and without meaning any offence), Scotland would have become an impoverished, practically third world country at time. I would say that is a lot worse than being a part of the British Empire.
I agree 100% with this - better the devil you know is very apt.
In fact if it were me, "Better the Devil You Know" sounds like a far better name for the "No" campaign than "Better Together"
The uncertainty applies to both sides, though. Salmond gave improved answers to the currency question in his second debate. He explained that his intention is for Scotland to enter a currency union with the rest of the UK. If that does not happen, Scotland cannot be prevented from using the £. It's got more substance to it than Darling's inability to reveal what significant powers Scotland will receive if we vote No.
Darling's points were only grumbled at by the audience because he brought them up after Salmond has answered them. Yeah, it's an important issue, but it's not the only issue. When something has been covered in a debate, it's generally not standard practice to return to it again when an answer has been given, unless the question was completely avoided, which it wasn't. In fact, I've seen a lot of Scots being a bit frustrated at there being too much attention on currency, because it's been discussed to death in recent weeks. This referendum has a shitload of issues, after all.
Yeah, there's uncertainties about voting Yes, but the fact that the No camp have decided to go loud on offering more, unknown powers that we were promised like back in the Thatcher era is disgraceful, especially when some people have already made up their mind with their postal votes. They shouldn't be doing that this late into the campaign.
Depends what you call the right call. Republic of Ireland don't have free health care, costs of living are higher and average wage lower than their Northern Irish (British) neighbors.
Scotland is a country in name only.
We refer to England, Scotland Wales and NI as countries for historical reasons, but in actuality they are no more fitting of the title 'country' than, say, the Basque region of Spain.
Only because it didn't choose to become an independent state in its two referenda. Also - I hadn't realised how insanely close the last Quebec referendum was. The 'no vote' won with 50.58% of the ballot, surprised there hasn't been another since.
Hadn't thought of betfair when I replied to that, interesting point. No-one can really know too much though - I'd imagine these polls have a far higher degree of uncertainty than normal elections as well. 80%+ turnout, 16 and 17 year olds voting and traditional party lines not having huge relevance are all going to screw with the pollster's standard methodology.
How is that a snide dig at Britain?
Its more the feeling I get that some feel that they have been forcibly shackled to the whims of England/Westminster/Britain, a noose that they are now trying to escape from. I would say that for the most part and with some notable exceptions, the British Empire has done far more good than harm in its existence.
Without wanting to beat a dead horse here, Salmond may want to enter into a currency union, but he has no divine will and I would fully expect rUK to be 100% looking out for its own interests in regard to any negotiations/settlement (including currency). I say this not as a desire for revenge or spite against an independant Scotland, but simply that you cant have your cake and eat it - if you want to be an independant country you should expect to be treated as such, meaning no special mates rates or exclusions.
Yes, you can use the £ without a formal currency union, but do you really think this is a viable option? People with far more knowledge on the subject than I, have discussed this, but as I see it the jist of it is that without the Bank of Englands backing, you would have to build up your own sovereign capital reserves (where will that money come from?), you will have no control over fiscal or monetary policy, even less so than you currently do. Furthermore I would expect that using a foreign currency without a formal union would not paint Scotland in the best light with regard to EU membership/diplomatic relations - similar to the threats of not taking on your share of national debt.
From when I watched that debate, I saw Salmond playing to the crowd and giving standard politicians answers - avoiding questions and spending more time having digs at the opponent (something symptomatic of most modern politics, not just Salmond) rather than actually advertising his own plans and policy. Im not saying that Darling was much better, but its Scotland that wants to change from the status quo, so I would expect a clear plan and contingencies in place, none of which I have seen from Salmond yet. I agree with Duafc that Salmond strikes me as simply wanting to have his own legacy and his place in the history books as the man who got Scotland independence.
I think Cameron did about as well as could be expected today. He even managed to muster up something approaching sincerity. The impact a Conservative PM can have is limited obviously. What's the opposite of preaching to the choir?
Not that I'm bothered much, I took a quick wiki search on what advantage indiependance offers. Wiki lists:
Democracy and national self-determination: Do you currently have any major difference in opinion with important laws etc?
