Whatever claim is made this is not just a matter of polling opinion. It is a referendum on the future of the UK - one in which only the Scots get to vote. A Yes vote will certainly give a mandate to the SNP to make Scotland an independent nation - that will happen for certain after a Yes vote. A No vote will leave us where we have been before. It may take a few years - probably a generation - but the advocates of independence will never accept No as a final verdict. On the other hand a Yes vote will be final - you could never put the UK back together again. BB I have nowhere seen any "indications ... that Westminster... stop any further referendum" That is a nonsense - if it is in print anywhere it is in the SNP propaganda as another scare story. Given the above the SNP should spell out exactly what they intend to do and how they will do it - nuts, bolts, bells and whistles. BB - you cannot seriously believe that after a yes vote the SNP will "fully flesh out details" and then give the Scotttish people a chance to vote on them. The SNP are deliberately sleepwalking the Scots into independence. As they probably cannot win the economic or EU political argument they appeal to petty tactics accusing Westminster of "bullying" etc - a clear strategy to use anti-English sentiment and make the Scots feel they are being pressured and as I have said before, being a proud people they are more likely to respond to those tactics - and so increase the Yes vote. If you cannot win the Yes/No argument appeal to prejudice.
Just imagine how perfect Scotland would have been if the SNP hadn't been in control! All joking aside, and for my pennyworth, we have a successful partnership - a little fractious at times - so why split it up? The outcome will be two very much inferior nations who spend their time sniping at each other, and like HS2 it is a politician's vanity project. Also from what I read, see and hear the SNP is proposing an independence where Scotland retain all the benefits of the UK without the responsibilities they have now. They cannot possibly retain all the "good bits" and if they try the Scottish government should be told to go away in no uncertain terms. Can anyone explain how an independent Scotland would function (probably not a lot different from today for the vast number of residents) after all you dont buy a car or house from a chap that just says "buy it", that's daft. You go and do some research, look at alternatives get other opinions then make a choice, you don't just do it because the salesman says you should. Will the HMRC retain its offices in East Kilbride, I for one don't think they should - why should my tax payments be processed outside the nation I pay them to, (it's probably outsourced to India or China already, but not obviously). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will become The United Kingdom of Great Britain (without Scotland) and Northern Ireland.
It might become the Kingdom of Britain but how can it be united when the two other Kingdoms it was uniting with England are gone. We will become Lesser Britain.
I agree with the sentiment but the fact is a referendum is in no way constitutionally binding. A Yes vote will provide mandate to SNP in sense they have 'the will of the people' onside but the fact remains, however unlikely, that Westminster could still block independence. At no point, that I can see, has Westminster stated that they will follow through with the result of a referendum. So far the only part they have really played is to pass legislation allowing Scotland to hold the vote in the first place. Obviously they could be put into a very awkward position but lets not forget these are politicians we are dealing with.
Constitutionally you are correct. However the consequences of Westminster having agreed to a referendum and then thwarting a vote for independence would be immense. Politically it could not happen. A Yes in the referendum would lead to certain independence and you can be pretty certain it would be in time for the Scottish elections in March 2016. If you doubt that - try going to a bookies and asking for odds on "a Yes vote followed by a denial of independence". Bookies have a habit of getting such bets correct - so see the odds that would be offered
If the Scots do vote for independence, perhaps we should let them set everything up, leave them to celebrate independence for a couple of months, then invade them and annex them? Flodden Field anyone?
If the people in Scotland vote against being independent how long will the Scottish National Party keep quite before they start shouting for a new vote?
True - in fact they have said the opposite only last week - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...alex-salmonds-independence-plans-9126984.html 1) So what does that make the opposite statement by a 'senior government source' only last week? The Scots are, apparently, not only incorrect but prejudiced if they view it as bullying - so what is it? 2) Yes i can seriously believe that - you forget that the earliest planned date for independence, in the event of a Yes vote, is after the next Scottish Parliamentary General Election. Winning the referendum is only half the battle for the SNP. As an aside, there are plenty on here arguing - perfectly eloquently I might add - about what will happen, why it will happen, why it shouldn't happen etc, but the one obvious thing is that they are arguing from the other side of a cultural divide that they don't even appear to realise exists - trying to apply English values to the issue, fully expecting them to work. As I'm not overly eloquent, I'd suggest a read of these comments by a columnist for the Scottish Herald, made after the recent Cowdenbeath by-election which saw both UKIP and the LibDems lose their deposits - which better explain the Scottish view. http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...were-the-same-but-our-political-cult.23269106
All that article says is that Scotland wont get everything it demands if the vote is yes. Not that there is any question of not getting Independence. Independence means Westminster ceases to have any legislative effect on Scotland. Scotland gets its own FULL Parliament. Negotiations on what share of the National Debt the Scots take and whether they can use the pound are details not fundamental to independence. 1) It is a statement that says the Scots cannot demand to use the Pound. That is no more bullying than the Scots "bullying" England into making them let the Scots use the Pound. If the Scots leave the UK they should expect to set up all the institutions that a sovereign state has. One of those is a currency. They can ASK to use the Pound but refusal is not bullying but the rest of the UK doing what the Scots are doing and looking after their own best interests. 2) The SNP have said the opposite - that they want independence BEFORE the next General Election in March 2016. Scots people according to you are being asked to vote for independence without knowing what it entails - I don't think many are that stupid. They have a right to know what the SNP are proposing IN DETAIL before they vote. Would you vote to pay to receive an unopened package that could contain some nasty surprises. You forget that the SNP are proposing a break up of the UK - not just that Scotland gets independence. How many Scots are thinking of the other side of the cultural divide you mention. Are the Scots not applying Scottish values to the issue? The Scots seem to think it is only about them. I am well aware of the cultural divide - as are many many other non Scots and it is insulting to be told what you do and don't understand. If the Scots do not value being part of the UK I have already said I wish them well in becoming Independent. Sorry to see them go but if it is their wish they should have it. Much the same as many a divorce. If one partner wants it the other has to accept it whether or not they like it
