Leonardo;7072196]My last line reflects the fact that I believe you have not argued the case in the way it should be argued and as for us here it is only you and BB representing the case I would have liked to see you explain the Yes campaign better. It is not spin but my honest take on what you have said. You have quoted a myriad of articles from one side saying that oil is plentiful and given us lists of independent countries - whether they be rich or poor. I accept that there are loads of independent countries - that does not actually mean that they would not fare better as part of a bigger union. I am ambivalent about the EU but that is the bigger union that many think benefits us. But yes there are no guarantees that Scotland will be better off, but my judgment which is based on the current situation is that we would. As for oil - there is loads of it but the point you and as far as I can see the Yes campaign have failed to do is to explain how a country that would have oil as around 15% of its tax revenue can properly deal with the wide annual fluctuations that always do occiur. For the UK as a whole oil is 1 to 2% of revenue so a halving of it is of little consequence on an annual basis. That just is not the position if it is 15% of your revenue - it means there has to be a strategy to deal with major fluctuations of revenue. I cannot believe the argument that Salmond has not considered this - he is a very intelligent man. So why does he not explain the strategies an independent Scotland would use to iron out the fluctuations. This is certain to happen and it is not acceptable to say the answer will be given after a yes vote. If I am mistaken and the Yes campaign have answered that then explain it to me - please not in another long article but in your own words. Oil and it's fluctuations is not CRUCIAL to a Scottish economy that would have more money than it currently does WITHOUT oil revenue. Oil is a bonus. Check the figures. Secondly the EU - I am well aware that post a Yes vote negotiations will start. However you cannot expect anyone to accept that Salmond has not looked at all the possible outcomes - immediate re-entry, re-entry within say 5 years or possibly no EU. Why is it so difficult for anyone to tell us what the Yes campaign position would be in the event of these outcomes. They are all potential outcomes so explain what the strategy would be to deal with each. Finally currency. I know you can quote 200 countries around the word with their own currencies and Scotland can easily be another. But why will Salmond only tell us he wants a currency union and not tell us the response to an alternative outcome. It will make a great deal of difference to Scotland which currency it uses - so he should outline how Scotland will cope with each. That means acknowledging the increased costs that a new country would face starting its own currency - not least higher interest costs - or the loss of control if it "shadows" sterling and does not have its own central bank.THis is simply political, Salmond is a politician, the NO campaign wanted him to explain this, he wanted to focus on currency union. Without currency Union the pound comes under threat both sides know this. Scotland is England's biggest customer it is in the interest of both to reach agreement on currency. That is the reality but it does not fit with the politics. Those are all legitimate questions and it is not good enough to say they are policies that will be decided after the referendum. Some people will want independence only if some of those outcomes are "favourable" unless the Yes campaign can show it has a successful contingency plan for when not all negotiations turn out as they hope - and as someone who has spent much of my business life in negotiations I can assure you we do not always get what we desire. None of what I have written here is spin - you are the only one who accuses me of that Spurf. The questions are the sort of questions I have posed to people who have come to me seeking investment in their businesses across the years. If you want people to buy into a idea you have to convince them it is sound. If I have missed the answers to these questions then again please in a few words explain them. You say you do not want debate for the sake of it - but this is not like that- it is debate about all our children's future - not just Scots. We have a right to know that Scotland is not being misled and not voting for an outcome it does not expect. I think Salmond's reaction to the publication of the RBS intention to move its headquarters demonstrates how he prefers to keep bad news hidden. Whether the Treasury did wrong in confirming it is not relevant - hiding the truth and then complaining when it comes out it just wrong. Salmond implies that all potential bad news are just scare stories so it is important that when businesses like Aviva, RBS and the like are making actual plans to relocate these are aired as fact to prevent it being claimed as just a scare. RBS have made it extremely clear that they are not planning to relocate just 'maybe' the brass plaque. The BBC was trying to spin this as crucial to many jobs. See there article on their website where the Headline does not fit the story, that is tabloid stuff. Salmond then answered Nick Robinson's question comprehensively and TWICE despite which Robinson still claimed his question was not answered. You can watch this all on replay. the only people attemting to hide the truth were the BBC and Westminster. I challenge your assertion that this is about Democracy - that is the "spin" the Yes campaign has turned to as they have seen that promising a new social order is popular. I did not hear much of that in the early days of the debate. It is about Independence. How Scotland develops post independence will determine what social order changes there will be - but that will depend on how Scots vote in the future - nobody can promise the outcome of future votes. You challenge my assertion that this is about Democracy!!! This is why you have problems with my arguments. Democracy/Independence are what this is about always have been. The YES camp are from all political groups from Tory to Socialist and everything in between they have no single agenda other than Independence which is about gaining the Democratic will of the people of Scotland. If you cannot understand that then this discussion is a complete waste of time. I do not expect you to be able to answer these questions properly as I do not think they have been thought through as fully as they ought to have been - which is why the No campaign has kept pressing for answers. I could easily be wrong and if I am then here is your chance to help us understand the truth. Then you should not be asking me should you. Once again I have tried to answer your questions in a straight forward honest manner I have no reason to do anything else. You may not agre with the answers but please do not accuse me of avoiding the questions
LOOK at the SOURCE yourself then and stop reading other peoples interpretations. I have. FFS It has NOTHING to do with the English in that sense. It is not about presenting them. You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts.
I think you'll find quite a few of the comments made by the Yes campaign are aimed at the English as the cause of all Scotland woes, whether as English or Tory or both, the SNP and the Labour party should have spent a little more time in Holyrood House doing what they were elected to do (take care of the Scottish people) rather than taking pot shots over the border. Also the facts are the facts, how they are twisted or spun is up to whosoever is presenting them. Your statement implies we can form an opinion but cannot view the facts in any other way but yours. Surely forming an opinion is by using the information available, rather than taking your view of whatever is available. I did see another commentator last night, on the oil question, asking what happens when it runs out? His main thrust was there were several figures of available resources out in the big wide world, but no one knows for sure quite how much and what there is could be a lot less than even the most conservative estimate or a lot more. Was he a Westminster stooge as well and if the estimates are gross overestimates would that be Westminster's fault too?
Spurf - you are right we do not speak the same language so cannot understand each other. You equate democracy with independence; I see them as separate issues as you can always have one without the other; you claim Scotland without any oil will be richer than it is now - I have not even seen Salmond claim that; you do not appear to have responded to the EU point ( I may have missed it); you do not answer Scotland's alternative to a currency union but say it is political and re-assert England needs it which most people do not agree with -but the main point was the alternative not repeating that there will be a union; whether or not Scotland will continue to be England's biggest trading partner has no bearing on currency union - else the UK would have joined the Euro - currency unions are dangerous - I could go on and on - but you think you have answered my questions - I think you ave not. We can never agree. I believe you are not able to understand other people's legitimate concerns and interpret them as negativity, spin and anything else that avoids actually removing their concerns. I think the NO campaign is pathetic as it should have been able to rout the Yes campaign but instead has been completely outflanked by a very clever politician.
Excellent article and the way Spurf has argued in this debate demonstrates many of the points he has banged on and on about. The truth is that the Yes campaign is as brilliantly run as the campaigns of determined extremists often are - if you question us you are the enemy and deluded by the enemy propaganda etc etc - The funny thing is that the whole Yes campaign has been orchestrated by successful American political lobbyists using tactics that have been succesful there - poor old Spurf though has found for once free thinking INDEPENDENTly minded people here who have not been swayed by the tactics used in the field at large.