Nuclear disarmament: with control over defence and foreign policy - The second part is totally overrated. Big for ego with few practical advantages. I'm happy with nuclear disarmament in general, but again not sure on what practical advantages it gets Scotland.
"It's Scotland's oil": Two edged sword. Maybe there are oil reserves, but the cost of getting it out and selling come with its own complexitites. I don't know much, but this can be debated both ways on how much Scotland will benefit by this directly.
Renewable energy: Load of bull. I don't think renewable energy is at a point where it will start tipping geopolitics. Not even close.
A "cultural reawakening": - Gloss. I think Scots and Scottish are for all intents and purposes distinct. Is there any real culural suppression happening?
Democracy and national self-determination: Do you currently have any major difference in opinion with important laws etc?
Nuclear disarmament: with control over defence and foreign policy - The second part is totally overrated. Big for ego with few practical advantages. I'm happy with nuclear disarmament in general, but again not sure on what practical advantages it gets Scotland.
"It's Scotland's oil": Two edged sword. Maybe there are oil reserves, but the cost of getting it out and selling come with its own complexitites. I don't know much, but this can be debated both ways on how much Scotland will benefit by this directly.
Renewable energy: Load of bull. I don't think renewable energy is at a point where it will start tipping geopolitics. Not even close.
A "cultural reawakening": - Gloss. I think Scots and Scottish are for all intents and purposes distinct. Is there any real culural suppression happening?
I know betfair quite well, and it can be pretty accurate in these odd ball sort of markets, although this is uncharted waters even for 'odd ball' markets! Basically it's a large opinion poll of the way people see it going, although obviously not all Scottish!
I was out tonight for a team dinner which included a scottish colleague who raised an interesting point. He felt that there was a growing internal conflict in Scotland as a result of the campaign, and if there is a yes result there will be increased internal conflict. basically as regardless of what happens in the long term there will be at least short to medium term pain as companies relocate into the EU, into a country with a stable currency, mortgage rates rise, borrowing costs increase, labour movement is restricted etc, so people will lose jobs, , suffer financially, and blame the yes voters.
I've just been reading this entire debate as a non-affected party, but had to reply to this.
The British Empire did NOT do more harm than good throughout its existence. That's insensitive and plain wrong. I know you said there are exceptions, but come on.
Well I expected it to be an unpopular opinion, but in the same way that Stalin is portrayed as a great villain it was arguably him who prevented Hitler from taking over Europe. Thats for a different thread though really.
i Havant followed this much, but id be pretty sad as a whole of scotland voted for independence, as i think they would regret it later down the line.
If Scotland decides to bail I really hope we take the opportunity to finally get a dragon on the Unions flag. We've been missing a trick for years on this front.
I said it a few times above, I predict trouble ahead regardless of the results, probably more so if it's a 'yes' vote longer term, but even if it's a 'no' short term you're going to get a few patriotic nutjobs war-painted up with a St Andrews Cross on each cheek rampaging through the streets of Scotland smashing things up, I'd rather see that though than potential chaos that could last for years with a 'yes' vote.
But yeah it's going to all kick off, might be friendly now, but it means too much to both sides and 1 group is not going to be happy at the end.
As for companies relocating, that's happening anyway regardless, British companies are relocating overseas/British contracts are going overseas and British companies are sending work overseas for cheap labour.
wut? Am I missing something or you are just plain wumming here?
A simple wiki reveals "However, the economic changes coincided with the imprisonment of millions of people in correctional labour camps[3] and the deportation of many others to remote areas. The initial upheaval in agriculture disrupted food production and contributed to the catastrophic Soviet famine of 1932–1933, known as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Later, in a period that lasted from 1936 to 1939, Stalin instituted a campaign against alleged enemies within his regime, called the Great Purge, in which hundreds of thousands were executed. Major figures in the Communist Party, such as the old Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky, and most of the Red Army generals, were killed after being convicted of plotting to overthrow the government and Stalin."
