You are joking No previous! The chancellor who presided over the financial ruin that the UK is. Are you aware of the 1.4 Trillion debt? Salmond on the other has presided over a Government in Scotland that has balanced the books introduced free prescriptions, free University Education, protected Scottish NHS and prevented the Bedroom Tax from hiitting the poor. That is why he was returned to power with an overall MAJORITY and that is WHY we are having this referendum. Tell me what has Salmond done to be so low in your opinion?
Here are your MP's taking money from Private Medical Companies. These are the people who claim to protect the NHS. Wake up people your NHS is going Private. http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/over-60-mps-connected-to-companies.html It includes Alistair Darling btw. A man of 'no previous'
Again, I have to say that that distinction will be lost on the vast majority of people. As the figurehead for independence he will, by default, be viewed by the masses as the leader of the Yes campaign. After all, the vote they are pushing for is yes to independence.
Yes across the world and the rest of the UK I expect you are right, but not in Scotland I am glad to say.
Alastair Darling got the short-end of the stick created by his predecessor, a self-aggrandising Scot who was praising Lehman Bros to the sky for their "creativity" when they were instrumental in bringing down the world financial markets and exposing his flawed economic policy. Of the UK debt, around 10% of that is recorded against the Scotch banks. The Scotch banks that you claim are not. Which would be somewhat contrary to the views of somebody who 1. said this : http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/Speeches/First-Minister/harvard-university HBOS and RBS. The "Celtic Tiger" that is Ireland. Iceland. 2. wrote this : please log in to view this image Three guesses as to who that somebody is, their pre-political day job, and their nationality ...
Salmond is an economist and like all the rest of the economists he did not see the crash coming. Why would he not as First Minister promote Scotland? Neither is a reason for your perceived hatred. Compared to the tissue of lies from other politicians he is a positive saint. What is your position re this referrendum, as you appear to be a strong supporter of the Union and yet a bit anti Scotland. Forgive me if I mis-interperet your position, that is why I ask you.
"Salmond is an economist and like all the rest of the economists he did not see the crash coming. Why would he not as first minister promote Scotland?" There is promotion, and there is vainglorious arrogance/ignorance. "What is your position re this referrendum, as you appear to be a strong supporter of the Union and yet a bit anti Scotland. Forgive me if I mis-interperet your position, that is why I ask you." I like the UK. I also understand that an SE England centric economic power base gives the lesser nations the sh*t end of the stick quite often. If Scotland goes independent, I have no problem with that on the understanding that UKminus makes the separation surgically precise. Meaning : - Scotland takes full ownership and responsibility for the debt its banks incurred - Scotland has its own currency arrangements that have nothing to do with Sterling (Euro, separate currency) - UKminus prevents its banks from the scale of investment that give lie to the great economic power that was the "Celtic Tiger" of Ireland.
I understand perfectly, Spurf. I can't believe that you can't understand that there are people who can see the issues and don't agree with your conclusion. You seem to have failed to notice my point, which is that the SNP are completely intertwined with the Yes campaign, as they'll be in charge if it succeeds. Salmond and co. will be the ones negotiating the subsequent independence and they simply don't have answers for the difficult questions. They're making wild and often contradictory claims on the basis of a favourable outcome for talks that haven't happened yet. It's a fantasy at the moment.
And where do you get that information from? I assume you are talking of the negotiations with rUK in the event of a YES vote. The SNP have already said they will invite all parties in Scotland to take part in that debate. You once again trot out NO campaign rhetoric that the SNP do not have answers. This is just not true the answers have been given MANY MANY times. On currency: The SNP favour a currency union which their advisors say is the best option for both the rUK and Scotland. This is because the pound would be hit without Scotlands financial input. (This is already happening as polls get closer) Failing that Scotland will use the pound on it's own. This is the view of the SNP it is NOT the view of all in Scotland many would like a seperate currency from the start. There are plenty of answers but until negotiations take place AFTER a YES vote there can be no definitive ones. Wild and contradictory claims? For example? In 2016 there will be elections. What part do you not understand?
I think for many in Scotland that will apply too... Anyway, this is what some Scots think of the whole thing!...... http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-votes-appear-on-ebay-2014-8
[video=youtube;csY43qV4JdA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csY43qV4JdA&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video=youtube;Ajd4R-9BEIw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ajd4R-9BEIw[/video]
No Im Not in Scotland, but I'm of Scottish lineage, my dad was born there and my grandparents, I visit regularly. I had a conversation yesterday with a Scottish lady (in catford by the way to the person who says in catford people don't care lol) who was very upset about it. A sentiment shared by a lot of scots living abroad who get no say in the matter. As for the NO vote having no argument, the YES vote has no argument, it is unable to give even half answers on what will happen after a referendum. Now I know you are going by the "it's up to individual parties to make policy and this will happen after the referendum" but that just doesn't cut it. So you leave and it turns out that actually you can't do xyz and your in the ****hole but that's alright because they couldn't possibly have thought about how they would actually deal with independence before getting it... It's a very poor argument for me. Now obviously I have a horse in this race as I have strong family connections to Scotland and how I view my identity is deeply rooted in being British, a combination of the English and Scottish in me. So for me, it's actually more about identity than about any individual policies. But I still fail to see why people would vote for something when one side are saying, if we get independence we will xyz and the other side who actually have the power to help them Get xyz say categorically that they will not get xyz. But the original side continue to claim they will get xyz. (Xyz being a currency union and entry into the eu off the top of my head).
I have said this before but for me it is very simple. Scotland is a country and it is governed from London which is in another country. The priorities of Scotland are not the priorities of a Westminster government therefore Scotland needs to be like all the other countries in the world and have its own government. Devolution is not enough because power is still held by Westminster who can change things at any time as they have recently with energy for example. I believe that Scotand will be a successful country, it has the resources, it has the people, and it has the capacity. You cannot have all future policy mapped out and all questions answered unless you live in a dictatorship. You do not have answers to these questions in the UK any more than we have in Scotland. The answers to what will happen after a YES vote is that the people of Scotland will decide what happens. After a No the people of the UK will decide what happens in Scotland as they do now. In neither case do you have specific answers to specific questions. It is about Democracy.
[video=youtube;syl9dy2AXmM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=syl9dy2AXmM[/video]
It's not about having everything totally mapped out but there aren't even reasonable ideas for how it would be dealt with that have been put forward. And whilst I understand that London governs the uk that doesn't result in a weaker Scotland but a stronger Scotland through unionship. I understand that there may be some national pride that comes into play but devolution of powers allows internal governing whilst overall policies remain strong for a United Kingdom. As for it being about democracy I personally think switching to proportional representation would give far more democracy to the entire uk than Scotland going for independence.
So Glasgow should instantly declare it's independence from Edinburgh-run Scotland then, Spurf. That would be the democratic thing to do, after all. Scotland should also refuse to join the EU, as being run from Brussels would be even worse than being run from London, surely?
