66 replies to this topic

[CapitalCaley]

With the Royal Mail and and Olympics threads turning into Independence debates, I thought i'd do a poll.

Please vote before reading any comments.

Imagine the referendum is TODAY. The question I have asked is the likely question that will be in the referendum (assume there's no devo-max question for the purpose of this poll).

Edited by CapitalCaley, 14 August 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Charles Bannerman]

The proportion of Separatist supporters on here has for some time been clearly much higher than the declining minority which more comprehensive polls indicate for the country as a whole, so the outcome of this poll will without doubt be a yes. And that's before you even include the contributions of a battalion of Cybernats whose mission in life it is to trawl the worldwide web and spam every poll like this that they can find.

And I wouldn't be altogether certain that Salmond's loaded question, as quoted above, is quite as likely to be the one which will actually be used. A lot of things still have to go through a great deal of scrutiny which might not feel minded simply to contribute to the SNP's wish list.

Edited by Charles Bannerman, 14 August 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[Heilandee]

I'm getting a tad disgruntled at the continual inference by the separtist movement that by being pro British I am in some way Anti-Scottish, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am patriotic to both causes ,and am confident Scotland could ,if required to do so, stand on it's own 2 feet and do OK, but I don't for one minute believe there is any advantage to be gained in separation from the mutually beneficial union.

[starchief]

I'm a federalist. Why should Brussels control the UK? Why should London control Scotland? Why should Edinburgh control the Highlands?

A: when it's suitable. Power concentrated at the most appropriate local level.

So, no to an independent Scotland but yes to max-devo for every country and county in the UK.

Try living abroad (not other parts of the UK but Africa, South America and the like) and you might realise that Britain has a lot going for it.

[FoolPhysio]

I'm getting a tad disgruntled at the continual inference by the separtist movement that by being pro British I am in some way Anti-Scottish, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am patriotic to both causes ,and am confident Scotland could ,if required to do so, stand on it's own 2 feet and do OK, but I don't for one minute believe there is any advantage to be gained in separation from the mutually beneficial union.

Nicely put Heilandee - my sentiments exactly. I have had various conversations with people around and about, including in the Middle East (yes, it gets as far as there) and I have yet to find someone who is fervently on the Independence side. It would appear that the support is not as widespread as the SNP would have us believe, nor do I believe that this will change greatly between now and the anniversary of Bannockburn. The undecided vote is the one that is being courted, but there is a strong probability that they will not turn out in any case or if they do, will vote along with the majority. Union it is then.

My question is more regarding what happens afterwards, should the vote state that we remain a part of the Union. What happens to the SNP manifesto for 2015?

[Ten4]

[IBM]

YES for me I have voted SNP all my life a young 55 now and beleive we are able to govern our own country.

[Joe DiMaggio]

The proportion of Separatist supporters on here has for some time been clearly much higher than the declining minority which more comprehensive polls indicate for the country as a whole, so the outcome of this poll will without doubt be a yes. And that's before you even include the contributions of a battalion of Cybernats whose mission in life it is to trawl the worldwide web and spam every poll like this that they can find.

And I wouldn't be altogether certain that Salmond's loaded question, as quoted above, is quite as likely to be the one which will actually be used. A lot of things still have to go through a great deal of scrutiny which might not feel minded simply to contribute to the SNP's wish list.

I'm getting a tad disgruntled at the continual inference by the separtist movement that by being pro British I am in some way Anti-Scottish, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am patriotic to both causes ,and am confident Scotland could ,if required to do so, stand on it's own 2 feet and do OK, but I don't for one minute believe there is any advantage to be gained in separation from the mutually beneficial union.

It's a bit pathetic to call it the seperatist/isolationist movement etc. There would still be the same links to England as there are today, England would still be Scotland's biggest trading partner. It's not like Scotland is about to become a new North Korea. Are all the countless other nations seperatist?

The only major difference is that Scotland would have full control of it's own future and make it's own decisions instead of having them dictated to us from London. Scottish interests could for a change be the most important issues that the govt acts upon.

Do you think the seperatist or isolationist nation of Denmark would be better of being run by Berlin, Belgium run by Paris etc.

We would be better making our own decisions that benifit us for a change.

[Heilandee]

The proportion of Separatist supporters on here has for some time been clearly much higher than the declining minority which more comprehensive polls indicate for the country as a whole, so the outcome of this poll will without doubt be a yes. And that's before you even include the contributions of a battalion of Cybernats whose mission in life it is to trawl the worldwide web and spam every poll like this that they can find.

And I wouldn't be altogether certain that Salmond's loaded question, as quoted above, is quite as likely to be the one which will actually be used. A lot of things still have to go through a great deal of scrutiny which might not feel minded simply to contribute to the SNP's wish list.

I'm getting a tad disgruntled at the continual inference by the separtist movement that by being pro British I am in some way Anti-Scottish, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am patriotic to both causes ,and am confident Scotland could ,if required to do so, stand on it's own 2 feet and do OK, but I don't for one minute believe there is any advantage to be gained in separation from the mutually beneficial union.

It's a bit pathetic to call it the seperatist/isolationist movement etc. There would still be the same links to England as there are today, England would still be Scotland's biggest trading partner. It's not like Scotland is about to become a new North Korea. Are all the countless other nations seperatist?

The only major difference is that Scotland would have full control of it's own future and make it's own decisions instead of having them dictated to us from London. Scottish interests could for a change be the most important issues that the govt acts upon.

Do you think the seperatist or isolationist nation of Denmark would be better of being run by Berlin, Belgium run by Paris etc.

We would be better making our own decisions that benifit us for a change.

Joe, your the only one who mentioned "isolationist" as for "separatist",we are currently part of a union from which some wish to separate,I think it's a fair enough to describe people who wish to separate as separatist, no?

[Charles Bannerman]

Joe, your the only one who mentioned "isolationist" as for "separatist",we are currently part of a union from which some wish to separate,I think it's a fair enough to describe people who wish to separate as separatist, no?

Absolutely.

Q: When is a separatist not a separatist?
A: When he wants to con people into believing that voting "Yes" isn't really any great deal so he calls it something else.

Basically, if the separatist lobby are saying, as above, "there would still be the same links to England as today"... then why bother with this whole pantomime of a referendum?
I mean I know there's been the strong suggestion that a separate Scotland would continue with the pound since no one in their right mind would go into the Euro and a separate Scottish Groat would quickly go the way of the Deutschmark in 1923 so that's their independent monetary policy up the spout from the start. That will continue to be governed by the Bank of England as it is now.
Then, for instance, I'm also wondering what they are going to do to achieve the worldwide network of embassies and consular services which we currently, as British people, enjoy. Are you REALLY going to have Scottish embassies with a huge picture of Alex Salmond in the front hall in every country in the world as Britain (but without the Salmond pictures - thank goodness!) currently has.
And that's just the start but I'll leave the rest to the Better Together campaign's manifesto which will presumably appear at some point during the mindnumbing two years we still have to suffer of this unsettling distraction.
For goodness sake, if things are working fine as they have been for 300 plus years as part of a bigger unit, why bother separating off from that simply to run all the risks which come with being a smaller one just to satisfy some kind of political dogma.
Talking of that period of history, we frequently and rightly criticise the Orange Lodge for glorifying battles which took place more than 300 years ago. But now we are going to be confronted with a referendum, the timing of which looks suspiciously manpulated to coincide with (among other things) the anniversary of a battle which took place no less than 700 years ago. How simplistic can you get?

Edited by Charles Bannerman, 17 August 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[fraz]

Jeez, think I may move out of the county till this whole thing is over with.

[CapitalCaley]

Jeez, think I may move out of the county till this whole thing is over with.

Which county you going to? I hope it's not Ross-Shire?

[fraz]

Jeez, think I may move out of the county till this whole thing is over with.

Which county you going to? I hope it's not Ross-Shire?

Could go and do some charity work I suppose, help build a sewage system or some schools perhaps. Whoops should be country lol! Bloody phone always thinks it knows best.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Joe, your the only one who mentioned "isolationist" as for "separatist",we are currently part of a union from which some wish to separate,I think it's a fair enough to describe people who wish to separate as separatist, no?

Absolutely.

Q: When is a separatist not a separatist?
A: When he wants to con people into believing that voting "Yes" isn't really any great deal so he calls it something else.

Basically, if the separatist lobby are saying, as above, "there would still be the same links to England as today"... then why bother with this whole pantomime of a referendum?
I mean I know there's been the strong suggestion that a separate Scotland would continue with the pound since no one in their right mind would go into the Euro and a separate Scottish Groat would quickly go the way of the Deutschmark in 1923 so that's their independent monetary policy up the spout from the start. That will continue to be governed by the Bank of England as it is now.
Then, for instance, I'm also wondering what they are going to do to achieve the worldwide network of embassies and consular services which we currently, as British people, enjoy. Are you REALLY going to have Scottish embassies with a huge picture of Alex Salmond in the front hall in every country in the world as Britain (but without the Salmond pictures - thank goodness!) currently has.
And that's just the start but I'll leave the rest to the Better Together campaign's manifesto which will presumably appear at some point during the mindnumbing two years we still have to suffer of this unsettling distraction.
For goodness sake, if things are working fine as they have been for 300 plus years as part of a bigger unit, why bother separating off from that simply to run all the risks which come with being a smaller one just to satisfy some kind of political dogma.
Talking of that period of history, we frequently and rightly criticise the Orange Lodge for glorifying battles which took place more than 300 years ago. But now we are going to be confronted with a referendum, the timing of which looks suspiciously manpulated to coincide with (among other things) the anniversary of a battle which took place no less than 700 years ago. How simplistic can you get?

You know fine well that seperatist has a very negative connotations. And you mock Scottish history while at the same time lauding the shorter British history.

Is there any other nation in the world that would vote for their country to be controlled and run by another nation, which in effect is what happens in Scotland. England is the larger and the large will rule the small.

Think of it this way. If Scotland was an independent nation today and not mearly 'North Britain' how many Scots would vote yes to join the union. What would be the benifits in that? A minority in parliament of the Scottish vote, the parliament based miles away in another nation, the interests of that nation placed first, hand over all our revenue, including oil and gas, just to receive a smaller percentage of what we generated back to us in nothing more than pocket money.

And you would be foolish to believe the tripe of what ever is going to come out of the better together campaign. What have we had already, england bombing scottish airports, William Hague refusing to promote Whisky, taking the pandas back ffs. We were betrayed before and told that Scotland would be like Bangladesh in the 1970's if we ever had the nerve to become independent while at the same time the people telling us this classified the Mcrone report where they withheld the truth to the people.The truth that the uk govt knew that Scotland would be considerably more wealthy and prosperous that the rest of the uk in the event of independence, but what we were told in public is the same lies that people believe today.

I even watched a debate programme on devolution from 1997 recently and the arguments against a Scottish 'parliament' were that Scotland would become poorer, all buissness would leave Scotland etc etc doom and gloom. You would think people would get bored of this negative nonsense by now.

[dougiedanger]

l.

Think of it this way. If Scotland was an independent nation today and not mearly 'North Britain' how many Scots would vote yes to join the union. What would be the benifits in that? A minority in parliament of the Scottish vote, the parliament based miles away in another nation, the interests of that nation placed first, hand over all our revenue, including oil and gas, just to receive a smaller percentage of what we generated back to us in nothing more than pocket money.

This is the key point. How many Irish people would vote to rejoin the union? How many Jamaicans would want to be ruled again by their colonial masters?

The sad thing is we, especially Highlanders, have been colonized so successfully that we don't even realize it.

[northstand]

Tories can stick there union cant wait forScottish independence. i see Tories dont like it when the bbc say bad things about them roll on 2014 and 2015

[TheMantis]

Can we find a negative word to replace "unionist' then? I mean it's only fair.
Obviously some people would say 'feartie' but I genuinely believe that to be unfair. Something along the lines of 'better the devil you knowist'.
CB, obviously we've crossed swords in the past and I respect most of the points you (rather aggessively) make whenever this issue is raised. However I don't see where you get 'declining minority' from. Minority yes, and even over certain time scales you can show that support for INDEPENDENCE has fluctuated, but the fact that the Nats have now shown themselves capable of being trusted with government is, at the very least, consolidation. There's no sign yet of them losing the next one either. Even without Salmond they would have a stronger team than Lamont & co.

[Charles Bannerman]

Mantis... support for independence/separation seemed to peak when the SNP had that purple patch where everything seemed to be going for them and they even managed to get an overall majority at Holyrood when Labour went into meltdown. I know there's not an absolute link between support for the SNP at the parliamentary ballot box and support for a yes vote, but I do think there tends to be a rough correlation.
As a result, as the SNP get further embroiled in domestic cockups, the parallel issue of the referendum outcome will come under even greater pressure. Their next challenge is what they are going to do about the Nato question and I bet they are REALLY hoping against hope that the Curriculum for Excellence doesn't go t*tsup before whenever that referendum takes place. You know what I mean
The latest poll figures I've seen from a couple of days ago are quoting 27% yes, 60% no, 13% don't know. That is more than 2:1 against, so the pattern of decline since that partially Holyrood enhanced high point continues.

It's interesting, but probably correct, that you should use the word "aggressively" in terms of the manner in which I pursue my arguments here. But this is also a bit rich, given the incessant bellowing we get from Salmond in the Holyrood chamber!
My tone is just a measure of how keen I am to ensure that Scotland doesn't become embroiled in its biggest national disaster since the Flodden campaign or the Darien scheme.
And I mean, the SNP are even proposing to keep the Queen for goodness sake, so I'm afraid they couldn't even offer me that as a wee incentive!!!

Edited by Charles Bannerman, 22 August 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[CaleyD]

I find it rather amusing when people cite the Darien Scheme as being a reason why we need/needed England. Despite Scotland being crippled financially, England still had to give us money to offset the liability we took on from their national debt. Fast forward over 300 years and Scotland is still suffering from having to subsidise that debt.

In summary, it wasn't the financial implications to Scotland (as a whole) of the Darien Scheme that did the real damage, it was the 1707 Acts of Union which bankrupt nobles forced upon us in order to preserve their own personal status.

[Charles Bannerman]

I find it rather amusing when people cite the Darien Scheme as being a reason why we need/needed England. Despite Scotland being crippled financially, England still had to give us money to offset the liability we took on from their national debt. Fast forward over 300 years and Scotland is still suffering from having to subsidise that debt.

In summary, it wasn't the financial implications to Scotland (as a whole) of the Darien Scheme that did the real damage, it was the 1707 Acts of Union which bankrupt nobles forced upon us in order to preserve their own personal status.

No, no Donald... I'm just highlighting the Darien Scheme - which was basically a very costly and seriously misconceived attempt by the Scots to sell Bibles and woolly bunnets to Central American natives - as an example of that unfortunate tendency among the said Scots to get rather grandiose ideas of what is realistic. Other well known examples might be the Flodden campaign, which got seriously knocked on the head by England Reserves about six miles across the border, and Argentina 78, along with various other Tartan Army Enterprises.

[TheMantis]

Obviously, political parties are a necessary evil and the SNP are the vehicle for independence. They get my vote for that reason, not because i am a 'fanboy', to use a modern expression. I think they've done a reasonable job in following the corrupt, complacent (especially in my part of the world) Labour administration for whom I have nothing but contempt. Their opposition to independence seems to have more to do with the fact that they would never hold power in the UK again, than any socialist principles some of them might still hold.

Despite their inexperience in government I don't think they've done much wrong so far and part of the game is to attack their record anyway - power seems to be a case of juggling so many balls and trying to keep everybody happy at once - the gay lobbyists and the Catholic Church for instance, which would have tested any party. I bet Labour are relieved they don't have to handle that one.

Salmond's a fascinating individual for me and I have no problem with his so- called arrogance and smugness. He's good. It's obvious not everybody shares this view but to oppose independence because you despise the sight of wee Eck is not really a sound political principle.
Where I do have problems is in the abandonment of the principles such as getting rid of the Queen and the missiles. I reckon this is the reality of politics that Labour have faced in the past and the Nats are now discovering - the internal squabbling. At least so far any hints of corruption in government have been minor.

I don't think independence will go away. In 1979 people weren't even able to countenance devolution (well they were- but that's another story). Fast forward to now and people no longer believe the myth that they're too poor and too stupid to be like any other grown up nation. I have no problem with people who are well informed and still genuinely feel British but I respectfully disagree!

[Charles Bannerman]

Where I do have problems is in the abandonment of the principles such as getting rid of the Queen

Glad we agree on at least something in this area!!

[Joe DiMaggio]

I think some people here are gettign confused between independence and SNP policy for post independence.

Independence is an ideal, making your own decisions etc. SNP policy for 2016 election is just that, policy. Another party can govern in an independent Scotland who would want to do things another way. Referendum on the Queen, be in nato/dont be in nato etc.

[Charles Bannerman]

Independence is an ideal

You speak for yourself!

But yes, I'm quite aware of the distinction, regarding SNP policy about keeping the Pound and hence still having monetary policy deicded in London as it is now, fighting like ferrets in a sack about Nato, keeping the Queen, a Scottish Broadcasting Coropration which is going to try to maintain service and quality level with 9% of the income of the BBC (presumably by showing repeats of the White Heather Club and Dr Finlay's Casebook plus The Krankies live from Phipps Hall Beauly), a Scottish Defence Force where "3 Scots" is no longer an infantry battalion but Hughie, Jimmy and Willie waving claymores...etc etc....

In reality I suspect that what the SNP mean by "policy post independence" is something more like "the answers we don't have to the hard questions about the stark practicalities that people are now beginning to ask as we dioscover that support for separation has peaked and is unravelling fast - and we realise that getting what we want is going to take a whole lot more than the Big Man getting up on his feet and bellowing at the Holyrood parliament."

Edited by Charles Bannerman, 03 September 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[TheMantis]

About 3 years ago the BBC, despite getting that 9% of its income you mention, was told by one of these 'independent' reports (I forget which, now) that it was only sourcing 3% of its output from Scotland and it should be bumping it up to 9% - which, up to now, it has signally failed to do.

So we still get high culture beamed into our living rooms nightly in the form of Eastenders, and daily in the form of a soap about doctors, and all these complacent middle-class househunting programmes. Meanwhile all that the rest of the UK knows about one of the oldest nations in Europe is what they get from stereotypes perpetuated by the Sun and the Evening Standard.

Charles, by your constant manifestations of the Scottish Cringe, you really do appear to have an incredibly low opinion of your countrymen.