The Dirty Independence Question

[t8yman]

I honestly don't think it will come to that. I don't think Salmond has got a cat in hells chance of winning tbh. I'm prepared to eat my words, but if I had to bet my life right now, my money is on a NO vote.

[eFestivals]

I honestly don't think it will come to that. I don't think Salmond has got a cat in hells chance of winning tbh. I'm prepared to eat my words, but if I had to bet my life right now, my money is on a NO vote.

The most recent polls have shown no change (with one that The Sun will publish today or tomorrow, where polling was done before and after last Tuesday's debate)), or an upsurge to 'no' (where all of the polling was done after last Tuesday's debate).

It's definitely a busted flush, unless something unexpected happens to change everything.

[LJS]

This is somewhat odd finding from the latest poll which still shows a steady "NO" lead

"A majority of voters (61%) think Scotland should vote again if there is a No vote, against nearly two-fifths (39%) who say there should never be another vote on independence."

So a significant number of people seem to be saying No bit would like another chance in a few years.

[gary1979666]

This is somewhat odd finding from the latest poll which still shows a steady "NO" lead

"A majority of voters (61%) think Scotland should vote again if there is a No vote, against nearly two-fifths (39%) who say there should never be another vote on independence."

So a significant number of people seem to be saying No bit would like another chance in a few years.

They don't actually say a few years, no time is mentioned. I would imagine they would vote no now, but if anything significant were to happen in the next 30 years, then they'd still like another vote. You say it like they want a vote every 5 years.

[kaosmark2]

This is somewhat odd finding from the latest poll which still shows a steady "NO" lead

"A majority of voters (61%) think Scotland should vote again if there is a No vote, against nearly two-fifths (39%) who say there should never be another vote on independence."

So a significant number of people seem to be saying No bit would like another chance in a few years.

So they're interested in voting for independence but not Salmond's version which is actually dependent.

[russycarps]

So they're interested in voting for independence but not Salmond's version which is actually dependent.

Which is a perfectly reasonable and sensible view.

It's sad to see all these yes voters getting all giddy at the prospect of independence, without bothering to examine the reality of the shite version Alex is offering.

Why not just play it cool and bide your time until someone comes along with a proper vision for the future of scotland?

[kaosmark2]

Which is a perfectly reasonable and sensible view.

It's sad to see all these yes voters getting all giddy at the prospect of independence, without bothering to examine the reality of the shite version Alex is offering.

Why not just play it cool and bide your time until someone comes along with a proper vision for the future of scotland?

Yup.

I can sympathise with many reasons to vote yes, but every single reason Salmond is giving is bollocks. As I said earlier, he's the one who'd negotiate the terms of "independence", so why vote for it now?

[MichaelsBeard]

When would they be another independence vote? The party line is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[russycarps]

When would they be another independence vote? The party line is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

If the vote is close, ie 60/40 or closer, there will definitely be another vote within 10 years. If appetite is there, there will be another vote. Why wouldnt there be?

Salmond is saying this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fear people into voting yes, despite their many reservations about his shambolic plans. People in this thread are voting for that very reason - they believe yet another of salmonds lies.

Edited August 11, 2014 by russycarps

[MichaelsBeard]

So we've got all of this to endure again? Great.

I was of the idea that a vote either way would be a once and for all answer on the issue.

[lost]

can't see it myself.. Isn't ship building moving from Portsmouth to Scotland on the basis of a no vote? I can't see the remainder of Britain allowing that to happen then Scotland walking in 10 years, it would make any long term investment impossible.

Edited August 11, 2014 by lost

[kaosmark2]

So we've got all of this to endure again? Great.

I was of the idea that a vote either way would be a once and for all answer on the issue.

Situations change and it's sensible to have votes when relevant.

For instance, electoral reform. AV got rejected, does that mean we shouldn't have any other vote on electoral reform in the next 25 years?

[zahidf]

If the vote is close, ie 60/40 or closer, there will definitely be another vote within 10 years. If appetite is there, there will be another vote. Why wouldnt there be?

Salmond is saying this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fear people into voting yes, despite their many reservations about his shambolic plans. People in this thread are voting for that very reason - they believe yet another of salmonds lies.

Will be at least 25 years +. That the problem with a clear yes or no question. DIfferent for AV, question wasn't for and against.

[eFestivals]

Quebec had a second indyref after 15 years, and from general stuff I've read that appears to be about the minimum accepted time for a revote on the same question.

Edited August 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Has anyone else seen a common yes-er claim that no country has ever wanted to reverse its independence?

As with so many indie claims its a porkie. Read up on Newfoundland.

[eFestivals]

I have just had a nose at the new saviour of the yes vote, the wee blue book.

What a crock of shit. It selectively quotes to make its biased case, and then goes on about how weak the rUK economy is (while saying its best for Scotland to tie itself to a basket case), talks up the oil revenues way beyond even Salmond, ignores all market realities, etc, etc, etc. So many I've forgotten them all.

If that's convincing anyone then I feel for the smarter people of Scotland.

[MichaelsBeard]

In that case it puts Scotland in a stronger position regardless of either vote. If it's a no the stronger devolution powers must be granted as the public will just vote Yes next time if they're not.

[eFestivals]

There's already new devolved powers to come in 2016. I reckon they should be given a few years before anything further happens.

Cos it'll be interesting to see just how leftist and committed to social justice Scotland is when its Scotland that pays for any extras that it might want for itself, as opposed to being responsibility-free as it is at the mo. A better Scotland Indy or union has to be paid for

[t8yman]

I've said all along, let's see how long iScotland keeps free prescriptions and zero tuition fees.

[LJS]

I have just had a nose at the new saviour of the yes vote, the wee blue book.

What a crock of shit. It selectively quotes to make its biased case, and then goes on about how weak the rUK economy is (while saying its best for Scotland to tie itself to a basket case), talks up the oil revenues way beyond even Salmond, ignores all market realities, etc, etc, etc. So many I've forgotten them all.

If that's convincing anyone then I feel for the smarter people of Scotland.

Really, Neil. Imagine selectively quoting to make your case. How shocking!

Of course if you are the UK government you don't need to selectively quote...you can just bury (a la mccrone)

But of course it's ok if UK gov does it because it's for the greater good.

Edited August 11, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

just in case anyone would like to form their own opinion on the wee blue book - here is a link to it which Neil omitted to provide

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/#more-59693

[eFestivals]

So are you saying is that going along with a deliberately deceptive narrative that is designed to con is a good thing or a bad thing?

That aside, there are not just the words (or hidden words, with mccrone), there's the consequences of their fulfilment.

The deception with mccrone was for the good of the whole, there's no getting away from it, even if you object to it happening.

Now, do please tell me how its a good thing for the whole of Scotland to con people's vote out of them by pretending that there's zero consequences onto Scotland from (for example) Scotland running out on their share of the UKs debt?

If you are a true believer in democracy and sovereignty you should be mightily offended by wings.

[eFestivals]

just in case anyone would like to form their own opinion on the wee blue book - here is a link to it which Neil omitted to provide

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/#more-59693

So .... Have you stopped laughing yet?

[eFestivals]

PS: you say you'll be voting for something better than lies from England ... But lies written in Bath, England are now counting as something better from Scotland, are they?

Edited August 11, 2014 by eFestivals

[MichaelsBeard]

I was having a discussion with a Yes-er colleague earlier and this was his argument.

'It is completely reasonable that we can keep the pound. 74 ex-UK colonies including Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Egypt have all had currency unions and used the pound after independence. The UK itself was in formal currency unions setting a fixed rate with the USA and then Germany from the war until 2002 meaning they affected our fiscal policy similar to how the rUK would to Scotland, do you not consider the UK to be truly independent in those years?'

I can't buy that being accurate surely? The SNP would be all over that fact.