CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…575859…98

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "will be good for Scotland and the rUK.

    ...

    in the *hope* that I'll win."

    I also hope there will be a Yes. I *think* the 'optimum' would be 52/48 No.

    This would concentrate the minds of the parties ahead of next year's Westminster election (or not).

    Whoever wins (probably another coalition - Con/LD, Lab/LD, Con/UKIP, Lab/Con, Lab/SNP, Lab/LD/SNP, Con/SNP ???? - really just about anything is possible!) would 'have to' rapidly enable Devo extra/more/plus/max - which is certainly what (probably) most people in Scotland wanted - at least when there was the possibility of a third option on the ballot paper.

    OR the new Westminster 'won't bother' (or have 'better' things to do) and hope that the SNP/Yessers will 'go away'.

    Instead they might find that by the time the 2016 Holyrood election comes along, there may be calls for another Yes/No referendum!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I'm with @bdellar on this one. Got soaked canvassing in Leith on Saturday with Madame IWRATS, not in the expectation of winning but because I believe it's the right choice for Scotland.

    If Yes can sneak over the 50% barrier in the face of thirty five daily newspapers and the BBC it will be an event that will send ripples round the world.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    in the face of thirty five daily newspapers and the BBC

    I've been trying to get my head around this, why the media are, in the main, all No.

    1. Of course, "independent" media are allowed their particular editorial stance, political affiliations, guided often by owners or corporate "culture".

    2. Some individual journalists will have strong personal convictions on the matter.

    3. The effect of most media being based in London is a major factor.

    x. Some journalists will see themselves as "reflecting popular opinion" which they deduce as majority No, but it's a rather self-fulfilling prophesy.

    y. Then there will be those who exude "unconscious" bias, ie. they literally don't understand the debate and have never considered the issues (see 1. and 3. above).

    z. Then there are those with a "visceral hatred" of the SNP and see everything in terms of the "battle against Salmond". We could call them the Partisans.

    Caveat: there are a number of media folk who are for Yes, but they are so small in number they don't have much effect against the massed ranks of the No media.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    I'd add to your list my suspicion that many of the Scottish media are quite happy to write and present pretendy articles and programmes about a pretendy parliament. The last thing they want is to be responsible for holding the government of a rough new country to account. That would mean hard work and a far greater expectation of competence from us. If they wanted that kind of job they'd have gone to London years ago.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. Instography
    Member

    And the media will form opinions based on their short term and long term business interests, particularly where they get their advertising revenue from but also reflecting the stance they need to take to retain their readership. It's a mistake, I think, to only see the media as opinion formers. They also spend a lot of time and money finding out what their readers / viewers think so that they can represent that back to them. Generally, people don't want their views challenged, they want them echoed back.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Campaigners for the Union have been accused of “scaremongering” about the impact of independence on Scotland’s financial sector, with a former Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss insisting this would be “an opportunity not a threat”.

    Sir George Mathewson, a former RBS chief executive and chairman, argued that financial services in Scotland had been “neglected by the Westminster government and its London-centric policy”.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/ex-rbs-boss-says-scottish-independence-opportunity-1-3498323

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. crowriver
    Member

    They also spend a lot of time and money finding out what their readers / viewers think so that they can represent that back to them.

    I'd qualify that by saying they have particular target markets/demographics, and do research to ascertain the majority views in any particular social segment (though these things obviously change on occasion).

    Commercial media target those groups they think will bring the most advertisers/subscriptions and therefore revenue. Certain smaller markets may not be "sustainable" in media business models and are therefore ignored. So we end up with massive overprovision for certain "target audiences" and very little or none for others. In the past, traditional media would sometimes "take a punt" on a new, previously overlooked audience: these days due to declining revenues, media are more risk averse in this respect.

    Internet media have disrupted the traditional model to some extent, reinforced it in other ways too.

    Generally, people don't want their views challenged, they want them echoed back.

    It's not as simple as that. As social creatures, folk mostly try to hold views which "fit in" with the social group they see themselves as belonging to (or aspire to belonging to). Media help to reinforce those "popular assumptions" about what the "correct" view to hold on a particular topic might be.

    What the independence debate has exposed is the gap between "normative" media representations of the "correct" views, and a significant body of views which are not reflected back, because they represent a challenge to the perceived norms.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Instography
    Member

    Of course. It's never as simple as that. But as far as the media's concerned, in the independence debate it doesn't seem to have done anything that it hasn't always done. What the pro-independence campaigners complain about has been complained about by the Labour left for years. At least until Labour became the views the press were reinforcing.

    But what's the significant body of views that isn't being reflected back?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "

    WITH the independence referendum just over a month away, the UK 2015 General Election is something that’s not widely discussed by commentators in Scotland.

    "

    'We' have!!

    "

    But it’s worth looking at how a Yes vote on 18 September could see the General Election deliver the most confusing, uncertain and unstable result of any Westminster electoral contest in post-war British history.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-yes-vote-will-mean-problems-for-labour-1-3498926

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The announcement was timed to be made before a television debate between Mr Salmond and Alistair Darling, the leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, being broadcast live in Scotland on Tuesday evening.

    "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11011773/Cameron-Miliband-and-Clegg-sign-up-for-more-Scottish-powers-ahead-of-TV-debate.html

    Previously -

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/talks-begin-on-devolution-for-whole-of-uk-1-3489848

    So, Yes or No, things have changed.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I'm startled to learn that the Conservative Party is committing itself to ending universal credit in Scotland. This is a requirement of devolving housing benefit and 'social security' whatever that means.

    What's the betting that they'll;

    1) 'Allow' Holyrood to borrow money
    2) 'Permit' Holyrood to order a big IT system to run these new taxes and benefits
    3) 'Let' Holyrood outsource the project to Atos/Capita/G4S
    4) Load the resulting debt onto the Scottish Government
    5) Renege on the perceived original agreement

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    The Internet, The Tory And The Black, Black Oil http://wp.me/p4tBqD-qP

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. Instography
    Member

    Oh no, please not the crazy oil story.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. Min
    Member

    Can't be as crazy as all the talk of aliens and driving on the right coming from a certain First Minister. I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming. Although I did like the woman who just did not believe it could be possible to have a Scottish address and not have voted SNP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    It really showed their respective weaknesses - currency and extra powers.

    At the end they mentioned a future debate but I'd be very surprised if there's another. Don't think anyone came out of it particularly well, although I've maybe just heard and read the soundbites too many times.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. gembo
    Member

    News on very biased BBC reporting a very biased ICM poll for the guardian saying 56 per cent thought darling won and 44 thought salmond? No mention of undecideds though some of them also popped up in a pub in north Queensferry.

    Six more weeks, please make it stop :-)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "please make it stop"

    Well tonight's show certainly wasn't a 'highlight'.

    Don't care who won.

    Both were bad - in different ways.

    Might be progress if AS's assertion 'it's Scotland's £ too' OR AD's 'it belongs to the UK' can be proven.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. Instography
    Member

    Does this, from Lawyers for Yes help? I've added the bold.

    Perhaps the thorniest issue in this area is the question of the UK pound. The Bank of England is a UK body and the pound is the UK’s currency, and as ‘institutions’ of the UK they would stay with rUK. Scotland cannot compel rUK to enter into a currency union. However, as the Scotland Institute report ‘Debt and Destiny‘ confirms, it is equally clear that the pound Sterling is an ‘asset’ in the broad sense of the word, that it has a value, and that this value is to be recognised in a division of assets.

    So, their view is the same as Alastair Darling's although they see its asset value as being in the negotiations. Seems sensible.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "So, their view is the same as Alastair Darling's"

    (Or perhaps the other way round?)

    On that legal view AS is wrong, if so, it doesn't really help him (or his credibility).

    "although they see its asset value as being in the negotiations" - so, some compensation for being 'denied' continuation in a Sterling zone(?)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    so, some compensation for being 'denied' continuation in a Sterling zone

    I think the "compensation you are referring to would be rUK taking on all of its own debt (which, if rUK is the successor state, would be fully rUK's to repay: the Treasury have condirmed this is their position).

    So it's really simple: if after a Yes vote rUK continue to say "Scotland cannot be in a currency union", then Scotland will say "rUK will be pating back 100% of the debt then". Scotland could continue to use the pound, it just would not be in a currency union. This is the "plan B" the BC crew keep referring to. "Plan C" is an entirely separate Scottish currency, with a currency board pegging the currency, presumably to Sterling: just as various other countries do with pegging to the Euro, Dollar, etc..

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Having watched last night's telescreen emission I can confirm that I do not like circuses.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. gembo
    Member

    Thanks IWRATS, I was undecided about whether you were YES or NO on circuses but now I know.

    As for the referendum, all undecideds still undecided?

    If you want the source materials (lovingly made sitcom about Mancunians who are first in the pub after work called Early Doors). Let me know and I will carry the disks in my panniers until we meet on canal towpath.

    WARNING: may make you feel we are better Together in the Billy Connolly/Mick McGaghey view that lowland working class scots have more in common with Mancunians than they do with Highlanders. Could this be why I am fan of The Fall and The Smiths?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. Instography
    Member

    @crowriver
    As you say, it's not as simple as that. If it were then why couldn't AS just have said so and avoided that whole uncomfortable moment of the audience booing him?

    Have to say, I think the audience and Bernard Ponsonby won it. Just enough booing and heckling, enough moments of putting both on the spot to let the gaps in each of their arguments shine.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "
    ndependence is about vision, and the strive for a better society and ultimately a better world. To get bogged down in issues like currency is disheartening – to think that a country like Scotland, that possesses incredible natural wealth, would fall into the abyss because we may or may not use the pound within a currency union is nonsense. We are a rich, intelligent country – we’ll have a successful currency one way or another. It’s how that currency is spent on improving the lives of the impoverished that matters most.
    "

    http://nationalcollective.com/2014/08/06/editorial-we-want-vision-thoughts-on-the-stv-debate

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. sallyhinch
    Member

    As a genuine undecided, I managed about 15 mins of last night's extravaganza before I had to turn it off. It felt like each man was busy scoring debating points to make their own supporters cheer, rather than trying to convince anyone who hadn't made up their mind yet. I'm not a fan of listening to people shouting each other down either. In fact, I'm not sure why I thought it would be helpful now... I'll just have to make up my own mind. I may well end up in the polling station tossing a coin

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. gibbo
    Member

    Although I did like the woman who just did not believe it could be possible to have a Scottish address and not have voted SNP.

    Surely we all know Darling has 2 homes. If he didn't, he couldn't have flipped their status and got a free new kitchen.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    "I may well end up in the polling station tossing a coin"

    If it lands on the edge you could just write DevoMax/Plus/Super/Extra (delete to suit) please.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. sallyhinch
    Member

    or 'secede to Denmark'

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. gibbo
    Member

    So it's really simple: if after a Yes vote rUK continue to say "Scotland cannot be in a currency union", then Scotland will say "rUK will be pating back 100% of the debt then". Scotland could continue to use the pound, it just would not be in a currency union.

    If there isn't a currency union, then it raises questions about the UK debt.

    Let's say, for example, there was a negotiation and Scotland ends up with 9% of the debt. The bondholders could then say that 9% carries a greater risk than when it was backed by the UK.

    In which case, there's a case that this debt split is a form of partial default.

    I don't know the ins and outs of how this works - or what happened when Czechoslovakia broke up - but, if it could be seen this way, it's a reason why rUK could want a currency union.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Hard to know what to make of last night's indigestible bolus. I knew that men sparring on television was never going to be helpful with a political question of this degree of complexity and importance, but that really was unenlightening. Key points for me;

    * No attempt to separate out obstacles to the goal of an independent Scotland and the worth of the goal itself. Is it a good idea? If it is, what are the things that stand in the way of it and how do we overcome them?

    * No attempt to make the case for the Union. I could make a good case for it, so this is mystifying.

    * Not enough clarity that we can and will use Sterling, but not necessarily in a currency union. We are not children. We are aware that the Isle of Man exists.

    * No mention at all of social class, which is the bedrock of all UK politics. Mystifying.

    * No mention of the Barnett formula or any other aspect of the UK's plans for the country over the coming years.

    * No mention of war. Preparation for, execution of and rebuilding after war are crucial components of the UK economy. Why was this not spoken of?

    I could go on. I will go on, but on doorsteps, not on a telescreen.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…575859…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin