Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

While I feel it to be no closer than the Irish. I don't generally express indifference as there's little point but in this case I honestly couldn't care less whether Scotland stays or goes. If anything I would prefer them to go as they appear to want the social democrat way of life without the tax bill that goes with it. Much of the rest of the country is neglected and perhaps the likely cost savings to many businesses and indeed government would be spread between us.

I'd rather not go to be honest.

I am very worried that the daft nationalists will succed and tear this great nation apart.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Escapee

As a Welshman I am concerned that a Scottish Yes vote will boost the idiotic Welsh Nationalists towards an independent Wales vote. I'm sure there are many Scottish people worried about the possibility of a Yes vote as there are in Wales.

I appreciate that the money generated in the UK comes mainly from the South East and it subsidises Wales, Welsh Labour are very adept at wasting other peoples money, and they are very much 'Old Labour'. I am under no illusions that an Independent Wales would be run by a Labour government and what the outcome of that would be.

I know that my taxes as a working person would have to rise considerably to cover the funding shortfall from England and the increase spending on the health service and civil servant jobs in general. (Wales are very good at creating civil servant jobs)

I believe the argument for Wales to be independent is the same as Scotland, and I'm happy to keep taking money from England to be honest.

le i'r Alban

[Stephen]

Jeezo Salmond really is full of himself isn't he! Some of his quotes are priceless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-29194220

"We tend to take the attitude that there isn't so much as a 'No' voter in Scotland, there are only deferred 'Yeses', and that's been one of the successes of our campaign."

Mr Salmond told the Andrew Marr programme that if "Yes" won there would "cease to be a 'Yes' campaign and a 'No' campaign - there will be a Team Scotland".

The first minister renewed his claim that the Bank of England would be "a shared central bank" after independence.
"There will be a sustainability agreement between the governments in terms of borrowing levels and debt levels," he said.
"We set that out in our proposals."

Elsewhere in the real world....

The UK government has said it would not agree to a currency union with an independent Scotland, but Mr Salmond argued American economist Joseph Stiglitz had said "a shared currency is a very, very viable and common sense thing to do".

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'd rather not go to be honest.

I am very worried that the daft nationalists will succed and tear this great nation apart.

It won't be about nationalists. There aren't enough nationalists to achieve a Yes vote.

There is a real movement just now and it crosses the divides of traditional party politics. People who have become detached and disillusioned with the politics of Westminster have became reinvigorated by the possibility of being able to determine the shape of their own society.

The negativity of BT and the bias of the mainstream media seems to be have worked in the favour of the Yes campaign.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Escapee

As a Welshman I am concerned that a Scottish Yes vote will boost the idiotic Welsh Nationalists towards an independent Wales vote..

Carwyn Jones has already opened his big gob on the subject....

And Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-29197303

[Stephen]

I personally don't see the negativity from BT. They are purely stating facts and the case for staying part of the UK.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I personally don't see the negativity from BT. They are purely stating facts and the case for staying part of the UK.

I'm only seeing scarey stories about how Scotland can't go it alone. I've yet to see a positive argument. Vague promises of devomax (which tory mps are already saying they will vote down) don't count as a positive argument.

Many of the facts aren't facts at all. They're glossy interpretations of opinions that allude to resembling a fact if the right set of circumstances come together under a blue moon.

[Stephen]

I don't doubt that Scotland could go it alone, however not in the way the SNP have been promising.

As with many Yes voters crying we never voted for that government I have this to say

We are having a referendum brought about by the SNP Scottish government who less than 50% of people voted for, in an election that had just 50% turnout.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I don't doubt that Scotland could go it alone, however not in the way the SNP have been promising.

As with many Yes voters crying we never voted for that government I have this to say

We are having a referendum brought about by the SNP Scottish government who less than 50% of people voted for, in an election that had just 50% turnout.

I don't think you'll have to read too far back on some of my posts with regards to how I feel about Salmond and Sturgeon. Not a fan to say the least.

You are correct in what you say about how we've got here. However, you must admit that this caught the imagination of Scotland beyond any party politics. It feels like a different place just now. I don't think this politicising of the General public will disappear after the results of the vote are announced. People are interested in politics again and they believe that their X is important. I'll bet you a pound (or euro) that there will be more than a 50% turnout on Thursday.

