An Independent Scotland?

dod said:
You haven't even started to address them. Just the same old "don't worry about it" and links to opinions which are no more justifiable than anything no puts forward.
Click to expand...

"Don't worry about" it is a valid arguing tool.
 
Steep said:
Firstly, you can't just quit, it takes a minimum of two years for a country to leave the EU if they choose to do so and even if they do you cannot deprive any citizen of their EU citizenship without their permission (this is part of EU law now). This makes it extremely difficult for a country to quit without having a majority of it's citizens agree, not a majority of the voters but of the population. Any referendum held by rUK would have to come up with more than 50% by population of the vote to leave for it to be allowed (wondering now if DC knew this when he said he'd hold a referendum, thinking he's pretty safe)
Click to expand...

So, the EU makes laws that make it almost impossible for members to choose to leave.... How very progressive and fair of them. Not the sort of thing a country like the great evil Russia would do at all. :/
 
gman said:
People like this annoy me. He has the cheek to judge anyone's ability as a parent when he's standing there with that bright red face.

http://wwwSPAMfeed.com/sirajdatoo/youre-a-bad-parent-if-you-dont-vote-for-independence
Click to expand...
They annoy me too, but it don't see what the colour of his face has to do with anything?
 
dinners said:
I've found some of Hugh's posts in this thread to be very informative.

It does seem however that he's hell bent on promoting / defending / convincing us that yes is the way to go.

Nothing wrong with that but it has kind of taken over the thread.
Click to expand...

You can't doubt his passion or dedication to the cause.
 
H2O said:
So, the EU makes laws that make it almost impossible for members to choose to leave.... How very progressive and fair of them. Not the sort of thing a country like the great evil Russia would do at all. :/
Click to expand...

No, the law concerns the rights of the citizens to be citizens, nothing to stop a country leaving if it's citizens choose to.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Did we not go to war because of weapons of mass destruction? How many did they find?
Click to expand...

I thought it was because the politicians decided to and got the Queen's sign off?
 
Steep said:
No, the law concerns the rights of the citizens to be citizens, nothing to stop a country leaving if it's citizens choose to.
Click to expand...

& yet you directly related that law to making a vote to leave harder.

In effect restricting freedom by giving people more 'rights'. Seems rather insidious to me.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
You can't doubt his passion or dedication to the cause.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I also said that I found a lot of his posts informative.

I just feel Hugh (and the yes voters as a whole) are trying a bit too hard.

Wanting something the most doesn't make it sensible.
 
Bernie174 said:
You wouldn't know because a Yes campaign 'proof' is because they say so.
Click to expand...
The reason I wouldn't know, is because I'm not interested and CBA to research it ;)
 
Steep said:
I can't help it if it's the truth! every argument advanced against indy has been defeated.

EU
Defence
NATO
Oil
Currency
Border posts
Click to expand...

I've been following the thread and the answers to the majority of your list are still unknown quantities (other than in Alex Salmonds head, and those that choose to believe what he says without question).

I think anyone voting yes because they believe the Yes position is gospel on those questions is being quite naive.
 
H2O said:
& yet you directly related that law to making a vote to leave harder.

In effect restricting freedom by giving people more 'rights'. Seems rather insidious to me.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't apply to Scotland though as we are not in the EU as a member in our own right. All four home countries as designated as regions of the member state, the United Kingdom.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/

Regards...
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Did we not go to war because of weapons of mass destruction? How many did they find?
Click to expand...
nothing to do with this.

You know something there's a certain delicious irony in this whole process.

Let's say yes do win, and I think they might. People are people and we'll eventually get to a replication of Westminster as it is right now. A right, a left and some strange things in the middle. Independence will almost certainly lead to a resurgence in the Conservative vote in Scotland over time, exactly what most of the Yes camp is arguing against :D
 
Dave1 said:
I've been following the thread and the answers to the majority of your list are still unknown quantities (other than in Alex Salmonds head, and those that choose to believe what he says without question).

I think anyone voting yes because they believe the Yes position is gospel on those questions is being quite naive.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of blind faith and blinkered patriotism in the 'Yes' vote.
 
dod said:
You know something there's a certain delicious irony in this whole process.

Let's say yes do win, and I think they might. People are people and we'll eventually get to a replication of Westminster as it is right now. A right, a left and some strange things in the middle. Independence will almost certainly lead to a resurgence in the Conservative vote in Scotland over time, exactly what most of the Yes camp is arguing against :D
Click to expand...
That's similar to an observation I made a while ago.

Let's imagine the Yes vote triumphs by 55-45, which would be a HUGE result for them. Then you have 55% of the electorate who agree they want independence, but once they've got that, what else do they agree on? Perhaps not very much. Meanwhile 45% of the electorate are agreed that they would have preferred to be part of the UK. So a putative We'll-Do-Whatever-The-Rest-Of-The-UK-Does Party could command enough support to get elected.

OK, I'm being a bit frivolous. But not entirely frivolous. I think it's fair to say that, if Scotland does vote for independence, the referendum and even the post-referendum negotiations are just the beginning of a very long and windy road.
 
Steep said:
Here's an interesting thing re the EU.... He says the most likely outcome would be Scotland's continuing as a member state in it's own right as being the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...
That's got to be right. It's just common sense. And if the factions on BOTH sides of the debate showed a bit more common sense, it wouldn't be an issue.

(But Trident still is an issue. Care to speculate on what the "path of least resistance" would be there? I know what I think it is. And I think you know what I think it is. But what do you think?)
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
There's a lot of blind faith and blinkered patriotism in the 'Yes' vote.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of blind faith and blinkered patriotism in the 'No' vote too. Who in the 'No' camp actually knows what they would be voting for? Not the status quo, that's for certain. That's not an option.
 
Finste said:
It wouldn't apply to Scotland though as we are not in the EU as a member in our own right. All four home countries as designated as regions of the member state, the United Kingdom.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/

Regards...
Click to expand...

It certainly wouldn't affect independence from the UK but could it force a newly independent Scotland to remain members of the EU? If so I wonder how that might affect the negotiations on Scotlands revised terms of membership.

Given that Scots are currently EU citizens couldn't this also invalidate any countries potential veto on Scotland membership?
 
dod said:
nothing to do with this.

You know something there's a certain delicious irony in this whole process.

Let's say yes do win, and I think they might. People are people and we'll eventually get to a replication of Westminster as it is right now. A right, a left and some strange things in the middle. Independence will almost certainly lead to a resurgence in the Conservative vote in Scotland over time, exactly what most of the Yes camp is arguing against :D
Click to expand...
We're not arguing against the Tories though. We're arguing for the right to fully Govern ourselves. It has nothing to do with SNP, Labour, Tories etc. once/if we gain independence, we will vote for a party that meets the needs of the majority who vote for them, not the needs of the majority who didn't :p
If that happens to be the Tories in the future, then so be it.
 
StewartR said:
That's got to be right. It's just common sense. And if the factions on BOTH sides of the debate showed a bit more common sense, it wouldn't be an issue.

(But Trident still is an issue. Care to speculate on what the "path of least resistance" would be there? I know what I think it is. And I think you know what I think it is. But what do you think?)
Click to expand...

A.S. said again the other day, Trident gone by 2020. I do believe it 'might' be possible that could be extended to allow rUK to set up a base for them but no one is going to admit that before the 19th, it's as much a bargaining chip as CU is.
 
Steep said:
That's not fair!
Click to expand...

No offence intended ;).

You've quite obviously made your mind up and probably already voted (assuming Alex has sent your ticket :whistle:). I very much doubt anything anyone says can, or will change your mind!

I wish Scotland well with whatever decision is made, I just hope they make the right one :)
 
StewartR said:
There's a lot of blind faith and blinkered patriotism in the 'No' vote too. Who in the 'No' camp actually knows what they would be voting for? Not the status quo, that's for certain. That's not an option.
Click to expand...

That's why a lot of people didn't want a referendum.
 
gman said:
If the war was clearly illegal then why did we allow it?
Click to expand...
Legal or not, power will attempt to ram through what it wants. The only thing that stands in the way of that is the will of the people, since ALL power wielded by those in office is (we are told) power which is delegated from the people. So in the final estimation I suppose we can only say that people didn't care enough to stop it. Some did, but not enough cared to actually to stop it.
 
It has nothing to do with SNP, Labour, Tories etc. once/if we gain independence, we will vote for a party that meets the needs of the majority who vote for them, not the needs of the majority who didn't
Click to expand...

But you have already done that. The vast majority of Scots voters did not vote SNP, OK, they didn't bother to vote at all, but to claim that there's a change in the wind on how a party gains power, and it's all going to be OK, because that is a majority party is again misleading.
 
Steep said:
A.S. said again the other day, Trident gone by 2020. I do believe it 'might' be possible that could be extended to allow rUK to set up a base for them but no one is going to admit that before the 19th, it's as much a bargaining chip as CU is.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes because it's something he can trade off against other concessions. No because he doesn't really have an option, because if he's too stubborn then the whole deal is off. I think we all know that the "path of least resistance" is going to be some sort of deal which affirms Scotland's commitment to a nuclear free future, and requires the relocation of Trident to a timescale which is challenging but not impracticable. (I don't know what that is. 2025? 2030? But that's a detail.) I still don't really have much of an opinion regarding the referendum, but half of me wants the Yes vote to prevail, simply to see how this negotiation plays out. It would be fascinating.
 
It's like most other questions, what we know is likely or the best course can't be answered until after the event or won't be because you don't show your cards until you have to.
 
StewartR said:
simply to see how this negotiation plays out. It would be fascinating.
Click to expand...

Indeed it would.

If anyone imagines for one moment that a permanent member of the security council and nuclear power would allow any compromise to their nuclear capability by a foreign state, they are utterly deluded.

Steep said:
It's like most other questions, what we know is likely or the best course can't be answered until after the event or won't be because you don't show your cards until you have to.
Click to expand...

You are joking surely?

I do feel that you know perfectly well that the wheeling and dealing has been in process for a good time now. You, and I, have no idea what best course of action will be decided upon.

You can be sure however that no impact on NATO, the EU or Sterling will be accepted, whatever the Scottish people vote for.

You sir, are playing the political game of presenting problems that are simple to understand, and offering solutions, real or imaginary. No-one, on either side, is discussing the realpolitik issues. It is they that are being discussed behind closed doors and they that will direct the future of an "independent "Scotland.
 
Bernie174 said:
But you have already done that. The vast majority of Scots voters did not vote SNP, OK, they didn't bother to vote at all, but to claim that there's a change in the wind on how a party gains power, and it's all going to be OK, because that is a majority party is again misleading.
Click to expand...

We are (part) governed at the present by the party which received the most votes. as are the UK. Folks that didn't bother to vote can hardly complain about that. At least for the referendum we should hopefully get an extremely high turnout.
 
Personally I think a no-show should default as a vote to the current political party or the current state of affairs (but still be recorded as a no-show so that this can be seen). If people are determined for change then you should need to get a majority of the voting population to show up and not just the majority of those who can be bothered/able to show up and vote. But then if this were the case then the SNP wouldn't be in power (also with an overwhelming majority - which is wrong regardless of whether or not the current system allows it) and chances are the Independence vote would be annihilated.

I would guess that if someone is content with the current political party and not too bothered then chances are they will also be not to bothered to show up and vote, and wouldn't have to either if they knew their vote defaulted to the current state of affairs.

Ideally, I think it should be mandatory for people to vote so that you get a true representation, but many on here disagree and we've been through it already.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
You can be sure however that no impact on NATO, the EU or Sterling will be accepted, whatever the Scottish people vote for. You sir, are playing the political game of presenting problems that are simple to understand, and offering solutions, real or imaginary. No-one, on either side, is discussing the realpolitik issues. It is they that are being discussed behind closed doors and they that will direct the future of an "independent "Scotland.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I think that is exactly what is being discussed.

We are told the power lies with the people, and that once every so often we nominate our representatives and they trot off to whichever parliament and wield our power, on our behalf. So far, so Hans Christian Anderson. Meanwhile in the real world elections happen, and those elected are told what to do by the party, the state, the level above them, whatever. As part of the EU the people of Scotland have no voice. As part of the UK, also no voice. The point then is to call politics BACK, such that the power that the people can wield is sufficient to actually influence political outcomes in the will of the people. Managing Scotland independently is a step toward that. That is realpolitik, and is a large part of what this vote is about for me. These days we're allowed to vote on X-Factor or the like, but the rest of the time you're expected to shut up and let the state get on with whatever it wants. In recent years we've seen mass protests ignored, political parties going to court to argue election manifestos are non-binding, politicians fighting FOR the right to lie in parliament (defeating a bill that would make it an offence to lie in parliament) - at some point we (*cough* the people who hold the power *cough*) need to stop it. This just seems as good a time and way as any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top