Alex Salmond and Independence

Rado_N said:
With the number of feckwits out there who take bookies actions as gospel there could be a good number of people who don't bother going to vote cos they think it's a done deal. With how close this thing is it could make a difference.
Click to expand...

Just don't see it, this is the Scots moment of glory, and they're loving it, they will be there in the their droves on both sides, some bit story about a bookie paying out won't stop any of them.

Glad when it's all over tbh, getting a bit tedious now.
 
Pink Moon said:
In here and throughout the news they're reporting that prices may go up yet they fail to report that in the Morrisons statement they say that prices could also be lowered depending on government policies. That to me is scaremongering and a deliberately biased attempt to sway voters.

Better Together are posting leaflets through doors which has a Tesco receipt stating prices would be such and such in an independent Scotland yet Tesco themselves came out and rubbished the legitimacy of it. That to me is also scaremongering.

If you disagree, cool, I quite simply don't give a feck.
Click to expand...


:lol: If you think the biggest issue is whether the price of your porridge is going up or coming down in Tesco you need a wake up call!

How about moving on to the big issues and take up the challenge of convincing the YES vote is better than the NO vote.
 
Pink Moon said:
Do you believe him to be 100% wrong when making accusations of "scaremongering"? Yes or no, if possible.
Click to expand...

Pink Moon said:
I didn't ask if he was "100% correct". Nice try, though. With spin like that there's a job in the media for you if you wish.
Click to expand...

You are correct, you said 100% wrong. Either way, Alex Salmond is not 100% anything on this subject. There is always going to be an element of muck slinging in a political campaign and the Yes guys are not innocent of it.

But the main point still stands - the idea that everyone who is isn't completely behind the independence campaign is a bully and a scaremonger is both fanciful and a diversionary tactic; both in the main campaign on the streets of Scotland and on the pages of Redcafe with yourself not answering the request to give a few well reasoned positives for Independence so Man Utd Mrs can gain a better understanding of the politics you are so firmly behind.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Probably been said a few pages back but Betfair have paid out on the 'no' vote, prices last night were trading at around 1/3 for 'no', and 7/2 for 'yes, people might scoff but Betfair wouldn't be a bad guide to this, or certainly no less unreliable than many other guesses.

Reckon whichever way it goes it'll not be at the current 52 % - 48 % levels.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be as close as it seems either. Most poll results I have seen are no more than a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of people.

I don't think it is an unfair assumption to say that the YES campaign is more vocal and more outspoken. I think the silent majority has not been fully counted yet.

I may be completely wrong, we will see.
 
Walrus said:
I don't think it will be as close as it seems either. Most poll results I have seen are no more than a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of people.

I don't think it is an unfair assumption to say that the YES campaign is more vocal and more outspoken. I think the silent majority has not been fully counted yet.

I may be completely wrong, we will see.
Click to expand...

You're right, alot of 'no' voters will just keep quiet go to the polls and do their business, then shuffle off home, and say no more about it.

Same can't be said for the 'yes' voters.
 
Wolfboy said:
That's a great article
Click to expand...

Thought so too so decided to post it up in full.

EWAN MORRISON – YES: WHY I JOINED YES AND WHY I CHANGED TO NO

Four months ago I joined the Yes camp out of a desire to take part in the great debate that the Yes camp told me was taking place within their ranks. Being a doubter I thought maybe I’d failed to find this debate and that it was exclusive to the membership of the Yes camp, so I joined hoping I could locate it and take part. But even as I was accepted into the ranks – after my ‘Morrison votes Yes’ article in Bella Caledonia, I noted that 5 out of the meagre 20 comments I received berated me for either not having decided sooner or for having questioned Yes at all. Another said, and I paraphrase: ‘Well if he’s had to mull it over he could easily switch to the other side.’ That comment in Bella Caledonia worked away at me like a stone in my shoe. Beneath it, I realised, was a subconscious message: ‘Now that you’re in with us you have to toe the line – ask questions about Yes and you’re out.’

Within the Yes camp I attempted to find the revolutionary and inclusive debate that I’d heard was happening. But as soon as I was ‘in’ I was being asked to sign petitions, to help with recruitment, to take part in Yes groups, to come out publicly in the media, to spread the word and add the blue circle Yes logo to my social media photograph – even to come along and sing a ‘Scottish song’ at a Yes event. I declined to sing but I went along to public meetings and took part in debates online. I noticed that the whenever someone raised a pragmatic question about governance, economics or future projections for oil revenue or the balance of payments in iScotland, they were quickly silenced by comments such as “We’ll sort that out after the referendum, this is not the place or the time for those kinds of questions”. Or the people who asked such questions were indirectly accused of ‘being negative’ or talking the language of the enemy. There was an ethos of “Shh, if you start asking questions like that we’ll all end up arguing (and that’ll be negative) so in the interests of unity (and positivity) keep your mouth shut.”

It was within a public meeting that I realised there was no absolutely no debate within the Yes camp. Zero debate – the focus was instead on attacking the enemy and creating an impenetrable shell to protect the unquestionable entity. In its place was a kind of shopping list of desires that was being added to daily. So there was: Get rid of Trident, raise the minimum wage, lower corporation tax, promote gay and lesbian rights, create a world leading Green economy, exploit oil to the full and become a world leading petro-chemical economy, nationalise the banks, nationalise BP, be more attractive to foreign investment. The shopping list of ‘positive’ ideal goals could never tally up, the desires of the Yessers were incompatible and contradicted each other, but to raise this was seen as being ‘negative’. Every kind of Yes had to be included, and this meant there could be no debate. Instead there was a kind of self-censorship and conformism. The Yes camp had turned itself into a recruitment machine which had to silence dissent and differences between the many clashing interest groups under its banner. This was what YES had started to mean – it meant YES to everything – everything is possible – so don’t question anything. You couldn’t talk about what would happen after the referendum because then all the conflicts between all the different desires and factions would emerge. Questioning even triggered a self-policing process – The Yes Thought Police – rather like the Calvinist one in which doubters started to hate themselves and became fearful of showing signs of their inner torment. I have witnessed some of the greatest minds within Scotland go through this process, one week they are vocally discussing complex issues of global capitalism and the next they’re posting ‘selfies’ of teenagers waving flags and photos of cute puppy dogs carrying Yes signs in their mouths. The conformist dumbing down has been acute and noted by those outside Scotland who wondered where all the intellectuals went.

The Yes movement started to remind me of the Trotskyists – another movement who believed they were political but were really no more than a recruitment machine. I know because I was a member of the SWP in the late 80s. As a ‘Trot’ we were absolutely banned from talking about what the economy or country would be like ‘after the revolution’; to worry about it, speculate on it or raise questions or even practical suggestions was not permitted. We had to keep all talk of ‘after the revolution’ very vague because our primary goal was to get more people to join our organisation. I learned then that if you keep a promise of a better society utterly ambiguous it takes on power in the imagination of the listener. Everything can be better “after the revolution”. It’s a brilliant recruitment tool because everyone with all their conflicting desires can imagine precisely what they want. The key is to keep it very simple – offer a one word promise. In the case of the Trotskyists it’s ‘Revolution,’ in the case of the independence campaign it’s the word ‘Yes’. Yes can mean five million things. It’s your own personal independence. Believing in Yes is believing in yourself and your ability to determine your own future. Yes is very personal. How can you not say Yes to yourself? You’d have to hate yourself? Yes is about belief in a better you and it uses You as a metaphor for society as if you could simply transpose your good intentions and self belief onto the world of politics. The micro onto the macro. Yes is a form of belief – and this is the genius of the Yes campaign: they’ve managed to conflate personal self-determination with state power – to shrink the idea of the state down to the self and the question of the future down to ‘belief in the self.’You wouldn’t want to repress yourself and you personally want to be independent in your own life so, the Yes logic goes you should ask the same of your country. Every economist has told us that you cannot transpose the micro-economics of your home onto the globe – that micro and macro are different worlds, with different rules, but Yes has managed to blur the two to say ‘your country is you.’ Your country is an extension of your own personal desires. As the ubiquitous campaign slogan runs ‘Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands’ – and to reinforce the domestic personal motif the image is that of a newborn – a perfect new self.


 
...........The Yes camp have managed to make it seem like criticism of their politics is an attack on the individual’s right to imagine a better self. To do this, the Yes campaign has had to be emptied of almost all actual political content. It has had to become a form of faith.

And it’s not surprising – there is no way that the groups under the banner of Yes could actually work together; they’re all fighting for fundamentally different things. How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred. Debate becomes reduced down to one word and the positivity of that one word erases all conflicts and questions beneath a fantasized unity. YES. Yes also erases history, politics and reality. Yes means too many things and ends up meaning nothing. It’s silenced the conflicting politics within it to the point that it means little more than the euphoric American self-help phrase “be all you can be.”

