Scotland Debate

[Adi2Dassler]

This news on military, combined with the news that Scottish independence will result in more starving children in Africa/India has made me scratch my head and wonder if they could possibly come up with anything + about the union, as opposed to scare mongery.

 

[FairwayDodger]

This news on military, combined with the news that Scottish independence will result in more starving children in Africa/India has made me scratch my head and wonder if they could possibly come up with anything + about the union, as opposed to scare mongery.

I think they are really struggling to make their case.

In general, if the status quo is considered "great" and the changed situation not quite as good it's difficult to express that without sounding negative. However, professional politicians should be able to manage it.

I haven't seen this nonsense about more starving children, who's saying that?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I think they are really struggling to make their case.

In general, if the status quo is considered "great" and the changed situation not quite as good it's difficult to express that without sounding negative. However, professional politicians should be able to manage it.

I haven't seen this nonsense about more starving children, who's saying that?

Justine Greening, cabinet member.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...3375293?WT.mc_id=Outbrain_text&obref=obinsite

So, to recap:

There would be more starving people in the world
It would be a 'catacylsmic' event and beneficial to 'the forces of darkness'
We would have no currency
The oil is running out
Reduced as a world power
No NATO/EU/UN membership
internationally isolated
We couldn't afford the set up costs
etc
etc

So, lots of reasons to worry about, but nothing positive?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Justine Greening, cabinet member.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...3375293?WT.mc_id=Outbrain_text&obref=obinsite

So, to recap:

There would be more starving people in the world
It would be a 'catacylsmic' event and beneficial to 'the forces of darkness'
We would have no currency
The oil is running out
Reduced as a world power
No NATO/EU/UN membership
internationally isolated
We couldn't afford the set up costs
etc
etc

So, lots of reasons to worry about, but nothing positive?

I think some of the arguments characterised as "negative" have a basis in truth, or at least possibility since much of the debate (on both sides) is speculation. (Some others are, indeed, nonsense)

However, this is a new low and quite depressing.

 

[CMAC]

Justine Greening, cabinet member.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...3375293?WT.mc_id=Outbrain_text&obref=obinsite

So, to recap:

There would be more starving people in the world
It would be a 'catacylsmic' event and beneficial to 'the forces of darkness'
We would have no currency
The oil is running out
Reduced as a world power
No NATO/EU/UN membership
internationally isolated
We couldn't afford the set up costs
etc
etc

So, lots of reasons to worry about, but nothing positive?

cant see where it says that in the link

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

cant see where it says that in the link

Quite clear that what she says about splitting UK aid contribution - she claims it would have a negative impact on the poorest countries. Nice one Justine. So Self-determination isn;t just based upon self - countries have to consider the global impact of their self-determination.

Oh well. So that's Scotland's YES voters not only having to worry about the security of the world but also world poverty - cool for a country of 5mil - what's the rest of the world doing?

 

[CMAC]

Quite clear that what she says about splitting UK aid contribution - she claims it would have a negative impact on the poorest countries. Nice one Justine. So Self-determination isn;t just based upon self - countries have to consider the global impact of their self-determination.

Oh well. So that's Scotland's YES voters not only having to worry about the security of the world but also world poverty - cool for a country of 5mil - what's the rest of the world doing?

yes but it doesnt say they'll be more starving people in the world. Less money to any aid/charity will have a negative impact.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

They are sounding more and more desperate now.

She actually says that 'splitting the aid in two'. No Justine it is splitting the aid 90%/10%.
Where do they get these numties from.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

yes but it doesnt say they'll be more starving people in the world. Less money to any aid/charity will have a negative impact.

If UK aid helps lift poorest people out of a starvation existence then one of the effects of reducing the aid and the impact would be fewer lifted out of that existence. It's pretty desperate stuff Ms Greening.

That said it is good to hear the UK government starting to speak up rather than hide behind the BT campaign. Though where that leaves Cameron's insistent assertion of not that many weeks ago that it is up to BT to make the case for a NO vote I am not sure.

Actually BT and now Westminster aren't yet explaining the virtues and benefits of the status quo and indeed telling us what the status quo will look like in a few years time - making a case for a NO vote. Indeed they are still simply making a case for unYES - though I think that by now we all now understand all they tell us might happen if YES.

