Scottish independence referendum thread

Started by deiseach, September 07, 2014, 11:36:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

If you have/had a vote, how will/would you vote?

Yes
122 (87.8%)
No
17 (12.2%)

Total Members Voted: 139

Voting closed: September 18, 2014, 11:36:16 AM


Hardy

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 19, 2014, 09:57:18 AM
Scotland has always been a nation of backstabbers
various other films show glimpses of the historical betrayals - eg kidnapped, rob roy etc

;D
I've never trusted cats since I first saw Tom & Jerry.

AZOffaly

You should never trust 'media experts' on Newstalk either :)

Hardy

'Media consultant', please. And I didn't trust him. I just told yiz what he said.

deiseach

Quote from: Hardy on September 19, 2014, 10:20:56 AM
'Media consultant', please. And I didn't trust him. I just told yiz what he said.


imtommygunn

Quote from: deiseach on September 19, 2014, 09:47:11 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 19, 2014, 09:40:52 AM
If you make a vote for something which will have a massive impact on your life - and that could be positive or negative - then you'd want to be sure that all the is were dotted and ts crossed. They fell a bit short of that. The pound debate illustrated that.

I don't see how that contradicts my point. For example, the SNP can't give cast-iron reassurances about oil revenues. They can't be sure how much is down there or what the price will be in the future. If you're of such a mind as to want all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, you'll always find a missing dot/cross.

Well let's take an example of being a retired former government worker who's got a pension coming in from the government.

Said person asks local politician what in the event of a yes happens to his pension. Said local politician has no answer. It's things like that.

The SNP or the tories can give no assurances on oil revenues but that's the future. Yes or no can't control that. That's nothing to do with planning - that's a variable to anyone.

The question of will what I am entitled to currently still be available if we get a yes was not firmly answered in cases like what I say here.

deiseach

Quote from: imtommygunn on September 19, 2014, 10:22:47 AM
Well let's take an example of being a retired former government worker who's got a pension coming in from the government.

Said person asks local politician what in the event of a yes happens to his pension. Said local politician has no answer. It's things like that.

The SNP or the tories can give no assurances on oil revenues but that's the future. Yes or no can't control that. That's nothing to do with planning - that's a variable to anyone.

The question of will what I am entitled to currently still be available if we get a yes was not firmly answered in cases like what I say here.

In your example, we have someone who might vote Yes if nothing changes. If this is typical of the mindset of your average Scot then they're never going to vote for independence, and no amount of legwork on the part of Alex Salmond et al is going to change that.

imtommygunn

I don't agree. The very basic thing the guy needed to offer was parity with what people have got now. The fact that a lot of people had questions about things where parity wasn't guaranteed turned a lot of voters off.

A few years more legwork from Salmond et al would have changed that. I'm not talking 100% of absolutely every possible corner case scenario covered here.  The currency thing to me highlighted that they weren't ready.

The guy did a great job - don't get me wrong - and will probably change the face of a lot of things.  A couple of years more with a more fleshed out plan and he could have changed it even more.

deiseach

Quote from: imtommygunn on September 19, 2014, 10:39:53 AM
I don't agree. The very basic thing the guy needed to offer was parity with what people have got now. The fact that a lot of people had questions about things where parity wasn't guaranteed turned a lot of voters off.

A few years more legwork from Salmond et al would have changed that. I'm not talking 100% of absolutely every possible corner case scenario covered here.  The currency thing to me highlighted that they weren't ready.

The guy did a great job - don't get me wrong - and will probably change the face of a lot of things.  A couple of years more with a more fleshed out plan and he could have changed it even more.

They've been at it for 18 months. Would three years have been enough? Maybe five years and there would have been 100% support for independence. If assurance of parity is the bottom line for your vote, logically you should vote No. That's the biggest assurance of parity.

Billys Boots

If they are to vote for change, then they have to accept, em, change. 
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...

AZOffaly

Yes, but the question is 'What will change?'. And they've decided that the price of change, or the uncertainty over some elements, is not worth it.


Rossfan

What a pity the Scots didn't have the courage to see it through.
We'll see now if CameronCleggMilliband can deliver on their promises when the English and Welsh MPs start to kick up a fuss.
If they don't I wonder how many no voters will be sorry.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

imtommygunn

Quote from: deiseach on September 19, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 19, 2014, 10:39:53 AM
I don't agree. The very basic thing the guy needed to offer was parity with what people have got now. The fact that a lot of people had questions about things where parity wasn't guaranteed turned a lot of voters off.

A few years more legwork from Salmond et al would have changed that. I'm not talking 100% of absolutely every possible corner case scenario covered here.  The currency thing to me highlighted that they weren't ready.

The guy did a great job - don't get me wrong - and will probably change the face of a lot of things.  A couple of years more with a more fleshed out plan and he could have changed it even more.

They've been at it for 18 months. Would three years have been enough? Maybe five years and there would have been 100% support for independence. If assurance of parity is the bottom line for your vote, logically you should vote No. That's the biggest assurance of parity.

Granted it's the biggest assurance of parity however ultimately people will vote for something which they think will make their lives better. If they can't guarantee parity then how can they have faith in them saying things will get better? To quite a few people who voted yes I think it was a case of things can't get any worse not things will get better.

Three years may not have been enough and it may have needed closer to ten but that's all pretty irrelevant now.

deiseach

The thing about long campaigns is that things change - 'events, dear boy, events' as Harold Macmillan was supposed to have said. Had the SNP started their referendum campaign in 2007, they would have been full steam ahead to join the euro. By 2009, such a plan would have been their ruination. The Scots are not willing to take a chance on independence, and while there's nothing irrational about it you have to feel mildly exasperated at how many of them are justifying their decision using the rhetoric of fumbling in a greasy till. No doubt the same people who find inspiration in fireworks and gun salutes at Murrayfield. About the only foreseeable event that would cause them to change their mind at this point would be Britain dropping out of the EU in 2017. Maybe Alex Salmond should be encouraging his party to vote for Ukip!

Billys Boots

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 19, 2014, 10:48:49 AM
Yes, but the question is 'What will change?'. And they've decided that the price of change, or the uncertainty over some elements, is not worth it.

Well I hope they stop wittering about freedom etc. from now on. 
My hands are stained with thistle milk ...