Now some may say – ah yes but Yes is a rainbow coalition – the very essence of democratic pluralism. But you have to ask yourself with so many groups all tugging in so many directions what makes a separate Scotland any different from the rest of the UK with its democratic conflicts, its mess? Democracy is a daily struggle, an ongoing fight to reconcile differing opinions and ideologies, of contesting facts and plans and shouldering the burdens we inherit from history. It’s hard, it’s exhausting, it’s frustrating and it’s all about compromise.So why do we need to leave the union to engage in this painful process we call democracy?

The answer is that the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. The Greens will have more power than they ever could in the UK. Business leaders will have more influence over Scottish government. The hard left will finally realise its dream of seizing power and creating a perfect socialist nation. Each group is dreaming of this fresh new country (as clean as a white sheet, as unsullied as a newborn) in which they themselves dominate and hold control. Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there. It’s a Freudian slip when converts claim that the first thing that will happen ‘after independence’ is that the SNP will be voted out – it betrays the fantasy that each interest group has of its own coming dominance.

Many people are voting Yes just to express their frustration at not being able to engage with politics as it is. They’re voting Yes because they want their voice to be heard for the first time. That’s understandable and admirable, but Yes is not a debate or a democratic dream, it’s an empty word and an empty political process which means dream of what you want and express it with all the passion in your heart. The dream will die as soon as the singular Yes gets voted and Scotland then turns into a battleground of repressed and competing Yesses. Once the recruitment machine has served it purpose it will collapse and the repressed questions will return with a vengeance.

I left the Yes camp and joined the No camp not because I like the UK or think the status quo works well as it is. No. I think things are as complicated and compromised as they always are and that we live in trying times. The Yes camp understand that and so have created an illusion of a free space in which everything you’ve ever wanted can come to pass – overnight. How can it? There are exactly the same political conflicts within the factions of Yes as there are within the UK. After a Yes vote the fight for control of Scotland will begin and that unity that seemed like a dream will be shattered into the different groups who agreed to silence themselves to achieve an illusion of an impossible unity – the kind of unity you find in faith, not in politics. What makes this worse than remaining in the UK is that Scotland will be fighting out its internal battles on a world stage after demonstrating it intends to run its new politics on an illusion of unity, a unity that breaks up even as it is observed.
 
Just seeing that hideous woman has pushed me over the edge. If I didn't have people I cared about in Scotland, I would be encouraging the yes vote, the level of BS is becoming unbelievable.
 
Zarlak said:
It does seem like the entire Yes vote have no guarantees or clear path forward for what they want. It seems like they just so badly want to be independent, not because of A or B, just because they can be independent. Like if the vote is yes they'll all cheer like 'feck YEAH FINALLY. WE ARE FREE. I'VE DREAMT ABOUT THIS MOMENT FOR SO LONG' and then when nobody has any idea what the path ahead is, how to get there or what the implications or anything actually is because Salmond hasn't been able to answer that at any point in time, people will just put a brave face on and pretend they're not bothered 'but at least we're free!'

It seems like such a complete shot in the dark. It's troubling to be honest that the yes camp don't seem to want clearer answers and a solid plan with any kind of assurances.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with being "free". We're not slaves nor we do we think that's how we're classed.

We want to be in control of our own country. We want people making the best decisions for Scotland in Scotland and not a Westminster/Tory government that we didn't vote for. Scotland doesn't vote for Tories yet it's run by them. Their history in this country is the reason we don't vote for them and the very reason many want rid of them by being independent and ensuring they never get to control us again. Or, to use the well known line... there's double the amount of Panda's in Scotland as there is Conservative MP's. We'll bring in a certain amount of money and it'll get sent to London, divvied up and we'll get a share back. With Independence that wouldn't be the case. We'd control our own budget. Given our relatively small percentage within the government we often don't have a say or control on certain policies we as a country reject. Again, post Independence that isn't an issue. With Scotland gone the Tories would stand a very good chance of beating out Labour at every election yet David Cameron is up in Scotland begging us to stay. Why is that? Many little Englanders claim they subsidise us yet they too are desperate for us to stay though claim they don't care (yet one then wonders why they're so passionate about the whole thing).

Instead of posting about Trident and why so many are against it (ignoring the morality of it all) I've put a pic below which sums it up quickly with numbers.




