The Scottish Independence referendum

[saintbletch]

If its a yes, it'll be down to the pro union labour party being unable to convince their supporters of the case.

 

Wasn't it George Robertson that said devolution had killed Scottish Nationalism stone dead.

 

The head of the no campaign is labour, his right hand man is labour, a labour shadow cabinet minister is touring with his iron bru box giving 100 speeches in 100 days, they've wheeled out the last Scottish prime minister who is labour, labour has the most Scottish MPs and the most voters, yet its all the Tories fault the campaigns a cock up.......I think your anti Tory bias is clouding your judgement. In fact it all started to fall apart after Darlings second debate, are you going to pin that on the Tories

 

Labour will, and probably should take the majority of the blame, I agree. But not for the reasons you suggest.

 

In my view, it's Labour's inability to guarantee a non-Tory government in Westminster that will have moved Labour voters to a left-of-Tory party in the Referendum

 

I mean, if you're a Labour voter in Scotland it's a sort of win-win. Or probably more accurately a "two bites at the cherry" scenario.

 

Vote Yes in the referendum. If you win, you get a left-of-Tory government and a guarantee that you never get another Tory government. You may even go on to vote Labour in future independant Scotland elections.

 

If the vote goes against you, then you get the chance to vote for Labour in the upcoming Westminster elections.

 

You may not get what you want, but you do get two attempts. I like those odds.

 

Either way you're right. Labour will take most of the blame. But history will show Cameron responsible.

[badgerx16]

Why are there more 'incentives' being promised for a NO result ? The poll should be simply on the basis of the status quo - continue or bugger off. ( Or are we setting a pattern for the proposed 'in/out' European referendum, "Here we are rabble, a bag of sweeties and some magic beans if you give us the result we want" ).

Also, in the event of a YES vote, rUK should get it's own poll on whether WE want any form of monetary union. If they want independence then they are independent, all ties are cut. ( Then we'll see how long it takes for Salmond's fairy story to unravel ).

[alpine_saint]

Why are there more 'incentives' being promised for a NO result ? The poll should be simply on the basis of the status quo - continue or bugger off. ( Or are we setting a pattern for the proposed 'in/out' European referendum, "Here we are rabble, a bag of sweeties and some magic beans if you give us the result we want" ).

Also, in the event of a YES vote, rUK should get it's own poll on whether WE want any form of monetary union. If they want independence then they are independent, all ties are cut. ( Then we'll see how long it takes for Salmond's fairy story to unravel ).

 

Completely agree.

 

Furthermore, if Westiminster bribe Pie-Face, Wee Jimmy Krankie and the rest of the sweaties to stay now with goodies, they will be back again threatening the same sh*t all over again within 5 years.

 

As a Unionist, it saddens me to say the Union is finished, primarily due to a racist fat tw*t of a little Nationalist and the general complacent arrogance of the UK political establishment.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Completely agree.

 

Furthermore, if Westiminster bribe Pie-Face, Wee Jimmy Krankie and the rest of the sweaties to stay now with goodies, they will be back again threatening the same sh*t all over again within 5 years.

 

As a Unionist, it saddens me to say the Union is finished, primarily due to a racist fat tw*t of a little Nationalist and the general complacent arrogance of the UK political establishment.

 

alpine_saint, never knowingly self-aware.

[pap]

alpine_saint, never knowingly self-aware.

Bwa-ha-ha!

[alpine_saint]

alpine_saint, never knowingly self-aware.

 

How have I been racist ?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

How have I been racist ?

 

[alpine_saint]

No answer, jolly good.

[hypochondriac]

How have I been racist ?

 

Just a fat tw*t then!

[alpine_saint]

Just a fat tw*t then!

 

Fair enough.

[pap]

Just a fat tw*t then!

 

Now now hypo, you know I don't like that word.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

No answer, jolly good.

 

Do you actually need this explaining you have been told a million times.

 

If every time you want to insult someone, the first thing you reach for is a tired stereotype/generic insult based on their nationality (Uruguayan, Argentinian, French, German, Scottish etc.) you may well be perceived as racist.

