Indy Ref

by **Notch** Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:09 pm

First topic message reminder :

George Carlin wrote: v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).

If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.

It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:

1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?

2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.

If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.

What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.

Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

by Sin é Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:59 am

GLove39 wrote:Well over 200 people so far have spoiled their votes by putting a cross in each box

Over on Munsterfans, a poster who lives in Scotland and had a vote said he spoiled his vote as he felt it wasn't for him to decide the future of Scotland as he would only be there for a few years.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:02 am

I personally think Salmond should resign in favour of the Sturge to take over. She's extremely competent and would in my view do a better job of pushing for further powers. I think Salmond is just too divisive a figure in Scotland.

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:05 am

I personally can't stand them both, but I feel the need to punch someone in the face much more when I hear Salmond speak. And to be fair, a lot of my dislike of Sturgeon is an irrational hatred of her hair.

One person I have been impressed with during this whole process is Ruth Davidson - she has been excellent in any debate I've seen.

She is automatically handicapped in Scotland however by being the Tory leader.

by Sin é Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:10 am

You would be crazy to get rid of Salmond - best negotiatiator you have.

I'm not at all surprised at the result. Democracy is great - people always get the government they deserve.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:12 am

I think Kezia Dugdale will ultimately succeed Lamont. She was very impressive during the debates etc. and has good political instincts.

I don't like the Sturge's position on independence, but now that the risk of separation has gone, I think she's the right person to take over as First Minister until the next election (when Dugdale and Labour can take over).

I also rate Ruth Davidson as a speaker and a politician, but sadly she's on the dark side.

by Majestic83 Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:13 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:I personally can't stand them both, but I feel the need to punch someone in the face much more when I hear Salmond speak. And to be fair, a lot of my dislike of Sturgeon is an irrational hatred of her hair.

One person I have been impressed with during this whole process is Ruth Davidson - she has been excellent in any debate I've seen.

She is automatically handicapped in Scotland however by being the Tory leader.

Agreed about Ruth Davidson, she has been articulate and kept her cool in the debates i have seen despite being shouted and heckled by the opposition.
Her only downfall is that she is a tory!

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:14 am

I suppose that's another positive side of this referendum - the other party leaders in Scotland are a lot more prominent in the public eye.

One of the reasons we got in this sorry mess in the last Scottish election is that most people didn't know who the other part leaders were, never mind deciding to vote for them!

by **BigGee** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:16 am

I am just happy to be still Brittish and Scottish this morning, which at one point about a week or so ago, I actually thought was starting to slip away. Looking into the abys, I did not like what I saw and I am very glad that I have not had to face up to my fears of how that would make me feel.

I am glad as well that we can now all get back to what we like doing best of all, which is talking about rugby and in particular supporting Scotland, Glasgow and I guess Edinburgh as well!

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:18 am

Sin é wrote:You would be crazy to get rid of Salmond - best negotiatiator you have.

He is good, no question, but we need to move away from his divisive politics now. Even in his concession speech he still had to take a cheap shot at Westminster. Had Scotland taken the daft decision to vote Yes, then Salmond would have been the right man to lead the negotiations against Westminster, but he splits opinion right down the middle in Scotland on a personal level (thus the constant references he made in the debates to a vote for Yes not necessarily being a vote for Salmond), and right now in Scotland we need to quickly move away from the black and white nature of the referendum and back towards consensual politics. Granted that the Sturge was particularly feisty during the ref process, but she was also very able and fights her corner with both passion and clarity.

by beshocked Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:22 am

SecretFly wrote:This ridiculous bull that goes on about Andy Murray declaring he wanted a YES - brought up now on Scottish TV when they should be getting on with the detailed voting chat.

He seems to have committed sacriliege by giving his opinion and not staying quiet like the Queen. Even the Queen didn't stay quiet. Many celebrities and sports people have declared their decisions, what's so special about Murray that he was pressurised into holding his tongue. He had his aspirations and he admitted to them. His right.

Celebrities and sports people are entitled to their opinion but if then they will have to expect the backlash if people from the general public disagree.

I won't support someone who doesn't support the Union - Andy Murray now fits into that category. I doubt Murray will care about that and he shouldn't but he must acknowledge that if he takes a certain stance it might put people off him. Doesn't mean I hate him - it's brave of him to do this but in my opinion it's foolish - irrelevant whether he supported union or not - he was going to disappoint people with his stance.

I am disappointed because he lives in Surrey, has an English girlfriend yet doesn't seem to respect the Union. Seems a bit contradictory to me!

Personally in his scenario I would have said the wisest thing to do would be to not make his opinion on this topic public.

If a sportsperson does something stupid they should expect a negative feeling.

by **Notch** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:22 am

Nicola Sturgeon would be a good choice for next leader of the SNP, Gordon Brown would do well returning to front bench politics as the leader of Scottish Labour.