13-03-05.jpg

Another positive in the Independence camp is we'd no longer enter into illegal wars where our citizens lose their limbs or lives as well as costing us a fortune financially. The thousands of lives lost on the other side shouldn't be ignored either.

The oil off our shores is worth over 1 trillion. We'd receive 90% of the the tax revenue not to mention that Westminster has blocked action in the west of the country because it'd interfere with their fecking submarines. We'd be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe with a fairly low population. Salmond says we'd be the wealthiest nation in the world to have declared for independence. We're a resource rich country yet these are the very things that people in England or No voters tell us won't last forever. How can these things be spun as a negative? As Nicola Sturgeon has said, we're debating about whether Scotland has "lots of oil or lots and lots of oil". The financial times have said that Scotland is one of the 20 wealthiest countries in the world and could expect to start life with healthier finances than the rest of the UK.

“Supporters of independence will always cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies, such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country” - David Cameron

afford.jpg

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ome-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html

Ultimately, by voting No you're keeping the fate of the country in the hands of a Tory government in Westminster. Leaving ourselves open to more cuts and these "extra powers" promises reneged on. I strongly believe that in the event of a No vote the Tories will hammer us because they know we don't have the backbone to go it ourselves and they'll have us exactly where they want us. Even today there's stories in the press of how these powers being offered are upsetting Tory MP's who'll fight against it as well as Boris Johnson's comments on Scotland (and he's a guy who many think could be the next leader of the Tories).

There's no doubt negatives to it as well. I wouldn't try and suggest otherwise but I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and that is not to mention that there's also negatives to voting No. We're currently living the No vote and it's hardly inspiring. All IMO and I have no doubt that pretty much everything here will either be disagreed with, sneered at, laughed at or simply ignored but that is actually something that I love about this whole referendum. It's inspired a lot of healthy debate which I and many others have enjoyed. It's been refreshing.
 
On the other forums I post on that Ewan Morrison article was posted and many of his points were shot down. I think that's pretty indicative of this whole thing.
 
Marching said:
:lol: If you think the biggest issue is whether the price of your porridge is going up or coming down in Tesco you need a wake up call!

How about moving on to the big issues and take up the challenge of convincing the YES vote is better than the NO vote.
Click to expand...

I've not claimed it's the biggest issue :confused: (obligatory :lol: )
 
Pink Moon said:
It's nothing to do with being "free". We're not slaves nor we do we think that's how we're classed.

We want to be in control of our own country.
Click to expand...

This is completely indicative of your arguments in this thread. I used the word independent throughout but you pick up on one word that obviously didn't mean like slaves, and went hand in hand with what I was talking about which was independence, to try and argue against it, rather than addressing the actual post itself, which was around the concern that you or the other yes voters don't really seem to care that you don't have any assurances on the things that are really important, which creates (what is possibly an illusion) that you just want independence no matter what.
 
Best of luck scots, hopefully you can govern yourselves as a sovereign nation.
 
Wolfboy said:
You are correct, you said 100% wrong. Either way, Alex Salmond is not 100% anything on this subject. There is always going to be an element of muck slinging in a political campaign and the Yes guys are not innocent of it.

But the main point still stands - the idea that everyone who is isn't completely behind the independence campaign is a bully and a scaremonger is both fanciful and a diversionary tactic; both in the main campaign on the streets of Scotland and on the pages of Redcafe with yourself not answering the request to give a few well reasoned positives for Independence so Man Utd Mrs can gain a better understanding of the politics you are so firmly behind.
Click to expand...

So, basically, he has been correct (at times) in saying that it's scaremongering or bullying?

For what it's worth I don't think everyone who isn't completely behind the independence campaign is a bully or scaremonger. I just feel that these companies who were silent until poll's came out with Yes in the lead are certainly guilty of it. A poll comes out and has Yes leading and suddenly the three political leaders come up to Scotland and all these companies come out with their statements. I think that's awfully convenient.

As for Man Utd Mrs, I've listed many positives (there's no doubt more as well as more negatives) to it all in a post above.
 
Zarlak said:
This is completely indicative of your arguments in this thread. I used the word independent throughout but you pick up on one word that obviously didn't mean like slaves, and went hand in hand with what I was talking about which was independence, to try and argue against it, rather than addressing the actual post itself, which was around the concern that you or the other yes voters don't really seem to care that you don't have any assurances on the things that are really important, which creates (what is possibly an illusion) that you just want independence no matter what.
Click to expand...