 

Calling the Scots Jimmy Krankies, or Sweaties is most likely perceived as a pejorative term, and I think it's fair to say this does fit with your "angry, insecure, attention-seeking and agressive posting style".

[alpine_saint]

Do you actually need this explaining you have been told a million times.

 

If every time you want to insult someone, the first thing you reach for is a tired stereotype/generic insult based on their nationality (Uruguayan, Argentinian, French, German, Scottish etc.) you may well be perceived as racist.

 

Calling the Scots Jimmy Krankies, or Sweaties is most likely perceived as a pejorative term, and I think it's fair to say this does fit with your "angry, insecure, attention-seeking and agressive posting style".

 

I didnt call the Scots "Wee Jimmy Krankie", I called Nicola Sturgeon it. I suggest you take a look at Google Images if you fail to see the similarity.

 

Yes, I called them "sweaties". I suggest you seek the origins of that nickname. It comes from "Jock", which is a common term for them.

 

You seem to be inferring that giving any nationality a nickname is inherently racist. That's plain b*ll*cks.

 

In the meantime, I look forward to you pulling up the next "Nazi" or "Fritzl" innuendo thrown in my direction...

[buctootim]

Kind of proves my point about 'short term' thinking, we had 13 years of labour government but all of a sudden it's all the fault of the Tories !

Surely total and irrevocable separation after 300 years should be about more than just the dislike of a passing government (which just happens to be a coalition at the moment!).

 

Yes but voters aren't 300 years old. People, rightly or wrongly, vote based on their recent experience. They've had fours years of the current government elected by England and which only holds 20% of the seats in Scotland. The Prime Minister and most of the cabinet come from a party with 1 seat out of 64 in Scotland. You cant underestimate the drive that gives to the independence campaign.

Edited 9 September, 2014 by buctootim

[Sour Mash]

Who gives a f**k if the Jocks are referred to as "Wee Jimmy Krankie"? :lol:

[KingdomCome]

You seem to be inferring that giving any nationality a nickname is inherently racist. That's plain b*ll*cks.

 

It's not b*ll*cks when that term is often used in the pejorative sense. Or are you suggesting that sweaties is a term of endearment?

 

I agree with your description of Sturgeon, however.

[KingdomCome]

Who gives a f**k if the Jocks are referred to as "Wee Jimmy Krankie"? :lol:

 

People that aren't bigots?

[alpine_saint]

Yes but voters aren't 300 years old. People, rightly or wrongly, vote based on their recent experience. They've had fours years of the current government elected by England and which only holds 20% of the seats in Scotland. The Prime Minister and most of the cabinet come from a party with 1 seat out of 64 in Scotland. You cant underestimate the drive that gives to the independence campaign.

 

How about the fact that Scotland provided the previous two PMs who oversaw some of the biggest screw-ups and declines in standard of living seen in the UK since the Second World War ?

 

If Scotland wants to throw away 300 years of common history, relative prosperity, heritage and culture based on being mildly p*ssed at a couple of governments elected by the democratic majority in the past 25 years I say, f**k it, let the whigning bastards go.

 

I just hope this brings down Cameron and the Tories put an utter, utter bastard in that will make the Sweaties squeal with outrage over the independence terms.

[Sour Mash]

People that aren't bigots?

[pap]

Devo Supermax for a no vote, apparently.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/scotland-promised-devo-supermax-london-spooked

 

"London is spooked".

[buctootim]

How about the fact that Scotland provided the previous two PMs who oversaw some of the biggest screw-ups and declines in standard of living seen in the UK since the Second World War ?

 

If Scotland wants to throw away 300 years of common history, relative prosperity, heritage and culture based on being mildly p*ssed at a couple of governments elected by the democratic majority in the past 25 years I say, f**k it, let the whigning bastards go.

 

I just hope this brings down Cameron and the Tories put an utter, utter bastard in that will make the Sweaties squeal with outrage over the independence terms.

