Scotland - Political ramifications of YES win ??

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 10 Sep 2014, 8:21 am

First topic message reminder :

If momentum is anything to go by..Next week we'll see a Political earthquake...

What do you think happens for the British govt in the next few weeks should Scotland go...Personally can't see Cammy staying and can't see how it can wait till May for an election !!!

by Scrumpy Thu 11 Sep 2014, 3:11 pm

That's the problem isn't it, so much is still up in the air and will only be talked about after a Yes vote.

Big gamble imo and one which I wouldn't take no matter how much I hate the Effing Tories.

by LordDowlais Thu 11 Sep 2014, 3:22 pm

I know I was being a bit silly with things like Eastenders and Jeremy Kyle, but the notion is still there, Glasgow and Edinburgh are big cities with a lot of things to pay for, surely the oil cannot pay for it all.

by Brys Thu 11 Sep 2014, 3:23 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Brys wrote:Good to see RBS make a statement regarding there proposals under Independence and good for the Scottish economy that they are only considering moving their registered head office.

Not that good considering LBG (of whom RBS is essentially just a division) are moving lock stock and barrell south of the border.

That's interesting, as the only statement I've managed to find from LBG is the following.

"Lloyds Banking Group has seen an increased level of enquiries from our customers, colleagues and other stakeholders about our plans post the Scottish referendum.

"While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England. This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.

"There will be a period between the referendum and the implementation of separation, should a 'Yes' vote be successful, that we believe is sufficient to take any necessary action."

Which only suggests that much like RBS is considering shifting its registered head office that LBG has a contingency for new legal entities to move to London if they deem it necessary. In both companies cases the statements they have released are pretty much saying they don't plan to move any of their current business operations and really very few jobs will be effected. If you do have another source saying something different though I'd be glad to see it as I believe any decision should be made with as many sources of information as can be gathered before my brain explodes Smile

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 11 Sep 2014, 3:37 pm

SecretFly wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Your SOURCE please?

I take it that's confirmation you've never heard of a third person in the house on the night. Would that concern you? That an entire court proceeding could ignore the existence of a person in the very same house where the incident ocurred. If that happened in England or Ireland or Ameirca etc it would be classed a very problematic 'cover-up' of truth and prospective evidence.

So, even this morning, the Judge more than once asserted that her judgements needed to be made by looking exclusively at the evidence rather than witness statements from people who were not in the house at the time of the killing. She clearly highlighted the fact that the voices people heard coming from the house could only have come from one of the two people EXCLUSIVELY in the house at the time - Reeva and Pistorius. A judge, ignoring truth to pronounce on her reasons for coming to her conclusion.

Well, a third person did exist and the world's media have chosen to ignore him for some reason that I can't begin to fathom - there is no reason that would not even admit that he was there - even if by some legal requirement he was not asked or forced to testify.

Is the Telegraph a good enough source for you? Not the only one by the way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10809123/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Malawian-housekeeper-was-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html
Now, instead of trying to denigrate me... are you going to actually comment on the point I made that a third person was there and allegedly slept through the rumble upstairs that woke an entire neighbourhood...or that Pistorius decided to run onto a balcony to cry for help when there was help downstairs? And does not that truth not suggest the court session is unsatisfactory and that something ain't quite right about any of it.

Thank-you. Was that so difficult? I can't fathom why you didn't simply post the link when asked instead of trying to be clever about it. I'll assume the points mentioned in the Telegraph are above reproach and agree with you that's it's odd it wasn't a key part of the case. Why wouldn't I agree with that?

by TopHat24/7 Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:00 pm

Brys wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Brys wrote:Good to see RBS make a statement regarding there proposals under Independence and good for the Scottish economy that they are only considering moving their registered head office.

Not that good considering LBG (of whom RBS is essentially just a division) are moving lock stock and barrell south of the border.

That's interesting, as the only statement I've managed to find from LBG is the following.

"Lloyds Banking Group has seen an increased level of enquiries from our customers, colleagues and other stakeholders about our plans post the Scottish referendum.

"While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England. This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.

"There will be a period between the referendum and the implementation of separation, should a 'Yes' vote be successful, that we believe is sufficient to take any necessary action."

Which only suggests that much like RBS is considering shifting its registered head office that LBG has a contingency for new legal entities to move to London if they deem it necessary. In both companies cases the statements they have released are pretty much saying they don't plan to move any of their current business operations and really very few jobs will be effected. If you do have another source saying something different though I'd be glad to see it as I believe any decision should be made with as many sources of information as can be gathered before my brain explodes

Am just working off the stories as covered by the Time and DT. Don't have the original articles, mind.

