Scotland Debate

[SocketRocket]

So the Chancellor has stated that if Scotland vote for Independance then they walk away from the pound

So Eurozone it is then - good luck with that :thup:

Who is to say they will be allowed to join the EU and Euro? It's not a taken position.

 

[FairwayDodger]

At best that is naive.

If not naive then dumb.

Why isn't Salmond knocking on his door? I've said before that, were I voting (either way) I'd want him to practically live in Westminster and Downing St to actually come up with answers to the questions that are being asked. Why do you think he isn't? Is it because the answers/reality aren't in line with his "what I want to happen" white paper?

You hit the nail on the head. The most annoying thing for me about the "debate" is that the nats aren't telling us what we're actually voting for. Now, there are clearly issues for them in terms of bottoming it all out, but they don't even appear to be trying to sort out some of the most fundamental issues such as currency.

At least Gideon is giving a straight answer to that question.

 

[NWJocko]

You hit the nail on the head. The most annoying thing for me about the "debate" is that the nats aren't telling us what we're actually voting for. Now, there are clearly issues for them in terms of bottoming it all out, but they don't even appear to be trying to sort out some of the most fundamental issues such as currency.

At least Gideon is giving a straight answer to that question.

It makes me chuckle really. Pro Independence (and SILH on here) bang on tirelessly that Westminster should come up with all the answers!??

Is it not Scotland (Salmond) that wants the opportunity to shape their own country. If so they should be working tirelessly to get as close as possible to agreement (as you say unlikely to get to the bottom of everything but a damn sight closer than they are at the minute).

I actually see the onus on the SNP/Salmond to put a clear picture to the electorate what sort of country they will be voting for in reality (rather than his pipe dream white paper).....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It makes me chuckle really. Pro Independence (and SILH on here) bang on tirelessly that Westminster should come up with all the answers!??

Is it not Scotland (Salmond) that wants the opportunity to shape their own country. If so they should be working tirelessly to get as close as possible to agreement (as you say unlikely to get to the bottom of everything but a damn sight closer than they are at the minute).

I actually see the onus on the SNP/Salmond to put a clear picture to the electorate what sort of country they will be voting for in reality (rather than his pipe dream white paper).....

I'm glad Osborne has come in and said this - it makes his view clear and that is good. All I am saying is that I'm not sure it'll help the BT campaign as much as he thinks it will. And I'm not at all anti-England and I enjoy living down here.

If the YES campaign are happy for an iScotland to be tied to the rUK through a 'sterling-zone' - at least in the short-medium term - then that is their business - and if the voters decide that's not the sort of independence they will be happy with then they will be more likely to vote NO. And similarly if they believe Osborne today then they'll also then be more likely to vote NO.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You hit the nail on the head. The most annoying thing for me about the "debate" is that the nats aren't telling us what we're actually voting for. Now, there are clearly issues for them in terms of bottoming it all out, but they don't even appear to be trying to sort out some of the most fundamental issues such as currency.

At least Gideon is giving a straight answer to that question.

I absolutely agree and it is good that Osborne and the other party leaders have made their standpoint clear - it needed said as now the YES have to make their position clear - at least there is now something to be debated. It's then up to the voters to decide whether they believe that what Osborne and co. say would be the actual outcome in the event...

And in truth whilst there are issues that the YES campaign are less than clear about I am not sure that from a NO perspective I have heard what BT is offering either. Are they offering the status quo or not? I don't know. If they are, then can Osborne and Cameron just come out and say as they have on the 'sterling-zone' that nothing will change short-medium term in all current arrangements Westminster has with Scotland.

And at least that will inform a proper debate also.

 

[Old Skier]

Why has SLH not moved north. He has such love of the nationalist way of life but not the courage to live it, could it be because an iscot would not provide the way of life he prefers along with all of the benefits.

On the plus side I suppose he and the rest of us can pack all the kids up north to the iscots univ for free places. That's if the EU would have them.

 

[NWJocko]

I absolutely agree and it is good that Osborne and the other party leaders have made their standpoint clear - it needed said as now the YES have to make their position clear - at least there is now something to be debated. It's then up to the voters to decide whether they believe that what Osborne and co. say would be the actual outcome in the event...

And in truth whilst there are issues that the YES campaign are less than clear about I am not sure that from a NO perspective I have heard what BT is offering either. Are they offering the status quo or not? I don't know. If they are, then can Osborne and Cameron just come out and say as they have on the 'sterling-zone' that nothing will change short-medium term in all current arrangements Westminster has with Scotland.

And at least that will inform a proper debate also.

This is sort of the point I'm making SILH.

Why is the onus on the existing UK government to come up with all the answers as they are not the ones seeking "change"?

Salmond and the SNP, on the other hand, are asking people to make a huge decision without presenting anything close to resembling facts as to what sort of country people are voting for?

I just think you have the focus on who should be providing answers back to front........

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why has SLH not moved north. He has such love of the nationalist way of life but not the courage to live it, could it be because an iscot would not provide the way of life he prefers along with all of the benefits.

On the plus side I suppose he and the rest of us can pack all the kids up north to the iscots univ for free places. That's if the EU would have them.