 

I dont really care if they stay or go - stay for traditionalist reasons and go for democratic and economic ones. I do object to more preferential treatment through devolution max and susbsidies. Despite what that poll says I suspect that on the day many supposed 'yes' voters will get cold feet and vote 'no'.

[saintbletch]

Yes but voters aren't 300 years old. People, rightly or wrongly, vote based on their recent experience. They've had fours years of the current government elected by England and which only holds 20% of the seats in Scotland. The Prime Minister and most of the cabinet come from a party with 1 seat out of 64 in Scotland. You cant underestimate the drive that gives to the independence campaign.

 

Agreed BTT.

 

This section from The Wee Blue Book that pap linked to earlier put things into stark relief for me.

 

Remove your political leanings if possible, read the following, and ask yourself how you'd vote in the referendum.

 

 

This is perhaps the simplest aspect of the debate to deal with. Scotland rarely - less than half the time, in fact - gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2015 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 38 of the last 68 years.

 

Whether you support Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else, that’s not democracy. With all due respect to Wales and Northern Ireland, 85% of the population of the UK lives in England, and that means that in practice England always decides what government everyone else gets.

 

Most of the time (roughly six years in every 10, for the entire modern political era dating back to WW2) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.

 

We believe Scotland is a country, and therefore should get the governments it votes for every time - not just when it happens to coincide with what a much larger neighbouring country wants.

 

 

That doesn’t mean it should be ruled by the SNP. If you don’t like the SNP or Alex Salmond, you don’t have to vote for them in an independent Scotland - Labour and the Lib Dems were in charge for the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament and could be again. But so could brand-new parties that don’t even exist yet - it’s only a few years since nobody thought the SNP would ever win an election.

 

Independence isn’t about policies or parties. Those are questions which will be decided at elections, not the referendum. All you have to decide on the 18th of September is who should choose the future governments of Scotland: the people of Scotland, or the people of England?

[/Quote]

[Special K]

It's not b*ll*cks when that term is often used in the pejorative sense. Or are you suggesting that sweaties is a term of endearment?

 

I agree with your description of Sturgeon, however.

 

I thought that "Sweaty" derived from the cockney rhyming slang term "Sweaty Sock" for Jock? A quick straw poll of my Scots friends down here reveals that they don't find being called a "sweaty" offensive, providing that they can call me a "shandy drinking sassenach b*****d" in return. Fair do's I reckon.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

http://www.bigissue.com/features/interviews/3316/krankies-interview-alex-salmond-can-sod

 

I am afraid the Krankies aren't on board

[saintbletch]

PMQs cancelled tomorrow so all three party leaders can travel to Scotland to campaign for Better Together.

[Guided Missile]

Most Jock's are always complaining, normally about how unfair life is, (in fact they complain about everything), but when it comes time for them to stump up any money, to make things better, they will, as usual, have short arms and long pockets. They will realise that in the ballot box, a yes vote will be the same as an open cheque, made out to pie face and I just can't, on the day, see them doing it.

 

Mind you, I'd love to get rid of them. If they want to live in an economic powerhouse with a GDP slightly bigger than Bangladesh, then let them take the low road, while we take the high road....

[Viking Warrior]

I hadnt realised until today that all the CND / anti nuclear weapons, peace groups and green folk have nailed their colours firmly on the Yes vote

 

Someone should tell them , that independence has far more important issues to be considered and not just the closure of faslane.

 

Talked about folk being blinkered

 

a bleak future lies ahead for scotland if it becomes independent. Aberdeen will become a run down and poor city in a generation or two. The Oil will not bee sustainable at the levels it is currently in about 30 years time , and wind farms are no the answer

 

,

[Batman]

There is a very real possibility that faslane will remain open as is.

 

The "English" could annex that part of Scotland

 

A deal could be brokered where the £ is involved

 

There is no way it could shut within 5 years if a yes vote wins (as promised)

 

Scotland could be responsible for the closure of the UKs independent nuclear deterrent. And as such, loss of seat as in security council and even less influence in the world. Which will have a whole host of knock on effects for not only us, but an independent Scotland

 

The costs if relocating trident are incomprehensible. I just can't see it happening.