They'll need that strong leadership to stand up to what is to come.

by LordDowlais Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:29 am

Notch wrote:Nicola Sturgeon would be a good choice for next leader of the SNP, Gordon Brown would do well returning to front bench politics as the leader of Scottish Labour.
They'll need that strong leadership to stand up to what is to come.

My opinion of that man has changed ten fold since I have seen what he is capable of when he put's his heart and soul into something, I only wish he could have been a bit more like that when he was PM.

by **Notch** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:30 am

Let's face it beshocked, you probably weren't that crazy about Andy Murray before this either.

by whocares Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:34 am

I would like to take the opportunity (before this thread close) to thanks all posters and specially the Scottish ones for keeping this debate lively, interesting and also well behaved. I learnt a lot during those last couple of weeks and generally speaking this referendum had the merit to put Scotland on the world news a bit more regulalrly.

Alba gu brath (hope it's the right one)

by Sin é Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:37 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Sin é wrote:You would be crazy to get rid of Salmond - best negotiatiator you have.

He is good, no question, but we need to move away from his divisive politics now. Even in his concession speech he still had to take a cheap shot at Westminster. Had Scotland taken the daft decision to vote Yes, then Salmond would have been the right man to lead the negotiations against Westminster, but he splits opinion right down the middle in Scotland on a personal level (thus the constant references he made in the debates to a vote for Yes not necessarily being a vote for Salmond), and right now in Scotland we need to quickly move away from the black and white nature of the referendum and back towards consensual politics. Granted that the Sturge was particularly feisty during the ref process, but she was also very able and fights her corner with both passion and clarity.

Jesus, man you won. That referendum was democracy in action. It could not have been more undevisive. Its because of Salmond Scotland will benefit greatley. Show a little gratitude to the man who made that happen.

I can't help but think of this poem by Yeats when I think of Scotland after that vote and how it was all about the economy.

September 1913

What need you being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till,
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone?
For men were born to pray and save:
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Yet they were of a different kind,
The names that stilled your childish play,
They have gone about the world like wind,
But little time had they to pray
For whom the hangman's rope was spun,
And what, God help us, could they save?
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Was it for this the wild geese spread
They grey wing upon every tide;
For this that all the blood was shed,
For this Edward Fitzgerald died,
And Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone,
All that delirium of the brave?
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Yet could we turn the years again,
And call those exiles as they were
In all their loneliness and pain,
You'd cry, "Some woman's yellow hair
Has maddened every mother's son":
They weighed so lightly what they gave
But let them be they're dead and gone,
They're with O'Leary in the grave.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:45 am

Sin é wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Sin é wrote:You would be crazy to get rid of Salmond - best negotiatiator you have.

He is good, no question, but we need to move away from his divisive politics now. Even in his concession speech he still had to take a cheap shot at Westminster. Had Scotland taken the daft decision to vote Yes, then Salmond would have been the right man to lead the negotiations against Westminster, but he splits opinion right down the middle in Scotland on a personal level (thus the constant references he made in the debates to a vote for Yes not necessarily being a vote for Salmond), and right now in Scotland we need to quickly move away from the black and white nature of the referendum and back towards consensual politics. Granted that the Sturge was particularly feisty during the ref process, but she was also very able and fights her corner with both passion and clarity.

Jesus, man you won. That referendum was democracy in action. It could not have been more undevisive. Its because of Salmond Scotland will benefit greatley. Show a little gratitude to the man who made that happen.

That's just wrong. You clearly do not live in Scotland.

Loved the poem though.

by beshocked Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:46 am

Notch you are right.

Not been crazy about Murray as an individual tennis player - he's not the most charismatic chap in front of the camera. His style of play is good (has the tendency to go into his shell a bit) but no one compares to the grace and skill of Federer. Murray Doesn't do well in the likeability stakes.

Tennis is more about the individual anyway but when Murray got close to winning Wimbledon (2012) and he cried I felt for him - it was the first time he showed true emotion in front of the camera in my opinion. Then there was the Olympics where he represented GB - he really got the crowd going. I thought his doubles run with Laura Robson was great - he seemed to loosen up a bit.

When he won Wimbledon I was really pleased for him - I wanted him to win.

Saying that Murray has never truly won me over though and this latest stance doesn't help.

It's not because he is Scottish - Duncan Taylor and Kelly Brown are two really likeable down to earth chaps in the Saracens squad. Admittedly I have met them in person which helps.

My favourite player has always been Roger Federer. He's got style,class,consistency and skill. People call him arrogant - of course he is - no wonder when he's arguably the greatest tennis player of all time.

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:47 am

I was also surprised by Andy's comments. He's not the typical profile of pro interdependence - choses to live in England, English partner, had overwhelming support from all of Britain in his tennis career.

He's worked very hard to enhance his reputation down south, and I can't help but think he's tarnished that slightly (rightly or wrongly).

