Scotland Debate

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's politics - it happens from both sides of the fence - are you really surprised ?

I guess not. But it rather shows that Westminster politicians could really give a monkeys about whether this very, very late intervention will make a decision really difficult and possibly upsetting for some voters. They just don't care as long as they achieve their own ends. I'd prefer that the intervention is chaos and panic - I fear it may be cynical.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I guess not. But it rather shows that Westminster politicians could really give a monkeys about whether this very, very late intervention will make a decision really difficult and possibly upsetting for some voters. They just don't care as long as they achieve their own ends. I'd prefer that the intervention is chaos and panic - I fear it may be cynical.

I'm sorry but I maybe a little naive in regards politics but you appear to be with the fairies

This is what I would expect to see politicians doing

Being shocked about it must mean you are even more naive than me.

Again though it's people just worrying about how a message is delivered as opposed to what they are saying

 

[FairwayDodger]

I guess not. But it rather shows that Westminster politicians could really give a monkeys about whether this very, very late intervention will make a decision really difficult and possibly upsetting for some voters. They just don't care as long as they achieve their own ends. I'd prefer that the intervention is chaos and panic - I fear it may be cynical.

You've outdone yourself this time!

Better Together shouldn't campaign because they might be upsetting some people. O.......K..... then

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

You've outdone yourself this time!

Better Together shouldn't campaign because they might be upsetting some people. O.......K..... then

That's not what he said.


He said they shouldn't campaign, because it might make the decision tough for some people. And that would be mean.

 

[FairwayDodger]

That's not what he said.


He said they shouldn't campaign, because it might make the decision tough for some people. And that would be mean.

Well, after all, they've been mean to the people of Scotland for 300 years........

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Adi, why could you have not stood for YES instead of Salmond? I feel like you actually think about things and what you want to happen! The whole debate might have gone completely differently.

YES is so much more than Eck, just like NO THANKS is so much more than Darling.I reckon I'd do pretty well debating anyone on this, face to face with all the nonsense put to one side.I'd present a different image of what I'd like Scotland to look like, just like many others would too.That's the defination of YES I think, a broach church of ideas for Scotland under one banner.

NO THANKS are also made up of many different parties and philosophies, but my problem is they're all offering the same idea of a Scotland within the union of crowns.Nothing different, nothing exciting, nothing inventive.

OK, a promise of new powers to Holyrood, but unable to agree what they are.Then they have to present them to Parliament and MPs from Devon and Norfolk have to agree to further powers, costing money and explain that to their electorate? Can't see that happening, can anyone? SO nothing concrete in the new powers and the issue of getting it thru parliament.

I propose the following for iScotland:

10 year currency union= 10 year trident storage at Coulport
During 10 years iScotland has 3 board members on BoE, no undercutting of tax regimes either side of border and after 10 years, iScot floats own currency pegged 1:1 for a defined period of time

Westminster honours their obligation to pay pensions for all current pensioners until indy day.Anyone 60/65 after that is the sole responsibility of Holyrood.

National debt: Scotland accepts 10% of ALL the debt along with 10% of ALL assets

rUK actively promotes iScotland entering EU, iScotland actively endorses rUK keeping full rebate

I think that sounds fair and equitable to both sides?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm sorry but I maybe a little naive in regards politics but you appear to be with the fairies

This is what I would expect to see politicians doing

Being shocked about it must mean you are even more naive than me.

Again though it's people just worrying about how a message is delivered as opposed to what they are saying

I am just expecting too much. I was disappointed that Cameron said about a year ago that he wasn't going to get involved - that this was something that Scotland had to sort out. I was disappointed because I couldn't see how it could be and how westminster could keep disengaged - the outcome being too important for all concerned.

And so it comes to pass that at the last moment - feigning panic - the W3 come storming on.

I accept criticisms of what may seem a confusing position I take.

As noted previously I am at heart 100% YES. As an outsider of 30yrs I look in on the debate and reflect on all the rubbish I have heard talked by Scots over that time about England, the English and Westminster. And on that reflection and looking in I am amazed to find that had I a vote on Thursday I might well vote NO. But that is a conclusion I reached based upon my experiences as an outsider. Had I lived in Scotland these last 30yrs my suspicion is that I would vote YES.

And so in my mind I take a relatively neutral stance - primarily being protective of YES against disinformation and misrepresentation of their position without actually promoting it. And the converse is that I find it difficult to argue against many NO positions on Union - but I am not inclined to promote them as I can understand the alternatives posited by YES.

 

[patricks148]

YES is so much more than Eck, just like NO THANKS is so much more than Darling.I reckon I'd do pretty well debating anyone on this, face to face with all the nonsense put to one side.I'd present a different image of what I'd like Scotland to look like, just like many others would too.That's the defination of YES I think, a broach church of ideas for Scotland under one banner.

NO THANKS are also made up of many different parties and philosophies, but my problem is they're all offering the same idea of a Scotland within the union of crowns.Nothing different, nothing exciting, nothing inventive.

OK, a promise of new powers to Holyrood, but unable to agree what they are.Then they have to present them to Parliament and MPs from Devon and Norfolk have to agree to further powers, costing money and explain that to their electorate? Can't see that happening, can anyone? SO nothing concrete in the new powers and the issue of getting it thru parliament.

I propose the following for iScotland:

10 year currency union= 10 year trident storage at Coulport
During 10 years iScotland has 3 board members on BoE, no undercutting of tax regimes either side of border and after 10 years, iScot floats own currency pegged 1:1 for a defined period of time

Westminster honours their obligation to pay pensions for all current pensioners until indy day.Anyone 60/65 after that is the sole responsibility of Holyrood.

