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.
Deutsche Bank are now getting in on the Westminster/BBC lies and scaremongering act. Bet Dave has them on speed dial. The shame of it all.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/12/scottish-referendum-too-close-to-call-says-icm-poll
Darn oldies, such killjoys.
Darn oldies, such killjoys.
16-24 vote is interesting/ surprising. Wonder if it's majority No because there's a significant number in that age group who will live outside Scotland when they're older, so are missing from the 25-44 age groups.
Wish it included 'Don't Knows'.
Wish it included 'Don't Knows'.
Last edited:
Why on earth do you think westminster would deliberately withold information that might help them gain more NO votes?
Practically since day one, Cameron and co have promised more powers to be devolved to the Scottish parliament in the event of a NO vote, so to claim that this is new information now is ludicrous anyway.
This is getting silly now. If you want the future of your country decided by percieved injustices from the NO campaign then so be it. As @OnlyTwoDaSilvas said however, I hope that come Thursday the majority will realise that practically the entire YES campaign is based on a ludicrous pipe dream and numerous assumed best-case scenarios. Your provocative attitude is very symbolic of the YES campaign - a refusal to accept reason and an overwhelming hatred of Westminster which has clouded your judgement to the extent that you are blind to any realistic criticsm.
Salmond would be proud.
I don't think they've withheld information. I think they're panicking and lying.
Asda want to put prices up? Cool. We'll go to Tesco and Asda will lose millions. B&Q? Homebase or Wickes then.
Even in the result of a No vote these companies have just cost themselves millions of pounds in Scotland. Stupid bastards.
Agree, and know English folks who are saying f**k off then and let's enjoy the meltdown.
Stopped reading at "overwhelming hatred of Westminster"...
But we're all a big family who're better together and it's just those nationalist lunatics who are confrontational!!!
The folks I'm speaking about don't have a vote, and are in no way involved in the campaign, they just think the yes dudes are pricks.
They sound nice.
For real?
"Companies won't relocate from Scotland, there is absolutely no truth to this, just lies created by the infidels"
Accusing the NO campaign of lying is just showing blatant double standards anyway, when the YES campaign repeatedly makes grossly exaggerated claims about things like oil revenue, and assumes best-case scenarios in all major discussion points.
Honestly I have been enjoying a good discussion on this topic, but now it is really starting to feel like talking to a brick wall, with regard to those who simply pass off any sort of negativity or reasonable concern as scaremongering.
Like I said before, the vote is on the future of Scotland, not on who you think had the better campaign. As it stands, a vote for YES is a vote for uncertainty, potential economic turmoil in both the short and long term, and for a future of doubt.
You may not agree with every decision the UK government has made over the past decade, but things could have been a damn sight worse. Scotland has by and large been part of a powerful nation with a prosperous economy and an important voice in global politics - if you want to throw all that away then that is your call, but please let's stop pretending that the great villains of Westminster have all been out to get you.
Honestly I have been enjoying a good discussion on this topic, but now it is really starting to feel like talking to a brick wall, with regard to those who simply pass off any sort of negativity or reasonable concern as scaremongering.
Like I said before, the vote is on the future of Scotland, not on who you think had the better campaign. As it stands, a vote for YES is a vote for uncertainty, potential economic turmoil in both the short and long term, and for a future of doubt.
You may not agree with every decision the UK government has made over the past decade, but things could have been a damn sight worse. Scotland has by and large been part of a powerful nation with a prosperous economy and an important voice in global politics - if you want to throw all that away then that is your call, but please let's stop pretending that the great villains of Westminster have all been out to get you.
Anyone who votes for Salmond to run a whelk stall is a forkwit.
Yes, for real.
It's all scaremongering this talk about stores 'may' put prices up. I'm not an expert but isn't that in the event of no currency union, which, on the face of it, you'd think the UK couldn't afford to turn down. Why take on our share of the debt?
If you read shit like "A yes vote will lead to a great depression like the 1930's" and actually think it's anything other than total bollocks then more fool you. I won't apologise or be mocked for thinking that's exactly what it is.
Simple solution to that one. Vote against him at the next election.
Yes vote isn't a vote for the SNP or Salmond.
The Yes campaign making "grossly exaggerated claims" isn't lies. They may be wrong but it doesn't mean they're lying and just because someone else disagrees with their estimates doesn't make them liars or make them wrong.
While I'm here, I find it a little hypocritical that you and others are having a go at me and other Scots for buying into "Salmond's lies" yet not once have you or anyone else debating shown the same condemnation for No lies such as their Tesco receipt act (google if you haven't seen it). Likewise this notion that it's only Yes voters who're are nasty and unwilling to accept other people's views and opinions. There's idiots on both sides. Funnily enough a huge chunk of the No voters are the very people who wrecked the very city this forum represents only a few years ago. Like I say, there's idiots on both sides but it's a minority and I think it's extremely unfair for people on here to portray it simply as an issue within the Yes campaign.
Last edited:
As an American I started following this referendum with little to no opinion on the matter but the more I follow the more I believe I would vote "Yes" if I were a Scot. The one thing I think many of the English fail to understand, and probably never will understand. is what its like to a minority in a larger democracy. The Catalans and Basque in Spain understand and being African-American so do I.
To give you a clue consider this: 90% of Black Americans voted against George W. Bush but he was still was elected to the maximum number of terms. Something like that can never happen to the English in the U.K. but it can happen to the Scots. And that's just a very small taste of what it's like to be a ethic minority.
Someone once said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, in the U.K. the English will always be the wolves.
To give you a clue consider this: 90% of Black Americans voted against George W. Bush but he was still was elected to the maximum number of terms. Something like that can never happen to the English in the U.K. but it can happen to the Scots. And that's just a very small taste of what it's like to be a ethic minority.
Someone once said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, in the U.K. the English will always be the wolves.
Going by your logic then, if the majority in Glasgow vote Yes and the majority in Edinburgh vote No but Yes wins the referendum, Edinburgh should declare independence from Scotland because it doesn't like the result and it's not representative of their views.
When Labour wins a General Election it's mainly because of the Scottish seats it wins so the Scots get their way in that scenario.
With regards to the US, black Americans mostly vote Democrat so they got Bush when the Republicans won. When the Democrats won they got Obama but I don't hear you complaining about that.
You don't always get your own way in a democracy.
Last time I looked both Glasgow and Edinburgh are in Scotland and the Scots consider themselves one people. Just as African-Americans, such as I who descended from slaves consider themselves to me one people distinct from white Americans. That's the whole point. In a democracy made of different ethnic groups, if one group greatly outnumbers the other(s) then the minority groups concerns are often marginalized.
But your comparison is totally false. When Labour wins a General Election the Scots get what they wanted because Scotland is largely Labour. They just don't get what they want every time.
Scots currently enjoy a better standard of life than the English because £1400 per head per year more is spent on them than is spent on England. They also have devolved power so have their own government for a wide range of issues - that's more than England has. Let's not think they're downtrodden.
The US currently has a Democratic administration and a black President. Is that not what black Americans wanted?
You're missing my point. My point is simply that In a democracy made of different ethnic groups, if one group greatly outnumbers the other(s) then the minority group's concerns are often marginalized and because of this it's often in the minority interest to go their own way.
Just because a sort-of-black guy is currently president of the U.S. doesn't change the fact that black concerns are marginalized. In fact he only won because he received a large share of the white vote. The same is true in the U.K. , could Labour ever win without winning the majority of the English vote? No government could ever form with the majority of the English against it but a government could form with the a majority of Scots against it. This effectively gives the English veto power in all U.K. elections.
There would be no currency union for the simple reason that Currency Union without Political Union is unworkable and in the interests of neither party. The Governor Of the Bank of England said as much the other day, all the main party leaders have said it.
The banks moving to England isn't scaremongering, they would have no option if they want to protect their customers' money. In an independent Scotland, with no Currency Union, they wouldn't have the protection of a Central Bank. By moving to England they would have the protection of the Bank of England in the event of a catastrophic crash. It's got nothing to do with the Yes or No campaign or taking sides, it's just pragmatism.
As for the likes of the big retailers, again a price rise would be logical. the costs involved in moving goods to a foreign country would dictate this. At present the prices of their goods in Scotland are subsidised by them so that prices are the same nationally but in the event of Scotland becoming a foreign country there would be no need to do that.
Before screaming out words like "scaremongering" and "bullying" - that's what the Yes campaign seems to have degenerated into - people should actually look at the issues.
"Why should we take on our share of the debt?" Simple - if Scotland walked away from the debt it would become a pariah in the international money markets and would face very large premiums on interest rates when it wanted to borrow money. Forget the reasons, the money markets aren't interested in that. All they care about is money, not politics. Salmond and his cohorts know that very well.
Do you really think these companies are making empty threats? What has Asda, John Lewis or any other company got to gain by taking sides? They are giving their opinion on what may happen, however the yes campaign are brushing off all the negatives from a yes vote as scaremongering or tactical bullying, it's embarrassing to hear Salmond brush it off when he clearly has no response.
Alex Salmond has refused to consider the idea that Scotland will not have a currency union. When tackled on the issue his response has always been the same "we believe our policy of a common sense agreement will prevail." When he has been told many times, by many different people that it will not be the case, under ANY circumstances.
He has also been accused of ignoring the issue of Scotland’s long-term oil wealth concerns raised by Sir Ian Wood. He accused the Scottish Government of massively overestimating oil reserves which could fall away within 15 years, hitting jobs and the economy. Further, he had warned the government that they had overestimated oil and gas production by between 45% and 60%, and North Sea revenues by £2billion a year.
