Both sides of the campaign could have done a lot better in my opinion, especially the "no" campaign. The no campaign has been pretty negative and incoherent. The yes campaign has generally been positive and upbeat, Posted by LARSON7
Isn't that pretty much as most debates would be though... no has negative connotations and yes has positive...
I kind of hope that the vote does at least put the question to bed for at least another generation, regardless of the outcome. At the moment it sort of feels as though the outcome will be close enough that Alex Salmond will be harping on for another crack next year (and the next year..) if the 'No' just about sneaks the vote next week.
T o start with you have to ask WHATS IN IT FOR THEM. as far as the SNP is concerned its INDEPENDENCE for LABOUR, we send 42 MPs to westminster, so LABOUR would find it difficult to gain a majority without their scottish MPs For the TORIES, they see scotland as the last vestigies of empire, something to control. then they fear the loss of influence, no more seat at the UN security council, they would thenbe seen for what they are, a small island in the north atlantic. TORIES want to leave the EU, but only to combat the rise of UKIP. then we have TRIDENT, a weapon system that cost £110 billion, but WE CANNOT USE. They say its a DETTERENT, but it cannot stop anyone firing a missile at us,So it then becomes a FIRST STRIKE WEAPON, with everyone saying we would never fire first, SO ITS USELESS. THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY 1/2 TRUTHS AND DOWNRIGHT LIES. on pensions for instance, THEY ARE SAFE. then START UP COSTS, they are a one off payment, about £500 million, but that is a ONE OFF. On the OIL various estimates say 30 to 50 years worth of oil left in the NORTH SEA. however, the oil in the CLAIR RIDGE has never been tapped, because its in shallow waters off the clyde, and all westminster governments will not issue the licences to exploit those reserves, SOME TRILLION BARRELS. if they allowed drilling in the clyde, the whole area would have FULL EMPLOYMENT, including ship building, roads, etc. On the POUND, UK GDP MINUS SCOTTISH GDP, would leave a massive loss to UK government, the cost of borrowing would go up, interest rates would rise, mortgages would go up. WHEN 3 MAIN PARTIES, CBI,EVERY NEWS PAPER EVEN THE BBC, were on the side of NO, you must ask yourself WHATS IN IT FOR THEM ? I could go on for ever why scotland should be independent. but as the 14th richest country, we can and should stand alone, and show the way for others in these isles. Tory rule is at an end, I THINK THE ONLY BANKS TO CLOSE ARE FOOD BANKS.
IMPORTANT NOTE. this is not anti-english, but ANTI ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT. With all the scandals, 2nd homes, house of lords, child abuse the establishment is rotton to the core, and it needs to be got rid off.
On the flip side... with the 'No' outcome always a strong possibility, the 'English' Tories and other Westminster politicians couldn't really be spouting a whole load of 'do one, Scotland, we don't need you' type messages when it is likely that they will still be part of the UK - they had to stay on message of wanting to remain together in order to still have a (sort of) cohesive country moving forward.
In some ways the Tories in particular must be divided, when it is likely that they will have an easier path to power in the rUK with the left-bias Scottish MPs taken out of the equation.
ps it is really only English issues with MP scandals? Are all the Scottish MPs clean of any involvement in everything that is wrong at Westminster?
I've lived in Scotland my whole life and in the grand scheme of things, things have been very good. We all receive free school, free university, free NHS etc..
Scotland has its problems of course, but what country doesn't? The country couldn't get much better independent but could get a whole lot worse.
Salmond has been very clever in the way he has used the whole scaremongering thing. Every time the NO campaign make a valid point about things that realistically could go very wrong in an independent Scotland, Salmond plays the scaremongering card and the YES voters just seem to lap it up.
It's crazy that today is the day that we vote and we still don't know what currency we would use in a YES vote, although I think that ultimately we would have to use the Euro.
On 1 of the TV debates, Darling asked Salmond why he still hasn't given an answer on the currency we would use to which Salmond roughly replied:
"I've not just given you 1 answer, I've given you 3 answers for the price of 1!".
That is absolutely absurd and I couldn't believe Darling didn't make more of that answer. It's like being asked:
"If you become leader of the gang will you take us to nandos, maccys, or BK for lunch?"
Then replying with:
"If i'm leader of the gang I will take you to nandos, maccys, or BK for lunch."
There's many other countries that have gone independent and as far as I am aware it's not worked out well for pretty much all of them. We would just become another small EU country like Croatia (constant recession), Ireland or Cyprus (both needed bailout recently).
Whatever the outcome, it is sadly now very clear that Scotland is an extremely divided country and roughly 1 in 2 people will be feeling bitterly disappointed by this time tomorrow.
alex salmond argues that the many corporates which have stated they will leave scotland is compensated by the number that stay.
but this is nonsense. it is the wrong balance.
it is not those who stay, it is the number of corporates outside scotland who in the event of a vote for independence say, "that is where we shall relocate our business to."
T o start with you have to ask WHATS IN IT FOR THEM. as far as the SNP is concerned its INDEPENDENCE for LABOUR, we send 42 MPs to westminster, so LABOUR would find it difficult to gain a majority without their scottish MPs For the TORIES, they see scotland as the last vestigies of empire, something to control. then they fear the loss of influence, no more seat at the UN security council, they would thenbe seen for what they are, a small island in the north atlantic. TORIES want to leave the EU, but only to combat the rise of UKIP. then we have TRIDENT, a weapon system that cost £110 billion, but WE CANNOT USE. They say its a DETTERENT, but it cannot stop anyone firing a missile at us,So it then becomes a FIRST STRIKE WEAPON, with everyone saying we would never fire first, SO ITS USELESS. THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY 1/2 TRUTHS AND DOWNRIGHT LIES. on pensions for instance, THEY ARE SAFE. then START UP COSTS, they are a one off payment, about £500 million, but that is a ONE OFF. On the OIL various estimates say 30 to 50 years worth of oil left in the NORTH SEA. however, the oil in the CLAIR RIDGE has never been tapped, because its in shallow waters off the clyde, and all westminster governments will not issue the licences to exploit those reserves, SOME TRILLION BARRELS. if they allowed drilling in the clyde, the whole area would have FULL EMPLOYMENT, including ship building, roads, etc. On the POUND, UK GDP MINUS SCOTTISH GDP, would leave a massive loss to UK government, the cost of borrowing would go up, interest rates would rise, mortgages would go up. WHEN 3 MAIN PARTIES, CBI,EVERY NEWS PAPER EVEN THE BBC, were on the side of NO, you must ask yourself WHATS IN IT FOR THEM ? I could go on for ever why scotland should be independent. but as the 14th richest country, we can and should stand alone, and show the way for others in these isles. Tory rule is at an end, I THINK THE ONLY BANKS TO CLOSE ARE FOOD BANKS. IMPORTANT NOTE. this is not anti-english, but ANTI ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT. With all the scandals, 2nd homes, house of lords, child abuse the establishment is rotton to the core, and it needs to be got rid off. Posted by bludreid11
Could you honestly get more biaised. Most Scots are voting on the historical and political issues, there is also a religious slant to this as well. When you look at the most important thing ie the economy we are all better together. Look at it as a marriage of convenience if you like, but thats just the way things are. Opt out of the UK, and expect your country to lag behind the rest of us for years to come. Relying on oil is like putting all your eggs in one basket and that never pays.
There was a famous headline in the sun during the later stages of the 1992 general election saying something like if labour win tomorrow would the last person out of Britain turn the lights out. The sun is a naff paper granted, but it had a massive impact on the outcome of that particular election. Exactly the same applies to Scotland.
Look at it this way: an "independent" Scotland would be neighbour to a far more powerful country controlling almost all of it's transport and economic links to continental Europe. The vast majority of Scottish trade would be with this powerful neighbour and the vast majority of it's wealth dependent on its neighbour's decisions.
The real question is whether Scots want to have their voice heard in the making of those decisions or merely to be subject to them. This isn't the 1500's and Scotland can't pretend that the power of London can be overcome by simply stating that it is no longer part of a union. London is the economic powerhouse for the whole of the UK and will continue to be if Scotland becomes independent. It will continue to influence all Scottish policies but, crucially, Scotland will no longer influence it.
Alex Salmond would have Scots believe that they can dictate terms to the rest of the UK after a Yes vote. Let's get real: Scotland will not be in a position of power over its larger neighbour. If the UK decides that there will be no currency union, then there will be no currency union. If the Scots try to default on their share of the national debt as a result, the UK will be in a position to inflict serious economic harm on its new, weaker relation.
"Independence" isn't possible now. Globalisation isn't just a word, it's the reality of how economies work. The only question for Scots is whether to reduce their influence over decisions that really matter and allow themslves to be tugged around by greater forces.
On a side note; There's an impression that the yes campaign has been hopeful and uplifting while the no campaign has been negative and downbeat. That's great PR from the Yes side, notably in the way that they keep pointing the finger saying that the other side is negative without offering any clear answers on what would happen post-independence.
What do we really know about Scottish institutions, currency, foreign policy, relations with the EU/NATO/UN and bilateral relations with other countries? The Yes campaign offers few answers. Which campaign is really the negative, cynical one?
One thing is for sure - Mel Gibson has a lot to answer for.
so Borinloner when the tories vote to leave the EU where does that leave Scotland? Being a small part of the EU must be better than a larger part of an isolated UK? Posted by GELDY
It's the same issue. Isolationism is stupid and pointless. It bolsters none of your own interests and only leaves you with a quietened influence.
Besides that, there is no single Tory voice. It's not as though all Tories are rabidly euro-sceptic. Nor is it the case that the Conservative party will be making that decision for the UK.
As for being a part of the EU, the Scots have no definitive answer on their status within the EU post-independence.
In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without? : It's the same issue. Isolationism is stupid and pointless. It bolsters none of your own interests and only leaves you with a quietened influence. Besides that, there is no single Tory voice. It's not as though all Tories are rabidly euro-sceptic. Nor is it the case that the Conservative party will be making that decision for the UK. As for being a part of the EU, the Scots have no definitive answer on their status within the EU post-independence. Posted by BorinLoner
it's a bit like poker isn't it.
We've seen the flop and we have the nut flush draw against top pair. We should probably fold but hey we've so much invested in this and ffs top pair ain't that great is it?
Do you fold knowing it's the safest option, or go for the flush given it has the potential to be the best result?
problem is we only have one hand to play, no chance of averaging over time.
In Response to Re: Scotland: With or Without? : it's a bit like poker isn't it. We've seen the flop and we have the nut flush draw against top pair. We should probably fold but hey we've so much invested in this and ffs top pair ain't that great is it? Do you fold knowing it's the safest option, or go for the flush given it has the potential to be the best result? problem is we only have one hand to play, no chance of averaging over time. Posted by GELDY
It's more like seeing the flop, knowing your opponent has a pair and has gone all-in... do you call without even knowing your hand?
Comments
I kind of hope that the vote does at least put the question to bed for at least another generation, regardless of the outcome. At the moment it sort of feels as though the outcome will be close enough that Alex Salmond will be harping on for another crack next year (and the next year..) if the 'No' just about sneaks the vote next week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29226235
T o start with you have to ask WHATS IN IT FOR THEM.
as far as the SNP is concerned its INDEPENDENCE
for LABOUR, we send 42 MPs to westminster, so LABOUR would find it difficult to gain a majority without their scottish MPs
For the TORIES, they see scotland as the last vestigies of empire, something to control.
then they fear the loss of influence, no more seat at the UN security council, they would thenbe seen for what they are, a small island in the north atlantic.
TORIES want to leave the EU, but only to combat the rise of UKIP.
then we have TRIDENT, a weapon system that cost £110 billion, but WE CANNOT USE.
They say its a DETTERENT, but it cannot stop anyone firing a missile at us,So it then becomes a FIRST STRIKE WEAPON,
with everyone saying we would never fire first, SO ITS USELESS.
THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY 1/2 TRUTHS AND DOWNRIGHT LIES.
on pensions for instance, THEY ARE SAFE.
then START UP COSTS, they are a one off payment, about £500 million, but that is a ONE OFF.
On the OIL various estimates say 30 to 50 years worth of oil left in the NORTH SEA. however, the oil in the CLAIR RIDGE
has never been tapped, because its in shallow waters off the clyde, and all westminster governments will not issue the licences
to exploit those reserves, SOME TRILLION BARRELS.
if they allowed drilling in the clyde, the whole area would have FULL EMPLOYMENT,
including ship building, roads, etc.
On the POUND, UK GDP MINUS SCOTTISH GDP, would leave a massive loss to UK government, the cost of borrowing would go up, interest rates would rise, mortgages would go up.
WHEN 3 MAIN PARTIES, CBI,EVERY NEWS PAPER EVEN THE BBC, were on the side of NO,
you must ask yourself WHATS IN IT FOR THEM ?
I could go on for ever why scotland should be independent.
but as the 14th richest country, we can and should stand alone, and show the way for others in these isles.
Tory rule is at an end, I THINK THE ONLY BANKS TO CLOSE ARE FOOD BANKS.
IMPORTANT NOTE.
this is not anti-english, but ANTI ENGLISH ESTABLISHMENT.
With all the scandals, 2nd homes, house of lords, child abuse the establishment is rotton to the core, and it needs to be got rid off.
On the flip side... with the 'No' outcome always a strong possibility, the 'English' Tories and other Westminster politicians couldn't really be spouting a whole load of 'do one, Scotland, we don't need you' type messages when it is likely that they will still be part of the UK - they had to stay on message of wanting to remain together in order to still have a (sort of) cohesive country moving forward.
In some ways the Tories in particular must be divided, when it is likely that they will have an easier path to power in the rUK with the left-bias Scottish MPs taken out of the equation.
ps it is really only English issues with MP scandals? Are all the Scottish MPs clean of any involvement in everything that is wrong at Westminster?
Religion
Is there a divide between Catholics & Protestants in Scotland as there is in N.I. ?
Will one religion naturally vote NO and one YES?
*Disclaimer*
I'm neither Scottish or religious so forgive my ignorance.
alex salmond argues that the many corporates which have stated they will leave scotland is compensated by the number that stay.
but this is nonsense. it is the wrong balance.
it is not those who stay, it is the number of corporates outside scotland who in the event of a vote for independence say, "that is where we shall relocate our business to."
not one.
scotland might be like phones4u.
whilst aspiring to independence, uk business partners may simply stop trading.
1/33 the tie?
Good old bookies