CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

  1. Instography
    Member

    Once you get past the start, where I still can't work out whether the line, "You’d need the self-esteem of a vole to be Undecided in Scotland" is a joke or not, Lesley Riddoch gives it a fair crack trying to suggest how the Yes campaign might appeal to undecided voters. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/8700-wooing-the-undecided-voter

    The comments are worth the read. If Cameron appealing to Scotland is a recruitment drive for Yes, I'm afraid I find these Yes supporters have the same effect in the opposite direction.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. wee folding bike
    Member

    I heard a piece on Gardeners Question Time where they said nematodes were a good thing. They killed off slugs. I think it was only certain nematodes.

    Yes, it's on Friday afternoon when I'm going home.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. gibbo
    Member

    Gibbo, I don't believe the people of Scotland are stupid at all, I have complete faith in them recognising the synergy of staying within the Union.

    I'd like to hear the no campaign focus on their arguments for that.

    (And for the yes campaign to stop pretending we'll be £600 a year per head better off.)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. Charterhall
    Member

    Further writing on the wall this week for the future of financial services post indepedence. Despite the Scottish heritage of the TSB brand, Lloyds have registered the new bank in England because to do so in Scotland is deemed too risky. And Standard Life facing up to the prospect that its pension business would not be viable in an indepedent Scotland, forcing a relocate to England.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10652595/Standard-Life-to-warn-of-risks-of-Scottish-independence.html

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. wee folding bike
    Member

    Alternatively TSB wanted to do this anyway and are using the referendum as an excuse.

    The polls say it will be a No and even if it is Yes the ink isn't expected to be dry for at least two years so why move now?

    Looks like shenanigans from here unless they know something the rest of us don't.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. gembo
    Member

    Should the document's title now be changed to The Thin White Duke Paper?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    I'm getting a passport now Ziggy invited us all to stay with him.

    I hope he doesn't ask what I thought about Tin Machine…

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    It would be incredibly sad if we vote on the basis of threats and menaces from large companies and their henchmen in Westminster.

    Part of the attraction of transport cycling is the independence it gives you and the pride you get from managing the (small) risks involved for yourself, so
    I would plead with anyone on here thinking of voting 'no' to do it for their own positive reasons - because they've found something attractive about being governed from London, not because of some phantom menace like Standard Life upping anchor just because we want to govern ourselves.

    Imagine if Pedal on Parliament was directed at the government that controlled 100% of our budget rather than 7%. What's not to like about that?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. Charterhall
    Member

    I'm going to be voting 'no' because, amongst other things, I still want a job in Edinburgh after the referendum and a house that is still worth at least what I paid for it.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. gembo
    Member

    IWRATS

    As we have said before - hard to vote NO for a positive reason but maybe taking Bowie's advice and sticking together to keep a sense of unity rather than divisively separating into the judas an popular front and the popular front of judea has a scintilla of positive ness?

    What is interesting is that as a No voter I can see some of the Yes arguments but I have yet to come across a Yes voter who can see any of the No arguments? They must all be rebutted. Alex Salmond has had to wheel out Ricky Ross to rebut David Bowie etc. This is of course an exaggeration but it is a very polarised debate instead of nuances and it is very bombastic rather than based on quality data.

    Just my opinion, but as with helmet debate it always seems like it is quite hard for the one side (in my jaundiced view the No helmet side) to agree with any of the Yes helmet side. I am pro choice and against compulsion. that might be why I am voting No in the independence debate? that and the jam tomorrow nature of the promised land once we are independent when everything will just be better. As I have said before if the line was it will be worse when we go it alone as we will have to pAy for stuff by raising taxation, I would be more interested.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. wee folding bike
    Member

    Actually, if Bowie brings up anything after Ashes to Ashes there might be an uncomfortable silence.

    What if taxation is the same but better targeted?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. crowriver
    Member

    I'm going to be voting 'no' because, amongst other things, I still want a job in Edinburgh after the referendum and a house that is still worth at least what I paid for it.

    I fail to see the logic of this position. What is it about a no vote that guarantees either of these things?

    maybe taking Bowie's advice and sticking together to keep a sense of unity rather than divisively separating into the judas an popular front and the popular front of judea has a scintilla of positive ness?

    He said "Scotland, stay with us." * I wasn't aware that Scotland was planning to go anywhere. The emotive 'divorce' rhetoric from the no camp (and the 'us and them' polarisation) fails to recognise this referendum is about democracy. Scotland will not be 'leaving' anything or anyone: after a yes vote the Act of Union would be repealed, therefore there would be no United Kingdom in its current form. Whatever the two successor states choose to call themselves is another matter. This assumption that England, Wales and Norther Ireland would be the inheritors of everything and that Scotland will separate off to somewhere else are psychological projections which are no doubt convenient for inculcating FUD in wavering Scottish voters. They do not however reflect the actual basis of any post-yes scenario.

    * - Or rather his sock puppet supermodel stand-in said it.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. Nelly
    Member

    @pintail "further writing on the wall this week for the future of financial services post indepedence"

    You can reprise the same argument every 2 weeks and I will still ask you 'so what?'

    Please tell me what it means that TSB floated using a London address?

    Does it mean that all Scottish jobs go?

    Std Life (another of your fear factor examples) will change its Reg Office to one of their London owned addresses - and why not? 90% of their business is down south.

    But - and crucially - that DOES NOT mean they 'shut up shop' here.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "I fail to see the logic of this position. What is it about a no vote that guarantees either of these things?"

    The point is that individuals will make a Yes/No/abstain decision on what they believe will happen - and how it will affect them.

    This may be unwise/misguided or turn out to be sound (won't know for several years, and even then so many things will have happened - not just in the UK - that it won't even be possible to say it was ' because Scotland voted Yes/No').

    There are people who 'want all the answers before they can decide'. But that is just as unrealistic as believing that everything in the "white paper" will come to pass.
    Not enough people seem to realise that this is (just) the thoughtful 'vision' of the current (SNP) government.

    IF there is a Yes vote, there will be a newly elected government in Scotland to 'deliver' independence - this will not necessarily be an SNP majority one.

    Before the referendum there is a Euro election. That will change (some) things. It seems likely that UKIP will win a few more seats in England and probably none in Scotland.

    That will reinforce the notion that 'Scotland is different' for some people and may increase the number of people thinking of voting Yes. It may also push the UK Tory party to wanting to pull out of Europe (even more than they currently do).

    IF there is a Yes vote it may be that most countries will be keen to keep/have Scotland in the EU in the face of a stronger possibility that rUK will vote to leave.

    Of course that depends on there being a Tory government after next year's election. At the moment that seems unlikely. A Tory/LD coalition seems unlikely too.

    (Most?) Labour politicians want a No vote. This is for perfectly understandable unionist (non trade union perhaps!) reasons

    They fear a future where rUK could never have a Labour majority at Westminster. That of course (as at present) depends entirely on whether the party appeals to enough voters in marginal seats. There is no particularly good reason why Labour should want/need/ be able to rely on 'safe' Labour seats in Scotland.

    If there is a No vote, no doubt some parts of the SNP will go into shocked depression, but I predict that it will energise Salmond & Co to ensure that the election returns as many MPs as possible to Westminster to hold the balance of power there and speed up the negotiations for DevoSupaMaxPlus - which may be what he wanted all along.

    Labour might also take an interest in proportional representation for future UK elections - I'm sure the LibDems and SNP would help with that!

    It'll certainly make those who stopped there being a third option on the September ballot paper look foolish.

    The future is unwritten.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. PS
    Member

    I feel the need to stick my oar in here.

    I like a lot of the Dame's post Ashes to Ashes output; Let's Dance, Heathen, Reality, The Next Day, Outside, Buddha of Suburbia, and the likes of Absolute Beginners. A lot of artists would give their right arms for just that chunk of his back catalogue.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. wee folding bike
    Member

    Labour members who worry about never having a majority in Westminster without Scottish seats need not fear. We never made that much difference and boundary changes have tipped the balance even further towards the rest of the UK.

    The numbers for UK elections since WW II are available on WoS:

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

    Scottish Labour MPs might have wee hiatus between 2015 and 2016 and might lose out on elevation to the vermin in ermine. MSPs might lose seats if heavy weights like Murphy and Alexander decide that their best option is north of the border. That would depend on where they see their career leading.

    Going to hear Dennis Canavan speak next week. A man so upright they deselected him and he came back with the biggest majority in the country.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. wee folding bike
    Member

    My boys like Magic Dance from Labyrinth.

    I think it's ok too.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

    "Labour members who worry about never having a majority in Westminster without Scottish seats need not fear."

    If that's true (no reason to doubt it), then Labour has even less reason to worry about an independent Scotland - unless they just love centralised (London-based) power.

    At present I doubt if being part of Better Together is impressing many 'traditional Labour voters'. It would be more credible if there was a genuine 'UK Labour Party' or even a properly devolved/regionalised one.

    I'm sure there are Labour people who genuinely believe in the UK and government (partly) from Westminster.

    But there often seems as much 'tension' better Labour elements north and south of the border as there is between Lab and SNP (everything just fine at CEC if course.)

    I wonder how many people in English regions feel well served by the existing set-ups.

    An independent Scotland might lead to better things in England.

    Of course 'independence' is all relative - keep the Queen, Pound, borderless borders, trains running on time, so -

    bit better local governance (ought to make a difference). Any chance of local authorities with more power/accountability?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. PS
    Member

    Scottish or English local authorities, chdot?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. wee folding bike
    Member

    MPs and MSPs might worry about their careers. The HoL is a sweet deal.

    Labour in Scotland have been pushing for more powers going to councils. This might be because they figure they have a better chance of controlling councils.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    Scottish - thinking IF independence - not aware of much discussion of devolving decision making/cash raising possibilities.

    A post Indy Gov (or even an XtraSupaMax one) ought to want to spread the power.