 

 

Also, I can't see how they can be seen to be kicking out nukes and as such, being anti nuclear country and then apply to join NATO. The yanks at our base believe the US are not too keen on it.

[pap]

 

Scotland could be responsible for the closure of the UKs independent nuclear deterrent. And as such, loss of seat as in security council and even less influence in the world. Which will have a whole host of knock on effects for not only us, but an independent Scotland

 

The UK will not lose its place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council just because it doesn't have nukes.

[pap]

PMQs cancelled tomorrow so all three party leaders can travel to Scotland to campaign for Better Together.

 

[KingdomCome]

I thought that "Sweaty" derived from the cockney rhyming slang term "Sweaty Sock" for Jock? A quick straw poll of my Scots friends down here reveals that they don't find being called a "sweaty" offensive, providing that they can call me a "shandy drinking sassenach b*****d" in return. Fair do's I reckon.

 

I've lived in Scotland for the past 15 years and can say with reasonable assurance that a large number of Scots find the term "jock" offensive.

[alpine_saint]

Agreed BTT.

 

This section from The Wee Blue Book that pap linked to earlier put things into stark relief for me.

 

Remove your political leanings if possible, read the following, and ask yourself how you'd vote in the referendum.

 

I find the assertion that 8& of the population should have some sort of special consideration on deciding the political complexion of the Government to be truly f**king hillarious.

 

F**k Off Scotland, we know the whinging and blaming the English wont stop either way....

[Whitey Grandad]

I've lived in Scotland for the past 15 years and can say with reasonable assurance that a large number of Scots find the term "jock" offensive.

 

Do you know how tempting that is

[Patrick Bateman]

I've lived in Scotland for the past 15 years and can say with reasonable assurance that a large number of Scots find the term "jock" offensive.

 

Sorry to hear that

[KingdomCome]

Agreed BTT.

 

This section from The Wee Blue Book that pap linked to earlier put things into stark relief for me.

 

Remove your political leanings if possible, read the following, and ask yourself how you'd vote in the referendum.

 

Glasgow always votes Labour. Should Glasgow be independent because we're stuck with an SNP government?

I can see what you are saying, but that's the effect of representative democracy. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly no reason to start dissecting the country into bits that happen to vote the same way.

[KingdomCome]

Sorry to hear that

 

Not as sorry as I'll be if it's a Yes

[Batman]

The UK will not lose its place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council just because it doesn't have nukes.

 

it is a very real possibility

[KingdomCome]

Do you know how tempting that is

 

Fully expect a barrage

[Hatch]

I've lived in Scotland for the past 15 years and can say with reasonable assurance that a large number of Scots find the term "jock" offensive.

 

thats handy info to know.

[pap]

it is a very real possibility

 

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain how this possibility may manifest itself.

 

Membership of the Security Council was never about having nukes. It was about ensuring that the main victors of the Second World War couldn't have their interests threatened by the consensus of other nations, no matter how many vote against them.

 

Personally I think you're naive for describing the British nuclear deterrent as "independent". Push comes to shove, we don't even know if the American-supplied technology would work.

[Batman]

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain how this possibility may manifest itself.

 

Membership of the Security Council was never about having nukes. It was about ensuring that the main victors of the Second World War couldn't have their interests threatened by the consensus of other nations, no matter how many vote against them.

 

Personally I think you're naive for describing the British nuclear deterrent as "independent". Push comes to shove, we don't even know if the American-supplied technology would work.

 

im naive?

I would love to tell you where I work

[Viking Warrior]

i walk past the wee Yes encampment each day in kirkwall, to see some of the folk in there shouting the virtues of the Yes campaign and answering questions from the undecided electorate is farsical,

I dont think they are not representative of the people of orkney, still they can return to the pubs afterwards to spend their weekly benefits apart from two,

The NHS Orkney chairman is doing a presentation tomorrow night His story 40 years on the road to Yes

 

Hiere is one of his latest rants

WE ARE ON THE CUSP OF VICTORY. It is time now for all YES supporters to hold their nerve and not over-react to the clever, yet desperate 11th hour manoeuvrings of the NO hierarchy. Not having David Cameron or any Tories visit Scotland in masses and allowing former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to lead on selling their cobbled together spurious plan to try and convinced Scots to remain manacled to the UK is clever. But will the Scots be conned by it! All the YES camp need to do now is continue to sell the messages to the undecided. Our messages are strong, honest and clear and they will help Scotland become a fairer, stronger and better place for ourselves and our generations to come.

Edited 9 September, 2014 by Viking Warrior

[KingdomCome]

thats handy info to know.

 

Info about me or info about the jocks

[aintforever]

There is a very real possibility that faslane will remain open as is.

 

The "English" could annex that part of Scotland

 

A deal could be brokered where the £ is involved

 

There is no way it could shut within 5 years if a yes vote wins (as promised)

 

Scotland could be responsible for the closure of the UKs independent nuclear deterrent. And as such, loss of seat as in security council and even less influence in the world. Which will have a whole host of knock on effects for not only us, but an independent Scotland

 

The costs if relocating trident are incomprehensible. I just can't see it happening.

 

 

Also, I can't see how they can be seen to be kicking out nukes and as such, being anti nuclear country and then apply to join NATO. The yanks at our base believe the US are not too keen on it.

 

What specifically does us having nukes influence at the moment? Do we threaten to blow the sh!t out of other countries if they don't do stuff or something?

[pap]

im naive?

I would love to tell you where I work

 

Wherever it is, they need better in-house training. Their employees seem spectacularly ill-informed.

[Batman]

Wherever it is, they need better in-house training. Their employees seem spectacularly ill-informed.

 

and you would know, how exactly?

[pap]

and you would know, how exactly?

 

Well, in your example, it's the idea that the UK would lose its status as permanent member of the UN Security council on account of having no nukes, which incidentally, only the US really did at the time of the Permanent Five's creation. It wasn't until 1949, four years after the formation of the UN, that nuclear arms proliferated beyond one state.

 

The problem with making as many unsubstantiated claims as you do is that many of them fall well outside of your "ooer, can't talk about it, I'm too important, security cleared and worldly" stance you use to cower away from debate.

 

The formation and potential dissolution of the UN permanent security council falls well outside, I'd say - given that most UN policies are a matter of public record.

 

That being the case, perhaps sir can answer the original question and explain how exactly the UK would lose its P5 status in the event of giving up nukes.

[Clapham Saint]

I've lived in Scotland for the past 15 years and can say with reasonable assurance that a large number of Scots find the term "jock" offensive.

 

thats handy info to know.

 

Agreed. I shall be using it far more frequently in future.

[Batman]

Well, in your example, it's the idea that the UK would lose its status as permanent member of the UN Security council on account of having no nukes, which incidentally, only the US really did at the time of the Permanent Five's creation. It wasn't until 1949, four years after the formation of the UN, that nuclear arms proliferated beyond one state.

 

The problem with making as many unsubstantiated claims as you do is that many of them fall well outside of your "ooer, can't talk about it, I'm too important, security cleared and worldly" stance you use to cower away from debate.

 

The formation and potential dissolution of the UN permanent security council falls well outside, I'd say - given that most UN policies are a matter of public record.

 

That being the case, perhaps sir can answer the original question and explain how exactly the UK would lose its P5 status in the event of giving up nukes.

I said it COULD happen, you have decided it DEFINITELY wont.

then you call me clueless, naive like you are the authority on this

 

I am not, but my working environment (for the next week or so) is right in this sphere of defence.

 

to be honest, who the hell knows what will happen. I just said it COULD, which is true. It could happen. I am not saying it definitely wont

[pap]

I said it COULD happen, you have decided it DEFINITELY wont.

then you call me clueless, naive like you are the authority on this

 

I am not, but my working environment (for the next week or so) is right in this sphere of defence.

 

to be honest, who the hell knows what will happen. I just said it COULD, which is true. It could happen. I am not saying it definitely wont

How? What's the process? What are the precedents?

 

You're talking crap on this one, mate.