This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it, there's a sense of inevitability about it and I'd assume similar things would be happening had the Yes vote won, with idiots on both sides reacting and acting out. Not to excuse it in anyway and I'd care about it as little as I do now, it's just not surprising.
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.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it, there's a sense of inevitability about it and I'd assume similar things would be happening had the Yes vote won, with idiots on both sides reacting and acting out. Not to excuse it in anyway and I'd care about it as little as I do now, it's just not surprising.
I'm not sure if there are answers to those questions though. rUK, Spain, France, Germany, the USA... everyone has a vested interest in keeping the UK together; of course they are going to say "Scotland wouldn't be able to use the Pound, Scotland wouldn't be able to use the Euro, Scotland wouldn't be able to use rUK's defence, Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU, Scotland would be at risk from terrorism".
But, in the aftermath of a Yes vote, a lot of that would chance. The basis for a deal between Scotland and the UK on the pound was already there, because Scotland is "totally 100% against housing Britains Nukes". Besides which, rUK couldn't stop Scotland pegging a new currency to the pound anyway, or just using the pound.
Then the open borders and EU question. Cameron talked a big talk, but he would want to have open borders with Scotland, just as he has open borders with Ireland. For as much as he talked a big talk, screwing over Scotland would also screw over half a million rUK citizens living there.
He obviously did lose several debates against Darling regarding all the problems new Scotland would face, but I just don't think the answers were there. Scotland would be a new country, of course they wouldn't have all the answers. Had it gone through however, I'm, fairly sure the SNP, Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dems would have done a better job with their economy than had occurred elsewhere
Maybe it's actually refreshing to see a Politician leave before he goes stale. The SNP certainly needs to reinvent themselves and show themselves not to be a one-trick pony.
I really detest this rUK moniker.
I was of the opinion that whoever lost the vote would probably end up resigning or being pushed out.
No, the proper name, The UK.
HUGE assumption and based on bias. You can not possible know that as fact. I tend to agree the drink got the better of idiots on both sides and the trouble was predictable.
Trouble is IF there's another referendum you too will be over 65 and your views will have changed accordingly.
Its based on being in Glasgow going to George Square and seeing it happen. And I'm not gonna be over 65 at the next one
And you had eyes over all of Glasgow? What about anywhere else in Scotland...any chance of trouble caused by the Yes crowd?
What is the date of the next referendum?
The conflict during the celebrations in George Square is what I was answering a question about. No I do not have eyes over all of Glasgow
Based on your logic that the older voters will die off and the ages below them won't change their views, the republican party would have died off long ago in the USA. Oddly enough, that's not the case.
Unless Scotland really get screwed over and lied to, which I don't think will be the case, its not really in anyone's interests to not devolve more power to Scotland at this point, then the independence vote had a perfect storm going for it.
The Republican thing is different, I don't doubt that the elderly will remain more conservative than the young. I'm saying this part of the population vote in higher numbers and currently identifies with Britain more than other age groups in Scotland partially because of the period they grew up in, after the second world war.
Reminds me of this:
Fair enough. Frankly, I'm in support of building a wall just north of the M25 and keeping all you feckers out.
I heard Ten German bombers was sung in George square. Given some of the unionists like to raise hands in a nazi salute they sure are a confused bunch. Some of them of course.
But what I dont get is why are they so angry. They won but they're angry as hell and are trying to cause a fight.
But what I dont get is why are they so angry. They won but they're angry as hell and are trying to cause a fight.
I don't see another referendum anytime soon. All parties, north and South have agreed on that although no exact timescale has been mentioned.
@NewDawnFades you didn't answer my points about the oil etc - circumstances couldn't be much better than they were this time around for independence. The entire plan was based around oil, which is a very very finite result.
This is also under the assumption that Scotland would even be granted another referendum as soon as they fancy it. These things have a cost and an effect on the UK. If in 10 years time Scotland decides they want another referendum, Westminster and the other 90% of the UK might not feel quite so inclined to foot the bill for a country which apparently just wants to get out at the earliest opportunity.
@NewDawnFades you didn't answer my points about the oil etc - circumstances couldn't be much better than they were this time around for independence. The entire plan was based around oil, which is a very very finite result.
This is also under the assumption that Scotland would even be granted another referendum as soon as they fancy it. These things have a cost and an effect on the UK. If in 10 years time Scotland decides they want another referendum, Westminster and the other 90% of the UK might not feel quite so inclined to foot the bill for a country which apparently just wants to get out at the earliest opportunity.
This depends, though. It's clear already that Labour and Tory plans for devolution and reform are based on what will benefit their own party. What was originally a "vow" could become a bit messy if powers aren't agreed on soon.
I don't expect a referendum soon, but for as long as SNP support remains high, the issue is always going to be bubbling. They'll have to do a lot of work to really make Scots want stay in the UK when a large portion of No voters will have been people who liked the idea of independence, but felt it was too risky. They, of course, can deny a referendum, but then if they were to do so then that would only lead to more support for any future Yes movements.
You can't run a stable country with the risk of one or more of its regions threatening to break away with an independence referendum every decade or so. This one was an exception (that should never have been allowed to take off, IMO) and was a once in a lifetime occurrence. The issue of Scottish independence has been settled and the separatists need to get used to it.
Ideally, you'd expect that to happen. But if Westminster doesn't live up to their devolution promises and has lied, then Scotland isn't going to take it lightly. Even if they do, for as long as parties such as the SNP remain strong in support and are in Holyrood, the issues will be there on the fringes. Of course, a referendum in the future can be outright denied, but then that wouldn't help a union cause which promotes working together as equals.
We want the same... But with the purpose of keeping you inFair enough. Frankly, I'm in support of building a wall just north of the M25 and keeping all you feckers out.
Labour are acting like colossal cnuts.
I'm with @rednev on this - nobody except the separatists want to have referendums every few years. It was called before this time round the "neverendum" and something which all parties were keen to avoid.
If Scotland gets enough support for a referendum within say 15 years, I expect the rest of the UK would just decide to call it a day and cut them loose. It's not viable or desirable trying to run a country with a region constantly trying to break away.
Again, the issue that none of you are prepared to answer is how an independent Scotland could be economically viable in the first place without the oil money. If we assume oil is no longer a factor by whenever the next referendum is - unless we see wholesale, drastic changes in the Scottish economy, I can't see how you would plan out cope without the oil money.
To be honest, once the oil runs out, it will require massive subsidisation from the rest of the UK to maintain Scotland's current public spending levels which I can't see happening. At the moment you can at least argue that Scottish revenue per capita is high, therefore it is reasonable for public spending to be high. It was posted a few pages back an analysis of the Scottish public spending/revenue per capita with and without the oil included, and compared to the rest of the UK. The "oil excluded" charts were not pretty. As things stand, there would be an enormous public spending deficit without that oil (the oil was also what Salmond seemed to be completely reliant on to fund an independent Scotland).
Basically what I'm saying is that as the oil runs out and becomes more expensive to extract, Scotland is going to find itself in a much weaker bargaining position regardless of independence or not. If you want to keep your high public spending, free tuition etc, you will need the UK a lot more than the UK needs you, without massive change. This combined with the animosity that demanding another referendum soon would generate (and it would generate animosity, no doubt about that), I really can't see it happening.
Why?
usual modus operandi
So, 1.6 million people and 45% of the people who voted Yes? It's not as if this is a small band of rebels hiding away in a cave - it's a large portion of the Scottish population, who will only become more determined if the promises of further devolution aren't delivered. Not to mention that if those promises aren't delivered, many of the No voters who wouldn't mind an independent Scotland, but either felt the risks were too high or that we weren't able to go it alone at the moment, will soon become tired of the UK as well. Again, I'm not saying that we're going to be having another referendum next year or anything, but depending on what happens within the UK in regards to reform, it's an issue that will probably come up again at some point. Difficult to tell when right now though because we're still to see what changes will be made.
As for the rest of it, your assumption that Scotland completely depends on oil is the sort of stuff that the No campaign were banging on about for ages, despite it not being true. It's certainly a superb asset to have, and a massive bonus, but Scotland has plenty of resources and would've been able to stand on it's own feet economically. A redundant argument now since we voted not to do so, but we're unlikely to be a bunch of scroungers if this comes up again. It's accusation that we are which actually creates a lot of the discontent from Scots towards Westminster and the UK.
If we were to hypothetically struggle in the future post-oil though and depend on England, things could get messy. That would naturally result in cuts to our budget (unless the current way of doing devolved powers changes) which would only lead to more discontent and will to leave. If our budget wasn't cut, you'd probably see a lot of people in the UK wanting to cut as adrift. But, again, all hypothetical. We'll see what happens with the promises of powers which might not be promises after all. Following that, we'll get a better idea of whether this is likely to be a lifetime issue, or a generational one.
OK, your 2nd paragraph, if 16% of scottish GDP isn't dependence, then fine. Like many english people I just want parity with scots on what we pay as tax, see as services, etc. Sadly that won't happen, so let's hope for a yes vote in 2030.
@Cheesy
Just as 45% voted yes, 55% voted no. Any argument you can give for the no voters switching to yes, there is an equal if not greater argument for yes switching to no.
All parties north and south of the border agreed that we wouldn't see another referendum any time soon. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that Westminster will not grant further devolution, even though Cameron has stated multiple times that he plans to go through with it.
Regarding the oil you only need look at the figures. It makes up a huge portion of your GDP per capita. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the oil, Scotland would not be able to support anything like its current level of public spending.
Just as 45% voted yes, 55% voted no. Any argument you can give for the no voters switching to yes, there is an equal if not greater argument for yes switching to no.
All parties north and south of the border agreed that we wouldn't see another referendum any time soon. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that Westminster will not grant further devolution, even though Cameron has stated multiple times that he plans to go through with it.
Regarding the oil you only need look at the figures. It makes up a huge portion of your GDP per capita. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the oil, Scotland would not be able to support anything like its current level of public spending.
You can't have a referendum for independence every couple of years 
It's like every country have their separatists now
Scotland have had one, 400,000+ said no over yes (nearly the population of Scotlands capital Edinburgh), that margin is huge - It's done, even if Scotland want one Westminster won't agree to it for another 100 years and by that time it may not matter anyway because it wouldn't surprise me if the EU's a country.
It's like every country have their separatists now Scotland have had one, 400,000+ said no over yes (nearly the population of Scotlands capital Edinburgh), that margin is huge - It's done, even if Scotland want one Westminster won't agree to it for another 100 years and by that time it may not matter anyway because it wouldn't surprise me if the EU's a country.
Salmond said its a once in a generation event, even the SNP know it'd be extremely damaging to Scotland to have regular referendums. It's going to be hugely damaging to business and attracting new industry if you set the precedent of plunging the country into uncertainty all the time. Independence poll's jump up and down all the time, with the economy forecasted to improve, and more powers to go to Scotland, that 45% will dwindle considerably the next few years anyway.
With regards to the oil industry, well Scotland is something of a sleeping giant when it comes to renewables. As the cost continuously comes down there that's really an area to look at for big investment, both for helping the UK to self sufficiency, and for exporting to Europe. Certainly something we'll need to be utilising sooner rather than later. It's not going to completely make up for losing oil but certainly an area Scotland can do well in and should receive investment for.
With regards to the oil industry, well Scotland is something of a sleeping giant when it comes to renewables. As the cost continuously comes down there that's really an area to look at for big investment, both for helping the UK to self sufficiency, and for exporting to Europe. Certainly something we'll need to be utilising sooner rather than later. It's not going to completely make up for losing oil but certainly an area Scotland can do well in and should receive investment for.
No one is arguing for a referendum every couple of years, just taking issue with rednev's belief that the question shouldn't be raised ever again.
You can't have a referendum for independence every couple of years
Scotland have had one, 400,000+ said no over yes (nearly the population of Scotlands capital Edinburgh), that margin is huge - It's done, even if Scotland want one Westminster won't agree to it for another 100 years and by that time it may not matter anyway because it wouldn't surprise me if the EU's a country.
Something which I categorically said will not happen, if you could be bothered to read my posts properly. Quebec had a referendum in 1980 and 1995 - I think it'll take more than 15 years till we see another one for us, but it's very unlikely that we'll go a century before seeing another referendum.
The people of Scotland voted against independence so there is obviously no justification for a vote within the next decade, as I have seen some calling for within frustrated pro-independence groups. However given that Quebec revisited the question 15 years after the first referendum which resulted in a 60/40 vote against, albeit in different circumstances, the idea that an SNP majority government 25/30+ years down the line could raise the question again is not that shocking. Obviously there so many possibilities as to how British politics would look different that far down the line though, one of which, if Jack Straw is going to have any attention paid to him, is an attempt to make any such future referendum illegal.
The British labor party has been living too much in the past. Ed Miliband, Ed Balls etc. The party should be lead by Ed Balls brother Has. He would make one hell of a scene in front of Obama, the EU chief and especially Putin.
It's staggering that some people STILL can't see that the dependence on oil is a HUGE worry for the future funding of Scotland. You'd think that the voters turning their backs on the prospect of running their own country after realising the figures just did not stack up would have told you something.
Having said that, I see Salmond is still bleating on today about how the NO voters were conned. FFS man feck off! You LOST!
I think that's pretty poor from Salmond and a shame as he had handled the result with dignity until now.
Plenty of Scots saw past his BS during the campaigning though, I hope they aren't fooled by it now either.
Plenty of Scots saw past his BS during the campaigning though, I hope they aren't fooled by it now either.
It'll be 25-30 years, I reckon.
Agreed, not massively surprised but he is embarrassing himself now. When you've lost and then resigned he should go quietly now and let Nicola Sturgeon or other front runners make the points. Irresponsible of him to keep hurrying Westminster to suit his own goals anyway, if this gets rushed through all you'll end up with is bad legislation and further division within the Union.
Salmond is flapping his gums because Cameron is wanting to move the goalposts by adding conditions (tie in with English political changes) to the timetable - conditions that he's only decided to mention after the referendum result. They're both acting poorly.
I think the biggest issue is with Labour, they are trying to drag everything into more extended debates etc....anyone would think they don't want to lose the advantage of having lots of Scottish MP's.
It's quickly becoming the worlds worst soap opera.