He stopped Hitler, huh? He entered into a mutual no-aggression pact with the monster, so that Hitler can concentrate on the west. Only the oil criris forced Hitler to renege on his agreement and fail in his quest to conquer Russia. He was equally bad as Hitler...just on a relatively smaller scale.
I mean above and beyond the general outsourcing and offshoring trends. BP for example is a massive investor in the north sea and they have invested £billions in the last few years. As that sort of investment can be for a 10 - 20 year return BP is now expressing concern over the stability of Scotland due to the uncertainty of an independent Scotland. Having recently invested £billions in the north sea in oil and gas exploration and production BP seems already to be hesitant to invest further.
You're heavily generalising england there mate. I would reckon a good 80-90 percent of us northerners do not and would not vote Conservative, you can't blame us for the tories getting. We have a first past the post system, one vote for one person, there's more people here in england and in the South especially, its no wonder tories get in anyway.
The Tories lead a coalition government not having won a majority. If you took Scotland out of the UK general election they would definitely win by a majority, so a yes vote in Scotland, is a Conservative vote in England.
It was entirely up to the Lib Dems and you know it. They could have easily have chosen labour and gone into a minority government. It was a hung parliament, so the idea that that election England was voting for the conservatives for Scotland is laughable. I joke a little bit, but I could not forgive Scotland for basically fecking up this country by handing us over to the conservatives.
Think some crossed wires. I'm saying that if you took the scottish seats out of parliament you'd have a conservative government, so a yes vote is a vote for a UK conservative government indirectly. If yes wins then I can't see how scotland can vote in the next UK general election.
Well you can't vote because you won't be part of it if you win.
I don't want to be part of it, I'm not scottish, have never lived there, and generally don't give a fek whether it's a yes or no vote. I'm commenting on the impact to the post Scottish independence UK political landscape of a yes or no vote, not whether it's preferable.
Actually if Scots vote for independence, they can still vote in the next British election as they will still be part of the UK until 2016.
Only one poll put "Yes" ahead. If we're using the 95% confidence interval which is probably the case, then you'd expect 1 in 20 polls to get it wrong. There's a good chance that's what we saw with the YouGov poll.
Nothing wrong with YouGov btw, it's scientifically expected.
The point is even in most of these polls, the lead is narrow, so "No" is not a foregone conclusion .
Nothing wrong with YouGov btw, it's scientifically expected.
The point is even in most of these polls, the lead is narrow, so "No" is not a foregone conclusion .
We already had that thread and the argument was destroyed.
This article mirrored a lot of my thoughts and what I posted earlier.
Tellingly, look at the comments for the article. Again I dont want to stereotype, and its a fairly limited cross section - but you have a lot of outspoken YES voters who are essentially just having a go at the article for disagreeing with them.
As was said before, I am sure there are people like that on both sides of the fence, but it seems to be the nationalistic YES voters who are louder and more vocal about it, from what I have seen/heard. Even on the article comments there were some referring to having a fear of "coming out" as a NO voter because they dont want their windows smashed in etc.
Whilst the reports of violence have been very minimal, it does make one wonder what is going to happen after the referendum, either way. Scotland is now shown to be a very divided country - it will be interesting to see how the Scots handle themselves after the vote.
@NM I will have a look for it tomorrow as that is also a topic that interests me.
Will the government publish results by district so that we can see the geographical variations in vote and turnout?
Also, does the no vote have grassroots organisation to get out their voters to the polling stations?
Also, does the no vote have grassroots organisation to get out their voters to the polling stations?
But this is because it's defence issues are handled centrally. All the protection of Union army, navy and airforce but not of the political hassle of spending. Nuclear missiles are hardly a vanity, and disagree all you like but the strategic importance in the 80's was unrivalled... It's nothing against uprising terrorist groups I agree, but you'd want protection, and nuclear deterrent should Russia fancy further annexing....
We're all going to get hammered and riot - that's just how we usually deal with things. My granddad once set fire to a bookies because the bakers across the road under-cooked his bean and tattie pie.
Yes, they do. I know someone who has given up her job just to do that for the past couple of months.
Isn't this just outright wrong (if not an outright lie)?