National debt: Scotland accepts 10% of ALL the debt along with 10% of ALL assets

rUK actively promotes iScotland entering EU, iScotland actively endorses rUK keeping full rebate

I think that sounds fair and equitable to both sides?

Id vote for you Adi, especially if you promised to stop poncing free rounds at my club every other week

 

[FairwayDodger]

The trouble is you can propose whatever you like for iScotland, and everyone is and the contradictions are there for all to see.

Besides, no matter how much you say it's not about Salmond the truth is that the foundations of this fledgling nation will be laid by Salmond and the SNP along with their best mates Souter and Murdoch.

There's the utopian "cult of yes" message that so many have bought into (and, in fairness also the opposing "doomsday" scenario) and then there is the reality.

 

[DCB]

The trouble is that the White Paper is based on the SNP vision of where they would like to take Scotland after a Yes vote.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Besides, no matter how much you say it's not about Salmond the truth is that the foundations of this fledgling nation will be laid by Salmond and the SNP along with their best mates Souter and Murdoch.

This is quote simply incorrect.Of course Salmond will participate in any kind of negotiation, it would be bizarre to suggest otherwise.But Murdoch/Souter certainly won't just as The Barclay Brothers and Eddie Izzard won't.

Negotiation will be cross party/no party and already Carmichael has indicated he'd be involved, as will Darling/Brown/Davidson and any other politician who's been involved in the debate.

 

[IanG]

Negotiation will be cross party/no party and already Carmichael has indicated he'd be involved, as will Darling/Brown/Davidson and any other politician who's been involved in the debate.

While that may be true in terms of who sits round the table, the only two who really matter are whoever is in charge in Holyrood and Westminster - they after all will be the ones signing off on any agreement. Whether that is Salmond & Cameron or some others, time alone will tell.

 

[FairwayDodger]

This is quote simply incorrect.Of course Salmond will participate in any kind of negotiation, it would be bizarre to suggest otherwise.But Murdoch/Souter certainly won't just as The Barclay Brothers and Eddie Izzard won't.

Negotiation will be cross party/no party and already Carmichael has indicated he'd be involved, as will Darling/Brown/Davidson and any other politician who's been involved in the debate.

But it would be negotiation based around the SNP agenda. Set by Salmond and paid for by Souter. Sorry but you can't just gloss over that.

 

[CMAC]

Britian is an island, unless you move or fracking is really bad, you'll always be British

so in my head I'll be British? but not in real life. Sounds like the basis of the whole YES campaign.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

But it would be negotiation based around the SNP agenda. Set by Salmond and paid for by Souter. Sorry but you can't just gloss over that.

No it won't be!The white paper isn't giving Salmond or anyone else the right to negotiate with westminster based on that.The white paper is the blueprint for the 1st SNP election manifesto, one I'll be rejecting at the ballot box.

The crappily named 'team scotland' who negotiate with westminster will probably include Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy,Ruth Davidson,Patrick Harvie,Alistair Carmichael,Douglas Alexander,Stuart Hosie to name a few. Now if you think that collection of vipers will all back the negotiating stance of Eck you think less of them than I do, which is pretty impressive.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

While that may be true in terms of who sits round the table, the only two who really matter are whoever is in charge in Holyrood and Westminster - they after all will be the ones signing off on any agreement. Whether that is Salmond & Cameron or some others, time alone will tell.

I'm sorry, but I disagree in the strongest sense. The Scottish team won't be the incumbent govt, it'll be a selection of all parties.I'd imagine the same will be of team rUK, for no other reason that both sides can share the blame as well as the glory.Collective responsibility taken to the nth degree.

I also think there will be more than two signatures on the document, and rightly so,as the momentus choices they'll be making shouldn't be the sole responsibility of two people.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

I'm sorry, but I disagree in the strongest sense. The Scottish team won't be the incumbent govt, it'll be a selection of all parties.I'd imagine the same will be of team rUK, for no other reason that both sides can share the blame as well as the glory.Collective responsibility taken to the nth degree.

I also think there will be more than two signatures on the document, and rightly so,as the momentus choices they'll be making shouldn't be the sole responsibility of two people.

Interesting.

How you you, as a YES voter, think the people signing/negotiating/etc should be chosen? I would imagine that it would deserve another vote, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts

 

[IanG]

I'm sorry, but I disagree in the strongest sense. The Scottish team won't be the incumbent govt, it'll be a selection of all parties.I'd imagine the same will be of team rUK, for no other reason that both sides can share the blame as well as the glory.Collective responsibility taken to the nth degree.

I also think there will be more than two signatures on the document, and rightly so,as the momentus choices they'll be making shouldn't be the sole responsibility of two people.

I don't disagree that then team on both sides will be a broad church (as it should be) but when push comes to shove those with the current electoral mandate will wield the most clout.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Interesting.

How you you, as a YES voter, think the people signing/negotiating/etc should be chosen? I would imagine that it would deserve another vote, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts

For Scotland, I think it's already started.Salmond will obviously be in the group and he's already invited Carmichael and Darling.I'd guess either Ruth Davidson or Annabel Goldie will be in there.Jim Murphy has been at the front of Labour so he's in.Stuart Hosie is leader of The SNP at Westminster so him too.Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP so I think he'd be invited.John Swinney and Johan Lamont.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I don't disagree that then team on both sides will be a broad church (as it should be) but when push comes to shove those with the current electoral mandate will wield the most clout.

For Scotland, none of them have an electoral mandate for iScotland!