Okay. And the rest of my post? You know, the part where many of the points are huge positives to independence and certainly trump "just wanting independence no matter what".
 
One thing I'd add to the Ewan Morrison article above is...

And it’s not surprising – there is no way that the groups under the banner of Yes could actually work together; they’re all fighting for fundamentally different things
Click to expand...

Doesn't that exact same point apply to Better Together and the three main parties?
 
Pink Moon said:
I've not claimed it's the biggest issue :confused: (obligatory :lol: )
Click to expand...


Sarcasm. The fact you were banging on and on about Tesco prices was the point.

Congratulations on finally addressing the more serious issues. Makes for a good read which I will enjoy reading again in the morning.
 
Thanks for that, @Pink Moon, that makes very interesting reading.

What happens in the case of the Orcadians and Shetlanders also wanting independence ? I hear from a family friend that they are unhappy at being called Scottish and wish to be affiliated with Norway (which if what I read is true) used to be the case in years gone by..
Will they be able to stake a claim in the oil ?

What about the armed forces ? Do Scotland have Navy or Airforce regiments ?

So many things are uncertain - shouldn't it be a case of "better the devil you know" ?
 
Pink Moon said:
In here and throughout the news they're reporting that prices may go up yet they fail to report that in the Morrisons statement they say that prices could also be lowered depending on government policies. That to me is scaremongering and a deliberately biased attempt to sway voters.

Better Together are posting leaflets through doors which has a Tesco receipt stating prices would be such and such in an independent Scotland yet Tesco themselves came out and rubbished the legitimacy of it. That to me is also scaremongering.

If you disagree, cool, I quite simply don't give a feck.
Click to expand...

You've gone to the other extreme as well. Tesco denied that they were planning to raise their prices 16%, and stated that they were committed to offering the best prices.

The best prices they can offer may be higher in an Independent Scotland. They just wanted to distance themselves from the No campaign.

EDIT: Basically the whole thing is more nuanced than you are making out (a bit of a theme). The BT leaflet compares the price of a basket of shopping in Ireland and the UK and infers that prices could be higher. Tesco denied that they were planning a 16% rise, but that leaves an awful lot of leeway.
 
Untied said:
You've gone to the other extreme as well. Tesco denied that they were planning to raise their prices 16%, and stated that they were committed to offering the best prices.

The best prices they can offer may be higher in an Independent Scotland. They just wanted to distance themselves from the No campaign.
Click to expand...

What extreme have I gone to, sorry? Don't understand what you mean.
 
Man Utd Mrs said:
Thanks for that, @Pink Moon, that makes very interesting reading.

What happens in the case of the Orcadians and Shetlanders also wanting independence ? I hear from a family friend that they are unhappy at being called Scottish and wish to be affiliated with Norway (which if what I read is true) used to be the case in years gone by..
Will they be able to stake a claim in the oil ?

What about the armed forces ? Do Scotland have Navy or Airforce regiments ?

So many things are uncertain - shouldn't it be a case of "better the devil you know" ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the islanders. I know that some don't see themselves as Scottish but not sure if they identify with Norway or just see themselves as coming from whatever specific island they belong to.

As for the armed forces, this is lifted from the Yes Scotland site...

Over the first term of a Scottish Parliament, the current governments proposes that naval forces would be built up to two squadrons with around 2,400 regular and at least 270 reserve personnel. The army would incorporate an HQ function and an All-Arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units and supported by a number of specialist units and special forces. This would entail around 4,700 regular and at least 1,110 reserve personnel. The Scottish Government envisages air forces will include an Air Force HQ function, establishement of Air Command and Control systems, a Quick Reaction Alert squadron, a tactical air transport squadron, flight training and establishment of airborne maritime patrol capability. This would require 3,250 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.
Click to expand...

Defence is another one of those issues where both sides feel strongly about their plans and visions for it. We'd save a lot of money but at the same time many people are worried about whether or not we'd be able to defend ourselves adequately from any attack. We are an oil rich country after all... :wenger:

I'm not sure that the better the devil you know is enough to vote No. The devil's we know can't even specify or agree on what the extra powers granted in a No vote would be.
 
Pink Moon said:
Defence is another one of those issues where both sides feel strongly about their plans and visions for it. We'd save a lot of money but at the same time many people are worried about whether or not we'd be able to defend ourselves adequately from any attack.
Click to expand...

