Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

I think you only have to look at their policies to see which party is more likely to redistribute some of the national wealth. Which party came up with the bedroom tax and which came up with a massive increase in child benefit?
Secondly athgray I don’t think you read my last post. 😉
CMD is heavily involved in the debate already he just doesnt want to admit it.

But surely the UK prime minister should argue the UK case and the Scottish first minister that for Scotland. Funny that Hague And spineless Danny are waging in.

Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, includes Scotland. His government has a policy of preserving the constitutional status quo. He has a responsibility to articulate that policy; his failure to articulate illustrates the lack of interest shown by Westminster (and Tories in particular) toward Scottish issues.

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

his failure to articulate illustrates the lack of interest shown by Westminster (and Tories in particular) toward Scottish issues.

He has articulated his view clearly as have the leaders of all the main parties. In his/their opinion Scottish issues are best dealt with in the context of the UK. It’s very simple. As a Scotophile, I agree with him.

The rest is now tactics and the gloves are off. The weasel’s is here to represent his own interest sorry, the interests of those who seek full independence and he will use every tactic in the book to get his own way ensure a yes vote. And so he should. He is a master of the dark arts and manipulation as the book of dreams shows with the Farrage/Starkey/galloway bullying approach of shouting down dissenters when exposed. A naked weasel is not a pretty sight. Good for CMD, the correct tactics at this stage.

If his BS is not in the best interests if Scotland then so be it. But as inthe case this week when it affects the rUK then we should meet fire with fire. He hides behind the Westminster bully tag because that is exactly his approach. Over the past 12 months his bluff has been called time and again and he has been repeatedly exposed. So it’s his turn to fight dirty and make this an anti Tory-toff campaign. And why not, that is a winning card for him.

This is now the real thing, Good on the UK leaders for fighting correctly. It’s dirty and will get dirtier as the vote gets nearer. It’s time to stop the pretence, there is a guy who will do harm to Scotland and to the rUK if left alone. He’s played his cards in the book of dreams and very early. The wise man holds back and uses his trumps at the right time.

Ding, ding…..

Oh oh. THM has finally lost it. Reverting to hyperbole and personal insult shows there is no substantive, reasoned argument.

I’ll ask again: would Alex Salmond seek to have this debate with a Labour or LibDem PM?

We have had plenty of rationale argument and for the most part that is how it will continue.

But AS has crossed the boundaries this week. So let’s take the fight to him properly. He’s exposed and trying to fight dirty. We should counter appropriately.

I have no idea, ask him. But frankly I don’t care. He is fighting for Scottish interests in a (largely/partly) zero-sum game. Good for him. If the TV debate plays into his hands then it’s simple, don’t do it.

So why argue it’s an anti-Tory, anti-toff thing? Do you seriously think that Alex Salmond wouldn’t want to take on any UK PM regardless of party or background? The only person that’s focussing on these characteristics of the current PM is you. Is it because you’re trying to paint the argument in a certain light – one that gives credence to your own prejudices and opinions?

And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

It means that Alex ‘power trip’ Salmond seems to keep asking the UK if they can hold his hand throughout the whole process by giving continual feedback (and providing him much needed publicity) – rather than just getting on with doing it. Can see the same thing continuing to happen if Scotland goes independent since the rest of the UK will remain holding all of the trump cards.

Quit the hand holding, state your case, take the vote, make your mind up, YES or NO, get on with it, stop whinging, simple 🙂

I have already posted the yes campaigns announcement from two days ago. What is there first point? How many parties does it mention in that point? How often does AS preface any reference to the government or current policies with the adjective Tory?

Correctly, from a tactical viewpoint, they want to exploit the perception that the Tories are all about cuts etc. this is a natural vote winner whether true or not. As mentioned several times (and to copy a trend) CMD should not fall for the obvious trap.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – not by Tory governments we didn’t elect.

To answer the question about asking the Lib Dems, first he needs to realise that they are actually part of our coalition government , however inconvenient that admission might be.

In the past 48 hours, we had Alexander (LD) and Hague (C) delivering the conclusions of a UK (coalition) government’s latest Scottish analysis. Alexander presented much of the detail. And the reaction from Sturgeon: “an example of the same old hypocritical Tories lecturing Scotland on why we shouldn’t be taking decisions ourselves”.

Have I missed Alexander’s actual (as opposed to “in effect”!) desertion to the Tories??? Sensibly she focused on Hague and his party and will continue to do so. Sensibly, the better together campaign will do the opposite.

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour – 42%
Lib Dems – 19%
SNP – 19%
Conservative – 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they’d have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

THM, they’re just saying what everyone thinks there, including yourself I am sure, we have a Tory government in all but name, executing Tory policy almost without exception. It is perhaps the saddest thing about the current state of affairs, that so many people voted for one thing and their elected representatives have delivered something so different.

rebel12 – Member

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour – 42%
Lib Dems – 19%
SNP – 19%
Conservative – 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they’d have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

For the first, we have an SNP government. We vote labour for the UK parliament and SNP for the scottish parliament, simple. Makes no sense to vote for the SNP in the UK general election as even if every Scottish voted SNP they would remain a minority. (especially given the way that FPTP disadvantaged the SNP- at their highest point they took 1/3d of votes and just 1/6th of seats)

For the latter, that’s an excellent selective timescale there, THM will approve 😉 It’s now almost 60 years since Scotland voted Conservative, and yet we’ve had a Conservative government almost half that time. That’s quite a long way from “one general election result” eh.

This can be diluted into an anti-Tory position. But it’s a wee bit more subtle than that. The reality is, our voting trends demonstrate that as a whole Scotland’s politics are markedly different from the UK, we are consistently far more left leaning, and that gap seems to be growing. The wider picture is “We do not approve of how this country is run, and our votes do little to change that” I think it’s fair to say we’d feel the same if situations were reversed we’d voted against Labour for 60 years and got them for 30.

Now, consider the dissatisfaction many people have in England- we have a coalition government in which the leading party was voted in with a minority. That’s a vote for them, yes, but a very qualified and limited one. That could, you’d think, suggest some restraint and some consideration of their lack of appeal, but instead they’ve acted like they have total support rather than being the most succesful losers. That’s unappealing even in the country that voted them in with such reservations. Now extend that to the country that voted them out.

Apart from the obviously falsifiable first sentance, good points. But why do they point to indepedence as opposed to devolution/status quo. It’s blindingly obvious that the book of dreams is essentially arguing for devolution not independence which is why AS keeps getting tied up in knots of his own making. He can’t fool the canny population because they can see it too.

We want economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy…
We will have no nuclear weapons apart from the ones we all pretend are not there….
Etc..

Blair Jenkins yesterday

“That is because everybody agrees that after a Yes vote a currency union makes absolute sense both for Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

So what has the last 20 years or so taught us about the fundamental requirements of currency unions? What does this mean for independent monetary and fiscal policies?

That’s the beauty of the yes campaign…,out of their own mouths they highlight why their whole notion is flawed. They continue to argue for devolved power within the UK. Funny that, so does better together?!?!

No need for CMD to play the trump yet, let Jenkins and co do the work for you.

THM, tbh your ability to state that black is white amazes even me sometimes. We can’t achieve national nuclear disarmament without independence; so there is no possible link between devolution or the status quo, and the goal of full disarmament. (unless you believe that Westminster will agree to relocate Trident and to remove all of the tax burden from Scotland, while we remain in the Union?)

Yes other nations will be able to pass through our waters and ports by observing the niceties, but this is a trivial thing compared to the achievement of getting permanently based weapons of mass destruction out of our country, off our conscience and our wallets. The national disgrace of claiming savage austerity cuts are required while spending billions on nuclear white elephants is a Westminster folly we can’t escape from with devolution let alone the status quo.

TBF I doubt that you can believe what you are saying.

And economic independence with some external influence on fiscal and monetary policy is not at all the same as “economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy.” It is a strange Salmond-esque habit you have, to take an element of truth and run with it til it is nonsense. Perhaps this is why you dislike the man so much?

I’m literally drinking tea and eating biscuits

I’m literally drinking Lemsip

I apologise to gordimhor for misinterpreting his post on the Tories. It was a bit early in the morning. Still confused regarding “the poorest 20% of the UK having less than 1% of the wealth, the union is not working time for something new”.

As we disappear off with ‘our’ oil wealth I would like to offer the poorest people of Newcastle, Liverpool or London more than a wave goodbye, a few crocodile tears and a good luck message.

I agree with many here that the Tories are not the best people to help the UK’s poorest, but if as some claim Scotland should keep its oil wealth rather than try to help others, I see it little better than running away. Again a case of “I am alright Jack”.

On another note received a publication through the door from Yes!
Front page says ‘win an ipad’. Had to take part in a simple survey. Yes, No or Maybe then submit details.
Which ever answer you gave meant receiving load of info from Yes Scotland. I reckon the only way to have a chance of winning is to say Yes. Did not take part in the end as I would have to answer honestly, and the official Yes Scotland people are the last people I want to give personal info to as a No voter. Good luck on the contest though.

Can’t wait for the results to back up Yes campaign.

100% of ipad winners reckon independence would be braw!

Clearly my colour blindness makes it difficult NW but salmond doesn’t exactly help.

Page x111 of the book of dreams: ” we can remove trident from Scotland for good.” Forget black or white, that is a bold and definitive statement ie black and white.. And the reality? Scotland will follow the don’t ask, don’t tell strategy. Not quite so black and white is it? Trident may or may not be in our waters, we just know in future. How many shades of grey are there? Forget 50….

Same page: ” a guarantee that taxes…will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people.” The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax, and fiscal policy will be co-ordinated (at the very least with) with rUK fiscal policy. Again not black and white is it.

Ditto interest rates with a currency union and BOE as lender of last resort.

Re the “some economic influence”, one would have to be totally blind, not colour blind, of what has been going on over the last decade not to realise that this is one of the great euphemisms of the whole debate.

I’m literally drinking Lemsip

😆

It’s ok, I’ve got the hint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.wimp

teamhurtmore – Member

Same page: ” a guarantee that taxes…will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people.” The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax

So you keep saying. Proof?

I hate doing this, but:

“remove: verb: take (something) away or off from the position occupied.”

That is exactly what the white paper proposes, no ifs no buts, no shades of grey. Trident will be removed from Scotland. I have the strangest feeling we’ve done this particular conversation before.

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Well if you want it believe that trident will be removed from Scotland, then so be it. I fear you will be not only disappointed but ultimately duped.

Pretending that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is synonymous with “no Trident” is little more that simple deceit. But we have come to expect that now.

Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A “competitive” tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. Unless companies are actually attracted by paying more tax!?!?!

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Fair cop! And sloppy writing on my part. What I meant but didn’t say was that much of the book of dreams sets out essentially what is happening with devolution already especially re Econ independence etc. I agree trident is different. In the case, it is merely deceit. I should have been clearer, I agree.

a guarantee that taxes…will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people

And that would be UP, UP an awful LOT if all the promises on the wish list are to be fulfilled.

But he can’t do that because taxes will be below the rUK as promised. La-la land economics.

How many cakes can you have and eat at the same time before you are sick of such tripe.

The white paper’s use of “remove” fits the oxford english dictionary definition. It just doesn’t fit your personal one. This is deceit? Come on. You’re not arguing with scottish independence, you’re arguing with the english language!

Trident will not- cannot, by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and by NATO treaty binding on the RUK (and on Scotland assuming we join) be based in Scotland.

Re corporation tax:

“Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A “competitive” tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. “

I am confuse. Here is the actual quote: “This Government plans to set out a timescale for reducing corporation tax by up to three percentage points below the prevailing UK rate.”

This is merely an SNP government policy, so in no way a restriction on Scottish tax independence. Care to have another go?

Read the para above- it’s an odd “competitive tax” policy that sets tax rates above the perceived competition.

BTW, old Bob Buchan must be a slight embarrassment!!! 😉

Anyway folk for dinner, the rest can wait.

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

teamhurtmore – Member

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

Possibly (operational decisions will be the business of the rUK)

More simple points for you- does the White Paper ever say otherwise? No. Does it ever imply otherwise? No. If we wanted to commit to nuclear weapon free waters, would we not say so? You’d think, since that’s quite the big deal. Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does “remove” mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

Re tax… I am now confused. You started out saying that Scotland won’t have fiscal and monetary independence. You then tried to use an SNP policy statement to prove this, for some reason. Now you’ve referred to another SNP policy statement, which still doesn’t prove it.

I could be wrong, but you seem to be saying “Scotland will still be part of the world and therefore will have to take into account what competitors do”. To which I remark, dur. That’s no less the case than it is today.If this is your scary lack of independence, it is no more scary than it is today. Being threatened with the status quo is not new but it is weird.

Considering that the SNP policy which you quoted is to reduce corporation tax, I have no idea where you’re going with the repeated comments on setting rates above the rUK.

I find the thread discussion between thm and Northwind interesting and informative. Northwind, we may vote differently this year. Hope you don’t mind me saying, I find you to be one of the more salient posters for the Yes camp. I read thm posts with a feeling of “what he said” or thm+1. Both research well and debate better and with greater grace than myself and others. Keep it up you two.

*feels put out that my largely worthless usually childish input is not appreciated by athgray.

**although I do agree with him on ‘some’ parts of his post

Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does “remove” mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.

In other words, don’t hold your breath!

Don’t worry piemonster. I do feel like I let the debate down sometimes. I can’t change though. I keep getting drawn to the topic. Have sometimes felt like a voice of 1, which I suppose causes me to get defensive then lash out.

FWIW, I thought this was probably the sensible and sensitive point raised in this thread

athgray
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.

I do believe our current deputy prime minister committed to not charging tuition fees, that one worked out well…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo[/video]

Trident is an topic I must say the SNP have left little ambiguity over. I don’t think an independent Scotland will have Trident, however I don’t think Trident is the issue to the majority of Scotland that the Yes camp would like to believe.

Polls show most Scots would like Trident removed. I would be interested to know how such questions are worded. Trident is a topic that allows nationalists to talk “holyer that thou” and promotes the rhetoric of subjugation and war mongering to be ramped up to 11. Not sure how that plays out with normal voters though.

Found one

The poll then asked the question commissioned by Scottish CND: “The UK Government plans to replace the existing Trident nuclear weapons with a new system, at a cost of £65 billion. Do you support or oppose the UK Government buying a new nuclear weapon system to replace Trident?“

While the results did show a clear correlation between support for independence and opposition to Trident, this was not as marked as might have been expected. The overall figures showed 14% in favour of replacement, 60% opposed, with 25% undecided.

Stripping the latter out gave an overall figure of 19% for replacement and 80% against.

Among those planning to vote Yes, opposition to Trident ran at 87% to 13%, with an identical figure for those still undecided on independence. Among No voters opposition to Trident was also strong, at 75% to 25%.

Undoubtedly a bit of a leading question (but then it was commissioned by CND). Nonetheless, I’d have thought that the result was pretty clear even after adjusting for that. Note that even the NO voters support removal.

Oh dear. It’s not group hugs is it scotroutes? It’s only half 8 and I haven’t had a drink yet.
Fair enough, but do you reckon Trident features high on most Scots priorities? I am not sure.