Osbourne says no to currency union.

Another complete avoidance of answering the question !

You can’t think of a good reason for an independent Scotland being a full NATO member, can you ?

Apart to regain “Scotland’s national pride!” of course 🙂

I think you mean an answer you dont like – they changed their position because their supporters did just like Labour wont buy back council houses or change Union reform despite opposing it 30 years ago.

Good reasons – there are loads remember Robertson said the western world as we know it would collapse without them

they are doing it for the West as they are givers

I assume that was aimed at me,since you can’t help yourself;I accused you of trying to stereotype the yes voters on this thread with that remark that others have also pointed out was crass, I stand by that.

I think you mean an answer you dont like

It doesn’t answer the question ‘why is it desirable to a NATO member’ to say because that’s what we want. It’s clearly avoiding answering the question. As well you know.

Its not a great answer but it is an answer
Its not quite avoiding it either but it is not a complete either so I can see your point
they have changed their mind as they wish to win votes and this is what the folk who vote for them want
Its not exactly an unheard of approach to being a political party that wants to get power.

Anyway I shall leave it to someone who may know or care

ernie_lynch – Member
There’s almost another 6 months to go seosam. I expect the debate to start getting a little heated as we approach the date of the referendum

haha, true!

I’ll ask a question then that I’ve been wondering about, maybe give youse something different to bicker over!

Considering that the polls are fairly close(even if we say it’s a 10 point gap). How much do you expect apathy to affect the polls on polling day? Will the fact that the Yes camp have a motivated and fairly active and enthusiastic support skew the actual vote(in relation to the polls) when you consider that we have a fairly lethargic no camp, with virtually zero grass roots campaigning?

Do pollsters consider this dynamic? Or are the No camp just keeping their powder dry until polling day?

ernie_lynch – Member
You can’t think of a good reason for an independent Scotland being a full NATO member, can you ?

To stop big nasty Putin from invading us!

ernie_lynch – Member
There’s almost another 6 months to go seosam. I expect the debate to start getting a little heated as we approach the date of the referendum

Indeed. Of course it would be much more helpful if rUK simply stood up and made a clear statement of what the negotiable and non-negotiable elements are. Of course, the “cold-shower” of reality would be greated with the usual diatribe of the the three Bs north of the border ( 😉 ), so it is unlikely to happen.

Given, AS’s high level of BS though and blatant (and justified) attempts at maximising self-interest (take as you will) I would like rUk politicians to be very clear in defending the interests of the rUK. For too long they have assumed that a no vote is in the bag. It isn’t and they also need to respond accordingly.

A yes vote had negative implications for the rUK (unless you are Tories) and this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Or are the No camp just keeping their powder dry until polling day?

I hope so, but am not confident!

I would like rUk politicians to be very clear in defending the interests of the rUK.

Is this anti Scottish ?
Its not hopefully you get the point made – its self interest just like a yes vote

A yes vote had negative implications for the rUK (unless you are Tories) and this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Its does but sadly we have no vote.

As for negotiations ,IMHO, you can either say no pre negotiation or you can pre negotiate. To just say what you wont do whilst saying you wont negotiate is not that credible a position – having ones cake and eating it, easily portrayed as bullying and it is also unlikely to be believed. It would not be helpful politically IMHO

Granted the debate would be easier if we actually knew what the reality was we were discussing

You obviously haven’t been following the thread in great detail whatnobeer as if you had you would understand that the saltire-waving mel gibson wannabes comment was aimed at those who support a separate Scotland being a full NATO member and yet refuse to explain the desirability of NATO membership (the issue being discussed was nuclear weapons).

Nah, I read all that and pretty much ignored it. I couldn’t really care less at this moment in time if Scotland is in NATO or not. The SNP party members voted to change their stance on NATO membership, so the obviously think that it’s worth while. I’m pretty ambivalent on it all, likewise the subs in Faslane. It’s the cost I object to, not the nukes themselves. But hey, I’m pro nuclear power which puts me in a minority in this country.

whatnobeer – Member
It’s the cost I object to, not the nukes themselves.

Outside of the likes of tommy sheridan I reckon that’ll be most peoples opinion. It certainly mine. I’d even be up for making money leasing faslane to rUK. 😆

I have entered into discussions with friends on this subject. Learnt that lesson ! It is like trying to argue people out of religious faith using facts and logic, in the end they don’t believe what they believe because of facts and logic but hopes and dreams.

(and weird utopian ideas about Scandinavia and using another countrys currency)

And a few people I know see Yes as a way of never having Tories, or even worse UKIP, in charge of Scotland again. I have to say I understand and sign-up to the sentiment, but am unconvinced by the logic that one will automatically follow the other.

Interesting times…

hels – Member
UKIP

Interesting times…

The whole UKIP explosion is definitely not helping the no camp.

With Sir BS’s vision of iS the rUK is definitely the receiver.

Well they’re probably correct in a strict sense, but as ernie keeps pointing out there’s nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody agrees, nor are the people of Scotland significantly different enough from the people of the UK not to vote for a party which will enable that. It might not be called the Tory party, but that only really matters to those who care about the style rather than the substance (it seems an awful lot of Yes supporters are in that camp).

aracer – Member
Junkyard » they are doing it for the West as they are givers
With Sir BS’s vision of iS the rUK is definitely the receiver.

hels » And a few people I know see Yes as a way of never having Tories, or even worse UKIP, in charge of Scotland again. I have to say I understand and sign-up to the sentiment, but am unconvinced by the logic that one will automatically follow the other.
Well they’re probably correct in a strict sense, but as ernie keeps pointing out there’s nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody agrees, nor are the people of Scotland significantly different enough from the people of the UK not to vote for a party which will enable that. It might not be called the Tory party, but that only really matters to those who care about the style rather than the substance (it seems an awful lot of Yes supporters are in that camp).

tories exist in scotland, they have bottomed out at around 15% of the vote at the moment, the only way is up for them.

Personally I see a resurgent tory party in scotland post independence. Dunno if they’ll ever make it back to a majortiy, but coalition government is certainly possible.

But that particular argument isn’t really about there never being a tory party(despite the populism we have at the moment for claiming that), it’s about there never being a party in power that we haven’t voted for.

Independence for Shetland

I have entered into discussions with friends on this subject. Learnt that lesson ! It is like trying to argue people out of religious faith using facts and logic, in the end they don’t believe what they believe because of facts and logic but hopes and dreams.

Everyone thinks there argument is the epitome of logic and the other side are fantasists
Some even accuse them of having religious fervour which is of course the epitome of calm and logical in a debate
Perhaps it is how you present your case
IME calling folk names rarely leads to them listening

For sure , on both sides, the decision is nothing but an emotive one and the facts dont matter

but as ernie keeps pointing out there’s nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody ag

And i keep asking why do you need radical change?
I am failing to see why it needs to be radical – if it was not at all a radical change why do the folk in England GAS?

And i keep asking why do you need radical change?

Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is a fairly radical proposition. If you feel there is no need for radical change in Scotland then voting No would be logical.

If however you feel that there is a need for radical change in Scotland then offer something radical beyond a meaningless declaration of false independence of which the negatives will outweigh the positives.

So we find out the National Animal of Scotland is a mythical beast
Which is, perhaps, why logic and economic sobriety have no place in this discussion.

aracer – Member
Independence for Shetland

They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority

Otherwise that statement means nothing(see the venetian referedum for further information.)

Them thieving Scotlanders, Everyone knows Saltaire is in Yorkshire! How did they get over the border and especially through the Pennines with anyone noticing?

Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is a fairly radical proposition.

So there is your radicalism then

Whatever you say it is possible to want to leave the union and not want a radical overall of your entire constitution
Its devolution not revolution

They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority

So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? – ie. you can only become independent if the ‘parent authorities’ allow you to secede?

We’re all for self determination, Shetland can go for it if the people there want it. So far though the only people who seem to mention it are shit stirrers, as far as I can see there’s no real appetite for it at the moment. If there is the future they should ask to hold a referendum and they should be given the right to have one. Everyone’s happy.

ninfan – Member
They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority
So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? – ie. you can only become independent if the ‘parent authorities’ allow you to secede?

Yip, I’d deny them the right to separate, can you stop bringing it up now?

