Nick Clegg and ALF ( all Labour's Fault )

[PullMyFinger]

The Scottish Government have indicated that following a Yes to Independence, a referendum on Europe will follow.

Which do you think will happen first?

Of course, it is always that simple.

The EU membership is not automatic and although Salmond would have you believe that he is right and the EU Commission is wrong and will at some point learn the error of their ways, promising a referendum on EU membership may be to ask if we want to join, not if we want to leave! It is a hollow promise, since they can't lose either way and they will expect most Scots to vote Yes to EU!

I presume there will be another one on whether or not we want to remain a part of / join NATO?

Whatever happened to the concept of representational government? When did this idea that all "big" decisions need a referendum start to exercise the chattering classes?

If that is the way we are moving then I would like to vote on the National budget every year please, since that has a direct bearing on my life. Will I get that in an independant Scotland?

My point was that we are more likely to have a referendum on EU membership as an independent country than as part of the UK, not that democracy should be devolved to the point of every decision being put to the entire population in some sort of game show, although that might be an idea for our courts?

Lets hope England do win the world cup in Brazil 2014. Yep come on England !!! ( Cant believe I`m saying that !)

But it should mean it`ll bring Scottish Independance soon after

Let's hope the voting public put more thought to the most important decision many in Scotland will ever make. The right choice for the right reasons.

[Charles Bannerman]

Lets hope England do win the world cup in Brazil 2014. Yep come on England !!! ( Cant believe I`m saying that !)

But it should mean it`ll bring Scottish Independance soon after

What a wonderful tribute to the credibility, relevance and strategic thinking of the Yes campaign! I suppose the next thing will be people painting their faces blue before chapping at doors, kissing babies and dishing out leaflets with photos of Alex Salmond.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Charles Bannerman

[PullMyFinger]

Lets hope England do win the world cup in Brazil 2014. Yep come on England !!! ( Cant believe I`m saying that !)

But it should mean it`ll bring Scottish Independance soon after

What a wonderful tribute to the credibility, relevance and strategic thinking of the Yes campaign! I suppose the next thing will be people painting their faces blue before chapping at doors, kissing babies and dishing out leaflets with photos of Alex Salmond.

What does a comment made by someone on a football forum have to do with the Yes campaign? Get a grip you boring old fart.

[Charles Bannerman]

Get a grip you boring old fart.

So that'll be another insight into to the quality of debate we can expect from the Yes side then?

[+DoofersDad]

Get a grip you boring old fart.

So that'll be another insight into to the quality of debate we can expect from the Yes side then?

Charles, in your previous post you said "I suppose the next thing will be people painting their faces blue before chapping at doors, kissing babies and dishing out leaflets with photos of Alex Salmond". Is that another insight into the quality of debate we can expect from the No side?

[Charles Bannerman]

Charles, in your previous post you said "I suppose the next thing will be people painting their faces blue before chapping at doors, kissing babies and dishing out leaflets with photos of Alex Salmond". Is that another insight into the quality of debate we can expect from the No side?

No, but it does seem to be the kind of next step you might expect from someone who wants England to win the World Cup as an aid towards getting a Yes vote in a Scottish referendum and who deserves to be satirised just a little bit for such a daft statement!

Edited October 16, 2012 by Charles Bannerman

[+bughtmaster]

Dont scare the babies! or you will stand no chance

[IBM]

If Cameron, Cleg and Milliband come to Scotland and start kissing babies it will not only scare the babies but get more votes for the YES vote

[+DoofersDad]

Are the babies getting a vote as well?

I thought it was just the 16 and 17 year olds the vote was being extended to.

[bauhaus]

Personally, I dont really think that allowing the 16 and 17 year olds to vote will make much difference, apart from making them feel involved, if they want to. How many of them do you think are interested in politics, or nationalism, or being British.

[PullMyFinger]

Get a grip you boring old fart.

So that'll be another insight into to the quality of debate we can expect from the Yes side then?

Do you have an extra button on CTO? Selective quote?

[FoolPhysio]

Personally, I dont really think that allowing the 16 and 17 year olds to vote will make much difference, apart from making them feel involved, if they want to. How many of them do you think are interested in politics, or nationalism, or being British.

Agreed. At first I thought it was a shameless attempt at co-opting the dewy-eyed and notoriously unrealistic uber-optimists who would still be naive enough to believe the fairy-tale presentation by the YES campaign that the only thing stopping Scotland being a world superpower was being shackled to the English oppressors, but the more I thought about it and the more I listen to youngsters the more I realise that actually the ones who are more likely to vote are the ones rejecting separation and support the practical benefits of the Union.

The inclusion of 16 & 17 year olds into the suffrage will create problems post-2014 as there will be pressure on the local and national governments and by extension the European government to bring down the voting age for all government democracies. By signing off on this, Cameron must be prepared for more strident calls to extend this right to this age group for the various elections and more importantly, be ready to make it happen.

It could be that this is being run as an experiement to see what will happen in what is possibly seen as a great opportunity due to this being a one-off event (not accounting for the next one in a couple of decades in the saga of the Neverendum). I would be fascinated to see the turnout for this age group, having been an initial sceptic on the idea but now starting to warm towards it.

Mind you, I am also tending towards the idea that it should have nothing to do with age and more to do with understanding. Three simple questions before you are allowed to enter the polling station - weed out the uninformed and just plain stupid and we may actually get a more representative government rather than what we have now, self-serving egoists who will say just about anything to pander to the masses because they need their vote but have no real intention (or capability) to actually do these things if/when they get into power!

[bauhaus]

Personally, I dont really think that allowing the 16 and 17 year olds to vote will make much difference, apart from making them feel involved, if they want to. How many of them do you think are interested in politics, or nationalism, or being British.

Agreed. At first I thought it was a shameless attempt at co-opting the dewy-eyed and notoriously unrealistic uber-optimists who would still be naive enough to believe the fairy-tale presentation by the YES campaign that the only thing stopping Scotland being a world superpower was being shackled to the English oppressors, but the more I thought about it and the more I listen to youngsters the more I realise that actually the ones who are more likely to vote are the ones rejecting separation and support the practical benefits of the Union.

The inclusion of 16 & 17 year olds into the suffrage will create problems post-2014 as there will be pressure on the local and national governments and by extension the European government to bring down the voting age for all government democracies. By signing off on this, Cameron must be prepared for more strident calls to extend this right to this age group for the various elections and more importantly, be ready to make it happen.

It could be that this is being run as an experiement to see what will happen in what is possibly seen as a great opportunity due to this being a one-off event (not accounting for the next one in a couple of decades in the saga of the Neverendum). I would be fascinated to see the turnout for this age group, having been an initial sceptic on the idea but now starting to warm towards it.

Mind you, I am also tending towards the idea that it should have nothing to do with age and more to do with understanding. Three simple questions before you are allowed to enter the polling station - weed out the uninformed and just plain stupid and we may actually get a more representative government rather than what we have now, self-serving egoists who will say just about anything to pander to the masses because they need their vote but have no real intention (or capability) to actually do these things if/when they get into power!

FoolPhysio - Which party are you referring too in the last paragraph, as you have just described Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and the ConDem party, and when it comes to egoists then you can include Alex Salmond too.

[FoolPhysio]

You got it bauhaus - all of them.

I am (one of the few now) both willing and proud to declare my political leaning as Liberal and hence by default fall into the LibDem camp as their present incarnation, but my despair at the sheer futility of politics in general has meant that I have become extremely jaded in my view of politicians of all colours.

I vehemently encourage people to go to the polling station at every given opportunity and to cast their vote, even if it is just to spoil a ballot, as they are exercising their entitlement to vote even if there is nothing to vote for. The two should never be confused.

Democracy was once described as the least worst form of government, and it is probably true since even a benevolent dictatorship is reliant on the incumbent and cannot be guaranteed by their successor. In truth, a representational democracy is a fantastical notion in itself since there is no power unless people fall in behind a common banner, but that in turn may result in people being restricted from being able to make their true views known as a result of this. Hence the whip system and "free" voting in Parliament.

There can never be any form of perfection in any form of government, that is simply the human condition. Idealism is all good and well but it cannot be allowed to distract from reality. Remember Robin Cook and "Ethical Foreign Policy"? Wonder what happened to that then? Remember that the new Scottish Parliament would be more mature in approach and a departure from the yah-boo politics of the Mother of Parliaments? Watched or listened to any chamber debates or question times recently? Human nature takes over every time.

The proponents of Independence attack the NO campaign as being negative, because they are not offering change to make things better, while they say imagine what we could be if only we weren't being fettered by having to be a small part of such a much larger whole. But that is exactly it - imagine. Snake oil. Scotland has contributed to and benefited from the Union that has shaped the UK into what it is today. It is an intrinsic part of the success we have enjoyed as a developed nation, and we are essentially the same as our Home Nation compatriots. You would think at times that the way it being portrayed is that we nothing like our Southern neighbours but that is simply untrue. We are northern Britons, but still Britons.

Independance would, if it ever actually took place, be a major disappointment to the if-onlies who are the cornerstone of this movement.

[Yngwie]

Did anyone pick up on the connection between Alex Salmond and a former ICT manager?

No, Craig Brewster is not his personal trainer. Nor is Steve Patterson advising him on minimum alcohol pricing.

In his conference speech, Salmond quoted the last line of a wee poem written by John Robertson's brother : "in 2014 the nonsense ends".

I think both sides of the debate have finally found something they can agree on!

[bauhaus]

Having watched question time tonight, I now feel that 16-17 years olds also be allowed to vote. Not because of any of the limp arguments against, nor Labour or the SNP reasons for. It took the Welshman to clarify it, If they are old enough to work and pay tax, why shouldnt they vote for or against those seeking power. End of discussion really!!

[Alex MacLeod]

They are old enough to marry and have a family yet not old enough to buy Mayfair.

Personally I think many of the 16 and 17 year olds, who would vote, are also very clued up on politics and know and understand as much as the rest of us.

[Scotty]

This is the 'serious topics' forum and as noted in the posting guidelines for this forum "... any topics that descend into petty squabbling or name-calling will be closed".

As this topic is an important one, which is definitely worthy of reasoned debate, and does have some excellent points and counter-points raised by many posters, we will post this general warning first rather than closing it.

However, please be aware that should the topic continue to degenerate into name-calling, abuse, personal remarks not relevant to the topic etc., we will have no further hesitation in closing it.

This is a first and final warning on this topic.

[Kingsmills]

This thread is now three pages long and although there is much negativity, sarcasm and scaremongering from those espousing the unionist cause there is not a single positive argumement for preserving the union. Speaks volumes.

[PaderbornCaley]

I see that the two Highland and Islands SNP MSPs that resigned are 'List' MSPs. I find it strange that as 'List' MSP's they can carry on as Independents.

Are we happier losing two SNP to Independents or would you rather they resigned as MSP's altogether?

I asked John Mason MSP about this and he said along the lines of 'Rightly or wrongly, it was agreed that if a list MSP resigned from a Party they would carry on as an MSP.'

It could be worse I suppose, they could have defected to the Labour / Tory / Lib Dem party!

Edited October 24, 2012 by CapitalCaley

[+DoofersDad]

That's an interesting point.

In first past the post elections folk have defected to other parties and kept their seats, but in those cases it could be argued that despite the party label, voters were voting for an individual and therefore it was reasonable for them to stay on. In this case however, the electorate clearly voted for the party and the party should be entitled to retain the level of representation which reflects the voting share. No doubt John Mason is correct on what the rules are, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Given that their election was clearly not a personal vote but a vote for a party they are no longer members of, the honourable thing for the two MSPs to do would be to resign their seats. I very much doubt that the "principles" which led them to resign their SNP membership will extend to respecting the democratic wish of the electorate, but if they were to resign their seats does anyone know if they would then be replaced by 2 others from the Highland SNP list?

[dougal]

Whilst I agree the SNP find themselves in the strongest position they have ever been in at present they are still light years away from gaining independence

2014 is way too soon for the referendum and it will end in tears for Salmond and Sturgeon and as a result set the SNP back decades

At present Scotland is stronger in the union whether we like it or not and it's widely known that many Scottish businesses have threatened to up sticks and relocate over the border should independence happen in the present climate

Dougal

[PaderbornCaley]

If they were to resign their seats does anyone know if they would then be replaced by 2 others from the Highland SNP list?

Apparantly a 'List' MSP hasn't resigned their seat ever. So, no idea!

[Laurence]

Looks like the SNP have been spending public money to finance legal issues connected with their campaign

abuse of power

A government should not use public money for the governing parties own platform

I remember way back when Harold Wilson ran a referendum on what was then common market membership. The goverrment issued two documents , which were posted to every household. One explained the Yes vote and one explained the No vote.

I can't see why the Ediburg parliament can't do the same..

The vote should not be a party political issue , but a fair down the line explenation of the issues

The whole thing is a real toy town carve up

Most unseemly

[Laurence]

The SNP are a party of asumptions

They assume the EEC will welcome an Independant Scottish parliament with open arms

They assume the Bank of England will continue to suport the Scottish pound

The assume they will wim elections in Scotland for ever

They assume the Royal Mail will stay in Sctland

They assume they can carry on as they do now ?

THey assume the rump UK British government will not fight on economic grounds

i.e if Scotland reduces Company tax, will not England reduce theirs lower.

Remember the big guy usually wins.

I feel we need to know what the new Scottish parliament will be like

Will there be two houses

Will there be a supreme court

Will there be new constituences

how big will they be

Will the new MP's be elected on a first pass the post system

We can't be asked to vote blind on these issues

Will the British military bases still be requied

Will ship building still be required on the Clyde

If you google the constitution of the Irish republic you will see what has to be set up.

If there is a yes vote , will the new constitution be also put to the people?

Remember refendia do not come cheap