I actually thought his account had been hacked - it didn't sound like something he would write!

by Jimpy Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:47 am

It's been a lively, informative and at times heated, debate. But it's brought the best out of people on here (and I very much count myself there). Its a pity that key politicians weren't part of it, they would have learnt a lot.

Thankyou Scotland for making the right decision, and thanks guys for a super debate.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:52 am

I wasn't surprised by Murray supporting the separatists but I was surprised about the timing, which was clearly designed to have some impact on voting day (although the media couldn't really report it). What was awful though were the trolls that then attacked him for it. I don't mean those expressing disagreement with his decision or his position, but the very nasty and personal attacks.

by beshocked Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:12 am

RDW Scotland completely agree.

FES I agree about the timing - seems a bit cynical.

As short sighted and foolish I felt Murray's decision was to comment on Scottish independence,I agree he shouldn't be personally attacked - it's not as if he verbally abused his fans. He just gave his personal opinion on a topic close to his heart. We can show our disapproval in less aggressive ways like simply not supporting him in his next major tournament.

by Sin é Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:19 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:

That's just wrong. You clearly do not live in Scotland.

Loved the poem though.

You clearly have no experience of what a divisive campaign is. All the Irish journalists covering the referendum are all saying how wonderful the whole thing is. Some saying it was one of the great experiences of democracy in action.

Daire O'Brien, responding to comments on twitter about divisiveness etc. in the debate, said that when it happened in Ireland, his granny had to hide in the ditch from the British.

You think its all over now, but England has to keep its promises. What will be devisive will be the question over the membership of the EU and of course it will be English voters that decide that one, not Scottish.

by lostinwales Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:25 am

RDW_Scotland wrote:I was also surprised by Andy's comments. He's not the typical profile of pro interdependence - choses to live in England, English partner, had overwhelming support from all of Britain in his tennis career.

He's worked very hard to enhance his reputation down south, and I can't help but think he's tarnished that slightly (rightly or wrongly).

I actually thought his account had been hacked - it didn't sound like something he would write!

He is not exactly the first scot living abroad to have a strong opinion on what happens in his homeland.

As for the future I cant argue against a more federal state. I do however worry over the potential rush to placate the minority over the wishes of the majority.

by ME-109 Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:26 am

Lets see if the only outcome is that Andy Murray as a Scottish person indicated a preference for independence is the most divisive thing then you're not doing too bad. At least these days we only have to worry about what Rory Mc is going to do and nobody is throwing petrol bombs about it.

Anyhow. Salmond will/should stick around and will negotiate the best deal for Scotland and will then go before the next election (or soon after it).

by beshocked Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:30 am

Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

by SecretFly Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:50 am

beshocked wrote:

If a sportsperson does something stupid they should expect a negative feeling.

Sorry folks. I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date...but I was up late so that's an excuse.

Beshocked? Will you take a break from the National Front lingo stuff - the Union Flag was soiled by Murray saying he's a patriotic Scot?

Who are you to say declaring he wanted Independence for the country he was born in is 'stupid' - or that the actual declaration of it in public was 'stupid'. He expressed his view as Alex Salmond did, as David Cameron did, as Obama did, as the Queen ever so slyly did, as you did, as I did, as JK Rowling did, as Rory Bremner did.
None of them or you, or I, have more rights to express a view than he does. You say he should expect the backlash because he didn't do the 'wisest thing' and shut up, as if to say 'now he'll suffer the consequences'. Nice live-and-let-live attitude you have there. It bodes well for the 'peace' talks to follow in the political sphere.
BTW, you live in a big Nation - with lots of people living and working in it - with many peoples from all corners of the world, with citizens of other parts of the world...some of them even have English wives...and - wait for it - English buddies!. You seriously think each and every one of those people natually 'support the Union'. Big country - many opinions.... and not just in Scotland.

by Jimpy Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:56 am

beshocked wrote:Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

Actually, the biggest winners politically are the Tories, as Labour's majority in Scotland is evapourating fast over the stance Milliband has taken. In fact, most political pundits are suggesting that Labour will not form a credible opposition to tory rule fo the forseeable future. Cameron can rightly point out that he pretty much left Scotland to get on with it, and offered concessions that Tory voters and former Labour voters in Scotland will give him so that he can make good his promises. If they vote Labour at the next general election, they know that Milliband wont be delivering.

Bloody good job as well.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:58 am

lostinwales wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:I was also surprised by Andy's comments. He's not the typical profile of pro interdependence - choses to live in England, English partner, had overwhelming support from all of Britain in his tennis career.

He's worked very hard to enhance his reputation down south, and I can't help but think he's tarnished that slightly (rightly or wrongly).

I actually thought his account had been hacked - it didn't sound like something he would write!

He is not exactly the first scot living abroad to have a strong opinion on what happens in his homeland.

As for the future I cant argue against a more federal state. I do however worry over the potential rush to placate the minority over the wishes of the majority.

I respect that Andy as a Scot abroad should also have a voice but his timing was terrible.... and if I had thought he was more intelligent than he perhaps is, I'd say it was done so it maximise its impact.

One thing that strikes me though. He wanted an independent Scotland... he is beyond wealthy enough and given he lives in Surrey and Florida I can't imagine he's particularly worried about social inequalities in the nation too much (he has never seemed to be that sort of passionate space cadet, working with charities endlessly). Therefore from my view he wanted an independent Scotland because he probably feels dis-associated with the rUK (which is perfectly fine to feel in such a way). If so then why want to still play Davis Cup? Why want to represent a country which 95% of you feel is not your nation? Is it purely because YOU want to play davis cup and given Scotland doesn't have a side you have no choice?

That's not exactly a good reason now is it.

Similar to all those SH chaps who end up playing for the home nations... do we really want guys playing for our nations who have no sense of attachment to the country and are primarily doing it for prestige/money.
Davis Cup is unpaid from what I know and it does interfere with a singles career so if he wants to play I accept that and the sacrifice he makes (esp. given he plays 3 games due to lack of talent amongst the rest of GB).... but I simply think its a bizarre reason and frankly I probably would rather he didn't continue.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:03 pm

Sin é wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:

That's just wrong. You clearly do not live in Scotland.

Loved the poem though.

You clearly have no experience of what a divisive campaign is. All the Irish journalists covering the referendum are all saying how wonderful the whole thing is. Some saying it was one of the great experiences of democracy in action.

Daire O'Brien, responding to comments on twitter about divisiveness etc. in the debate, said that when it happened in Ireland, his granny had to hide in the ditch from the British.

You think its all over now, but England has to keep its promises. What will be devisive will be the question over the membership of the EU and of course it will be English voters that decide that one, not Scottish.

Just because our referendum doesn't reach the extremely high standards of divisiveness and violence set by the Irish (and British) in the Irish struggle for independence, does not mean that it wasn't divisive. Believe me, this referendum has created serious divisions in communities in Scotland and we need to move on from that.

As for the EU referendum which is proposed currently by the Coalition Government, I fully hope that the UK votes to stay in the EU, but nevertheless what is being promised is a referendum, and the action taken will be the action decided upon by the UK. Each person in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have a vote, and we will decide the outcome together as a union (which Scotland has just firmly declared its intention to remain part of). Saying that "English" voters decide the outcome misunderstands democracy. You've been listening to the separatist spin machine for too long!

It also isn't "England" that has to keep its promises, it is the major parties of the United Kingdom that must do that. Those parties include MPs based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:04 pm

I suspect he's going to follow up with something 'clarifying' his position.

I'm sure his PR people will be working on something.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:04 pm

Jimpy wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

Actually, the biggest winners politically are the Tories, as Labour's majority in Scotland is evapourating fast over the stance Milliband has taken. In fact, most political pundits are suggesting that Labour will not form a credible opposition to tory rule fo the forseeable future.

Bloody good job as well.

I think the SNP have shown a lot of weakness. Salmond has shown a darker side, a win at all costs stance and lets be honest, an attempt to lie/patch over MAJOR MAJOR issues which would have seriously negative impacts on the health, economic well-being and social structure of the nation.... all in the name of so called genuine independence.

I would imagine Salmond will get voted out in the next parliament, Scottish Labour will go back to the front (perhaps a Lib-Lab Coalition) and Sturgeon will go to the front of the SNP... to slowly, ever so slowly get less influential as time goes on.

Can't see how the tories lost big time, you can't get much worse than the tories in Scotland already. Everyone said if Cameron went up he would destroy the NO campaign. Nothing of the sort and in fact it probably hardened the approach for the Scottish people to know a) how serious this was and b) how much he personally cared (probably due to his job being on the line mind).

by Sin é Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:07 pm

beshocked wrote:Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

They would want and expect England to keep their promises about transferring more power to the Scottish parliament.

The vote was close enough - 45% of Scottish people voted for it. You just can't dismiss them like that.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:08 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Sin é wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:

That's just wrong. You clearly do not live in Scotland.

Loved the poem though.

You clearly have no experience of what a divisive campaign is. All the Irish journalists covering the referendum are all saying how wonderful the whole thing is. Some saying it was one of the great experiences of democracy in action.

Daire O'Brien, responding to comments on twitter about divisiveness etc. in the debate, said that when it happened in Ireland, his granny had to hide in the ditch from the British.

You think its all over now, but England has to keep its promises. What will be devisive will be the question over the membership of the EU and of course it will be English voters that decide that one, not Scottish.

Just because our referendum doesn't reach the extremely high standards of divisiveness and violence set by the Irish (and British) in the Irish struggle for independence, does not mean that it wasn't divisive. Believe me, this referendum has created serious divisions in communities in Scotland and we need to move on from that.

As for the EU referendum which is proposed currently by the Coalition Government, I fully hope that the UK votes to stay in the EU, but nevertheless what is being promised is a referendum, and the action taken will be the action decided upon by the UK. Each person in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have a vote, and we will decide the outcome together as a union (which Scotland has just firmly declared its intention to remain part of). Saying that "English" voters decide the outcome misunderstands democracy. You've been listening to the separatist spin machine for too long!

It also isn't "England" that has to keep its promises, it is the major parties of the United Kingdom that must do that. Those parties include MPs based in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

Its not the old days when a british bobby would crack the side of someone's head if they even looked them in the eye. Ok, in pockets yes but still the SNP "rent a mob" ala the ANC is South Africa seemed to be in full force and the 75yr old blind man who was punched to the ground by some young youths is just one example of what we were up against here.

by beshocked Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:10 pm

National front lingo?

Perhaps you could stop with the Irish jingoistic rubbish?

There is a difference between having a right to an opinion and agreeing with it.

If you started abusing your employer do you think they would be happy about that?

Murray lives in Surrey, he has an English girlfriend, he gets a lot of British support - he has a lot to thank the Union for - do I think he's a bit ungrateful? Yes I do - just like Sean Connery who made his career from James Bond.

I am not going to Murray's house in Surrey to throw rotten eggs or hurl abuse at him but I am entitled to call his decision foolish. It's my opinion - saying that means I am part of the National front is insulting.

As for JK Rowling for example - she should accept that some people might boycott her books because of her stand point. You might think that is ridiculous but they are entitled to their viewpoint just as she is.

Both JK Rowling and Murray are rich and famous people - I am hardly feel sympathy that their view points are highly anticipated. We, the general public have helped them get rich and famous.

You expect that someone can shake the boat and others not to approve?

Some people seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too!

You encourage division yet complain when people are annoyed about that division!

I ultimately support unity.

National front is a division in itself. I certainly don't agree with them.

by lostinwales Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:11 pm

Sin é wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

They would want and expect England to keep their promises about transferring more power to the Scottish parliament.

The vote was close enough - 45% of Scottish people voted for it. You just can't dismiss them like that.

And 55% voted against it. The danger is dismissing the 55% because they dont fit with your world view

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:11 pm

Regarding the transfer of powers, so far so good I'd say. Did you listen to the speech by Cameron this morning, and the comments from Clegg, Darling and Alexander. There has been an instant recognition from the United Kingdom government that the promises made for additional powers must be upheld, and a committee already established to put forward a proposal.

Looks like the Scottish people are going to get exactly what they voted for. No independence, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament. An ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pleased that the Coalition Government did not ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and England in the announcement either. Decentralisation of power is essential and it should be implemented in a sensible manner across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in Scotland.

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:17 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Regarding the transfer of powers, so far so good I'd say. Did you listen to the speech by Cameron this morning, and the comments from Clegg, Darling and Alexander. There has been an instant recognition from the United Kingdom government that the promises made for additional powers must be upheld, and a committee already established to put forward a proposal.

Looks like the Scottish people are going to get exactly what they voted for. No independence, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament. An ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pleased that the Coalition Government did not ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and England in the announcement either. Decentralisation of power is essential and it should be implemented in a sensible manner across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in Scotland.

This is the key point for me. I'd be concerned if the SNP whipped their supporters into a frenzy of demanding instant devolution and extra powers. This is where social unrest and breakaway movements come in. I have already 'unfriended' a few people on Facebook this morning for their ridiculous comments. It sounds like a trivial point but could lead to something if we're not all sensible about this.

This is a complicated issue and one that needs to be properly planned and agreed. We are after all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the whole point is that we are essentially a collective body. How we then split up responsibility - yet keep our unity - is a very important issue that will affect generations to come.

by Jimpy Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:18 pm

beshocked wrote:National front lingo?

Perhaps you could stop with the Irish jingoistic rubbish?

There is a difference between having a right to an opinion and agreeing with it.

If you started abusing your employer do you think they would be happy about that?

Murray lives in Surrey, he has an English girlfriend, he gets a lot of British support - he has a lot to thank the Union for - do I think he's a bit ungrateful? Yes I do - just like Sean Connery who made his career from James Bond.

I am not going to Murray's house in Surrey to throw rotten eggs or hurl abuse at him but I am entitled to call his decision foolish. It's my opinion - saying that means I am part of the National front is insulting.

As for JK Rowling for example - she should accept that some people might boycott her books because of her stand point. You might think that is ridiculous but they are entitled to their viewpoint just as she is.

Both JK Rowling and Murray are rich and famous people - I am hardly feel sympathy that their view points are highly anticipated. We, the general public have helped them get rich and famous.

You expect that someone can shake the boat and others not to approve?

Some people seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too!

You encourage division yet complain when people are annoyed about that division!

I ultimately support unity.

National front is a division in itself. I certainly don't agree with them.

