UK Government is doing naff-all planning in case of a Yes vote.

@ben Perhaps not so much on a public basis but there will have been plans drawn up, these will mostly likely be focused on ensuring the stability of the UK rather than expediting independence.. As the independence process is going to take many years after the vote there is not such a rush and with so many things unknown such as how and if Scotland would join the EU and what currency they will use it seems more sensible for the UK to sit back and wait for the vote and not waste too much civil service time in the context of so much uncertainty. In simple terms it’s the Scots who are (potentially) in a rush to “get away”, the same urgency doesn’t apply to the UK.

“Aye” is perfectly normal speech, my Geordie friends use it all the time.

bencooper – Member
Scottish Government is being responsible and planning in case of a No vote.

Just a pity that they have done so little in the case of a yes vote, Ben.

It’s hard to plan when the people you’ll be negotiating with refuse to consider the idea.

Oh, is that why so much yS stuff is simply made up, distorted or untrue?

It’s hard to plan when the people you’ll be negotiating with refuse to consider the idea.

Even harder when you ignore the people you’ll be negotiating with telling you the things they won’t agree to (which presumably they decided without considering the idea?)

Indeed. Take the central issue of the currency. So the Givernment is clear there will be no CU (as proposed) and if there was the required conditions relating to fiscal policy are incompatible with the objectives of independence. Very clear and backed by history and theory together. The response? Childlike behaviour and deliberate manipulation of currency, debt etc to distort and muddy the debate. And these are people you want to give greater levels of power too?

They can’t even get the basics right – but they can secretly implement Tory (?) policies in Scotland while attacking them in rUK!!! Indeed some of the policies are much further right wing than anything the Tories every propose. The SNP in bed with the Adam Smith Institute is a surreal example.

Stop it THM – these rabid No campaigners like yourself are always drumming on about currency, its like a stuck record, currency, currency, currency

Its not like its an important issue, like EU membership

oh…. 😆

It’s hard to plan when the people you’ll be negotiating with refuse to consider the idea.

@ben to the contrary. The UK has considered the idea and rejected it. So Scotland has clarity and can plan for an alternative. The currency issue should also give Scotland an inkling as to how discussions on other topics on which they pronounce not least the EU are going to go. Scotland needs to plan for a challenging EU discussion including a contingency period where they are potentially not a full member. Scotland should also plan for a central bank and Treasury and how it would intend to fund itself (assuming it runs a budget deficit).

Scotland should wake up to the fact that a country of 5m people doesn’t have a lot of negotiating clout (I personally believe the UK with 60m people doesn’t have that much clout). Scotland will need to get used to the reality that just because they proclaim something is in their counterparties interest doesn’t mean the other side will agree.

The currency “negotiation” with the UK is absolutely a preview of upcoming attractions for an independent Scotland on a global basis.

jambalaya – Member
…Scotland should wake up to the fact that a country of 5m people doesn’t have a lot of negotiating clout…

We won’t be clouting anyone. Proper negotiating involves trading not thumping.

Edit: oops, forgot the 🙂

The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something? 😆

I’m worried, yes. I’m worried that romantic nationalism will win over common sense and pragmatism, and as a side effect completely fk the rest of us poor bastards in the UK over.

seosamh77 – Member

The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something

whereas the Yes side have been sneering all along 😆

seosamh77 – Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing. Recent Polls and Darlings piss poor performance got you lot worried or something?

It’s very similar in tone to the lead up to the last Scottish election when the SNP got into government. 🙂

It’s as if we are not smart enough to know what’s good for our country.

The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing.

Funnier still is that most of them don’t have a vote

richmtb – Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing.
Funnier still is that most of them don’t have a vote

epicyclo – Member

It’s as if we are not smart enough to know what’s good for our country.Nor smart enough to understand that the “facts” they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.

Sneering…piss poor…..irony!!! 😉

They may not have the vote but they will control the strings – the ultimate irony. A Yes vote puts Scotland in a weaker position than now. Size wise this has to be an African not an Indian elephant in the room.

He who laughs last……

It’s as if we are not smart enough to know what’s good for our country.

Lol.. of course you’re not. No-one is.

Nor smart enough to understand that the “facts” they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.

That goes for both sides!

richmtb – Member
The no side in this thread are just sneering now, it’s quite amusing.
Funnier still is that most of them don’t have a vote

Yes, because electoral manipulation to ensure Scots (like myself) who don’t live in Scotland but for whom the result of the vote will still potentially have some huge ramifications are not allowed a say.

But then I guess Salmond is worried we will vote No so wants to prevent that.

It’s as if we are not smart enough to know what’s good for our country.

Nor to understand that the “facts” they are spouting are indeed, just opinions and speculation.

Like the fact that you won’t have a currency union and if you keep using the pound will have no control over monetary policy for your currency? Is that just opinion and speculation, or is it something which you are smart enough to think is irrelevant?

molgrips – Member
Nor smart enough to understand that the “facts” they are spouting are indeed just opinions and speculation.
That goes for both sides!

Thanks for admitting that!

“Facts” such as a currency is an asset etc……in that case, facts is spelt F I C T I O N. Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.

teamhurtmore – Member
“Facts” such as a currency is an asset etc……in that case, facts is spelt F I C T I O N. Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.

and around and around you go.

Currency in itself may not be an asset, but the assets backing it up most certainly are, for one, the 150 billion in gold that the bank of england holds.

Yes, because electoral manipulation to ensure Scots (like myself) who don’t live in Scotland but for whom the result of the vote will still potentially have some huge ramifications are not allowed a say.

Electoral manipulation? It’s simple, every country in the world does it – people who live in that country get to vote in the elections. The result of the US election has huge ramifications for the rest of the world, should the rest of the world be able to vote in US elections?

And how would you administer it? How Scottish are you? If you’re only half Scottish, do you only get half a vote? Or does anybody with a vaguely Scottish name get to vote?

It’s not only impossible to administer, it’s unfair – why should people who don’t live in Scotland get to decide what happens to Scotland? That’s what this whole thing is about.

Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.

Would you like to examine exactly how that money is spent? Maybe elaborate on the the different approaches being taken by the Scottish government and the UK one? Then may explain which one is more likely to lead to further privatisation and a US style system? (hint, it’s not the Scottish NHS)

Other facts such as scottish government spending on private sector health services matches rUK have the more traditional spelling.

In this case, that fact is spelled “pulled it out of your arse” 😀

Scottish spending on private-sector healthcare is 1/6th of that in rUK, and that’s only if you fudge the figures to include locums and suchlike. The more fundamental difference is that in rUK private companies are bidding on healthcare contracts against the NHS, in Scotland they’re occasionally hired by the NHS to perform a specific job.

It’s simple, every country in the world does it – people who live in that country get to vote in the elections. The result of the US election has huge ramifications for the rest of the world, should the rest of the world be able to vote in US elections?

It seems they can and the rules of administration are fairly straightforward:
http://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside

Meanwhile in this morning’s amusing Better Together gaffe, they’re at the Tennent’s brewery to tell us how Scottish jobs are dependent on UK companies.

Tennent’s is owned by an Irish company 😀

It seems they can:
http://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside

Yes, well done – that list includes me, by the way. I’m a US citizen but never lived in the US.

However note that important point – I’m a US citizen. How do you define a Scottish citizen?

How do they define US citizens?

Yes, well done – that list includes me, by the way. I’m a US citizen but never lived in the US.

Strange that you’re apparently unaware that people who don’t live in the US (and have never lived in the US) get to vote in their elections then, and that limiting the franchise to people who currently reside in a country is far from a universal policy.

How do they define US citizens?

I’m sure you can google it – in my case I have an American parent so I inherited citizenship. That only works down one level, by the way, my daughter won’t inherit US citizenship because I haven’t lived in the US.

We may go around and around – but the DO still can’t get it straight. Not can you – gold is good, nothing to do with the pound.

The Scottish NHS outsources services to private companies. It’s simple. As the IFS show, the real threat to the NHS in Scotland is the funding cuts that will HAVE to happen post independence. These contrast with the SNPs own admission that under the current system health spending has risen. No wonder the BMJ show that a bigger majority of Scottish doctors want No than the general public. Odd that?

Oh, I assumed from your assertions about the difficulty for Scotland that it was rather more complicated than that. Presumably Scottish citizens could be defined in much the same way, or aren’t they smart enough?

We may go around and around – but the DO still can’t get it straight.

Ah, good old THM, yet again you turn someone pointing out you’re completely wrong into an attack on Alex Salmond 😀

Ben, it’s a bit like yS not acknowledging who own most of the oil and whiskey production, isn’t it!?!

Oh, I assumed from your assertions about the difficulty for Scotland that it was rather more complicated than that. Presumably Scottish citizens could be defined in much the same way, or aren’t they smart enough?

Problem is, there’s no sensible way to define “Scottish citizen”. Is it anyone with a Scottish parent? If so, how do you track they were resident in Scotland for 10 years as the US requires? How do you even accurately track where someone’s parents lived or were born when at the moment we’re all UK citizens?

What about people born abroad who have lived in Scotland for a decade or two? What about my mother, US-born, lived here for 35 years before finally acquiring UK citizenship a few years ago? Is she Scottish?

There is no sensible, fair way to do it other than to do it by the people who live in Scotland.

Including people born in Scotland (and maybe even their children) would be too complicated then? You do have birth certificates up there?

How do you plan to define citizenship after independence?

Including people born in Scotland (and maybe even their children) would be too complicated then? You do have birth certificates up there?

This isn’t about where you’re born, it’s about where you choose to live. Don’t forget this was all agreed with the UK government.

How do you plan to define citizenship after independence?

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future

Problem is, there’s no sensible way to define “Scottish citizen”.

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future

So it’s not really that difficult after all.

As shown above, people who don’t live in the US get to vote on what happens there, and this vote clearly does affect people who don’t currently live in Scotland.

aracer – Member
Problem is, there’s no sensible way to define “Scottish citizen”.
http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future
So it’s not really that difficult after all.

What is your point btw?