An Independent Scotland?

Salmond was overbearing, smug and demonstrated he still trying to win on a wing and a prayer. He has been schooled in public speaking and took to walking about - all very contrived. Any real difficult questions were covered up by speaking louder and louder and going off track. He managed to avoid quite a few questions.
 
I thought the walking about was quite funny. He also did some rather over enthusiastic clapping at the end when he applauded the audience.
 
It was an awful debate, where nothing of substance was said by either side.
Salmond's reaction to Darlings pound 'give away' was schoolboy at best, we all know you can use it without asking, it's the consequences of that which is at issue, but again, Salmond side stepped that. Darling wasn't very well prepared, but then he doesn't really have to be, it isn't a matter of what he thinks the Scots should use if its a yes, he is supporting, at worst the status quo.
The bottom line is though that the Yes camp have pretty much made up their minds, as have the No's. If any undecided's were swayed by last nights farce, I'd be surprised.
 
dinners said:
It was terrible.

Darling had about 1 minute of his eight minutes because Salmond just talked all over him.

Darling clearly just wanted to bang his own head against a wall whilst Salmond seemed intent on looking smug.

They were poorly managed and the whole thing was a joke. It reminded me of when my wife and I have a 'domestic debate' lol
Click to expand...

Agreed - a commentator from The Times said on the radio this morning that it was a dreadfull advert for politics. It was just two people incessantly talking over each other. Whoever was tasked (if anyone was) with controlling that debate was as much use as a headache.
Salmond jumped to life when Darling said that Scotland could use the pound ................ nothing new in that, we all know that any currency can be used.
B of E will not act as a guarantor for the pound used by Scotland ............... nothing new in that either.

Just a damned rabble. Two rats in a bag.
 
Far from the best of debates last night. The middle section with each challenging the other was a waste of time.

Alex Salmond appeared to be trying to suggest the use of the pound after independence means there must be monetary union.

It also appears that the SNP are now saying a Yes vote means a mandate for using the pound in a monetary union.

I think a large number of Yes voters would want to use the pound within a monetary union but the question on the 18th is “Should Scotland be an independent country?”, not “ Do you want Scotland to be an independent country which uses the pound in monetary union with the rest of the UK?”

I do think Alistair Darling failed to make the point that the pound is not the Scottish (or indeed the English) pound. It is the currency of the UK. If Scotland leave the UK and there is no problem with Scotland using the pound, but that does not mean there must be a monetary union.

Alex Salmond asked how, given a Yes vote, the wishes of the Scottish people for monetary union could be ignored. What about the rest of the UK if they do not want a monetary union; can their views be ignored?

Dave
 
Blank_Canvas said:
21 one days to go. Better the Devil you know or take a massive risk for your Children's future ?
Click to expand...
If we were better together, we wouldn't be looking for independence.
"Better the devil you know" is used by people with no vision, who do not have the balls to at least try and build a better future for their children and grandchildren. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone accepted that what they have is as good as it gets.
Sure, it can get worse, but I believe it can also get better.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
21 one days to go. Better the Devil you know or take a massive risk for your Children's future ?
Click to expand...

Exactly so, Nick. In fact, if the leap in the dark option prevails it could be a massive risk for your own future before your children come to be affected.

I am a Scot, born in Glasgow, and have been around for a good few decades. I find life in Scotland/UK pretty good. Not perfect, but certainly comfortable. I don't believe that will change much under a UK government.

I see no firm evidence at all that my lot in life, and the lot of the majority, will improve in an independant Scotland. I am not interested in the self determination etc. arguments or any of the "promises" in the wind blowing out of Holyrood.
I see a Yes vote as Russian roulette with 5 bullets in 6 chambers.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
"Better the devil you know" is used by people with no vision, who do not have the balls to at least try and build a better future for their children and grandchildren. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone accepted that what they have is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And as long as we can still get Irn Bru in England, we should be ok!

I don't actually think going independent will have much effect on normal people in Scotland. It will just shake up those who think they are in charge.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
Agreed - a commentator from The Times said on the radio this morning that it was a dreadfull advert for politics. It was just two people incessantly talking over each other.
Click to expand...

I don't think the way they were positioned helped.

In the first debate Salmond and Darling were either side.

In the second debate they were next to each other with Glen Campbell ? on the left.

This meant Darling had his back to Campbell when talking to Salmond and when Salmond was talking to Darling it was harder for Campbell to control the situation.

I'm sure a lot of thought went into the positioning though.
 
Last nights debate was never going to be anything but a boxing match, neither of the two contestants were ever going to answer questions that made them look bad and both were only going to ask questions that they though the other guy couldn't answer. Alex Salmond won the match on points because he got most hits in but the knockout blow goes to the woman in the audience who laid into Alistair Darling on his NHS record!
 
When you cut through all the lies, fabrications and just plain BS it pretty much boils down to the same old thing: if it all goes wrong it's the working tax payers who will foot the bill. The rich will continue to avoid having to pay and those who don't/won't work can't pay.

I also get the feeling that if it goes well then who will benefit the most? Usually the rich who will get richer and most likely increases in welfare to secure their votes. Will they reduce Income Tax and NIC rates for the working people? No chance. They'll find some excuse (any Government that is).

As for joining the EU, if we keep out of it then we can replace benefits with food stamps and not worrying about "violating their humans rights [ridiculous]". I think they will find if they did this they probably wouldn't need so many food banks (for obvious reasons).
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
If we were better together, we wouldn't be looking for independence.
"Better the devil you know" is used by people with no vision, who do not have the balls to at least try and build a better future for their children and grandchildren. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone accepted that what they have is as good as it gets.
Sure, it can get worse, but I believe it can also get better.
Click to expand...

I would like to share your optimism but I am reminded of Wendy's dream - Peter Pan in Never-Never land.
 
has a "vote" been done to compare what Scotland think versus what the rest of the UK think?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
If we were better together, we wouldn't be looking for independence.
"Better the devil you know" is used by people with no vision, who do not have the balls to at least try and build a better future for their children and grandchildren. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone accepted that what they have is as good as it gets.
Sure, it can get worse, but I believe it can also get better.
Click to expand...
And if it goes wrong you'll be looking at the international community to bail you out. Reminds me of the bank of mum/dad. Without control over your own currency you'll be at the mercy of others. It will guaranteed give you less independence that you are enjoying today.

Fine by me, just not nice for those that will have to pick up the pieces again.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
21 one days to go. Better the Devil you know or take a massive risk for your Children's future ?
Click to expand...

Postal vote ballot papers start going through letterboxes tomorrow, I understand. About a sixth of the total votes possible are postal. BBC said last night that most postal votes are returned with 2 or 3 days.
 
dejongj said:
And if it goes wrong you'll be looking at the international community to bail you out. Reminds me of the bank of mum/dad. Without control over your own currency you'll be at the mercy of others. It will guaranteed give you less independence that you are enjoying today.

Fine by me, just not nice for those that will have to pick up the pieces again.
Click to expand...
And if it doesn't?........oh wait! That would be positive, I forgot you guys don't do positive:p
 
Last edited:
Oh

My

God!

What

If

It

Works!!
 
What if it works ? Great.

What if it doesn't ? Bummer.

Same applies to the future regardless of the referendum outcome.

Given the meaning of the words - it's easy to assume 'Yes' people are being positive and 'No' people being negative but only if you look at it from the side of those wanting independence.

Some people are voting 'No' because they are voting 'Yes' to the Union. They feel very positive about being in the Union, something the 'Yes' people are very negative about. ;)
 
Meanwhile, here's a question I've asked twice, but nobody in the No camp has answered it.

The initial spark came from @Steep with this:
Steep said:
... have a read of this opinion piece by Peter Arnott.
It's a wee bit nsfw later on with swear words but he absolutely nails it.
peterarnott.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/dinner-with-no-voters-or-what-i-wanted.html
Click to expand...
I thought this was fascinating.

I've been arguing in this thread that there is no status quo to vote for. Some in the No camp say that the Yes camp don't know what they're voting for, because so many big issues (EU, sterling, Trident etc etc) are up in the air. I say the No camp don't know what they're voting for either, because nobody knows how Westminster will react after a No vote. It probably won't be pretty either way.

This guy Arnott makes the same point, but goes further. His observation is that, if Scotland votes No in September, those who vote No - or don't vote - won't be able to blame things on the Westminster government in future. Don't want nuclear weapons? Don't like welfare cuts? Think the UK government is too London-centric and doesn't care about Scotland? Tough. You had your chance and you voted for all those things.

If I had a vote, I think that would make me stop and think for a minute. What would I actually be voting for? If you're in the No camp, how do you feel about voting FOR all the injustices which periodically rain down on you from Westminster?
 
dinners said:
What if it works ? Great.

What if it doesn't ? Bummer.

Same applies to the future regardless of the referendum outcome.

Given the meaning of the words - it's easy to assume 'Yes' people are being positive and 'No' people being negative but only if you look at it from the side of those wanting independence.

Some people are voting 'No' because they are voting 'Yes' to the Union. They feel very positive about being in the Union, something the 'Yes' people are very negative about. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't feel negative about being in the union, but I feel positive about being in control of our own destiny.
 
Last edited:
Trouble is Stewart I suspect there are very few actual 'no' voters here. Many of the respondents don't have a vote, others really just want to stir the pot a bit and those who genuinely do believe no is the way are not going to be swayed any more than I am. It's worth reposting that piece though because it's an example of someone who really has thought it through.
 
StewartR said:
This guy Arnott makes the same point, but goes further. His observation is that, if Scotland votes No in September, those who vote No - or don't vote - won't be able to blame things on the Westminster government in future. Don't want nuclear weapons? Don't like welfare cuts? Think the UK government is too London-centric and doesn't care about Scotland? Tough. You had your chance and you voted for all those things.
Click to expand...