When tackled on the issue Alex Salmond said "while Sir Ian was an authority on oil and gas, he was not the only one" fair enough, but that's still not answering the question is it? What happens when the oil runs out? Because it will run out.
It seems to me that Salmond closes his ears to anything that doesn’t fit his lifelong obsession with independence.” if someone says something he doesn’t want to hear he simply ignores it. That’s not good enough.
Salmond doesn't have a plan A let alone a plan B.
Salmond has had his whole political life to prepare for this referendum yet he hasn't even got a workable policy on the most basic issue - currency.
His campaign has now degenerated into constant repetition of the almost yogic chant of "scaremongering" and "bullying".
I think some Scottish people have fallen in love with the idea of independence so much that nothing else matters, no matter the warning it's being brushed off.
If the yes campaign wins then I wish them all the best, but I fear for them I really do.
I hope Scots don't buckle under the scare mongering of these federalist krauts. They've done a right number on Ireland over the past five years. I think their reaction to a potential break up of the UK has THEM a bit freaked, as the next thing to break up will be their beloved European 'project'.
I think there is an element of truth in that. But you have to say its understandable, national identity and culture is about far far more than just the currency you use. The debate has inevitably ended up being based around the economic argument, which is a pity in my view.
It's nothing more than an economic fact. Salmond and his cronies have almost criminally overstated the economic situation if Scotland goes independent. Reduced lending and more austerity is a consequence agreed on by all independent observers.
Once again though, "scaremongering" and "bullying" is the screamed reply.
The economic argument is the single most important issue. It's all very well having a "kilt and bagpipes" idealistic wish for independence but economics is the hard reality.
I agree, I fully appreciate that a national identity is something to be proud off, however their wont me much to be proud off if it all goes pear shaped. It's one thing to be proud of your identity and country, it's another to have a secure job and being able to put food on the table.
I'm not saying that's going to happen, however people should look at all the risks involved. It's not only your future your playing with, it's going to affect generation after generation.
Last edited:
This gets repeated over and over in this thread but it's beyond daft. Today 42% of Scotland's huge Labour vote currently back a Yes - despite all the risks. No-one here has forgotten the disappointment after the hope of Blair and even fewer are excited about the prospect of a Miliband leadership . When the Labour Party return to power in 2015 due to the Torys tearing themselves apart it will hardly be described as Scotland getting 'our own way'.
Rednotdead said:
This is just the most patronising shit ever
Last edited:
There's no democratic deficit causing this constitutional crisis, its just wacky Scotland with half it's population on the brink of plunging it into a period of economic uncertainty because of that bagpipes and kilts idealism they have up there.
You can disagree about the solution being independence but how can you pretend the problem isn't there?
You can disagree about the solution being independence but how can you pretend the problem isn't there?
You are talking about scaremongering and then in the same breath talking about Salmonds threat to not take on your share of national debt.
WHO is scaremongering again?
Scotland WILL take on its share of national debt. There is no legal or contractual obligation to grant independance in the event of a YES vote, and there is precisely a 0% chance that Cameron (or whoever is in charge) will allow Scotland to simply walk away without taking on your fair share. The rUK will be concerned with its own interests first and foremost, not those of an independant Scotland. Any PM who let Scotland get away "scot free" as it were, will be instantly crucified by the rUK population unaminously - because I for one am not paying taxes and TV license fees to fund an independant Scotland getting it easy.
Furthermore, if somehow you did become independant without taking on national debt, it would paint Scotland in a very, very bad light in the international market.
Again though, the sheer hypocrisy of accusing westminster of scaremongering, whilst buying into Salmonds bluster and threats about national debt...its staggering.
I notice that none of the YES supporters in this thread replied to the lengthy post I made yesterday on the previous page - so I will say it again here; the entire YES campaign is built around blind optimism, best-case scenarios, exaggerated figures and an overriding assumption that whatever Salmond says/wants, he will get. Whenever anyone - whether it be Cameron, Darling, UK companies or the bloody Spanish - dare to say otherwise, it is passed off as scaremongering and intimidation. Im not going to rewrite everything I wrote previously, go back and read my post: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/alex-salmond-and-independence.342102/page-29#post-16450029
I am a UK citizen and the reason I feel passionate on this issue is because Scotland is a part of the UK, and has been a big part of the most successful Union in history for over 300 years. Some of you lot seem to forget that the UK is our country too, and that Scotland leaving and ripping apart the Union affects us as well.
Just an FYI, my wife works for Lloyds, and they most definitely are planning on moving in the case of a YES vote, it's not scaremongering at all, they've been constructing the plan for the best part of two years and it is regularly discussed in the telephone cascade meetings that are held with leaders within the company.
EDIT: Just for clarity, the business unit she works in has 3 offices, Southampton, Banbury & Glasgow, and the plans for that area involve shutting the Glasgow office and splitting the workload between the other 2 locations.