By the way BB - I am glad that you reconsidered and re-entered this debate as you raise an awful lot of good points - and I mean that sincerely ( I just have an opposite view on many)
Thats just it isn't it - the Scots view things very differently -although as an Englishman I tend to side with them. I'll hold up my hands and say (in case it wasn't obvious) I am a Socialist and believe in social values. I don't accept the condems have sorted thing out nor do I accept that the Private sector has all the solutions and the public sector should therefore be cut. In my view the apparent recovery is still a pipe dream for most of us (me included) and if there is a recovery who says it is osborne's policies that have caused it. Similarly I don't accept the recession was the fault of the last Government - I see it as a residue of poor bankers in the private sector and was started off in America with those involved in sub prime mortgages. I find blaming the public sector an interesting debate too - these are the public sector who provide our hospitals, doctors, fire brigades, police, probation, teachers, etc etc - not faceless civil servants but necessary and valuable people who are facing job cuts whilst the Government continues to support Whitehall. These cuts aren't aimed at reducing deficit but aimed at achieving a political dogma - namely the private sector is better than the public - although the evidence of rail track would suggest otherwise as would the prisons run by G4S which have had to come back to public ownership to name but a few - plus look at the railways now - poor - and consistently bailed out by Government in lean times (so much for reducing public spending) and handing over profits to share holders (and not repaying Government loans) in good times. The true answer to sorting out the national debt is a serious re- distribution of wealth taking from the top 5% and stopping them making the vast profits they currently make - in the futute. This is the only way for a long term recovery - the problem is no-one has the guts to do it. But may be the Scottish Nationalists do - and if they do I'm with them although they won't be able to do it alone.
Going off at a tangent - as Cameron has promised a referendum on whether or not UK remains in EC, can I ask here how many are for remaining and how many against? Or, to be more exact, if the referendum does go ahead, what you expect the outcome to be.
Scotts do view things differently but they aren't bothered about economics or wealth all the SNP is playing to is an anti English sentiment. You may gather that I tend to the right wing and have no time for socialism having seen it consistently fail. Strange as in my family we have had union representatives and amongst my closest life friends the champagne socialists nephew who exactly mirrored his uncles ideals. I do believe certain things are better kept in the public sector namely infrastructure (roads rail and airports)m health and education though they all need proper management. Controlling the rest of industry by government and an over swollen state sector is a disaster much better to allow wealth to grow and rely on benevolence to filter that wealth down. It works. Thanks BB for the examples of Scottish success under the current system which I feel is pretty much ideal for Scotland though definitely unfair to England.
There is so much there that can be torn apart I could not begin. However you should not try to confuse good services with providers - hospitals, doctors, fire brigades, police, probation, teachers etc can be run by either public or private sectors and are successfully in different countries. That style of debater mirrors the SNP - love the services so you MUST love the public sector; dislike the English so you MUST vote for independence. Stealing money from the top 5% is just that - even if you use the "caring" term redistribution. I could and no doubt at some point will argue the other points but can only say that your form of socialism is in my view that tried so often and has not worked - you simply replace one set of rich with a new set as in most communist countries. Suspect this would "fly" in its own thread
1) I'm not particularly sure that relying on benevolence to filter wealth downwards would actually work any better than the current set up, doubting that such a thing even exists in terms of business/finance - the world no longer produces the likes of Andrew Carnegie, David Dale or Robert Owen. Sadly they have been replaced by greed and envy - at both ends of the scale. Those who have much or those who have little, it matters not - they both want more and are both to blame. But as things are at the moment, it appears to me that the poor take the brunt for everything and simply have no way to go bar further downwards, if that is at all possible from rock bottom. And what is to be gained by withdrawing support when they get there and describing them as feckless is totally beyond me. 2) Unfair to England maybe, but then has the Union ever actually been overly fair for the three other, smaller, members? The very nature of the Union has always favoured England's wishes over those of the other three, simply because of greater numbers. Because of those numbers, it becomes a case of what the English want, they tend to get and the others have to tag along for whatever ride presents itself. I asked earlier for thoughts on the outcome of a possible referendum on UK pulling out of the EU. My impressions from a distance may be wrong, but there does appear to be an increase in numbers favouring withdrawal. The opposite is the case here in Scotland - the majority want to remain as part of the EC. So if the English vote to withdraw, the Scots have to tag along as well? That's just as unfair in my opinion.
Of course I have no vote any longer about EU membership, but from what I see there are similar arguments and personalities as in the Scotland debate. Dare I suggest that the leaders of UKIP and SNP are very similar in that they are both exploiting the current difficulties that naturally leave people unhappy with their lot to further their own political ambitions. Both of them know how to appeal to the electorate without telling them very much. Wait and see what happens after you have voted for us seems to be a common theme. Both issues are complex and are very much economic based. Ask people to look at a set of data and tables and they will switch off straight away. So if you are looking for power just tell them what they want to hear and avoid discussing the real issues.