"Banks may leave Scotland
11-09-2014 | 07:00 | Print
Lloyds Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland both said they would move their headquarters from Scotland to England if there is a vote for independence in next week’s referendum.

Clydesdale Bank also said it would move south in the event of a yes vote.

Times 1
Daily Telegraph 1."

by SecretFly Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:11 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:

Thank-you. Was that so difficult? I can't fathom why you didn't simply post the link when asked instead of trying to be clever about it.

No thankyou - for finally believeing me. I do have to tell you though just why I didn't simply post a link, navy.

1. Your request seemed like an order to me and I've always been useless with orders all through my life. I resist them with a vengence until they become requests with maybe a 'please' attached to them Wink

2. You also seemed to suggest that I was perhaps lying - that I couldn't back up my claim and therefore obviously couldn't find any ghost sources for a lie. (I never ever lie about detail that I claim to be fact because I'm all too much aware of how easy it is for anyone to find out the truth on the Interweb of Everything. So if I say something is true, it is true.
3. This bears a relationship to the second point: You asked for a 'source' and I always kinda laugh at that because when a person asks you for a source on a site such as this it's proof they have the same tools as you have- ie, web browser with search engine facilities. A simple "Pistorius - third person in house" would have uncovered for you the truth. Why should I do the work for people who don't want to believe me? I usually say let them work for themselves. They have the power to prove me wrong, let them do so.

Anyway. There you go. I guess if you knew me better (over on the rugby threads) you'd realise my style is to 'play' around with topics in a wordy sense. No offence intended - It's just who I am. Maybe I should realise I'm talking to people who are unfamiliar with my ways and maybe they think I'm angry and aggressive when I'm actually enjoying the twists and turns of a good debate.

by Brys Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:21 pm

Hmmm kinda strange statements by both papers since RBS have said jobs will stay in place only the registered head office address will change in their most recent statement. LBG is a funny one as I don't see why them moving headquarters is any sort of news story since their already headquartered in London. Unless they mean they'd be moving the Scottish headquarters south of the border but wouldn't that just mean they wouldn't have a registered Scottish headquarters.

Clydesdale is a funny one as they don't seem to have released any sort of statement regarding their plans its all a case of "reportedly" and there's nothing to say they won't follow the same route as the latest RBS/LBG statements. Where the banks might reshuffle a few things but jobs don't actually move and in the end its jobs that are the key here along with business activity.

It's a serious pain why newspapers can't give a fuller picture at times and you have to look at multiple sources to piece everything together. Now neither what the Time or DT have said is incorrect but it seems to me to be misleading as most people would take their comments as massive amounts of jobs would be relocated which doesn't seem to be the case at all.

by SecretFly Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:39 pm

Didn't Westminster get into a battle royal with companies like Google who have 'Headquarters' in Ireland but do a large amount of business in England? "Tut tut" was the frown on the forehead of the lady who chairs that MP committee (can't remember her name)

But now it's all anchors up with the expected mass company Headquarters desertion of Scotland for just South of the Border?

Hmmm, that lady will be pizzed, but this time she won't be so sure why she is. Wink

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:...2. You also seemed to suggest that I was perhaps lying - that I couldn't back up my claim and therefore obviously couldn't find any ghost sources for a lie. (I never ever lie about detail that I claim to be fact because I'm all too much aware of how easy it is for anyone to find out the truth on the Interweb of Everything. So if I say something is true, it is true.

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was asking you for a source and, no, I don't believe everything you say is true - I don't know you from Adam.

SecretFly wrote:...3. This bears a relationship to the second point: You asked for a 'source' and I always kinda laugh at that because when a person asks you for a source on a site such as this it's proof they have the same tools as you have- ie, web browser with search engine facilities. A simple "Pistorius - third person in house" would have uncovered for you the truth. Why should I do the work for people who don't want to believe me? I usually say let them work for themselves. They have the power to prove me wrong, let them do so.

You should do the work because it is you making the case. Pretty simple and generally normal practice.

SecretFly wrote:Anyway. There you go. I guess if you knew me better (over on the rugby threads) you'd realise my style is to 'play' around with topics in a wordy sense. No offence intended - It's just who I am. Maybe I should realise I'm talking to people who are unfamiliar with my ways and maybe they think I'm angry and aggressive when I'm actually enjoying the twists and turns of a good debate.