    A lot of what 'we' admire 'elsewhere' is due to the the ability to make more local decisions.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

    "Labour in Scotland have been pushing for more powers going to councils."

    OK, obviously not been following that.

    Any details?

    Is that part of why CoSLA is falling apart?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. gembo
    Member

    CoSLA issue linked to certain councils feeling they will have less say within CoSLA, curiously several of those thinking about giving notice to quit are labour councils. No fixed, fast relations any more.

    I was delirious with flu new year 2013 and the radio was playing Mr Bowie's latest single which was very atmospheric.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. wee folding bike
    Member

    This was on the BBC more than a year ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19887685

    [Ms Lamont] She also told the spring conference: "Devolution can't just mean powers going from London to Edinburgh.

    "That means a radical look at not just what powers should the Scottish government have, but what powers does local government need, and which should be devolved further to local communities."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Gembo - I actually went out of my way to go and see Better Together to hear their arguments for the Union. They didn't actually have any. They made lots of arguments against uncertainty, but given that the future is uncertain whichever way we vote I couldn't see the relevance of that.

    If I was arguing pro-Union I'd suggest that risk was better pooled over a large population. That's an argument that might have held sway in 1945, but not in today's dog eat dog Britain.

    If you have pro-Union arguments (not anti-independence ones) I'd love to hear them. I'm 95% for Yes, but still totally open to positive persuasion.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. crowriver
    Member

    WFB made the point I was going to make regarding Scottish votes at Westminster.

    Another point worth considering: Scotland used to send 72 MPs to Westminster. After Holyrood came about, the number of MPs elected by Scotland was cut to 59. Boundary changes currently being implemented will cut that further to 52 MPs.

    So the chances of Scottish votes making a difference to the government in London are getting slimmer and slimmer. The democratic deficit that results from Scotland's representation in Westminster being so hugely outnumbered is one of the clearest arguments for independence. We would get the government that Scotland voted for, rather than the present situation where we get the government England voted for.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. wee folding bike
    Member

    I think we returned the same balance of MPs at the last two UK elections but got different parties in power.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    "

    She also told the spring conference: "Devolution can't just mean powers going from London to Edinburgh.

    "That means a radical look at not just what powers should the Scottish government have, but what powers does local government need, and which should be devolved further to local communities."

    "

    Sounds good. What happened next??

    Talking of "spring conferences" Labour is going to reveal 'further devolution promises' to go into the next Westminster manifesto.

    Seems that this is set to be underwhelming (speculation) and unlikely to sway too many people.

    Seems to be little chance of a 'united front' of manifesto commitments by the three key parties that would more or less guarantee extra devo.

    The No campaign may have inertia on its side, but some 'positive arguments' should help it.

    If the vote is close, ('taking in to account those who stayed at home' blah blah), 'we wuz robbed' will kick in.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. gembo
    Member

    IWRATS, I tried before to put forward a more internationalist perspective whereby the racist anti- English sentiment of many Scots is something I do not like. however, posters on this forum said they did not think there is anti English sentiment. I found this surprising as I used to come across it all the time when I lived West of the Pecos. if you hate the f'ing English clap your hands. Settler Watch, Scottish Republican Army etc. Maybe this is all a thing of the past.

    my view is there is no genetic difference between the different tribes in these islands. There is an imperialist history but the scots were happy to engage in this in Ireland when the seventeenth century wars were religious.

    So my view is that we are all the same. certainly with respect to large chunks of the industrial north of England and the central belt of Scotland.

    I am therefore proUnity on a cultural level. I have a sense of affinity with Mancunians, scousers, Geordies etc.

    I am looking to link with kindred spirits not separate from them.

    I see lots of parts of Scotland as quite narrow minded and I look to international writers for a perspective on humanity that will come up with twenty first century solutions for the way to live our lives, I no longer need to assert my Scottishness, I have let all of that go.

    after the act of union Scotland invented Great Britain through the Enlightenment figures of David Hume and Adam Smith. Founder of many institutions in London were Scottish. (Including the Bank of England). team GB is well represented by Scots as it were.I see no need for two separate teams.

    I wonder if N. Ireland will become a two state nation (in official capacity like some Gaza Strip). I would want that not to happen and would wish for a solution that keeps us all together.

    anyway, I am not trying to persuade you as 95/5 would be some turnaround. Am just trying to analyse my reasons outwith the very uncertain economic realities. As I have said before if SNP and other separatists were honest, set up a republic and stipulated a high taxation economy like Denmark then I would vote for that. However, this is not an option.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. wee folding bike
    Member

    I don't think she has said anymore, I think she has said the same sort of thing again but it's a tricky one to Google. She also spent a few months in hiding last summer.

    Gembo, would you get rid of Scottish international sport teams? I would be quite happy to do that if there is a No. Or even if there is a Yes.

    How do you feel about the EU being so unpopular in England? I've noticed more St George's crosses down there in the last few years. I don't even mean on civic buildings, where we tend to go in the summer, Dorset, Devon, Hampshire, I see them in gardens.

    Car law has blinked. http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/carlaw-argues-for-pound.23509235

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin