Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Indyref 11. The home of good manners

999 replies

grovel · 14/09/2014 18:37

!0,000 and counting.

OP posts:
livingzuid · 15/09/2014 02:07

I'm sorry to say this but you are coming over as a bit aggressive and rude. I've tried to be polite in putting my views forward in a positive way. I haven't questioned your knowledge or qualifications but you have basically said that I don't know what I am talking about. I don't know what you do for a living and you don't know what I do for a living either. You can have a debate without suggesting that the other person on the debate doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

You have made several comments about the EU. myself and other posters have challenged this as it is not what our experience is based on. You then gave us some details of what you did for a living to explain these comments, implying we didn't know what we were talking about. Despite the fact that what you do doesn't in my opinion cover the breadth of what you are discussing, nor make you an expert.

I am stating facts which. I find the content of your argument distasteful and ignorant to be honest. I cannot believe you would plunge the country blithely into turmoil on the basis of what you have detailed in your posts.

If you find that rude and aggressive then so be it. Such is the nature of political debate. You are, as I said earlier, completely entitled to post what you want. I am, in return, completely entitled to disagree and challenge that.

StatisticallyChallenged · 15/09/2014 02:09

Carney was talking about just using the £ rather than a currency union - that is plan B as far as they will admit. Plan C must be some sort of pegged currency but that has huge issues too.

sconequeen · 15/09/2014 02:11

Livingzuid - yes, we'll have to agree to differ. I can totally understand the "reasoned" reasons No voters like you have even though I don't agree with them. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to how risk averse you are. Actually, I am a quite risk averse as a rule but on the matter of independence, (a) I think the risks of staying with the Union are worse than leaving and (b) the potential opportunities excite me so much that I think the risks (which I don't judge to be as high as you do) would be well worth it.

sconequeen · 15/09/2014 02:24

Despite the fact that what you do doesn't in my opinion cover the breadth of what you are discussing, nor make you an expert.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that I am an expert. But surely I am allowed to draw on my own first-hand experience in a certain field to back up what I am saying, especially when various posters have pretty much accused me of being clueless and not knowing anything about what I am talking about?

I don't think what I am saying is "distasteful or ignorant". I am just putting forward my views based on my own knowledge and experience. Of course you are completely entitled to disagree and challenge what I say, but political debate does not need to be so aggressive and unpleasant. That is the way that Westminster functions and the perpetual sense of confrontation does not work well. It is also, in my opinion, why so many women are put off engaging in politics and I would therefore hope for more positive approach on Mumsnet!

Spiritedwolf · 15/09/2014 02:40

It's hard to keep up with the thread, so I've read a lot and my thoughts might jump around quite a bit as I catch up on pages of discussion. I know things have moved on, but I think OneNight asked about the environment. I am deeply concerned about this issue which has not featured highly in the campaign, despite the way the Yes campaign uses Patrick Harvey who now defends arguments about a currency union when that was not his preferred option.

I find it strange that the SNP/Yes can't guarantee us anything about future benefits, services and taxes or anything important that we ask about because noone can predict the future and it'll be up to future Scottish governments and yet can tell us that they'll be reducing corporation tax and scrapping air passenger duty (mind you... they also haven't talked about the arrangements for our air traffic control either... so maybe there won't be any airlines to tax). They have very interesting priorities for a party that wraps itself in Scotland's love of the public services and welfare state.

Well that's one decision an independent Scotland could make for itself ie whether it wants to sign up for a currency union or not

Others have pointed out that it depends on agreement with rUK. So I'll take a different tack. Salmond has made it very clear that he will take a "Yes" vote as a mandate from the Scottish people to negotiate for a currency union. Sovereign will, I believe he said. And it appears his back up plan is Sterlingisation. So I think those supporting Independence who would prefer other options are kidding themselves that they'll be able to influence the currency question in a different direction.

The problem is that the White Paper calls for contradictory and unrealistic things. It says we'll share a central bank and currency with rUK AND we'll be in the EU. But we need our own central bank and currency to be members of the EU. He says we'll spend less on defence, not have any nuclear weapons on our soil AND be part of NATO - except that to be part of Nato we'll have to spend more on defence and be co-operative with nuclear members about where their nuclear weapons are.

I understand there are people for Yes, who would quite happily see us out of the EU, out of NATO and with a new currency and don't see these things as deal breakers. But I think it's completely underhand to convince people to vote Yes on the basis of things which are impossible or unlikely. Not to mention blooming short-sighted and dangerous.

Yes could win on 50%+1 of the vote. What if 10-15% of those only vote Yes because they believed the White Paper, Scottish Government, the claims of optimistic Yes supporters that match their own personal view of what an iScotland should be like, or (heaven help us) the Wee Blue Bath Book. You could end up with a majority of Scots unhappy with the terms eventually negotiated for separation come independence day.

I have a lot of sympathy with those unhappy with the current government in Westminster. I want to see a fairer Scotland which makes tackling poverty a priority too. I differ on two points: 1. I want those things for the whole of the UK which I see as my country 2. I not only think we can achieve those things without independence but I have good reason to believe that independence will harm those exact same people that we would want to benefit from a fairer Scotland.

It is not the geographical area that makes the decisions that needs to change. It is a change in people who make those decisions, brought about by the electorate choosing which values and policies matter to them.

The current Scottish government are so invested in the idea that Scotland is powerless that they ignore the powers they have and wash their hands of the consequences of their decision making. They want us to believe that having armed police on the streets is not a political decision but an operational one. It is not.

Something that I don't think has been discussed is the exponential increase in Stop&Search (higher than London and New York) in Scotland. Including the Stop and Search of children. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27627154

This is not the Scotland I recognise. The referendum is a huge nationalism driven distraction from actual policies and politics that affect people's lives. Parliamentary time is spent on discussing Scotland's National Tree, or self-congratulatory "One year to the Ryder Cup" rather than all the stuff they now claim is so important (poverty, health, etc).

We've had 7 years of this nonsense (And those who said that the referendum was on the cards, maybe people guessed that, but it was barely mentioned during the last Holyrood campaign and yet it has dominated the agenda ever since) and I doubt it will go away after the referendum if there is a Yes vote, with years of wrangling over currency, borders, shares of this that and the other.

Spiritedwolf · 15/09/2014 03:13

While we're talking about how centralising the Scottish Government is... DH heard a rumour that they wanted to reduce the number of councils - drastically to 8 or 9. I can't find anything that severe online but

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18160835
reformscotland.com/public/publications/Renewing_Local_Government.pdf

and this suggest reducing them to 19 or so (from 32)

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 05:28

sconequeen

Of course you are completely entitled to disagree and challenge what I say, but political debate does not need to be so aggressive and unpleasant. That is the way that Westminster functions and the perpetual sense of confrontation does not work well.

That isn't how Westminster works. It isn't all braying at one another at PMQs. Most work on legislation, for example, is done in committee where MPs with the relevant expertise and experience will work on matters cooperatively.

It is actually quite normal for MPs from different political parties to strike up genuine friendships but also, more relevantly, join forces on matters of mutual interest. This sort of stuff isn't considered newsworthy, and MPs themselves don't see it as a vote winner in publicising it, so it doesn't tend to reach public consciousness.

I don't deny that Westminster isn't perfect, but it does get a bit much when people invoke it like Voldemort in Harry Potter. What is it about Westminster that makes the Scots think it so evil? Is it the MPs they elect themselves? I don't suppose so, and if it were, well they would all be in the Scottish parliament post independence. Is it the MPs elected by the English? I suspect it is. Or is it the water? What is it?

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 05:42

I think the risks of staying with the Union are worse than leaving

What are the risks?

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 06:01

You see, I think this is what it boils down to on the No side. Scotland has over the centuries produced people who have excelled in all walks of life, and contributed to major developments in science, industry, literature, the arts and philosophical thought.

This was in response to a concern that iScotland would be a backwater.

Fine. Historically, Scotland absolutely was a backwater for most of its history. It was stuck at the back end of England, and England itself was hardly at the centre of European society. The only Scot of European importance through this period was John Duns Scotus (one of mediaeval Europe's foremost philosophers).

The famous scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors and thinkers - Watt, Hume, Smith, Baird and so on - were post-Union. Industrial innovations were often the result of Scottish inventiveness allied to English capital and markets. Scotland itself got much richer after the 1707 union. The Gaels got badly treated but, bad as that was, it was absolutely with the wholehearted support of lowland Scots.

Someone's got to say it. Why wouldn't iScotland revert to being a comparative backwater.? It's not as if Norway, Ireland Finland or Sweden are setting the world alight with their economies, their politics or their arts.

I think I'm really not sure that the Yessers know just what they're trying to destroy. I'm down in NZ. Yesterday I was down at the shops. You see designs based on the Union Jack everywhere. Seems particularly popular with people from east Asia for some reason. It is a recognisable and powerful symbol that they rather like. You wouldn't find them wearing Saltires of St. George's crosses instead. There is a metaphor here for Britain: it is more than the sum of its parts. You have to be out of the UK to realise how influential it still is. I really don't see iScotland, rUK or any of its constituent bits being anything like so important, even collectively. And if you think that doesn't matter, say that to people down here. They would probably say you were being amazingly complacent.

cedricsneer · 15/09/2014 06:46

Anyone have any idea why the bookmakers odds still aren't reflecting the polls? Odds on no seem to be shortening and the bookies give 80% probability of a no...

What do they know that we don't?

AuntieStella · 15/09/2014 06:55

"Scotland itself got much richer after the 1707 union"

It could hardly have got poorer!

AuntieStella · 15/09/2014 07:04

(from Oddschecker just now)

Best available "no" 1/4
Best available "yes" 10/3

(and neither of these are anomalous "best" btw, both are also the mode, and the range is small)

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 07:10

I was going to have a flutter on Yes when the odds were 5/1. Politics is one thing, but gambling is another, and those odds struck me as attractive.

I thought that if Scotland voted Yes, I could at least drown my sorrows with a bottle of Talisker.

Then that bloody Yougov poll came along and spoilt everything!

Cambiodenombre · 15/09/2014 07:23

Is anyone else getting more so bigoted as the weeks go on? Haven't had a proper sleep for ages, wish Thursday would just hurry up

Cambiodenombre · 15/09/2014 07:24

How did zombiefied turn into so bigoted? Argh, I definitely need more sleep

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 07:36

I'm getting more bigoted, probably due to the same old arguments going round and round. I try to hide it though.

Fontella · 15/09/2014 07:39

Morning Scotland!

Right, yesterday my first post on the other thread I said Scotland should go:

Sadly however, my own view is that as hard as it is for all of us, it is time for Scotland to go, and it is better to do it now than keep kicking the can down the road so future generations have to live with this ever present resentment and uncertainty. The rest of the UK will be fine I have no doubt about that, but for the breakaway Scotland I fear the future will be nowhere near as rosy as some of those voting ‘yes’ seem to imagine it might be.

After 24 hours and after reading all the posts from you wonderful women, plus further reading and research of my own I have changed my mind.

I now believe it is essential to the future prosperity and well being of both Scotland and the wider UK that Scotland stays in the Union. I am now firmly on the side of you Nos and I can only wish you all the luck in the world in your fight to keep Scotland in the UK.

Unable to vote, it is hard to just be a spectator in all this - I too have lost sleep over it so I can't imagine how difficult it is for you inside Scotland. But I, and I am sure many others right across the UK are rooting for you.

Font
x

EarthWindFire · 15/09/2014 07:43

Morning people. Feeling a bit better this morning . Even managed a couple of hours sleep.

Sorry for my mini melt down yesterday. Today is a new day.

Thanks Font. It does help that people in rUK care as to what happens. I know they do but it's still nice to hear it

ffallada · 15/09/2014 07:46

Anyone fancy a wee bit of levity on a Monday morning? Seems that David Beckham (that well known intellectual political commentator who has massive ties to Scotland!!!!!) has come out in favour of the better together lot.

Woot.

With that and the orange order doing their unionist thing!

Anyone else feel like turning off our tv's / computers until Thursday. It can't get sillier can it?

noddyholder · 15/09/2014 07:49

David beckham hahaha

Toadinthehole · 15/09/2014 07:56

David Beckham: practitioner of an international game that Scots helped invent, and some time player in the Football League, an organisation set up by a Scot.

PhaedraIsMyName · 15/09/2014 07:56

I think the risks of staying with the Union are worse than leaving

This line gets used a lot by Yes. No one ever explains what risks. At best there will be a reference to Tory Cuts as if we're not due another WM election soon.

Oh and I know someone who is voting yes.one of her reasons is the Astley Ainslie hospital in Edinburgh is being closed and the site sold off. She works in the NHS and doesn't realise it is fully devolved.

ffallada · 15/09/2014 07:59

Font - I don't think anyone here would disagree with the notion that the wider UK would be better off with Scotland staying in it's box. Thats why you don't get a vote.

It's nice to know that you care, but we in Scotland have been talking about this referendum for THREE yEARS. It was widely publicised when the SNP got a majority that the ref would be happening. No one in rUK joined in with the debate then.

It's a tad insulting to pipe up now. It's really really insulting to have Cameron, Clegg and his cronies constantly reminding us that's it's a referendum, not an election, that we are having.

PhaedraIsMyName · 15/09/2014 08:02

ffallada what a silly post. Beckham is British and is as entitled as any one to express an opinion on the future of his country. That's what Yes don't get - this doesn't just affect Scotland.

So far as the Order well the same applies and it would have been surprising if they had not made an appearance.

PhaedraIsMyName · 15/09/2014 08:06

ffallada oh come of it with the "tad insulting " stuff. You would have complained bitterly I'm sure about outsiders sticking their oar in to Scotland's affairs .