No worries. I can tell you enjoy playing wordsmith but many, I'm sure, would like it a bit clearer and without any (arguably unnecessary) cryptic allegories.

by Brys Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:47 pm

I'm not sure you can make a case for Westminster or any business thinking of moving its registered HQ to England doing what Google did. I mean Google were avoiding Corporation Tax by claiming its business down in the UK was actually done via Ireland. There's nothing to suggest that any of these business would try such a thing.

The whole HQ movement is very misleading though as Corporation Tax is based on profit activity within said country and not where your HQ is situated.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:49 pm

I sympathise Brys. I did hear something someone said re. banking law the other day though. Something about banks being required to be in the same country as the Lion's share of their customers. Could be balls though - any banking experts around?

If that recent Treasury 'source' is right, the banks legally registered in rUK will have to operate under regulations set by the BoE. A good thing for Scotland if they're catering for the rUK?

by SecretFly Thu 11 Sep 2014, 4:58 pm

Yes, I do like my cryptic allegories - guilty as charged.

And you don't have to believe everything I say it true, but to say so to my face is to call me a liar before you've proven I'm not.

The defendant sits in a box, he doesn't have to prove a thing or find evidence of his innocence. It is the prosecutor who must find the evidence to call him a liar Wink

Innocent until proven guilty.

Right on that last courtroom allusion I'm off to do some work! Enjoy the debate, folks.

by Brys Thu 11 Sep 2014, 5:10 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:I sympathise Brys. I did hear something someone said re. banking law the other day though. Something about banks being required to be in the same country as the Lion's share of their customers. Could be balls though - any banking experts around?

If that recent Treasury 'source' is right, the banks legally registered in rUK will have to operate under regulations set by the BoE. A good thing for Scotland if they're catering for the rUK?

I'm not a banking expert by any stretch, so I'm not entirely sure on that issue so can only go on the statements released which don't seem to indicate any real job loses but rather just a reshuffle of business structure mainly the holding/registered office for RBS and possibly legal sides for both if they need to. Which considering the situation is only prudent to have all options covered but doesn't means these actions will be taken.

Personally I can see why people would chose to vote no as it is indeed a step into the unknown and really there's no definitive answers since everyone involved is being so coy with there answers while they try to guess which way the wind is going to blow. I just feel the Better Together campaign have done a very poor job and seem to have fallen back on American style hyperbole and scare tactics in a lot of cases, quotes out of context or not the full picture in some cases. If I was a NO voter I'd feel disappointed in the campaign that's been put forward on their behalf but that's just me.

I'll need to look closer at the fact RBS would need to operate under BoE regulations, which I believe to be true but like any bank operating on foreign soil I'm not sure what the impact will be if any.

by **superflyweight** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 8:01 am

Brys wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:I sympathise Brys. I did hear something someone said re. banking law the other day though. Something about banks being required to be in the same country as the Lion's share of their customers. Could be balls though - any banking experts around?

If that recent Treasury 'source' is right, the banks legally registered in rUK will have to operate under regulations set by the BoE. A good thing for Scotland if they're catering for the rUK?

I'm not a banking expert by any stretch, so I'm not entirely sure on that issue so can only go on the statements released which don't seem to indicate any real job loses but rather just a reshuffle of business structure mainly the holding/registered office for RBS and possibly legal sides for both if they need to. Which considering the situation is only prudent to have all options covered but doesn't means these actions will be taken.

Personally I can see why people would chose to vote no as it is indeed a step into the unknown and really there's no definitive answers since everyone involved is being so coy with there answers while they try to guess which way the wind is going to blow. I just feel the Better Together campaign have done a very poor job and seem to have fallen back on American style hyperbole and scare tactics in a lot of cases, quotes out of context or not the full picture in some cases. If I was a NO voter I'd feel disappointed in the campaign that's been put forward on their behalf but that's just me.

I'll need to look closer at the fact RBS would need to operate under BoE regulations, which I believe to be true but like any bank operating on foreign soil I'm not sure what the impact will be if any.

As a 'No' voter, I think that is fair comment.

Equally though, if I was a 'Yes' voter I'd be disappointed at the frustrating lack of thought that appears to have been given to certain key issues by the leaders of the Yes campaign and the sheer inability to predict that those issues would create some (I hate to use the word) 'fear' amongst Scottish voters. E.G. telling people that we will keep the pound as part of a formal currency union is only half the battle - not one person from the Yes side has explained why that would be a good thing.

Given that the SNP have been campaigning on independence for a long time and have been a party of power for a number of years now, I'd like to have thought that they would have a much more coherent and cohesive vision for Independence. Their White Paper was a joke and the tone of their campaign shows that a lot of their thinking on the issues that really matter is being done on the hoof. The SNP's original vision for independence was dealt a massive blow by the collapse of the Euro Zone and they don't appear to have evolved the idea beyond an acknowledgement that the Euro is now not an attractive currency option. Given that the Euro Zone started to collapse a few years ago, they've had plenty of time to develop and present a viable alternative vision. The fact that they haven't demonstrates a remarkable lack of thought and foresight.

My frustration is that I do think Scotland could be a successful small country in its own right, but the Yes campaign has singularly failed to present a viable vision of how that success would come about and be sustained in the current economic and political climate.

by Scrumpy Fri 12 Sep 2014, 9:25 am

If Scotland does vote No, will Salmond & Co demand another vote in a few years time?

or will that be the end of the issue.

by **superflyweight** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 9:34 am

Won't be the end of it, but would imagine that it will take a number of years before there are serious shouts for another referendum.

Salmond will likely resign and the SNP will go through a period of flux during which it will have a tough fight to hold onto its majority control of the Scottish parliament. Without that majority control, the mandate to push for independence will essentially be non-existent.

by Scrumpy Fri 12 Sep 2014, 9:41 am

Salmond won't resign, he loves the attention.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:05 am

Yougov gone from 51-49 - Yes.........to...........48 -52............As of yesterday..

Comres phone poll .............. 33 Yes.............67 No.........

Yes Problem seems to be (like The Conservative Party) with Women .......

Yougov - Do you trust Alex salmond ??
--------

Women - Yes 26% .....No 43% DK - 23% ...

NO has the MO

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:15 am

Oh Dear..... oh dear, oh dear............................. what was that last night? George Galloway, in his pseudo modernist twist on Al Capone, bleating his passion through those beady firey eyes of his.

As he ranted and raved at every opportunity, I felt genuinely a sizeable number of the English audience tuning in were probably turning uncomfortably in their chairs and thinking thoughts of: "With friends like him, who needs enemies?".

He didn't so much plead for Scots to disown the Independence agenda (perfectly normal and acceptable), he actually wanted them to choose the Union of Socialist Labour Republics instead! It was never about Scotland alone or together for him, he was simply on the platform to fight for Socialist Labour Ideals. Vote Labour!!!!!!!!!!! seemed to be his bugle call. Vote Workers!!!!!!!! Vote Red (like my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!) That's a Union ideal? - Mr Fire'n'Brimstone Galloway?

And, as he talked so wholesomely about the ideals of Better Together, he forgot that he regularly pops up on RT (Russia Today) - a propaganda mouthpiece for Russia and its Better Apart plans for Eastern Ukraine. So George wants Scotland to remain part of the UK but he doesn't mind rubber stamping Russian policy on the division of Ukraine?

Nice ideals....floating ideals...go with the flow ideals. So - Vote NO and be ready for George's Revolution of a perfect brand of Socialist Communist Labourism - you know it makes sense Wink

.

by incontinentia Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:35 am

No chance it'll be a Yes vote, not as long as the powers that be disapprove of it. Just look at us in Ireland, voting no to the Lisbon and Nice treaties before being asked to have another go at it and hey presto! Its a yes the second time!!

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:38 am

Galloway is too compromised for all he's often an excellent speaker. Not sure why he was there for the Union last night - he's a Scot and used to be a MP for some part of Glasgow?

I'm still hoping for a 'no' which then drives some major changes in UK politics inc. devolved powers to regions etc.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:39 am

incontinentia wrote:No chance it'll be a Yes vote, not as long as the powers that be disapprove of it. Just look at us in Ireland, voting no to the Lisbon and Nice treaties before being asked to have another go at it and hey presto! Its a yes the second time!!

What happened in Ireland over that was the most laughable, ridiculous thing ever. "How dare you vote 'no'??? Don't you know who we are??? How dare you ruin everything?? Ah well, we'll just ignore the will of the Irish people. Go and do it again!"

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 10:53 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
incontinentia wrote:No chance it'll be a Yes vote, not as long as the powers that be disapprove of it. Just look at us in Ireland, voting no to the Lisbon and Nice treaties before being asked to have another go at it and hey presto! Its a yes the second time!!
What happened in Ireland over that was the most laughable, ridiculous thing ever. "How dare you vote 'no'??? Don't you know who we are??? How dare you ruin everything?? Ah well, we'll just ignore the will of the Irish people. Go and do it again!"

