[Closed] So, this Scottish Independence thing Cameron's banging on about...

SNP maifesto said nothing about timing of the referendum.

True.

"We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s
future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest
that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament"

I can't see any reference in the manifesto to when the vote should be held.

But the question of whether Scotland should be independent can only be decided by the people of Scotland and that includes the timing. The unionists had a chance in the last parliament to allow a vote which I think they would have won. They bottled it though. Now with the SNP overall majority (achieved despite a voting system expressly designed to prevent it) the ball is in Salmond's court. He will only get one chance. Cameron is only increasing the risk of the UK breaking up by interfering and making a vote for independence into an anti-tory vote. If anything is likely to increase the pro vote then that is it.

Nobody, not even the SNP anticipated their overall majority. If they can achieve that then independence is possible.

druidh - Member
There is a movement and a will which is heading inexorably in one direction. All we're now arguing over is the timing and some of the fine detail.

I think its a polarised social grouping - most folk I know are undecided or unbothered by it but I do know some strongly pro independence folk

I doubt a referendum will ever vote yes.

If the Partie Quebecois couldn't get a majority for independence from Canada even with the far more radical seperatist tendancy there I dounbt if the SNP can get a majority.

Which is why I say give the rest of the UK a chance to expel Scotland!

[img] [/img]

TandemJeremy - Member
thm. Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?

Well, you see TJ I have been following your helpful posts for understanding. Starting from the outset:

TandemJeremy - Member

The SNP have in their manifesto a obligation to have a referendum towards the end of their term. Cameron is threatening to force a referendum earlier than that and that he would set the question. [b]Is he so dim as to be unable to see what a boost that would give the SNP? Really everytime he opens his mouth on Scotland the SNP gain support and so does independence.[/b]

[b]The SNP would prefer a straight yes / no referendum. [/b][[i]DC's foolish opening lead to 7 (brave) hearts[/i]]

[b]Self determination is all[/b] [[i]so no need for tactical timing. Its a matter of principle[/i]]. However cash flows out of Scotland into England so most commentators believe Scotland would be better off without having to support England.

Reasons why Scotland would be better off independent. No foreign adventurism / wars and no expensive nuclear power or deterrent. NO wasted money on such nonsense as foundation hospitals and city academies, no massive austerity cuts damaging the economy.

Scotland's economy remains in surplus as it has been for a long time. No deficit here, no national debt being created in Scotland [[i]really is a slam hand - 39 or 40 points? 9-10 brave hearts[/i]]

Cameron is posturing here for his own party.[b] I cannot believe he is so dim as to give Salmond - the best political operator in the UK such an easy open goal as to interfere in a referendum on Scottish independence[/b]

Now you are the expert here and you have laid it out very clearly. So no, I don't understand the delay and the upset (allegedly) caused by DC offering Scotland the chance for the vote that you all seem to want. So I was being really thick until you enlightened me finally on this page:

I doubt a referendum will ever vote yes.

No, even a simple bloke like me gets it!

Which is why I say give the rest of the UK a chance to expel Scotland!

and Northern Ireland, a waste of tax payers money and resources for decades.

So I did email the SNP asking why there was little info on a post independence settlement on their website using the examples of

nato membership, what happens to the army, what happens the nuclear sub bases
Embassies, how to divide up the tax and benefits system and all these
details. Central bank formation, national debt allocation

Teh answer

Thank you for your email.

More information on an independent Scotland can be found at www.scotlandforward.net

However, the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer.

With thanks
Susan

So teamhurtmore - you are actually just point scoring and being argumentative not interested in the issues

On the contrary TJ - I am merely following your posts with interest and starting to understand the issue a lot better with your help. Thank you. I was just puzzled why the bit about a yes vote not succeeding didn't come earlier. It would have helped thicko's like me understand it so much better.

No sure what you mean about point scoring? Am I not agreeing with you?

OOI, reading the NS's comments on Miliband's position today:

Since becoming Labour leader, Ed Miliband has said little about Scottish politics, despite the reality that his party has the most to lose from an independent Scotland. But in the Q&A session following his speech to London Citizens, he was finally forced to address the subject.

Miliband said that he supported David Cameron's decision to call for an early referendum on independence and called for "greater clarity about the legal position, what is actually going to happen and when it's going to happen." He also made an impressive and extensive defence of the Union, referring to the "sense of solidarity that exists across the border" and to shared institutions such as the NHS and the BBC.

Who would have thought that the two most important politicians in Westminster (give or take a few) would make such a horlicks of the issue?

There is a movement and a will which is heading inexorably in one direction. All we're now arguing over is the timing and some of the fine detail.

This +1

Even if Scotland votes [i]"no"[/i] this time around thanks to Westminster interference, then it reflects the pattern over devolution - rigged [i]"no"[/i] vote in 1979, then several years suffering the impact of Tory economic policy on our social and economic infrastructure led to an overwhelming desire to vote [i]"yes"[/i] twenty years later.

Whether we vote "yes" now or in 20 years time, it will happen eventually.

Whether we vote "yes" now or in 20 years time, it will happen eventually.

We'll all look forward to Alex's dream of the Arc of Prosperity finally being truly realised then

OI! Stop s****ing at the back!!! 😉

The yes vote not succeeding is my opinion - one not shared by druidh for example. I don't think it has any bearing on the reasons why the vote should be organised by the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland in line with previous commitments.

This is what you don't want to see - its not about political opportunism. Its about integrity, honouring commitments and doing what you believe to be the best for the country.

Please note labour and Tory parties worked together to stop a vote in the last holyrood parliament - they are making u turns and its cheap grandstanding from them which diminishes them in Scotland.

Labour and Tory parties worked together to stop a vote in the last holyrood parliament - they are making u turns and its cheap grandstanding from them which diminishes them in Scotland.

Although in the case of the Tories, there's not much left to diminish...

Anyway, who needs oil when the south of England is slowly turning into an arid desert - it won't be long before we can charge you about as much for water as we will for oil. Not to mention that we won't be subsidising the electricity you get over the interconnector anymore either.

TJ - What do I not see? I have read your points and understand your view about integrity etc. entirely. AS is a man of integrity and honesty versus a couple of political chancers. As you say the Tories and Labour party don't have a clue here.

So instead of an advisory referendum you are being give the opportunity/invited to a legally binding, yes/no vote (which you tell me the SNP want) at the best possible time - wont Scotland beat England at M'field in a few weeks time. What momentum.

This "matter of principle" is nothing to do with opportunism, so why wait for the economy to recover? Its there on a plate for you. And its in the interests of Scotland as you say.

And if druidh is correct, then wey hey!

Thank you for your email.
More information on an independent Scotland can be found at http://www.scotlandforward.net

However, the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer.

With thanks
Susan

That's a pretty poor answer - if you can even call it an answer. How can they possibly claim that independence is good for Scotland if they have no idea as to the outcome? If they really had any integrity* they would state what Scotland's going to get out of it, put the numbers on the table and start a debate about something real and tangible, not just gut feeling and jingoism.

* I seriously doubt how much integrity they have - they're politicians, after all...

You do not see that the SNP made a commitment and are sticking to it.

Ok, "I see" said the blind man.

You have to admire politicians who stick to their commitments. So rare these days.

Does this mean no more scottish MP's in westminster then?

How can the SNP make a statement about what would happen when they genuinely don't know for sure? Even with a yes vote they'd still have to have a second referendum on the exact terms of the settlement wouldnt they?

That's a pretty poor answer - if you can even call it an answer. How can they possibly claim that independence is good for Scotland if they have no idea as to the outcome? If they really had any integrity* they would state what Scotland's going to get out of it, put the numbers on the table and start a debate about something real and tangible, not just gut feeling and jingoism.

Depends on your definition of 'good', I guess.

Like the people who give up high paid jobs where there have little personal freedom, to lower paid ones that they enjoy more.
Is that 'good' because they have more freedom, or 'bad' because they have less money?

Personally I think rationalising independence on fiscal terms ain't great. Seems a bit like whoring yourself to whoever pays the most. But I suspect I might be in the minority on this.

the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer

Which part of that is hard to comprehend exactly?

BTW, if people are struggling to understand why Westminster is so keen to hang onto Scotland, and many Scots doubt the veracity of the espoused rationale, help yourself to a look here:

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report ]McCrone Report[/url]

In essence, we weren't given the full facts when we voted on devolution in 1979, or 1997 - the information was suppressed by successive Conservative and Labour governments. Hardly surprising that we don't trust them now...

Ian - I think there are those for whom independence is a philosophy they want - and for them the cost is irrelevant. Thats a large part of the pro independence people. there are also those for whom its a pragmatic choice and the economic argument is important to them - being better off.

I think the idealists are the majority tho

This whole thing boils my piss to be honest. My view (Scottish unionist) - why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.

Vote wise, if Scotland want independance then it is our (Scottish) vote to leave the union. If however we are voting for Devo-max - then this, in my view, needs to be a wider vote as we in Scotland cant vote to change policies that affect the UK without the say of all others involved. It must be a UK wide vote.

I've listened to some interesting Radio on this very subject, two polarised camps really

1. Remember back to 16.. blah blah and the declaration of independance. We've been under the cosh and it's time we get out and stand alone, paint our faces blue and run around with clamores. I'm going to generalise here but anyway... this view comes from a lot of working class, anti English, sectarian song singing, Stella drinking wife beaters (if their team looses) not that I am wishing to judge them mind...

2. The other group want to look at the financial implications of leaving the union, can we stand alone? what if RBS/BOS tumbled and we were independant? would we be broke? What is the financial benefit of leaving the union, what about our foreign affairs? Will be have a voice, will we be listened to? And let's forget the history of William Wallace, it has nothing to do with Independance on the 21st century This view, again generalising is held by the middle class, Edinburgh, banker types.

Personally I think there would be a great exodus from Scotland if independance were to become reality, I for one would be getting in line to buy my ticket.

why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.

The obvious response to this is that it's impressive if you were predicting this before the event, since most of Europe's governments, including our own, were of much the same mind. Ireland and Iceland might have been hit earliest, but they've by no means been hit the hardest, and it's not as if we dodged the bullet ourselves financially.

Arguments about RBS are moot at this point - Westminster set the regulatory framework for UK banks, and it was under that framework that RBS had the freedom to screw itself up royally and eventually contribute to the current shambles.

Of course, there's a bigger issue in all of this, which is that if we're basing a decision on independence on how much we perceive we can be subsidised by the rest of the UK, then we haven't learned much as a nation either from the circumstances leading to the Act of Union, or the current economic crisis.

Don't see the logic for "devo max" being a UK wide vote - the original decision to grant devolution wasn't voted on by the UK, other than being rolled into the wider 1997 Labour manifesto, and I doubt if devolution was much of an issue for anyone outside Scotland or Wales anyway.

a lot of working class, anti English, sectarian song singing, Stella drinking wife beaters (if their team looses) not that I am wishing to judge them mind...

Well you would say that, given you describe yourself as a "unionist"

[img] [/img]

Is Cliff Richards a Rangers supporter?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/10/alex-salmond-finishes-touches-referendum

The latest leaks from Westminster show the backtracking has started - no sunset clause in any westminster legislation. 3rd( at least u turn from the tories on this.

Independance. If we wish to leave the game, then it is our choice, not that of all players involved.
Devo max. If we wish to change some of the rules of the game to benefit ourselves, then all involved must agree to the changes

As a man of integrity, do you think it will be the same one he was planning to use in 2010, TJ?

A bit of debate from the New Statesman:

...there is a potential contradiction in the SNP's stance. It maintains both that Cameron has no right to dictate the terms of the referendum and that his move will backfire. But if Cameron's move will backfire why is the Scottish government so opposed to it? The answer, as Sturgeon will not say, is that the SNP is not convinced there will be a majority for independence in the next 18 months (or ever) and, consequently, is determined to reserve the option of devolution max. Yes, some Scottish voters will resent Cameron's intervention but others will ask, "why doesn't Salmond want an early referendum? What's the big feartie afraid of?"

Set against this must be the disorganisation of the pro-Union side (who will lead the No campaign?) but Cameron has called Salmond's bluff and the initiative, for the first time in months, is with him.

And The Economist is also as thick as me as wondering the irony of all of this:

It is all pretty ironic. Political and legal forces are aligning to put the Union to a once-in-a-generation test. And Mr Cameron, a politician who wants to preserve the status quo, finds himself pressing an in-out vote on Mr Salmond, whose adult life has been devoted to the cause of Scottish independence.

are we attacking a politician now for not wanting to pose a question till they think they can win it...PMs call elections all the time when it is favourable to them rather than the opposition..it is hardly something worth pointing out tbh..I dont see hypocrisy I see him trying to win the vote..it its the very same reason that dave wants one now and without a dev max option as he thinke he will win the former and loose the later. I dont see why any of us are surpirsed at politicians bening shrewd politicians but it applies equally to both sides as to the timing and question choice and not just to the SNP.

@ac505

- why would we want to follow after the likes of Iceland and Ireland hailed by Alex (fat face) Salmond as being our inspiriational future...... Where are they now, in the knackers yard I do believe.

I don't see Norway regretting becoming independent. In fact even with Ireland's problems I don't see any of them wanting to come back to the UK.

Does Salmond's "fat face" make his ideas wrong?

Personally I think there would be a great exodus from Scotland if independance were to become reality, I for one would be getting in line to buy my ticket.

I'm sure we would struggle on somehow without you.

We have a politician - Salmond who made a commitment for a variety of good reasons wanting to stick to that commitment.

We have a politician -- Cameron- who has no mandate at all in Scotland attempting to gerrymander this and to railroad thru a proposal.

In 2009 the tories ( along with the rest of the pro union parties) stopped a referendum on independence

yesterday they said that a referendum would have to be held within 18 months. today that condition has been removed.

What will the Tories position be next month? How can they reconcile their demand for an immediate referendum now with their opposition to one only a couple of years ago?

salmond is already making political capital from this and making Cameron look foolish

Salmond said: "The UK government is in a state of total confusion. Overnight, yesterday's 18-month sunset clause had disappeared into the sunset, the coalition is riven with tensions, and Westminster is backtracking in the face of the massive thumbs down from opinion in Scotland to Tory interference in the Scottish democratic process."

European leaders react to the news that Dave's ****ted himself again...

[img] [/img]

JY - I agree with you. But apparently, in this case AS is different from the rest of them. He's a man of honour and integrity, don't you know.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121 ]Scottish referendum 'must be authorised by UK government'[/url]

Michael Moore said the government would devolve the power to hold a poll to the Scottish Parliament only if it was "legal, fair and decisive".

So are we now going to have the situation where AS wants the referendum but Westminster wont give permission because they don't like the question being asked or because the timing does suit? Or is this just backtracking to where we were before DC opened his mouth on something he has no mandate on?

teamhurtmore - you disappoint me.

I thought you really wanted to understand. Ah well.

well he is doing what he said he would at a time that best suits him...probably as good as we can ever expect from a politician...he is no Nick Clegg though 😕

Or is this just backtracking

Can't see how - the position remains true that a change in the constitutional status is a matter for a whole UK parliament, since the 1707 act of union denoted that was binding on both nations, so only a whole UK parliament can enact legislation repealing it. A referendum brought about by any enactment of a Scottish parliament cannot bind the whole UK parliament, as it would be ultra vires. The only powers the Scottish government has are the ones that have been given to it by the UK parliament, which could in theory take them away again.

TJ - I am so sorry to disappoint you.

I thought you really wanted to understand. Ah well.

You know I did and it was fun being in TJ-land for a while. But you burst the lovely bubble with the vote he cannot win bit. I was shocked. Still it was all a bit sickly and too-good-to-be-true.

JY - of course he is. They are all politicians and Salmon is as slippery as his name and the rest of them. Manof integrity - pah! He is as opportunistic as the rest.

It was so funny though, because in addition to the irony that The Economist points out, the New Statesman was correct. Cameron caught AS with his pants down and neither he nor Sturgeon knew how to react.

They have regrouped now and the real battle will begin. Moore must have been a bit pissed because he looks like he was sidelined - DC and GO played dirty there by the looks of things. And Ed, well who cares.

It will now be like an indoor cycling class - loads of spinning and frantic pace with no-one going anywhere.

Still it will be fun to watch!

It will now be like an indoor cycling class - loads of spinning and frantic pace with no-one going anywhere.

No cute bums in lycra to look at, though. Which is a shame.

Isle of Man seems to manage ok?
http://www.gov.im/iomfinance/about/political.xml
Couldn't Scotland's independence use this as a starting point for their own?
Most of the questions and issues raised so far (even the facetious ones) could be resolved by the politicos-that's what they do-that's if Scotland did vote for independence.Throwing up these questions seems to me to be a ploy to put people off voting for independence(speaking as an Englishman living in Scotland with no axe to grind either way).
Were the Westminster Tories ever for a Scottish government in the first place? Genuine question.
Remember the farce of the 1979 referendum for Scotland-why trust Westminster?
BTW AFAIK no referendum carries any legal weight anyway it just directs the government.However the SNP will be snookered if and when any referendum vote is held and independence is rejected

Salmond was not caught with his pants down - he has comprehensively outflanked Cameron and forced a partial climbdown immediately.

Cameron has not called Salmonds bluff - he has given him a huge present - a win win situation.

Its so obvious how out of his depth Cameron is on this. Floundering around.

Un trumps all.

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html

Were the Westminster Tories ever for a Scottish government in the first place? Genuine question.

No - they are a unionist party - its in their name and they have been against any form of devolution or independence

they stopped a referendum on independence a couple of years ago. Thats why this is so laughable in its transparancy.

I see the SNP [b]are[/b] trying to go for 2014. Pretty pathetic really.