Sorry like you he completly misses the point. It sounds like he spent his time with RIC who of course are passsionate. I think the unity and expectation in YES comes from the belief that Scotland will create a fairer society; there is pretty much a consensus on that. I have for example been emphasising that policies will be decided in 2016 AFTER the referendum, that is not suggesting some total unity as is claimed in this article. The dream is Scotland deciding for itself and the trust is in the difference that is already evident in Scotland. I am from Business for Scotland we represent 2650 Scottish small to medium companies all of whom firmly believe it will be better for their business but at the same time want a fairer society than the present UK. The Scottish electorate will decide in the end if first they vote YES.
Westminster NOT England; the fact that you cannot differntiate between the two is part of the problem the English have in understanding this debate. Westminster government is our problem and your problem in England. We both suffer from it, Scotland has a chance to get away, England need to make it's own chance. England needs it's own parliament too. Oil has been done to death on here, whether it lasts until 2050 or 2116 is largely academic for the purposes of this debate. Whatever it is it will be a nice bonus for an Independent Scotland, but to talk about it as being central is just lazy because it is just not true.
Certainly one of the best thought out and expressed articles I have read since the whole campaign started. It has been clear from many miles away that there are so many hidden agendas within the Yes movement that I am surprised that anyone actually thinks they know what they are voting for.
This was an interesting read about 25 pages ago now it reads like 2 bald blokes fighting over a comb! I will be mightily glad when the whole circus is over there is plenty more going on in the news that is far more concerning.
I think the gains versus losses ultimately are not that great... and the one thing to come out of this is it will likely make the whole of the UK a mite more decentralised and fairer...
Spurf I know the difference between the perceptions of England and Westminster. Most non-Brits refer to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as England as they know no better; and I know how that annoys the Welsh, Irish and Scots as I have worked outside the UK with people from all constituent parts. Most people within the UK can tell the difference between England, the English and the Westminster Bubble. What I find grating is the way some of the Yes campaign (who should know better) is blurring lines between England and the English and what goes on in Westminster; and how the politicians in Scotland have for years been equating Westminster to the Tories and by extension the rest of England. I could just as easily say that SNP is Holyrood is Scotland, it isn't and would be highly disingenuous to say as such. The Scottish political myth of Tory/Westminster/England has been perpetuated as a constant which is just not valid. Looking at our last few prime ministers; Cameron (very Scottish name, born in London), Brown (born in Giffnock, Renfrewshire) and Blair (born in Edinburgh) there does seem to be a heavy Scottish bias so odd the nation feels politically aggrieved.
With large parts of the world in a state of turmoil with the threat of War hanging over us I hardly think that turning in on our selves is the right thing to do at the moment. If ever there was a time for national unity and a clear direction of leadership and purpose the time is surely now. Not wanting to overhype the present security threats that we face but they are very real and we can not afford to naval gaze when the Middle East is on the brink of all out war.
Quote Originally Posted by Spurf View Post I am from Business for Scotland we represent 2650 Scottish small to medium companies all of whom firmly believe it will be better for their business but at the same time want a fairer society than the present UK. That can only be true if Business for Scotland is exclusively a Yes campaign organisation. My brother has his own small to medium size business near Aberdeen and he is in the NO camp. Yet another maniuplation of statistics. "All of us who are voting yes are voting yes"
Well this sounds pretty final. Inigo Mendez de Vigo, the Spanish European Affairs Minister, rejected the First Minister’s claims Scotland could negotiate membership “from within” the EU, saying it would have to apply from scratch and follow the usual accession process. The Spanish Prime Minister has also said Scotland would start life outside the EU, while Mr Juncker has said voters’ decision would be respected but it could not become a member merely by sending a letter. Mr Mendez de Vigo said: “It is crystal clear that any partner member-state that leaves the member state is out of the European Union. If they want to apply again, they would have to follow the procedure of article 49 of the treaties.” He went on to say this must be unanimously agreed by the member states and “it is a process that takes more or less five years”. Anyone have a bet with Betfair? They are paying out early to those who backed No. Seems as if the Yes punters have drifted away in the past couple of days.
