Jump to content

Scottish Independence


maqroll

Recommended Posts

Some big (knob) cheese at the EU has released a letter today stating that if an independent Scotland keeps the pound after independence then it will be impossible for them to join the EU - because it wouldn't have a central bank.

Be interested to see how Salmond squirms his slimey arse out of this but likely words include: bluffing/bullying/Tories/wasteminster/Bruce/Wallace and tatties.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting pissed off about the whole thing. 

 

The SNP don't even want independence. Do you really think they want such a headache?

All they want is for the vote to be close enough to claim there is a mandate for more devolution. 

More devolution is what they wanted in the first place, what they wanted on the ballots and what they will want when the independence vote fails. 

I didn't mind when it wasn't getting any coverage but all the smokescreens are pissing me off now. 

Edited by KennyPowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some big (knob) cheese at the EU has released a letter today stating that if an independent Scotland keeps the pound after independence then it will be impossible for them to join the EU - because it wouldn't have a central bank.

Be interested to see how Salmond squirms his slimey arse out of this but likely words include: bluffing/bullying/Tories/wasteminster/Bruce/Wallace and tatties.

Not only have a central bank, but maintain an independent currency for a period of years before joining, then be able to demonstrate things like debt:GDP ratios within certain parameters (which may be ludicrous nonsense, but is nevertheless a clearly stated and widely known condition of being accepted as a member).

This is not new. The SNP has tried to gloss over this by first pretending that Scotland would somehow be accepted as a continuing member rather than a new state, second falsely claiming it had legal advice supporting this and when challenged spending large sums of public money trying to conceal the fact that no such legal advice existed,and third by claiming that if Scotland were required to apply as a new member it would do so under article 48 (treaty amendment) rather than 49 (accession of new member states).

It's like the utter bollocks about "it's our pound too", which is a deliberate attempt to conflate pounds (currency reserves, whether sterling, yen, gold, or myrrh, which can be divided and apportioned) and the pound (a currency, which is obviously indivisible).

It's a sad attempt to confuse people in order to conceal the issues. It has succeeded in lowering the tone and quality of what should have been a vital and informed debate, and it reflects very poorly on the quality of SNP leadership that they should have gone down this road.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem being, the conservatives can't make a big song and dance about this issue. They can't say Scotland would be worse off because they wouldn't be allowed in. The reality being of course, that if Scots vote 'no' in order to stay in europe, they'll then potentially be out voted by southern tories that could indeed, take them out of europe anyway. 

 

Not an easy argument for Dave and George to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem being, the conservatives can't make a big song and dance about this issue. They can't say Scotland would be worse off because they wouldn't be allowed in. The reality being of course, that if Scots vote 'no' in order to stay in europe, they'll then potentially be out voted by southern tories that could indeed, take them out of europe anyway. 

 

Not an easy argument for Dave and George to make.

Scotland get a pretty good deal from being part of the UK. If they want to piss that away for 20 years of North Sea oil then they can go ahead. 

 

Be assured though the SNP do not want the **** of governance issues independence would bring. I really don't think the UK would be the biggest problem in terms of EU membership. Try Spain with their autonomous regions, Catalonia with their independence claim, they would be the first obstacle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem being, the conservatives can't make a big song and dance about this issue. They can't say Scotland would be worse off because they wouldn't be allowed in. The reality being of course, that if Scots vote 'no' in order to stay in europe, they'll then potentially be out voted by southern tories that could indeed, take them out of europe anyway. 

 

Not an easy argument for Dave and George to make.

Scotland get a pretty good deal from being part of the UK. If they want to piss that away for 20 years of North Sea oil then they can go ahead. 

 

Be assured though the SNP do not want the **** of governance issues independence would bring. I really don't think the UK would be the biggest problem in terms of EU membership. Try Spain with their autonomous regions, Catalonia with their independence claim, they would be the first obstacle. 

 

 

 

The problem being, the conservatives can't make a big song and dance about this issue. They can't say Scotland would be worse off because they wouldn't be allowed in. The reality being of course, that if Scots vote 'no' in order to stay in europe, they'll then potentially be out voted by southern tories that could indeed, take them out of europe anyway. 

 

Not an easy argument for Dave and George to make.

Scotland get a pretty good deal from being part of the UK. If they want to piss that away for 20 years of North Sea oil then they can go ahead. 

 

Be assured though the SNP do not want the **** of governance issues independence would bring. I really don't think the UK would be the biggest problem in terms of EU membership. Try Spain with their autonomous regions, Catalonia with their independence claim, they would be the first obstacle. 

