Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

There still seem to be a lot of assumptions that the White Paper/Wishlist is fact and lots of facilities will be 'shared' as of right. Just because the SNP says it has a 'mandate' doesn't make it so, and the population of the continuing UK are not going to allow anything to be given away lightly.
A Yes in the referendum only says that Scotland should be an independent country, it doesn't say how that should happen. The Edinburgh agreement doesn't specify any particular shares.
The UK is not being broken up by a Yes vote. Scotland is leaving the UK behind and becoming a foreign country, like France or Belgium. Everything else is down to negotiation.

Eck could have been progressing this for years but has chosen not to. Why?

There are lots of things that he could have been doing, but it would weaken the case for independence. He needs to continue the pretence that his hands are tightly tied.
Also raising taxes before the referendum would not be a vote winner.

Debate from Dundee on BBC 5Live starting now.

RE Darling's comments. NC's quotation was spot on

www.spf.org.uk/2014/09/spf-media-release-independence-referendum/

The head of the Scottish police federation has given Darling et all a round ticking off for even suggesting that there will be any problems on polling day.

On the HE sector

"attending university in the UK is the draw factor, not attending in Scotland. Achieving a degree from a UK university is perceived to have more clout than a degree from a Scottish university alone."

I'm sorry but there's just no evidence for this. First of all, when it comes to attracting top class international students, it's the ROs international research ranking and departmental expertise that really matters, not whether the University is north or south of Berwick. Secondly, given that Scotland isn't presently independent, so how on earth do you know that "a UK university is perceived to have more clout" than a "Scottish university alone"? That's just wishful thinking.

On the question of research funding, Westminster has already proposed that Scottish universities could apply for RCOK funding by modelling the "associated country" system than non-EU countries use to apply for EU funding. The UK already has various arrangements in place to pool research funding with non UK countries such as ROI anyway.

On land reform, there has been movement. Take a look at the Scot Gov's latest report

www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/land-reform/events/FinalReport23May2014

On the 3p "tax raising power". First of all it hasn't actually been available to use since 2007 because HMRC decided to upgrade their IT systems without transferring the data needed to implement a tax change, even though the Scottish government had already paid for them to make this data usable in their old IT systems. The current SNP led administration have only been in government since 2007, so they haven't been able to use it, whether they would like to or not.

As to why previous Lib/Lab governments didn't use it - I don't know. Perhaps it would have been politically difficult for them to vary the tax rate between Scotland and RUK. But then I don't see the need to raise the bottom band by 3p anyway, and I don't think that a flat rate tax raising power is adequate - imagine if there was an imposition on Westminster to adjust all tax brackets by the same amount, at the same time. It's unacceptable.

Lost this thread yesterday and will be keeping well away from it today! Enjoy.

5live debate is also on BBC 2 just now

Really fascinating threads to read. Emotions and Utopian visions aside, I have tried to be as objective as possible in coming to my decision. I have read as much as I can, particularly in the areas where I wouldn't consider myself an expert at all, and also read around what lessons history can teach us as well as looking at other countries who have striven for independence.
The area that concerns me, amongst others, and where there appears to have been little debate is that of an Independent Scotland's Defence policy.
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10
Having been part of the defence community for 17 years I'm struggling to see how this can be implemented. An example is the proposed acquisition of 2x Type 23 frigates - apparently chosen because their names were Scottish, no regard for their role! In order for these ships to operate they require the support of a Fleet Air Arm Naval Air Squadron - currently Lynx, soon to be Wildcat. This squadron is based at Yeovilton in Somerset. This is only one example, of many - I could go on, where what appears on paper to be feasible just cannot be implemented. This worries me about other proposals outside my area of expertise and first hand knowledge.
If one of the entry requirements to the EU is a significant Defence Force then Scotland is going to be struggling. It will take years, and considerable cost, to establish a suitable number of highly trained, qualified and of the highest calibre Officer and SNCOs - you can't just hatch them or expect to get the best from those who wish to transfer across or rejoin after redundancy.

I know defence is not as popular a topic as say the NHS or Education, possibly because its existence in a stable peacetime country is taken for granted or maybe because only a small community has contact with it. However, it and its traditions form an essential role in the fabric of a stable society. Maybe it is just this which is part of the problem - we have looked at our comparative wealth, health and educational opportunities as lacking. Having worked and served abroad I sometimes want to shake us all and remind people that we are dealing with distinctly First World issues and are extremely fortunate and blessed to be living in the UK. No, nothing is perfect and never will be, but malcontent to a current Government - overseeing a country affected by the policies of previous administrations - which leads to a referendum which has already caused huge division and could lead to potential destabilisation and a return to Nationalism is not what I wish. I do not see the track record of the Scottish Parliament as something which inspires faith and trust. The appalling equivalent of the Highland Clearances to smooth the way for Donald Trump and the tram fiasco in Edinburgh are just two examples.
So in voting No I am voting not against anything but voting for the continuation of our fantastic great little country of wish I am very proud and have seen others give their lives for.
Right, I'm off for a wee cup of tea...

"It would be naive not to plan -plan for the worst, hope for the best and all that jazz." I agree with StatisticallyChallenged

Yes voting lawyer friend told me that when he mentioned to a Westminster counterpart that he couldn't make a time for a conference call as he was meeting with the FM's office to do some planning in the event of a Yes (he works on behalf of one of the utility companies), the Westminster person was shocked as they have apparently done nothing.