Thus why the Conservatives/UKIP are totally correct about the EU and right to have an opt-out referendum (IF they go through with it!)
I despise the gowing autocratic, dictatorist Empire that is growing in Europe around this nice, friendly square-bananaed partnership EU publicity stunt cover-image. When 'NO' becomes a perfectly legal vote that quickly requires to be retaken so that a perfect 'YES' take its place, then you know you're on a very dangerous road to somewhere you don't want to be.
There should have been uproar from the International community of UN legitimate-poll watchers. They should have protected the concept of 'NO' being the legitimate answer given. But no, they sat back and laughed - "sure it's the EU - everything is fine there, they're civilised. Ireland's only little, so the EU fixed a YES vote, no big deal"

by Scrumpy Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:05 am

Why the hat George?

Also why was the audience all kids who should have been tucked up in bed.

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:20 am

Scrumpy wrote:Why the hat George?

Also why was the audience all kids who should have been tucked up in bed.

Be happy Scrumpy - even with George and his hat and his cowboy boots and his Bond villain glare............... even with all that, I think most of the kids who should have been in bed seemed willing to vote NO in the referendum, going on the cheerometer anyway. So rest easy - those kids are UK's future Wink

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:32 am

SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Why the hat George?

Also why was the audience all kids who should have been tucked up in bed.

Be happy Scrumpy - even with George and his hat and his cowboy boots and his Bond villain glare............... even with all that, I think most of the kids who should have been in bed seemed willing to vote NO in the referendum, going on the cheerometer anyway. So rest easy - those kids are UK's future

That's interesting don't you think? I can't imagine Salmond etc gave them the vote in this if they didn't think it'd help the 'yes' campaign and yet it seems as if that age group is tending the other way.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:45 am

25-39 is the only age group that has more Yes than No...In yougov's polling.

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:49 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Why the hat George?

Also why was the audience all kids who should have been tucked up in bed.

Be happy Scrumpy - even with George and his hat and his cowboy boots and his Bond villain glare............... even with all that, I think most of the kids who should have been in bed seemed willing to vote NO in the referendum, going on the cheerometer anyway. So rest easy - those kids are UK's future
That's interesting don't you think? I can't imagine Salmond etc gave them the vote in this if they didn't think it'd help the 'yes' campaign and yet it seems as if that age group is tending the other way.

It's not interesting...it's downright soul destroying!!!!!!!!!!!! Wink

The end to a perfect plan and all because of those meddling kids!!!

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 11:54 am

On a more serious note about the kids...just a note of caution. Most of the kids that seemed to speak were well spoken, wanted to ask questions and seemed well informed (at least about the general ideas of the debate).

But there are other kinds of kids. Scampering kids, truancy kids, play acting kids, devil-may-care-not-into-politics-or-education-and-things kids...who probably weren't there on the night, certainly didn't speak on the night ("Me talk on camera about politics?? Man, you must be jokin'") but who might vote on the day and have more emotional triggers for their choices than 'free education'.

by Scrumpy Fri 12 Sep 2014, 12:14 pm

Just read this on the BBC

"There will be no currency union. If there is a 'Yes' vote, Scots must be prepared for cuts to public services including the NHS and the BBC; higher taxes, higher mortgage and interest rates, higher prices in the shops, VAT where there is none at present; border controls, endless hassle for at least a decade as systems are realigned and duplicated, fewer opportunities, reduced influence and security. In the words of John McEnroe: 'you cannot be serious'."

Sounds like a really good deal!

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 12:23 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Just read this on the BBC

"There will be no currency union. If there is a 'Yes' vote, Scots must be prepared for cuts to public services including the NHS and the BBC; higher taxes, higher mortgage and interest rates, higher prices in the shops, VAT where there is none at present; border controls, endless hassle for at least a decade as systems are realigned and duplicated, fewer opportunities, reduced influence and security. In the words of John McEnroe: 'you cannot be serious'."

Sounds like a really good deal!