[Qtx]

People are getting tired of corporations and their control over governments these days, so people tend to see their comments in relation to things like devolution as threats rather than reality. They are in a way threats and intended to sway opinion to what is best for their business rather than the people, so it's understandable too.

So having the hated Cameron in government, along with getting support from Gordon Brown and threats from companies with Scottish in their name might just be enough to make people vote Yes out of spite.


Scottish independence: Crowd protests against 'BBC bias'

A large crowd gathered outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow HQ to protest about coverage of the referendum.

Police said up to 1,000 people took part although other observers suggested a much higher figure for the crowd.

The protesters said BBC coverage had been biased against independence.

A BBC spokesperson said: "We believe our coverage has been fair and impartial and has adhered fully to the requirements of our Editorial and Referendum Guidelines."

Protesters gathered outside the BBC's Pacific Quay offices at about 14:00.

They draped a banner over the entrance to the building calling for the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson to be sacked.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Taf

Carwyn Jones has already opened his big gob on the subject....

And Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-29197303

I think it's an excellent idea, and that England should also have devolved powers. It's rather churlish that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not concern them in any way, shape or form.

Obviously anything less I am not happy about. Anything that has been devolved to a home nation should be outside of their MPs' competence in the Commons when it concerns other home nations only.

Contrary to apparently popular belief Scotland comprises less than 1/10th of the population of the UK and has no right, at all, to a disproportionate level of influence within the UK as a whole.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Qtx

People are getting tired of corporations and their control over governments these days,

It's a balance, because things work so much better when governments control corporations.......................

They are in a way threats and intended to sway opinion to what is best for their business rather than the people, so it's understandable too.

But what if your livelihood depends on that business? Then what is best for that business is best for you too. Well if you want to keep your job.

You can't separate these things out for convenience. That's why it's called socio-economics, amongst other things, they are inter-related. It's not black and white

might just be enough to make people vote Yes out of spite.

and that would be a really clever reason...........they would get what they deserve.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

A large crowd gathered outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow HQ to protest about coverage of the referendum.

Police said up to 1,000 people took part although other observers suggested a much higher figure for the crowd.

The protesters said BBC coverage had been biased against independence.

A BBC spokesperson said: "We believe our coverage has been fair and impartial and has adhered fully to the requirements of our Editorial and Referendum Guidelines."

Protesters gathered outside the BBC's Pacific Quay offices at about 14:00.

They draped a banner over the entrance to the building calling for the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson to be sacked.

Nice to see that they're not above intimidation and trying to interfere with the democratic process either.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's a balance, because things work so much better when governments control corporations.......................

But what if your livelihood depends on that business? Then what is best for that business is best for you too. Well if you want to keep your job.

You can't separate these things out for convenience. That's why it's called socio-economics, amongst other things, they are inter-related. It's not black and white

Something I fully understand. Just think people in general have got a point where they are so disillusioned with it all that logic goes out the window. There is a lot of 'if they are trying so hard to make us do x, lets do y to show our unhappiness'.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's a balance, because things work so much better when governments control corporations.......................

The only balance is to the degree of control governments have over corporations. Corporations shouldn't have any control or sway over governments beyond not doing business in their jurisdictions. Corporations don't get to vote in a democracy, people do.

The only vote corporations should get is whether or not to do business in a nation under the terms set forward by that nation's elected representatives, not lobby said representatives, aka bribe them to get more favourable terms and ideally land the taxpayer with the bills for their increased profits.

Our governments are increasingly corporatist and that's working brilliantly given that basically none of the economic recovery's positive impacts have filtered down to anyone below the wealthiest.

Governments should control corporations to an extent; this doesn't mean nationalising everything, it means not pandering to their whims, not bailing them out with taxpayers' money but letting their shareholders take the pain.

It's nothing more than regulated capitalism, nothing statist about it.

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

Something I fully understand. Just think people in general have got a point where they are so disillusioned with it all that logic goes out the window. There is a lot of 'if they are trying so hard to make us do x, lets do y to show our unhappiness'.

Look at the state of the UK. Can you blame people for being disillusioned?

[Osem]

When we're referring to companies the size of RBS, HBOS etc., shareholders 'taking the pain' inevitably means a great many very ordinary pensioners who made no choice to invest in those companies so let's be clear that it's not only the rich who would be suffer if they were allowed to fail.

There are plenty of Lloyds Bank shareholders who've lost out massively due to the company being pressured into merging with Halifax/BOS by Gordon Brown in a rather less than transparent manner.