As I’ve mentioned before, this is why Scottish independence has no bearing on Italian or Spanish separatists.

The British government were daft enough to allow it(and with a yes/no option instead of 3 options). I just hope the people of Scotland take the chance.

whatnobeer – Member
We’re all for self determination, Shetland can go for it if the people there want it.

Not without an agreed legal referendum they can’t.

ninfan – Member

So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? – ie. you can only become independent if the ‘parent authorities’ allow you to secede?

Yes,its called the Baroness Jay defence. 8)

Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

*******
Now here was me, thinking that this was specifically a vote for independence not devolution!

teamhurtmore – Member
Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

There is no right to self determination in a peaceful country.

where are the marines?

unless we gave it to you very recently to annoy the argies

Should the Lerwick Declaration be considered in the same light at the Edinburgh version?

More trumpets from the elephants!! 😀

But one side does have more facts, the status quo is real (are real ? I did Greek at Uni). The other side has more predictions, assumptions and suppositions. Some of them may be realistic. Some may not…

Moi?

hels – Member

But one side does have more facts, the status quo is real

Thing is though, the status quo isn’t a fact- post-No vote, there’s no guarantee that things will remain the same. We might see cuts in Barnett funding, changes in national policy, exit from europe, more recall of power to Westminster, all that jazz. It’s a vote for the status quo politically, is all.

teamhurtmore – Member

Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

It’s kind of like an elephant in the room that nobody talks about, except for 2 minor differences. 1) It’s been talked about a lot and 2) There isn’t really an elephant there. Inconveniently, Shetland refuses to want to be independent.

It’s a nice metaphor though… Someone said, “Is there an elephant in the room”, everyone else had a look and found that no, there’s not. But there’s still some people who want to believe. And if you’re on Project Elephant, the fact that nobody else is talking about elephants is probably Very Telling.

hels – Member
the status quo is real

The status quo is transient, it’s not a constant, so the no side don’t really have any definite answers either.

Thing is though, the status quo isn’t a fact- post-No vote, there’s no guarantee that things will remain the same. We might see cuts in Barnett funding, changes in national policy, exit from europe, more recall of power to Westminster, all that jazz. It’s a vote for the status quo politically, is all.

@Northwind – I agree with this, there are unknowns there too. I suppose my fear is that post a No vote AS will make all sorts of noises about further devolution (which in my opinion is what he really wants) and be even more of a PITA. Let’s see how the campaign goes but I think post a No vote could see some of the things you mention there. In some respects I think this referendum is a lose/lose for Scotland (unless AS and the SNP fade away but that’s not going to happen)

AS which in my opinion is what he really wants

I really don’t understand this train of thought at all. He’s based his entire career on independence, he’s been pretty consistent about it.

NW – a quick google reveals:

Tavish Scott, the MSP for Shetland and former Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, told party activists on Saturday that the constitutional debate was the islands’ chance to fight for their own “home rule”, and a case study for the Lib Dems’ localism agenda before the next general election.

Scott, who first raised this argument in a paper last year, fears that whichever side wins the independence referendum, more powers will be centralised by the Scottish government in Edinburgh, 300 miles south of the islands’ main town, Lerwick.

Political leaders in the islands worry that their separate local authorities could be abolished after the 2014 referendum, either combined into a joint islands council or merged into a new super authority for the Highlands and Islands as the next government tries to rationalise Scotland’s diverse group of 32 local councils.

Scott said there had been a “remorseless pattern of centralisation” under Salmond’s Scottish National party government.

“For me, this is about home rule; our islands being able to assert their natural and local identity, their distinctiveness, and get the powers and responsibilities they need to make the best of the modern world,” Scott told the Guardian.

There isn’t really an elephant there. Inconveniently, Shetland refuses to want to be independent.

So given there is no elephant, I guess the following is talking about a mirage

A petition currently before the Scottish Parliament is seeking referendums to be held on all three islands exactly a week after the rest of the nation votes on the future of the union with Westminster.

In the event it should get the go-ahead, the 70,000 inhabitants will be given the choice of either staying in Scotland or seeking independence of their own. A third question following a successful yes vote will offer the possibility of staying within the UK while seceding from control of Holyrood.

In this case I guess it’s just a white elephant then???