How about if Scotland goes independent all those who vote No have their Income Tax, NIC and Council Tax rates and all benefit payments fixed at the current rate for the next ten years and all those who voted Yes continue to have theirs at risk of going up and down for the next ten years.

Judging from the breakdown of those who contributed to the Yes campaign, i.e. almost all of it came from one lottery winning couple, I suspect there wouldn't be very many people willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the above.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I don't feel negative about being in the union, but I feel positive about being in control of our own destiny.
Click to expand...

Is this what you see as being in control of your own destiny:-

EU - entry conditions.
These rules are divided into 35 different policy fields (chapters), such as transport, energy, environment, etc., each of which is negotiated separately.

They are not negotiable:
 
I feel that these head to head debates are a waste of time. They may make good TV, but are truly rubbish as a way of rationally discussing the issues. Neither guy impressed me, but Salmond in particular struck me as boorish, rude and a typical politician who refuses to give a straight answer.
 
gman said:
Judging from the breakdown of those who contributed to the Yes campaign, i.e. almost all of it came from one lottery winning couple, I suspect there wouldn't be very many people willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to the above.
Click to expand...


Yes Highland raised £1200 in two days this weekend from ordinary folk (like me) giving what they could afford. People all over Scotland are putting their money where their mouth is every day.
 
arclight said:
Is this what you see as being in control of your own destiny:-

EU - entry conditions.
These rules are divided into 35 different policy fields (chapters), such as transport, energy, environment, etc., each of which is negotiated separately.

They are not negotiable:
Click to expand...

Eh? "35 policy fields, each of which is negotiated separately.....They are not negotiable" :LOL:

we are already in the EU, and no one knows that we would have to reapply. And who's to say we would want to stay in the EU? Alex Salmond might, but it's not his decision. At least it would be ours.
If we say no to independence and the RUK leaves the EU, what say will we have? Very little.
AND, if being in the EU is so bad, why are countries joining, and none leaving?
 
Last edited:
How about this for an idea, somebody come up with a hurdle for Yes to cross that hasn't already been done to death on this thread?
 
StewartR said:
If I had a vote, I think that would make me stop and think for a minute. What would I actually be voting for?
Click to expand...

I think that goes without saying.

There are many (on both sides) who won't stop and think because the most important thing to them is either being independent at any cost / remaining part of the Union at all costs.
 
Steep said:
How about this for an idea, somebody come up with a hurdle for Yes to cross that hasn't already been done to death on this thread?
Click to expand...

There are many "hurdles" which have no definite answer. You may feel that all the for and against arguments have been settled to your satisfaction. In which case there are probably other threads which will be more interesting to you.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
There are many "hurdles" which have no definite answer. You may feel that all the for and against arguments have been settled to your satisfaction. I which case there are probably other threads which will be more interesting to you.
Click to expand...

Some people posting in this thread would argue that black is white for the sake of it if someone else said otherwise.

Some questions like the E.U. have no definitive answer until after the 18th's vote and the right people are asked, but that doesn't stop folk dragging them up time and again. Making statements in bold because if it's in bold it must be true! which is a bit like shouting louder because you have no real argument.

My assumption and I think it's the right one is that those in charge of any negotiations apre' 18th will be pragmatic and use common sense mainly because they are not children, or idiots likely to cut their own noses off to spite themselves. This applies to UK EU NATO and anyone else with a vested interest.
 
Steep said:
My assumption and I think it's the right one is that those in charge of any negotiations apre' 18th will be pragmatic and use common sense mainly because they are not children, or idiots likely to cut their own noses off to spite themselves.
Click to expand...

I think previous experience suggests that people often do not act reasonably in negotiations. Often bloody mindedness, lack of common sense and sectarianism/nationalism come to the fore.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Eh? "35 policy fields, each of which is negotiated separately.....They are not negotiable" :LOL:

we are already in the EU, and no one knows that we would have to reapply. And who's to say we would want to stay in the EU? Alex Salmond might, but it's not his decision. At least it would be ours.
If we say no to independence and the RUK leaves the EU, what say will we have? Very little.
AND, if being in the EU is so bad, why are countries joining, and none leaving?
Click to expand...

Salmond has not offered an EU referendum. Countries are not leaving because all but 5 of the 28 get more out than they pay in financially.

That is actually an aside to your point that you want control of your (Scotland's) destiny. That concept is entirely incompatible with EU membership where the policy on everything major is there to be complied by member states with and not negotiated.
 
Here's a graph published by Sky News today showing relative tax revenues per person Scotland v rUK, this to counter the arguments that we don't pay our way currently.


View attachment 19307
 
PatrickO said:
I think previous experience suggests that people often do not act reasonably in negotiations. Often bloody mindedness, lack of common sense and sectarianism/nationalism come to the fore.
Click to expand...

Any particular experience?

Clearly the UK hasn't been involved in this specific kind of negotiation for some time but recently I can think of the NI peace talks where both sides put aside any differences to come up with solutions. Not quite the same obviously but an example of negotiations where politicians were only peripherally involved as I expect would be the case in any indy talks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top