There isn't such a party as the National Front anymore. They were superceded by the more 'moderate' BNP. The danger is now that the referendum in Scotland bolsters support for its ranks, as the mantra will be, 'well Scotland had their referendum, now we want ours, we want a more 'English' England'. The move towards a devolved Westminster and a more federal UK falls right into the hands of the BNP ilk.

Okay that's a bit extreme, but support for the far right has been steadily growing, UKIP have seen big gains, and with Labour effectively off the political map now, parties like the BNP can and will profit.

So don't be totally dissasociating yourself from them, you may well be backing the winning side within 20 or so years.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:24 pm

Sin é wrote:
beshocked wrote:Sin e Scotland got their referendum - what more do they want? Greed is at the heart of it all.

Salmond is one crafty negotiator (when I say negotiate it's not really negotiation - he just takes,takes and takes. - Scotland have won even with a No vote (well when I say he's crafty, he's smart enough to outwit the hapless and spineless politicians in Westminster).

Biggest winners = Scotland, Labour and Brown (who represents both)
Biggest losers = the Tories

They would want and expect England to keep their promises about transferring more power to the Scottish parliament.

The vote was close enough - 45% of Scottish people voted for it. You just can't dismiss them like that.

You have to take it with a pinch of salt though. The SNP was still 400,000 votes adrift of the No vote.

Also they had a few things on their side

a) Had the Tories been out of power you could take at least 10% points off their side (in last 30 years they have been in power for 17, opposition for 13).
b) We have just come out a recession where people suffered... as everyone has generally suffered.
c) The SNP got into power mainly because of the Labour party running themselves into the ground eventually after 13 years of power as all parties do.
d) They kept things off such as the retained monarchy... we all know on a Yes vote that would have gone within 20 years similar to Ireland.
e) They managed to keep full blown denial of the wave of opposition for their voodoo economic plans which was enough for many people.
f) Darling did prove whilst an honest man, a good man and a patriot.... he was never a tough as nails campaigner like we needed. Had Brown been at the forefront I doubt the SNP would have got any momentum from the debates (and given he was near absent from the media thereafter with Brown in his place the campaign saw this too).
g) major issues like the bedroom tax showed it was genuine protest...for what is a sensible idea.... live in a 3 bed council subsidised house with your partner only, then sure you should change if there is a family of 5 making do with a 2 bed council house. If you want subsidises need should be paramount to any award. Its not like they reduced the number of council houses with the so called tax.. they just tried to re-allocate them more fairly. What is wrong about that??? if that isn't social-democratic I don't know what is.
h) Don't underestimate the 16-17yr old vote. We don't allow them to drive but vote? It was a ploy to improve their voter pool, it was their demand not the governments and I can't believe they agreed to it frankly and why, because they are seen as more likely to vote yes. It wasn't for anything other than that.

I honestly think the vote is more 30/70 had we had a labour government in, a recession wasn't an instant memory and the SNP ran a truthful campaign... and hell I reckon a 30/70 against vote has been in place as long as I remember.

by tigertattie Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:28 pm

just my opinion

Individuals whose stock has increased:
Gordon Brown (should be the next Scottish labour leader and first minister)
Kesia Dugdale (should be the Scottish Labour Depudy to then go on and succeed old man Brown)
Ruth Davidson (Will keep other MSPs on their toes but she won't come to much more being a Scottish Tory)
Patrick Harvey (Actually provided positive and balanced reasons for a yes vote, will likely increase the green vote next Holyrood election)

Individuals whose stock has gone down:
Alex Salmond (His shouty politics have been shown to lack substance)
Nicola Sturgeon (She's at a corss road here. She either continues to be wee eck's attack dog or she comes out from his shadow)
Tommy Sheridan (plank, nuff said)
George Galloway (Shouldn't go on national tele and mumble incoherent nonsnese)

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:29 pm

Jimpy wrote:
beshocked wrote:National front lingo?

Perhaps you could stop with the Irish jingoistic rubbish?

There is a difference between having a right to an opinion and agreeing with it.

If you started abusing your employer do you think they would be happy about that?

Murray lives in Surrey, he has an English girlfriend, he gets a lot of British support - he has a lot to thank the Union for - do I think he's a bit ungrateful? Yes I do - just like Sean Connery who made his career from James Bond.

I am not going to Murray's house in Surrey to throw rotten eggs or hurl abuse at him but I am entitled to call his decision foolish. It's my opinion - saying that means I am part of the National front is insulting.

As for JK Rowling for example - she should accept that some people might boycott her books because of her stand point. You might think that is ridiculous but they are entitled to their viewpoint just as she is.

Both JK Rowling and Murray are rich and famous people - I am hardly feel sympathy that their view points are highly anticipated. We, the general public have helped them get rich and famous.

You expect that someone can shake the boat and others not to approve?

Some people seem to think you can have your cake and eat it too!

You encourage division yet complain when people are annoyed about that division!

I ultimately support unity.

National front is a division in itself. I certainly don't agree with them.

There isn't such a party as the National Front anymore. They were superceded by the more 'moderate' BNP. The danger is now that the referendum in Scotland bolsters support for its ranks, as the mantra will be, 'well Scotland had their referendum, now we want ours, we want a more 'English' England'. The move towards a devolved Westminster and a more federal UK falls right into the hands of the BNP ilk.

Okay that's a bit extreme, but support for the far right has been steadily growing, UKIP have seen big gains, and with Labour effectively off the political map now, parties like the BNP can and will profit.

So don't be totally dissasociating yourself from them, you may well be backing the winning side within 20 or so years.

Na this was the last real chance... in 20 years time according to Sir Ian Wood (the most respected man in North Sea oil according to Salmond and Cameron) North Sea UK oil will be nearly gone come 2035, production will be significantly less by then and by 2050 it will be all but gone.

The oil argument will have lost its edge, Scotland will go from being an arguably net provider to a definitive net receiver (assuming regional GDP grows at similar rates) and more current Yes-lite voters will realise whilst they may want to... they probably know deep down they can't go on their own without huge huge reductions in standards of living.

by funnyExiledScot Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:30 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Regarding the transfer of powers, so far so good I'd say. Did you listen to the speech by Cameron this morning, and the comments from Clegg, Darling and Alexander. There has been an instant recognition from the United Kingdom government that the promises made for additional powers must be upheld, and a committee already established to put forward a proposal.

Looks like the Scottish people are going to get exactly what they voted for. No independence, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament. An ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pleased that the Coalition Government did not ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and England in the announcement either. Decentralisation of power is essential and it should be implemented in a sensible manner across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in Scotland.

This is the key point for me. I'd be concerned if the SNP whipped their supporters into a frenzy of demanding instant devolution and extra powers. This is where social unrest and breakaway movements come in. I have already 'unfriended' a few people on Facebook this morning for their ridiculous comments. It sounds like a trivial point but could lead to something if we're not all sensible about this.

This is a complicated issue and one that needs to be properly planned and agreed. We are after all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the whole point is that we are essentially a collective body. How we then split up responsibility - yet keep our unity - is a very important issue that will affect generations to come.

Absolutely spot on. Whilst the separatists were happy to make on the hoof plans on the back of a fag packet without giving anything more than 20 seconds of serious thought, how power is devolved and precisely what is devolved and when is complex and must be done with great care and careful consideration. Most will get and understand this, but sadly it is all too plain to see that many on the "Yes" side will simply not understand the complexity and continue to drag their knuckles across keyboards at every opportunity. They won't go away, so the politicians will just have to speak a little more slowly and the majority in Scotland will just have to be patient and tolerate them as best we can, despite the fact that tolerance of majority opinion will of course not be forthcoming.

by **Notch** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:33 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Regarding the transfer of powers, so far so good I'd say. Did you listen to the speech by Cameron this morning, and the comments from Clegg, Darling and Alexander. There has been an instant recognition from the United Kingdom government that the promises made for additional powers must be upheld, and a committee already established to put forward a proposal.

Looks like the Scottish people are going to get exactly what they voted for. No independence, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament. An ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pleased that the Coalition Government did not ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and England in the announcement either. Decentralisation of power is essential and it should be implemented in a sensible manner across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in Scotland.

We'll need to address the West Lothian question though. England needs a devolved parliament. There has been a lot of talk of a federalist state. Well, lets do it. If the UK has been endorsed and it's constituent countries demonstrated a desire for devolution let's commit to that.

It's time for cross-party groups to start writing a draft constitution for a federal UK and to put it up for a vote.

-Elected British Senate with oversight of
-An English Parliament
-A Scottish Parliament
-A Northern Irish Assembly
-A Welsh Assembly

The structures already exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's the Commons and the Lords that is holding us back.

by **RDW** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:34 pm

On a lighter note, I saw a Facebook post of someone who put an X in the Yes box but joined the corners to form a Scotland flag, to show that he really meant it.

Numerous people then pointed out to him that he's just spoild his ballot paper, and his vote won't count.

What a tool!

Laugh

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:35 pm

tigertattie wrote:just my opinion

Individuals whose stock has increased:
Gordon Brown (should be the next Scottish labour leader and first minister)
Kesia Dugdale (should be the Scottish Labour Depudy to then go on and succeed old man Brown)
Ruth Davidson (Will keep other MSPs on their toes but she won't come to much more being a Scottish Tory)
Patrick Harvey (Actually provided positive and balanced reasons for a yes vote, will likely increase the green vote next Holyrood election)

Individuals whose stock has gone down:
Alex Salmond (His shouty politics have been shown to lack substance)
Nicola Sturgeon (She's at a corss road here. She either continues to be wee eck's attack dog or she comes out from his shadow)
Tommy Sheridan (plank, nuff said)
George Galloway (Shouldn't go on national tele and mumble incoherent nonsnese)

I saw Douglas Alexander's stock rise IMO... think he could be the next leader of the national labour party by next election. Milliband is useless, I think the Scottish people had less time for him than Cameron (which really says something).

I agree on Brown completely... I see a return, to a people who he loves truly and most importantly he doesn't have a inferiority complex about (was never comfortable being Scottish and UK PM IMO... unlike Blair).

Jim Murphy did terribly well too, real dignified and I think he deserves a front line job in the shadow cabinet given his calm and dedicated performances.

by SecretFly Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:46 pm

beshocked wrote:National front lingo?

Perhaps you could stop with the Irish jingoistic rubbish?

There is a difference between having a right to an opinion and agreeing with it.

If you started abusing your employer do you think they would be happy about that?

Murray lives in Surrey, he has an English girlfriend, he gets a lot of British support - he has a lot to thank the Union for - do I think he's a bit ungrateful? Yes I do - just like Sean Connery who made his career from James Bond.

I am not going to Murray's house in Surrey to throw rotten eggs or hurl abuse at him but I am entitled to call his decision foolish. It's my opinion - saying that means I am part of the National front is insulting.

Saying someone is stupid for disagreeing with you is insulting. You understand that? That's not disagreeing with them - that's calling their views stupid. So far so good? - you decide to throw offensive remarks around, then be prepared to collect some.
Never said you were a member of the National front - did say you often - often - use language steeped in intolerance of an opposing view - not a disagreement with that view, a spitefulness that assumes people almost shouldn't have the view. I stand by that continuing observation of you.

Now Murray and Connery - ungrateful to what and who?
Who can they be ungrateful to if that's what they were and obviously now still are - British?
It's you who say they were British and part of a Union.
So who do they have to be grateful to that they've achieved success in the careers? You? The Westminster government? The rest of the UK that didn't include Scotland? Just who are they being ungrateful to? They don't owe apologies to you or anyone else for getting by in life as UK citizens - that's what they were - it wasn't gifted to them by you. It was them - they are and were the UK. If they want their part to leave the UK that's their business and their right to express it.
But they don't owe you anything for having that thought...certainly not guilt.

by **Notch** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:48 pm

Whats most interesting to me is this graphic;

https://twitter.com/HereInScotland/status/512915502076014592/photo/1

14% of SNP voters from 2011 voted NO. 5% of Tory voters from 2011 voted YES.

Fascinating to imagine their journey.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:49 pm

Notch wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Regarding the transfer of powers, so far so good I'd say. Did you listen to the speech by Cameron this morning, and the comments from Clegg, Darling and Alexander. There has been an instant recognition from the United Kingdom government that the promises made for additional powers must be upheld, and a committee already established to put forward a proposal.

Looks like the Scottish people are going to get exactly what they voted for. No independence, but further powers for the Scottish Parliament. An ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pleased that the Coalition Government did not ignore Wales, Northern Ireland and England in the announcement either. Decentralisation of power is essential and it should be implemented in a sensible manner across the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just in Scotland.

We'll need to address the West Lothian question though. England needs a devolved parliament. There has been a lot of talk of a federalist state. Well, lets do it. If the UK has been endorsed and it's constituent countries demonstrated a desire for devolution let's commit to that.

It's time for cross-party groups to start writing a draft constitution for a federal UK and to put it up for a vote.

-Elected British Senate with oversight of
-An English Parliament
-A Scottish Parliament
-A Northern Irish Assembly
-A Welsh Assembly

The structures already exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's the Commons and the Lords that is holding us back.

House of Lords was the worst ever devolved plan.

Sure you can vote on Lords but who nominates the lords themselves... i.e. they nominate their mates to make sure a vote is all but guaranteed to go through. At least in the old days you simply couldn't buy the votes of these guys (well then again probably not so certain!!!). It was somehow more democratic when they were hereditary only (if that makes sense).

An English Parliament... heaven forbid... the amount of genuinely decent MPs is in the minority... the rest are simply dire. Does that mean the UK would have to pay for a few hundred more "jobs for the boys" silver spooned toff (on both sides) who are not quite up to standard of the worst of the MPs in parliament currently... i.e. equivalent to pond scum.

by fa0019 Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:52 pm

Notch wrote:Whats most interesting to me is this graphic;

https://twitter.com/HereInScotland/status/512915502076014592/photo/1

14% of SNP voters from 2011 voted NO. 5% of Tory voters from 2011 voted YES.

Fascinating to imagine their journey.

Amazing stats there....really shows Salmond's 16-17 year old stat to be what exactly it stood for.... nothing to do with democracy at all.

16-17 years

71% yes. 12% points more than the next best age group.

Says it all.

by **Notch** Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:52 pm

beshocked, play nice. No-one is using national front lingo. Come on.

by Sponsored content