 

[CMAC]

They are sounding more and more desperate now.

She actually says that 'splitting the aid in two'. No Justine it is splitting the aid 90%/10%.
Where do they get these numties from.

thats one person, the desperate cases are very firmly within the yes camp, that is unquestioning.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

They are sounding more and more desperate now.

She actually says that 'splitting the aid in two'. No Justine it is splitting the aid 90%/10%.
Where do they get these numties from.

You know that any split of something makes it into two? It doesn't mean 50/50, just means that where before it was one whole thing, now it is two parts. Whether those parts are 50/50, 90/10, 99/1 etc, still splitting in two.

If she had said halved, then I would agree with you. All about politician speak.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You know that any split of something makes it into two? It doesn't mean 50/50, just means that where before it was one whole thing, now it is two parts. Whether those parts are 50/50, 90/10, 99/1 etc, still splitting in two.

If she had said halved, then I would agree with you. All about politician speak.

When you say you are going to split something in two most will invariably take that as it being halved or thereabouts. So by saying this she's implying a big cut and impact in the event of Scotland leaving UK.

 

[CMAC]

When you say you are going to split something in two most will invariably take that as it being halved or thereabouts. So by saying this she's implying a big cut and impact in the event of Scotland leaving UK.

And that is the crux IMO of the yes campaign, assumption! And you know what that means

 

[Adi2Dassler]

And that is the crux IMO of the yes campaign, assumption! And you know what that means

The only thing in life that isn't an assumption is life,death and taxes.ANYTHING Better Together or Yes say is an assumption.We're told x/y/z will happen by either side, whether good or bad, predictions are made, one proclaiming a + outlook, one -.

 

[Val]

This news on military, combined with the news that Scottish independence will result in more starving children in Africa/India has made me scratch my head and wonder if they could possibly come up with anything + about the union, as opposed to scare mongery.

They don't have to, people know what we have with the union currently. The more negative they make an independent Scotland look the more positive a union becomes to the eye.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The only thing in life that isn't an assumption is life,death and taxes.ANYTHING Better Together or Yes say is an assumption.We're told x/y/z will happen by either side, whether good or bad, predictions are made, one proclaiming a + outlook, one -.

As in the assumption bandied about by BT that in the event of a NO vote then the status quo will remain beyond the announcement of the result - i.e. vote NO and nothing will change. Of course that includes the ACTUAL (not assumed) cuts in spending lined up for us all in the UK; the risk of UK leaving the EU; the risk of changes to the Barnett formula further reducing per head funding in Scotland; and the risk of a Tory/UKIP coalition forming the next Westminster government (oh joys unbounded).

 

[Old Skier]

We're told x/y/z will happen by either side, whether good or bad, predictions are made, one proclaiming a + outlook, one -.

And we know that neither side are giving all the facts so why is it that the Yes guys on here only point the finger at one side. Nothing balanced about the argument.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

They don't have to, people know what we have with the union currently. The more negative they make an independent Scotland look the more positive a union becomes to the eye.

Yes they might know what they have today - but what about tomorrow. So yes they DO have to give some vision for Scotland - and that means looking forward not simply to today.

 

[Val]

As in the assumption bandied about by BT that in the event of a NO vote then the status quo will remain beyond the announcement of the result - i.e. vote NO and nothing will change. Of course that includes the ACTUAL (not assumed) cuts in spending lined up for us all in the UK; the risk of UK leaving the EU; the risk of changes to the Barnett formula further reducing per head funding in Scotland; and the risk of a Tory/UKIP coalition forming the next Westminster government (oh joys unbounded).

Not really sure what you are trying to say here, the only actual (not assumed) statement you say here is as follows

that in the event of a NO vote then the status quo will remain beyond the announcement of the result - i.e. vote NO and nothing will change.

That is a given until someone from the government says otherwise.

The risks you talk about are exactly that, risk. Not concrete or guaranteed, just a risk. It's a risk driving a car every day but it doesn't stop me driving to work.

 

[Val]

Yes they might know what they have today - but what about tomorrow. So yes they DO have to give some vision for Scotland - and that means looking forward not simply to today.

But they are looking forward, they are looking at the negatives of a yes vote and the impact that has on Scotland as a nation. That is also forward thinking.