This is one of the most simple concepts of the referendum yet it is beyond a lot of peoples understanding. The referendum is to decide Should Scotland be an Independent country. YES or NO , Depending which way the vote goes; NO and power returns to Westminster. YES and Scotland will then have an election in 2016 to decide on a party/parties, then you see policies. The two year gap is to organise the transition in which all partys will be represented. So to ask questions about what will the policy be if Scotland votes YES is, well it's futile isn't it, because until Scotland chooses an Independent government we wont know. Just as if I was to ask what will be the policy say on housing after the next election in the UK. We wont know until we see who is elected will we. Now you can go on trying to make capitol about the lack of policies but it will just make you look rather foolish.
Pot. Kettle end of, thanks spurf for giving such a great case and vindication of my decision to vote no.
I wonder how the campaigns would have gone if the question was reversed: Would you like Scotland to stay in the UK? Yes or No? It must always be easier to campaign for a positive "Yes" outcome, how can you ever sound positive if you want people to vote for a negative outcome.
I can understand the three major parties not saying very much about Scotland as an independent nation, they wish it to remain in the UK, but I am somewhat confused by the lack of information coming out of the Yes campaign. Taking on-board the fact that the major mover is the SNP and they (like the ANC in South Africa) are most likely to form the first few governments if Scotland becomes independent, neither they nor any of the others wanting independence have given any sort of concrete proposals as to what they might do. So far I have only picked up on a sort of smoke and mirrors theme, where something might hopefully happen. The only concrete things I can pick up on are a desire to belittle or shout down anything the No campaign say without giving reasonable time for an explanation and a desire to blame Westminster for everything, now and in the future.
I think you will find that HS2 will go through to Manchester and northwards from Preston in one direction and Leeds and towards Newcastle in another. Birmingham is simply the first stage - and even that stage will go through to Crewe. There is the intention of upgrading the existing lines from where HS2 finishes through to Edinburgh and Glasgow. With a Yes vote I doubt that this will happen - let them build their own lines.......
Oh really! try this 670 page manifesto from the Scottish Government http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348 That's why I am here to provide you with the information you can't find.
Exactly. As the No campaign would sing: sign him up, sign him up, sign him up... Sorry, but given the level of Smurf's argument...I'm out... (Just thought I'd post that to annoy Ghost )
What Spurf doees not realise is that the YEs campaign are asking Scots to abandon what they have - and which works. You cannot simply say - abandon this and vote Yes and then we will try to find out how it works. What hypocrisy - throughout Spurf has said it is not like an election - and now he admits he is actually saying vote yes and then we will have anelection to see what you have voted for. There are none so blind as cannot see. However Spurf must have put me on ignore as he can never respond to my criticisms and comments now nor even on the article I posted. You know you have lost when you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore people.
What would you do with the estimated cost of 13.3million pounds wasted on this referendum? Add in all the mental resource that could and should be focused on solving real problems and I find my blood pressure rising at the stupidity of appeasing the slimy one. Just wish I had the pictures of that meeting I had with the bar steward....
Why issue a 670 page manifesto that has policies in it if people are not to consider how the government will pay for the policies? Spurf keeps telling us that there are no policies and people are being asked to answer Yes or No to that alone. Somehow his thinking seems to be muddled to say the least. Seeing as I had a look at his manifesto to help me understand what is the truth of the matter, maybe he should have a look at the UBS report on how Scotland would be placed in the financial world. Here is the link. https://neo.ubs.com/shared/d1rJk317vl Perhaps he should start to worry more about Spurs who are attracting interest from a US private investment company.
Another thing I find strange about the Yes campaign. They want independence but also want to then share as much as they can with rUk - on the basis that it is good for us. Sorry but if you want a divorce do it properly Get your own finance - currency Set up your own institutions - Embassies etc Do your own driving tests Manufacture your own coins Create your own passports etc etc - the list goes on If you want to be an Iceland - be an Iceland - a totally viable country that is self standing and proud and does not share or piggy back others. If not stay with the UK that has been o good for you
Quick look at the finance section of that 670 pager quarter of revenue from financial services which will move south so that'll be lost, 15% from energy that'll halve very quickly, a quarter as public sector, it's not difficult to see that the public sector would become dominant which means.... reach your own conclusions by studying history. You're right, very muddled thinking, 1 minute its a yes no vote (when asked to actually answer questions can't find a quote on a yes site) the next its a 670 page propaganda with as much basis in credibility as alice in wonderland.
Spurf has expressed it very well--the Scottish people are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Vote "yes" now and work out the "details" later. Except that the details are vital economic , constitutional and strategic questions. The Yes campaign is not driven by a careful consideration of the benefits and costs in independence. It is driven by resentment (of things English/Westminster) and sentiment . Since resentment is a powerful emotion and sentiment often trumps reason, the Yes campaign has a good chance of success. This despite the overwhelming economic and strategic benefits of the Union, and the possibility of finding a democratic solution to Scottish aspirations within it. Many will make themselves feel good by voting "Yes" on Sept 18th, hoping for the best. But a hangover usually follows Hogmanny--this hangover will last for a very long time.
I find it interesting that all the arguments being used against Scottish independence can also be used against the UK leaving the EU. Funnily I would be saddened if the UK left the EU but I am totally neutral about Scottish independence. For me it has the same significance as, say, Corsican independence.
Interesting to see the collection of individuals backing the 'no' campaign, all for very different reasons. Cameron, Farage, and George Galloway all in the same camp !
That's the big problem Cologne, there are a lot of unsavory characters in the No camp. Having said even as a conservative I prefer Galloway to Salmond, he is at least transparent and says what he believes, not one who turns in the wind and certainly more interested in other peoples rights than his own ego.