And none of this realignment will negatively impact on England itself or the perceived attractiveness of it to its trading partners/investors?
"Opps, don't go there, it's in realignment nightmare mode with its new neighbour.... the clouds are always black there, there is no confidence in either Scotland or England, everyone is depressed, let's take our investment money elsewhere until it all calms down in 50 years time"

That really is a nightmare scenario painted above by your quote...England itself can't allow that to happen - gloom feeds on gloom and all of a sudden, the entire island is in gloom - the ones with no hardball cards to play and the ones with the hardball cards.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 12:30 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Just read this on the BBC

"There will be no currency union. If there is a 'Yes' vote, Scots must be prepared for cuts to public services including the NHS and the BBC; higher taxes, higher mortgage and interest rates, higher prices in the shops, VAT where there is none at present; border controls, endless hassle for at least a decade as systems are realigned and duplicated, fewer opportunities, reduced influence and security. In the words of John McEnroe: 'you cannot be serious'."

Sounds like a really good deal!

To be fair, that was only someone texting the BBC to comment. However, none of that has been addressed in depth by the SNP has it?

SecretFly wrote:And none of this realignment will negatively impact on England itself or the perceived attractiveness of it to its trading partners/investors?
"Opps, don't go there, it's in realignment nightmare mode with its new neighbour.... the clouds are always black there, there is no confidence in either Scotland or England, everyone is depressed, let's take our investment money elsewhere until it all calms down in 50 years time"

That really is a nightmare scenario painted above by your quote...England itself can't allow that to happen - gloom feeds on gloom and all of a sudden, the entire island is in gloom - the ones with no hardball cards to play and the ones with the hardball cards.

Of course. That's one of the reasons so many think this is idiotic and all because Salmond wants some ephemeral historical glory. Way to go Alex.

by **superflyweight** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 12:36 pm

In event of Yes vote, the SNP will be in power in the aftermath of a vote for independence and is essentially a centre-right party. Its basic economic policy is to cut corporation tax 3% below the British rate. They'll do that by slashing the revenues for public services and pensions in the process. The SNP also opposed a 50% top rate of tax, bankers’ bonus tax or mansion tax, while pledging deregulation and cuts in red tape.”

Hardly the socialist utopia being promised by Salmond and Sturgeon.

by SecretFly Fri 12 Sep 2014, 12:41 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
SecretFly wrote:And none of this realignment will negatively impact on England itself or the perceived attractiveness of it to its trading partners/investors?
"Opps, don't go there, it's in realignment nightmare mode with its new neighbour.... the clouds are always black there, there is no confidence in either Scotland or England, everyone is depressed, let's take our investment money elsewhere until it all calms down in 50 years time"

That really is a nightmare scenario painted above by your quote...England itself can't allow that to happen - gloom feeds on gloom and all of a sudden, the entire island is in gloom - the ones with no hardball cards to play and the ones with the hardball cards.
Of course. That's one of the reasons so many think this is idiotic and all because Salmond wants some ephemeral historical glory. Way to go Alex.

But that's not the way it's been publicised. It's being carried as a threat to Scotland alone. "THIS is the price you'll pay if you decide to go it alone." But no, it's the price Everyone will pay IF England decide to play hardball should Scotland vote YES.

The nightmare scenario is in England's hands if they choose to engage Nightmare mode. But if they do so out of anger - on the spur of a moment - then let it just be known, accepted and acknowledged - in public - that the pain of hardball will hit everyone and will be counterproductive for all.

So - the ball - hard or soft - is truly with England if Scotland vote YES. But to use the doomsday scenario as a threat to Scotland alone is to bluff over the huge negative implications for England itself if they carry out all threats (veto Scottish EU membership, veto Scottish NATO membership, refuse North Sea Oil, no currency union etc etc.)

by TopHat24/7 Fri 12 Sep 2014, 2:46 pm

Bet if you split voters into two pools - rugby & football, you'd see marked differences in the polling too.

Also, a lot of this chatter about Yes screwing rUK as much if not more so than Scotland is baloney.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 4:13 pm

SecretFly wrote:But that's not the way it's been publicised. It's being carried as a threat to Scotland alone. "THIS is the price you'll pay if you decide to go it alone." But no, it's the price Everyone will pay IF England decide to play hardball should Scotland vote YES....

Not entirely true. The potential consequences for rUK have been talked about but, I agree, nowhere near as much - but then that's hardly surprising.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 4:15 pm

Whoops! Jim Sillars appears to have made a little faux pas:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/day-of-reckoning-post-yes-vote-says-jim-sillars-1-3539754

I wonder how that'll play? Salmond must be livid. Shame.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 12 Sep 2014, 8:44 pm

Ouch! Seriously? They're willing to risk this (below), all for Salmond's hubris?

https://neo.ubs.com/shared/d1rJk317vl

by Sponsored content