 

 

 

Catalonia may or may not be having its own referendum in November, its a bit of a mess over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem being, the conservatives can't make a big song and dance about this issue. They can't say Scotland would be worse off because they wouldn't be allowed in. The reality being of course, that if Scots vote 'no' in order to stay in europe, they'll then potentially be out voted by southern tories that could indeed, take them out of europe anyway. 

 

Not an easy argument for Dave and George to make.

Scotland get a pretty good deal from being part of the UK. If they want to piss that away for 20 years of North Sea oil then they can go ahead. 

 

Be assured though the SNP do not want the **** of governance issues independence would bring. I really don't think the UK would be the biggest problem in terms of EU membership. Try Spain with their autonomous regions, Catalonia with their independence claim, they would be the first obstacle. 

 

 

But not as good a deal as London, the South West or Northern Ireland so it's not like they are getting a deal that's too good to refuse.

 

Their biggest issue with EU membership is that if they go independent then the Spanish don't want to let them in. If they stay 'better together', then the tories/ukippers want them out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try Spain with their autonomous regions, Catalonia with their independence claim, they would be the first obstacle.

Its not just Spain, France will be breathing down Spain's neck to say Non as its not just Catalonia, there's the Basque's which is Spain and France's problem too. In fact Spain have lots of them and France have a few more than you'd think.

There are separatist movements all over the EU. Some serious one's some largely irrelevant but no one will want to give the green light to Scotland in case it encourages their own separatists to kick off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to the debate on Vic derbyshire's programme on 5 Live yesterday and some of the arguments of the Yes campaign were hilarious. They appeared to be of the opinion that they will have a monetary union with the rest of the UK because "there's no reason not to - it makes no sense not to", that was the sum total of their argument. Then there was the we'll have no national debt, yeah right, take your fair share of ours for starters. The absolutely hilarious, "its the only way to safeguard the NHS in Scotland".

The yes campaign really does seem to be full of dreamy idealists who can't see the pitfalls of what they want. Its like some sort of coma induced mass delusion by having to listen to that divvy Salmond. They've lost all sense of reasoned argument where facts and reality make no impact on their critical thinking abilities

"we're sick of being told what to do by Westminster", you'll soon be sick of being told what to do by Edinburgh, politicians are the same the world over you dickheads and Cameron apart the two prime ministers previous we're Scottish, not only that but the cabinets were full of Scots too!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd definitely agree with you that the reasoning on the yes side is a bit shallow and a bit romantic. But unfortunately, whilst that should make it an easy win for the no campaign, they've proved equally vague, but with heavy negative tones. But who's fault is it if the money situation hasn't been clearly and simply explained? It's not the yes campaign's fault. They are the wrong side of logic so they are happy to keep it all a bit vague. It's where the no campaign has abjectly failed. Such a simple thing to explain - you won't be in control of your own money, your safety net will be a foreign bank with southern business interests at heart. There will be no aid from London there will be no EU deprived area funding. Stay with us and enjoy the benefits of being in the big boys club with a decent credit rating. Stay with us and have access to EU money. Stay with us and have a great chance of benefiting from increasing military spending and scholarships and apprenticeships. Stay with us and a pound will be worth a pound.

 

The Labour MP with the bizarrely sad and slow voice, Jim Murphy was back on the TV yesterday. His campaign has recently been dogged by particularly aggressive hecklers. He did everything but blame Salmond directly for this. When finally asked the straight question do you blame Alex Salmond for sending out abusive gangs his answer was ' ermm no, but....'. He may or may not be right but it's a negative message.

 

He then went on to give thinly veiled threats about jobs on the Clyde, he worried about jobs in the public sector, he worried about the service and banking sector jobs he was particularly concerned about the flight of capital. On and on it went saying scary negative things. Not once did he say one good thing or give one actual fact or proveable statistic. It was just a 2 minute sound bite where he basically said 'we're all dooooomed, dooooomed!'. Utterly negative, not a single positive note. Then, when asked if he would stand to be an MP in an independent Scotland, he gave a bit of a complicated non-answer about the legal quirks of the system. Surely the no campaign have some people briefing their side on what possible questions they might get asked and why an evasive answer sounds bad.

 

Same goes for Darling, telling lies about how the oil is all going to run out a week next Tuesday. 

 

They actually dared to put a conservative spokeman on Radio 4 yesterday to talk about the polls getting tighter. I presume they were thinking, it's only radio 4, no Scottish people will be listening to that. When asked what he thought of the polls getting tighter he went into a plummy toned monologue about how polls never worried Margaret Thatcher and Margaret Thatcher knew how to run a campaign and Margaret Thatcher won 2 elections against the odds. I mean seriously, your message to Scotland is to stand firm and be more like Thatcher. Cynics might suggest that guy wants Scotland to leave.

 

All of which has played right into the hands of the happy, positive, upbeat and smiling snake oil salesman, Salmond. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the Tories "don't get it", or as you say Mr Crisp, they are actually deliberately trying to lose the vote.

 

I am of the belief that they are so aloof, so far removed from the realities of life in their Westminster/oxbridge/landed gentry cocoons, that they really have very little idea about the reality of life, thought and anti-establishment anger in the rest of the UK

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness Jon I think that could be levelled at all three parties these days.

Well Yes, I wouldn't disagree, in the main, although Labour does still have a very decent MP representation in Scotchland. I think they do, outside of the main 'Westminster Elite', still have some decent MPs who the working man (or woman) can relate to, especially 'ooop north'.

 

To get MPs or others representing the party of the rich, powerful South/London, to tell people in Scotchland that they're better off sticking with their superior southern overlords who care not a jot about them or their kind, just seems quite bizzare to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know politics can be more emotive than analytical but I'm not sure what people want really. 

Westminster is where the UK parliament is, yes it's a bit of a bubble but so is Washington DC, so is Brussels, that's the nature of cities with physical parliaments. 

 

Politicians don't really need to be 'in touch' with the entire country, they should legislate based on data, reports, debate and of course whatever they put in their manifesto and forward plan. Most legislation is created and developed by technocrats not politicians anyway, MP's are just the faces, essentially the PR people. 

 

If people are so against being run by Westminster then where do you want the parliament? Do you really want more local elections? Because there doesn't seem to be a big appetite for local democracy when you look at council elections, European elections, PCC elections. 

 

We could go down the route of federalism and regional devolution. I think that could be a good thing if it energises and politicises people more but I'm not sure it would really. 

 

Edit to say I agree parliament needs more diversity if that's what people mean by 'out of touch', even then though I think this idea of being 'in touch' is largely an illusion. Politics should be about aggregates, doing what's best for the entire country, not about individuals, not about understanding the concerns of every individual. 

Edited by KennyPowers
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the Tories "don't get it", or as you say Mr Crisp, they are actually deliberately trying to lose the vote.

 

I am of the belief that they are so aloof, so far removed from the realities of life in their Westminster/oxbridge/landed gentry cocoons, that they really have very little idea about the reality of life, thought and anti-establishment anger in the rest of the UK

 

That's what i love above VT , clear level headed arguments without a trace of personal bias  :P

 

PS ( one rich clearing in the woods  angry at mummy and daddy spoiling a boat race does not an anti establishment movement make )

 

 

I've not followed it all that closely but my understanding was whenever the No campaign have spoken about the £ the yes campaign have gone down the Westminster bully route and the polls have seen the Yes campaign gather support as a result  ? North Kilt Town is hardly a hot bed of Tory support , so probably another why the are saying little at times

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know politics can be more emotive than analytical but I'm not sure what people want really. 

Westminster is where the UK parliament is, yes it's a bit of a bubble but so is Washington DC, so is Brussels, that's the nature of cities with physical parliaments. 

 

Politicians don't really need to be 'in touch' with the entire country, they should legislate based on data, reports, debate and of course whatever they put in their manifesto and forward plan. Most legislation is created and developed by technocrats not politicians anyway, MP's are just the faces, essentially the PR people. 

 

If people are so against being run by Westminster then where do you want the parliament? Do you really want more local elections? Because there doesn't seem to be a big appetite for local democracy when you look at council elections, European elections, PCC elections. 

 

We could go down the route of federalism and regional devolution. I think that could be a good thing if it energises and politicises people more but I'm not sure it would really. 

 

Edit to say I agree parliament needs more diversity if that's what people mean by 'out of touch', even then though I think this idea of being 'in touch' is largely an illusion. Politics should be about aggregates, doing what's best for the entire country, not about individuals, not about understanding the concerns of every individual. 

 

in this very forum we had a couple of posters who said their local MP was  good / decent / didn't eat the poors babies   .. and worked hard and did a lot for his constituency

 

but in spite of all this faint praise .. they wouldn't vote for him because he is a Tory ...

 

when you're dealing with this mindset , I'm guessing regional devolution would still be tribal  ..unless you are proposing parties altogether  .. but even then I suspect it wouldn't be enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but in spite of all this faint praise .. they wouldn't vote for him because he is a Tory ...

Thats because the emphasis in this country is on the party first and foremost. There's little point in voting for an MP who does the small stuff right if he becomes a sheep when the big stuff happens.

And thats regardless of which farmer has painted the sheep. The farmers all get bullied by the supermarkets anyway

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â