Indyref8

[grovel]

ItsAllGoingToBeFine, but who will be Prime Minister? Pretty unsatisfactory changing halfway through. My suggestion was that maybe Cameron, Clegg, Miliband et al agree on a team and step back themselves. It would make the end result a joint enterprise and could prevent years of feuding in rUK.

rose

What, where?

But IssyDee, surely the SNP are doing exactly the same with their white paper - if you vote Yes, you'll get everything in the white paper. Disingenuous I think.

Statisically I have been monitoring the comments on the various broadsheets and obv the DM, ' that Voice of Reason' etc. It's not pretty. DevoMax is not on offer and I can't see the three parties offering it with a GE on the horizon. We will get fuck all. Seriously.

I'm sure you will agree that he is indeed a Prince Amongst Men, but have you seen the Simon Heffer article this morning?

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html

This thread is moving so fast it's hard to follow! I've got to go and do some work and sort out my kids so I'm going to sign off for a bit after I respond to this (sorry, forgot who posted it and it's lost a few pages back)

I'm afraid I'm right, as I'll explain below:

'issydee??Thank you for answering - a useful, erudite and ultimately wrong answer??1) asset division would be dependent on debt allocation and today Salmond has been reported as rejecting taking any UK debt?'
*Salmond has been consistent in saying we have no legal obligation, but we will negotiate to take on some payment in return for cooperation from the rUK. This is the negotiating position because he thinks it's in Scotlands best interests to be a continuing state. He's said all along that as a moral point we'd be willing to negotiate a payment plan to rUK as a portion of the debt. Since we have no legal obligation to do this, unless we were a continuing state, it's a negotiating tactic. That's how realpolitik works.

'2) see above - the head of the yes campaign and first minister for scotland is refusing to have any debt.'
See above, it's a negotiating tactic. If Osborne hadn't been so bullish about pretending that it isn't in the UK's interests to form currency union, then Salmond wouldn't be playing this card. He said in the tv debates and numerous other places that we have a moral obligation to rUK and would like to take on a share but we are in no legal obligation so won't do so unless Osborne agrees a currency union.

'?3) The Uk is a member of the EU - the new state would have to apply'
I already explained this. Scotland would prefer status as a continuing state. In which case we'd continue with as a member of the EU.

'4) nato has said Scotland will have to apply??'
As I already explained, only if it is not a continuing state, which is not Salmond's negotiating position and the UK cannot force Scotland into being a successor state.

'1. There will be no currency union and sterlingisation will be a mess and is not consistent with Eu membership?'
Yes there will, if the rUK wants Scotland to pay anything towards the debt

'2) if you dont take the debt - successor/new or what ever state - you will be perceived as reneging on your liabilities. This is bad from a credibility point of view?'
*No, we won't. A successor state HAS NO LIABILITIES. Scotland can only be held liable for debt if it is a continuing state. This is why Osbornes bluff is exactly that.

'3) you may be right about EU membership - but it will be 5 years at least?'
Some estimates are much shorter than that, all coming directly from the EU. Median falls around 18months Truth is, they've never had to administrate this situation before, so until they know whether Scotland is continuing or successor state, they just don't know.

4. nukes is not a condition of entry but demanding another nato country remove theirs doesnt play well in the negotiation stakes' I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused, who is demanding that who remove their weapons? Nukes aren't a condition of entry, as you say, we don't want nukes here, so it won't stop entry to NATO should we choose to be in it

Another aspect of the UK I'm happy to leave behind once we have independence is the inequality.

The UK is the 4th most unequal country in the world. Read the spirit level to see how this is damaging for everyone.

The UK is also 8th most unequal place in the EU in terms of the gender pay gap.

I see nothing in the unionist plans to address these issues.

The 60% of austerity cuts all the WM parties are promising will only make this situation worse.

oops, left some spaces between my *s so bolding is inconsistent. sorry, am off to feed my baby now..

I want to stay in a union and for me it's not just about the money

I used to feel the same way myself, Statistically ... but my opinion's been changed by the sheer entitlement shown by so many Scots and the implication that only their views should matter

Like so many others I genuinely didn't want this to happen - but it has, and now a solution has to be found which will suit everyone, including the rest of the UK

Sorry, you weren't taking to me (La la la la)

There is a rather nasty undertone on this thread. No supporters were very sneery and back people into corners. I'd hate to have to fend them all off on my own.

grantheftmanual, it's totally different. The white paper came out ages ago for a start and it's not a ballot for the white paper, the white paper is a blueprint for how we might achieve one of the choices on the ballot.

The Ballot on the other hand has two choices of governance structure, only two choices. Devo Max is a governance structure and it is NOT on the ballot. Labour canvassers are actively lying and threatening the democratic process.

There is a rather nasty undertone on this thread. No supporters were very sneery and back people into corners. I'd hate to have to fend them all off on my own.

So do yes voters.

Please don't pretend that it isn't going on on both sides.

Issydee, but many people are voting yes led by what they read in the white paper. If there is no substance in the paper, what are we voting for? I find this aspect particularly worrying. We are being asked to vote for.......what, exactly? I know further upthread several posters stated that the only thing we are being asked to vote on is whether Scotland should be an independent country. But the ramifications of either a Yes or No vote are surely far more important than just the bald question on a ballot paper.

We are being asked to vote for.......what, exactly?

The ability to govern our own country.

There can be no other definites due to WM position on not "pre-negotiating"

Hello ScotsWhaHae what are your views then?

Grand
I'm not voting based on the White paper. I'm voting YES because i don't think I have another choice if I want to live somewhere where the majority view actually has some bearing on the government we have.

I would have taken DevoMax, but that's not on offer

Well that really would be playing fast and loose with a clear will to change our relationship.

On another note, DH's company has asked all of them to consider their options.

Just seen John Prescott's contribution to the Better Together campaign as part of the "get everyone up from Westminster to persuade the Scots 'cos it looks like they might vote Yes" panic .

He thought it was a good idea to suggest that the England and Scotland football teams would be "better together" so that we could beat the Germans

Is he a plant for the Yes campaign?

The ability to govern our own country

So if you aren't to take any notice if the White Paper then how are people supposed to know how or what exactly they are voting yes for and how it would work.

Voting yes just do Scotland can govern itself with no indication of how this would be seems very wishy washy to me.

Devo Max is a reality. All 3 parties, both the National & Scottish leaderships, have publicly pledged this, so its ludicrous to suggest they would renege after a 'No' vote - no one wants to go through all this again!

It's only formalising what they said at the outset of the campaign - albeit they've taken their time about it - and confirms my view that this is the first step to a better, Federal, UK, with greater devolution for the English regions as well.

In my view it would now be irresponsible at best to take the known risks and unintended consequences (of which there will be many) of Separation, for the uncosted utopia promised by the 'Yes' side.

sorry, that was to ItsAll

Phaedra- yes Scottish people care more about dead children that moot technicalities.

On another note, DH's company has asked all of them to consider their options.

It would seem that many are in the same position

Rain town- the lib dems public ally pledged not to increase tuition fees.

No one believes WM politicians anymore.

I am more of a lurker than a poster on this thread (and also not Scottish), but would observe that if posters on all sides can refrain from mud slinging the debate is much better.

So far it has been pretty good -particularly from those posters who had added well referenced arguments as opposed to just emotional point scoring. It would be a shame if the thread degenerated into mud slinging in the way most public debates on this subject have.

FWIW, my position is that I think the vote will probably be no by a short margin. Mostly because there are jobs and homes at stake and there are too many questions that haven't been answered.

But if you have a 90% turnout it could end up being yes or no with less than half the population eligible to vote supporting the final outcome - which isn't good for anyone.

Phaedra- yes Scottish people care more about dead children that moot technicalities.

No one believes WM politicians anymore.

I didn't realise that you spoke for everyone.

If you can say that can I then say that no one believes AS anymore?