I don't have a love of the nationalist way of life. As much as I would like to hear honesty from the YES campaign I also want a bit more honesty and clarity from Westminster to inform the debate. And today's intervention is a good thing.

If I wanted to move back to Scotland I can't due to the wishes and circumstances of my immediate family at the moment - and sometimes listening to what many chippy, uninformed and whinging Scots say about England and the English I am not so sure I'd ever want to in any case

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This is sort of the point I'm making SILH.

Why is the onus on the existing UK government to come up with all the answers as they are not the ones seeking "change"?

Salmond and the SNP, on the other hand, are asking people to make a huge decision without presenting anything close to resembling facts as to what sort of country people are voting for?

I just think you have the focus on who should be providing answers back to front........

Yes but surely the Scots voters have to know what a NO vote means as much as what a YES vote means. If NO means 'no change' then they should just be told that - what is so difficult about doing that. It would certainly make things clearer and perhaps easier for the BT Campaign to sell - getting rid of suspicions that are held about what might happen following a NO. These suspicions just play into the hands of the YES campaign.

Of course the BT campaign and Westminster don't have to say a thing about life for Scotland post a NO - but by keeping schtum I don't think it helps their case - it simply fuels suspicions.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yes but surely the Scots voters have to know what a NO vote means as much as what a YES vote means. If NO means 'no change' then they should just be told that - what is so difficult about doing that. It would certainly make things clearer and perhaps easier for the BT Campaign to sell - getting rid of suspicions that are held about what might happen following a NO. These suspicions just play into the hands of the YES campaign.

Of course the BT campaign and Westminster don't have to say a thing about life for Scotland post a NO - but by keeping schtum I don't think it helps their case - it simply fuels suspicions.

A no vote means Scotland stays as part of the UK and nothing changes

It's Scotland that wants change so they can do the talking

If people vote No then what should change ? Nothing is the answer

Lots of demands from people - the current government don't have to say anything - it's not their campaign

 

[Old Skier]

Westminster cannot give the assurances that you want because they have to sit on the fence as :

a. They are unsure how the RGB will react to an iscot yes vote.
b. As the SNP have not laid out any facts about how an iscot will work they cannot counter anything.

 

[FairwayDodger]

My NO vote is a vote for the status quo.

The status quo is that we all live and cooperate together within a union whose precise culture, economy, constitution etc have always and will continue to evolve....

I really don't see any need for "Better Together" to attempt to define their position any further than that....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

My NO vote is a vote for the status quo.

The status quo is that we all live and cooperate together within a union whose precise culture, economy, constitution etc have always and will continue to evolve....

I really don't see any need for "Better Together" to attempt to define their position any further than that....

Summed up perfectly :thup:

Hoping your view is part of the majority

 

[NWJocko]

My NO vote is a vote for the status quo.

The status quo is that we all live and cooperate together within a union whose precise culture, economy, constitution etc have always and will continue to evolve....

I really don't see any need for "Better Together" to attempt to define their position any further than that....

Hurrah, sense!! :thup:

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I think this is fascinating.It's the 13th of February and BT have just played their ace card.For a referendum in September.That's seven months away. They've shot their bolt early, haven't they?

And what is being lost in the noise today is these announcements from the unholy trinity are reactions to Treasury advice on how to arrange a currency union.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Since when did British Telecom have a say in it all

 

[NWJocko]

I think this is fascinating.It's the 13th of February and BT have just played their ace card.For a referendum in September.That's seven months away. They've shot their bolt early, haven't they?

And what is being lost in the noise today is these announcements from the unholy trinity are reactions to Treasury advice on how to arrange a currency union.

Or it gives Salmond more time to tie himself in knots trying to work out what they can/will do......... If he cannot come up with something plausable then there is more time for people to realise.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Or it gives Salmond more time to tie himself in knots trying to work out what they can/will do......... If he cannot come up with something plausable then there is more time for people to realise.

True.I doubt anyone who had decided to vote yes will change their mind, we're a pretty stubborn lot.So they're looking at the undecided voters.Will they be concerned by this announcement and veer towards voting No, or take umbrage with being told their currency will be removed?A delicate balancing act, and one I think Yes will spin to one of bullying Scotland, something that never goes down well.

 

[NWJocko]

True.I doubt anyone who had decided to vote yes will change their mind, we're a pretty stubborn lot.So they're looking at the undecided voters.Will they be concerned by this announcement and veer towards voting No, or take umbrage with being told their currency will be removed?A delicate balancing act, and one I think Yes will spin to one of bullying Scotland, something that never goes down well.

It was half tongue in cheek really. I also think if they pulled this out at the last minute Salmond/SNP/Yes would feign absolute outrage which, so close to the referendum, could have more of an impact.

The way I see it is that UK are stating their position now to give a consistent message from here on in whilst Salmond/SNP/Yes are going to have to react to every avenue that is blocked off.

Would you like to see Salmond spending more time in Westminster trying to iron things out? Genuinely interested in the view of an avowed Yes voter

 

[Old Skier]

or take umbrage with being told their currency will be removed?A delicate balancing act, and one I think Yes will spin to one of bullying Scotland, something that never goes down well.

Westminster - damned if they get involved and damned if they don't.

Lets hope that the England footie team don't cock it up and win the World Cup, that would mean a certain yes vote. :mmm: