You think so First it is not an Election it is a Referendum. Why do people find it so difficult to understand. Let me spell it out again. On September 18th we vote for: Should Scotland be an Independent Country? YES or NO No policies just YES or NO to being Independent. In 2016 following a YES vote we have an election. By this time negotiations with rUK will have taken place, the political partys in Scotland will have sorted themselves out and come up with manifestos for the newly Independent country of Scotland. Then we will vote for policies.
You will not have a YES vote - end of discussion. You have bored enough of us on this board for long enough. Crawl back into your Sussex hole, far enough away from Scotland so that nothing anyone north of the Border decides will affect you. Perhaps if you lived a little closer you might not be so vociferous.
You get worse. I live in Scotland. It is not a secret it's says so on my profile. Do you get the lottery numbers in your crystal ball?
I wouldn't be so sure about that vic - tomorrow's Sunday Times has a front page story regarding a rather surprising latest poll from YouGov that shows a 12% swing to Yes, giving them a lead of 51:49. Very odd though - their poll results have always been skewed in favour of No...
Is Scotland about to join the rest of the Empire and be Independent? Of course this lot are capable and as Westminster tells us Scotland is a basket case. Aden America Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Basutoland Bechuanaland British Antarctic Territory British Central Africa British East Africa British Guiana British Honduras British Indian Ocean Territory British New Guinea (Papua) British Somaliland British South Africa Company Brunei Burma - see Myanmar Canada Cape Colony - South Africa Ceylon - see Sri Lanka Cook Islands Cyprus Dominica East India Company Federated Malay States Fiji Gambia Gilbert and Ellice Islands Gold Coast - see also Ghana Ionian Islands Grenada Heligoland Hong Kong India Ireland Jamaica Kenya Leeward Islands Malacca Malaya Maldives Malta Mauritius Mosquito Coast, Nicaragua Natal Nauru New Hebrides Newfoundland New South Wales New Zealand Niger Coast Protectorate - see British Nigeria Nigeria North Borneo (Sabah) Northern Rhodesia Nyasaland Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Sarawak Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands South Africa South Australia Southern Nigeria - see British Nigeria Southern Rhodesia Straits Settlements Sudan Swaziland Tanganyika Tasmania Tonga Transjordan Transvaal Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Uganda Unfederated Malay States West African Settlements West Indies Federation West Pacific High Commissioner Western Australia Western Samoa - see Samoa Windward Islands Witu Protectorate Zanzibar
Guys - the debate with Spurf is sterile. He insults almost all of us and has an arrogance that just about matches Salmonds. In his head he is correct and none of us understand anything. He constantly repeats false assertions that he claims we make and uses the Yes campaign tactic of putting very negative words in the mouths of his opponents - done in Scotland to make his fellow countrymen angry with the No campaign - a clever tactic and one which is succeeding. After insulting me he refuses on the last two or three of my posts to answer my points claiming that as I insulted him I am not worth talking to and my points are not worthy of his lofty response. Just how many actual arguments has he come up with that do not rely on a selective quote from another of his biased reporters / so called academics? Then he splits hairs over the difference between an election and a referendum - just semantics - apparently we do not know this is a referendum on Independence - confirms our stupidity of course. The oddest thing of all is that he genuinely believes that the Scots should vote themselves Independence and then work out how it will work. ALL the Scots are being asked to do on 18th is vote Yes - then we will see how it can be made to work. I admire his persistence but that is all
The only thing wrong with this Spurf is that Scotland was not a part of the Empire - but was rather part of the colonial power - and did very well from this.
I wonder which of these countries is so wonderful that Scotland aspires to emulate? Another list - another case of just sticking up "Facts" rather than arguments. Yes Spurf we al know that any god forsaken hole could declare itself an independent nation but the Yes campaign ought to be explaining WHY becoming independent will improve matters not just saying "see, we could do it" What is Scotland's fall back position if after the Yes vote the next 18 months goes horribly wrong? Let's say one nation (not rUK of course) vetoes their membership of the EU, Oil revenues for 2015 are 5 billion higher than predicted (still the UK's then) but then they drop by 8 billion for a couple of years; rUK makes clear that future decisions on interest rates and money supply for sterling will be made by and only by the Bank of England and those decisions will be driven only by the rUK economy not Scotland's (as it is legally bound to do). Too late to say we did not mean to have a really independent Scotland. So then Scotland is forced onto an austerity programme that makes now seem like heaven. What does Salmond say to his fellow Scots whom he hoodwinked: "oh , sorry guys but you did vote for independence and I made you no promises abut how negotiations could go up as well as down. I have just let a builder tear down a couple of walls of my house and he will tell me in 18 months if he can get planning permission to build an extension - but it is alright because there are 187 other extensions in the world.
And let's say - Regarding entry into EU, Jancker & Avery are both correct in intimating that Scotland would be viewed differently from the norm and vetoes did not apply... Regarding the oil revenue, that SG's contention all along that 'oil revenue is only a bonus and that Scotland is financially capable of standing on its own two feet without it' is as accurate as it is ... And also let's say that, in the event of a No vote, Cameron says "sorry guys, you have now voted No, but our vague last minute promises clearly stated that we would think about the detail after the referendum was over - and now there is simply no need...." Why is it acceptable for one side to play that way but not the other? And let's also ask why Westminster think that they can really make such a dubious 'offer' at this late stage anyway - clearly showing their disregard for those thousands who have already lodged their postal votes.
If you get into the EU and if Scotland is financially secure with or without oil you will have achieved - exactly what you have now. If you vote NO and get no more than you already have then you still have a superb country. I do not like Cameron's bribe to get you to vote No. If you do not like the UK then go. If none of you value being part of the last 300 years' heritage and are so miffed with the present Tory Government that you will let that short term issue sway you then there is no point in trying to persuade you otherwise.
I value UK and will be voting No if my postal ballot arrives before I fly out Saturday that is. If it's a yes result I guess it'll be very heavy drinking on the plane back.
So why are the Yes campaign stating what their policies will be after a Yes vote? They have already clearly stated a number of policies i.e: No fracking in Scotland Faslane will be closed and Nucleur WMD!s will be removed within 5 years No privatisation whatsoever in the Scottish NHS. There are Yes voters pledging their vote because of these pledges. It!s the gamble by King Alex, he has promised all of these to secure the SNP will get a majority in a subsequent Gerneral Election - that is why he has not mentioned the question of a head of state. It must stick in his Socialist craw to have a royal family as head of state. You need to up your game mate, because you are really a ****e troll.
From the Guardian article that reported on the YouGov poll, you find this couple of paragraphs. A senior European commission official issued a new warning that an independent Scotland could have to wait five years before getting back into the EU. The high-placed Brussels source said that the internal estimate for the time it would take for Scotland to receive new member status would be around five years, contradicting Salmond's claim that Scotland could negotiate its new membership terms from within the EU. She said: "It is accepted across the commission that Scotland will need to reapply and every member state will need to agree to them being admitted. There will be a significant wait of at least five to six years. For many Catalans, for example, it is this delay and the disruption to business that is in their mind when they consider independence." Not one person saying it as we have been told, but the commission. Regarding polls I see that the YES campaign took one as well as YouGov, still showing the No voters with a 4% lead. Whatever the actual vote turns out to be now, the Scottish government will have around 50% of the population against them.
Don't be silly OFH, after the vote, whoever loses will just suck it up, shrug their shoulders and go back to their real world. In the event of a Yes vote, the proverbial will hit the fan at the proceeding General Election when the Yes voter realise exactly what the SNP has in their manifesto, King Alex will have to finally show his hand.