An independent Scotland won't invest heavily in defense, you'll be a Canada, knowing that you'll be protected by the rest of the UK anyway in the same way Canada are with the US.

Edit:- I think an independent Scotland what to be apart of NATO though, without looking I'm not sure what the application process is there, all i know about NATO is 'an attack on any member state is an attack on all the member states' - I would guess a country wanting to be in NATO needs to have a substantial military and invest a certain amount in defense, I wouldn't think a country could join NATO and just chill knowing everyone else has your back.
 
Last edited:
Pink Moon said:
I'm not sure about the islanders. I know that some don't see themselves as Scottish but not sure if they identify with Norway or just see themselves as coming from whatever specific island they belong to.

As for the armed forces, this is lifted from the Yes Scotland site...



Defence is another one of those issues where both sides feel strongly about their plans and visions for it. We'd save a lot of money but at the same time many people are worried about whether or not we'd be able to defend ourselves adequately from any attack. We are an oil rich country after all... :wenger:

I'm not sure that the better the devil you know is enough to vote No. The devil's we know can't even specify or agree on what the extra powers granted in a No vote would be.
Click to expand...
But Salmond can't clarify currency and a whole host of things either so, I think I would need a few more answers before making such a huge leap into the unknown.
 
Pink Moon said:
On the other forums I post on that Ewan Morrison article was posted and many of his points were shot down. I think that's pretty indicative of this whole thing.
Click to expand...

What's indicative of the whole thing ?

Team Yes shooting something down if it doesn't conform ? - even when it's their story of their own personal experience of their involvement in the Yes campaign ?

Given the article (which is about being shot down for questioning) do you see the irony in your reply ?
 
Pink Moon said:
I'm not sure about the islanders. I know that some don't see themselves as Scottish but not sure if they identify with Norway or just see themselves as coming from whatever specific island they belong to.

As for the armed forces, this is lifted from the Yes Scotland site...



Defence is another one of those issues where both sides feel strongly about their plans and visions for it. We'd save a lot of money but at the same time many people are worried about whether or not we'd be able to defend ourselves adequately from any attack. We are an oil rich country after all... :wenger:

I'm not sure that the better the devil you know is enough to vote No. The devil's we know can't even specify or agree on what the extra powers granted in a No vote would be.
Click to expand...

If you don't get the pound and you don't take any of the national debt, how many ships do you expect the UK will give your navy, how many aircraft will you expect the UK to give your air force and how many guns to your army?
 
This is so interesting. Have been following this thread for ages, now posting on it for the first time. Kind of thing that makes me wish to turn the clock forward 48 hours just to satisfy my curiosity.

I'd almost certainly vote yes if I was a Scot. Am rooting for them.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
If you don't get the pound and you don't take any of the national debt, how many ships do you expect the UK will give your navy, how many aircraft will you expect the UK to give your air force and how many guns to your army?
Click to expand...

Not sure tbh but what I would say I think it'd be disgraceful not to give us any of the assets we've shared (the pound) but expect us to take on the liabilities (the debt).
 
dinners85 said:
What's indicative of the whole thing ?
Click to expand...

Indicative in the sense that one side thinks something is wonderful and has many great points while the other finds plenty of flaws. There's been very little that everyone has been able to agree on, IMO. It's nothing to do with team Yes shooting something down because it doesn't conform. At least not IMO.
 
Pink Moon said:
Not sure tbh but what I would say I think it'd be disgraceful not to give us any of the assets we've shared (the pound) but expect us to take on the liabilities (the debt).
Click to expand...

When you say you want the pound what exactly is it you mean? A say in the central bank and bond raising ability or just to use the coins like Gibraltar?
 
Man Utd Mrs said:
But Salmond can't clarify currency and a whole host of things either so, I think I would need a few more answers before making such a huge leap into the unknown.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. Salmond himself seems pretty confident that a currency union will happen.
 
Regarding the pound argument, and considering Scotland's size (in Economic and Political terms) in relation to England, would "having no say in monetary policy" be very different than the current situation?

Portugal technically has a say in the ECB policies, as does any other Eurozone country, but in practice what impact does a country of our size has in their policies? None, I'd guess. As an hypothetical example, I'm pretty sure if we wanted to leave the EU and keep the Euro, an argument of "but you won't have any say in the Euro value" would be as meaningless as it gets... We'll lose something we don't have, or have very little of any way...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.