As an officer in the TA, he was himself shocked, as he is expected to plan for all eventualities, even those you don't want to happen. The degree of planning would vary according to the perceived risk, but you don't do none

Unless of course Westminster had assumed that there was zero risk of Scotland voting Yes!

Criseyde

Yep - that was it - the words "absolute carnage" were what the SPF were responding to and that's where it gets hyperbolic and inflammatory.

Good morning!

SantanaLopez - thank you for starting this thread.

Re the idea that whichever way you vote you're taking a gamble:

My summary - SNP wanted independence because of a desire for self-determination and because they think uk is dominated by England, in particular SE/London and some of them are egotistical But they don't want to push the ideal of self-determination as it is open to claims of 'Braveheart syndrome.' Even if a strong case could be made for the principle of Scottish self-determination, setting up on our own is perceived as risky or "taking a gamble". Presumably, were it not for the (mostly) economic risks involved in setting up on our own, voters who are sympathetic to the idea of self-determination would be more likely to vote yes. And the BT campaign has, IMO to the exclusion of the other considerations unfortunately, mostly focused on the risks of independence too to scare possible yes voters into voting no.

Very cleverly the yes campaign is pointing out that there are risks involved in the current government's policies and plans.

IMO this is clever campaigning, but should not be a significant factor in deciding how to vote in this referendum. Because it goes without saying that there are risks involved in everything, whereas setting up a new country is clearly taking a needless risk. If Labour had been re-elected in the 2010 election the SNP would still be going on about the risks of continuing with their policies - ie of failing to deal with the deficit by increasing/maintaining public spending.

The SNP is also trying to appeal to those voters who feel they aren't materially well off by making unfounded claims about an independent Scottish economy, spending and taxation. Eg they claim that we will be better off as all the oil revenue - the amount of which is usually overestimated by the Scottish government - will come to Scotland, we will have lower corporation tax thereby attracting more business - well, maybe but only until other similar countries lower their corporation tax rates and will by an unspecified process have more public spending with lower tax rates.

I don't think anyone should be frightened of voting no.

There will probably be another opportunity to have a referendum, but no chance of going back.....

x-posted with AnnieGetYour Tazer14 - malcontent to a current government Yup.

As far as I can see the words absolute carnage are from an unattributed 'senior source ' rather than darling himself. I agree they were ott but I don't think speaking to the police to make sure they are prepared is wrong

Watching the bbc2 debate. Brian Taylor speaks so well. I wish I had even a smidgeon of his political knowledge.

A civilised debate (mostly) at last. If anyone can get it on catch-up later it is quite interesting to hear.

Just signing in to the new thread although not sure I have much that can add to the articulate debate on here.

I did look at the link you posted (the positive campaigning blog you did) probably about 2 threads back! It was compelling, and I think I understand the desire for Scotland to stand on her own.

But I think this autonomy will be largely figurative, and will come at a very high price; one I don't think is worth paying.

Criseyde
The current SNP led administration have only been in government since 2007, so they haven't been able to use it, whether they would like to or not.

Are you being serious?
Seven years in power, with time to plan beforehand, and the SNP 'haven't been able' to use their tax-raising power?
How many years will they need to set up an entire independent country?

We all know the real reasons, as stated above.

Oh god, I've changed my mind - don't watch it unless you want to see Ricky Ross sanctimonious chunt channeling 'I have a dream' while staring earnestly at camera.
He gave the Yes spiel. Tony Robinson gave the No spiel. Don't know why.
Shona Robison, accidentally maybe, off mic, whispers "I'll take Ricky Ross anytime"

Last post about this....
Guy sitting in the 'undecided' section stands up and says he now "passionately believes in a Yes vote" cue much clapping...

Victoria Derbyshire asks him, during the course of this debate when he changed his mind? Then he admits that he's already posted his Yes vote! Cue much jeering...
All good fun eh?

Apparently there was some audience rigging at the previous big debate too

Do you mean the guy with the pink (equalled Undecided) wristband sitting in amongst the No voters at Kelvingrove?

(... sorry, got distracted and hadn't realised I'd posted)

...or were there other shenanigans? That's the only one I'd read about.

Apparently there were a few yes folk who were cheering away from the wrong sections too -just a rumour, I wasn't there to confirm!

Not trying to belittle his contribution, but before the campaign started I don't think I'd have recognised Ricky Ross if I'd fallen over him. I find it very wearing that both sides have been so keen to trot out 'celebrity endorsements'.

Has anyone read Women Saying No? A collection of essays, not all of which I agreed with but interesting, and very clear that there is a lot of appetite on the No side to work for change. And a fascinating piece on the impact on women of independence in Eastern European countries. Mainly Labour people, proceeds going to raise funds for a memorial to Mary Barbour.

A Better Together campaigner just came to my door. She said she could see by my poster I was a yes and asked if that was the opinion of all the household. I said yes and she started back down the path. I asked her if she wasn't going to try and persuade me otherwise (happy to have the discussion) and she said I'd obviously made my mind up. I said I didn't think there was an argument for no. She said "yes, I hear you" and left.

I would have thought a BT canvasser's (or a Yes for that matter) remit would be to enter into discussion with those with the opposite view?

Most underwhelmed.

She was using her time sensibly.

I think at this stage they will be focusing on undecided or people who are at least swaying. If you're at the 'sign in the window 'stage then that's probably not you and to have then pushed at you would have been rude and confrontational I think.