Jokes5 mins ago
Do They Realise That "yes" Would Be Forever?
57 Answers
I think Cameron made a good point when he said that the yes voters are treating this like a general election! No you can't change it in 5 years! You're stuck with it!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For those voting next week a "Yes" vote will certainly be forever as far as they are concerned (though the same cannot be said if the outcome is "No" - especially a close No). I can see no circumstances where the Union would be reformed in the lifetime of anyone alive today.
It is clear to me that a lot of lies have been forthcoming from the "Yes" camp, especially surrounding currency, oil reserves, EU membership and potential wealth of an independent Scotland. Very little detail has been forthcoming about how these and other major issues will be addressed. The "No" camp has, until last weekend, been particularly reticent to lay out its stall (or more correctly, expose the shortcomings of the Yes camps offerings) and all this faffing about with Cameron, Ed and Cleggie jumping on the EasyJet from Gatwick to Glasgow is just plain daft. As for raising the Saltire over Downing Street, it was an insult not only to the Scots (whichever camp they are in) but also to the other 92% of the UK population.
And for the (continuing) record I would like to see the Scots go their own way - quickly and with minimal fuss - but believe the vote will be 60:40 (or possibly a little higher) in favour of the status quo.
It is clear to me that a lot of lies have been forthcoming from the "Yes" camp, especially surrounding currency, oil reserves, EU membership and potential wealth of an independent Scotland. Very little detail has been forthcoming about how these and other major issues will be addressed. The "No" camp has, until last weekend, been particularly reticent to lay out its stall (or more correctly, expose the shortcomings of the Yes camps offerings) and all this faffing about with Cameron, Ed and Cleggie jumping on the EasyJet from Gatwick to Glasgow is just plain daft. As for raising the Saltire over Downing Street, it was an insult not only to the Scots (whichever camp they are in) but also to the other 92% of the UK population.
And for the (continuing) record I would like to see the Scots go their own way - quickly and with minimal fuss - but believe the vote will be 60:40 (or possibly a little higher) in favour of the status quo.
> Very little detail has been forthcoming about how these and other major issues will be addressed
The big unanswered issues as I see them:
1) Currency
2) Nationality
3) EU membership
4) Share of national debt
5) Effect on jobs
6) Armed Forces
7) Actual cost of transition, and share of that cost
8) Ongoing trade and other relationships between Scotland and the rUK
If any of these are known for a fact following a "Yes" vote, somebody please enlighten me. Otherwise, how can anybody know what they are actually voting "Yes" for? And why isn't the "No" campaign pointing this out vociferously?
The No campaign have made such a mess of this. It started with ceding the question. Why couldn't the question have been structured so that the answer was "Independence" or "Union" rather than "Yes" or "No"? Now, surprise surprise, the No campaign is on the hook for being negative - it's hard not to appear negative when you're campaigning for "No"!
By the way, QM, nobody was suggesting that the rUK would attack Scotland with nuclear weapons! ... only that the weapons would not be disarmed but relinquished.
The big unanswered issues as I see them:
1) Currency
2) Nationality
3) EU membership
4) Share of national debt
5) Effect on jobs
6) Armed Forces
7) Actual cost of transition, and share of that cost
8) Ongoing trade and other relationships between Scotland and the rUK
If any of these are known for a fact following a "Yes" vote, somebody please enlighten me. Otherwise, how can anybody know what they are actually voting "Yes" for? And why isn't the "No" campaign pointing this out vociferously?
The No campaign have made such a mess of this. It started with ceding the question. Why couldn't the question have been structured so that the answer was "Independence" or "Union" rather than "Yes" or "No"? Now, surprise surprise, the No campaign is on the hook for being negative - it's hard not to appear negative when you're campaigning for "No"!
By the way, QM, nobody was suggesting that the rUK would attack Scotland with nuclear weapons! ... only that the weapons would not be disarmed but relinquished.
I was surprised by "forever"
as the votes for the EU ......- werent
They were in the form:
shall we go into the EU ( no )
later - shall we go into the EU (no )
later still shall we go into the EU (yes)
oh sorry everyone the question is now closed....
and I have to say that I thought Alex Salmond ( and perhaps the snake oil salesman himself ) thought all he would do in the event of a 'no' vote would be to say in 2015 och time for another vote ( no ) 2016 time for another vote, 2017 time for another vote
until he got a 'yes' - or he died.
I also assumed that if there was a repeat of the Darrien Disaster ( 1697) - scots govt makes a bad call and goes bankrupt ) then they would be able to creep back into the Union.
as the votes for the EU ......- werent
They were in the form:
shall we go into the EU ( no )
later - shall we go into the EU (no )
later still shall we go into the EU (yes)
oh sorry everyone the question is now closed....
and I have to say that I thought Alex Salmond ( and perhaps the snake oil salesman himself ) thought all he would do in the event of a 'no' vote would be to say in 2015 och time for another vote ( no ) 2016 time for another vote, 2017 time for another vote
until he got a 'yes' - or he died.
I also assumed that if there was a repeat of the Darrien Disaster ( 1697) - scots govt makes a bad call and goes bankrupt ) then they would be able to creep back into the Union.
I don't think he was saying that people are actually treating it like that: just making the point that it isn't like that. Hammering home a message
I wish I was Alex Salmond in this referendum campaign: he can't go wrong. If the "no" people come up from the south he accuses them of last minute panic, and if they don't he accuses them of ignoring Scotland. I have slowly some to have nothing but contempt for the man, but this is what a referendum reduces you to.
As for the "good riddance to them we're better off without them" those are the people I have the most contempt for. And I am talking about the folk from south of the border.
Referendums on anything are rarely a good idea: I still remember the dispiriting AV referendum, and I just hope we never get to the stage of having one on the EU
The sooner all this over, the NOes have it and we can all get back to normal the better
I wish I was Alex Salmond in this referendum campaign: he can't go wrong. If the "no" people come up from the south he accuses them of last minute panic, and if they don't he accuses them of ignoring Scotland. I have slowly some to have nothing but contempt for the man, but this is what a referendum reduces you to.
As for the "good riddance to them we're better off without them" those are the people I have the most contempt for. And I am talking about the folk from south of the border.
Referendums on anything are rarely a good idea: I still remember the dispiriting AV referendum, and I just hope we never get to the stage of having one on the EU
The sooner all this over, the NOes have it and we can all get back to normal the better
The UK has only had one vote on membership of the EU (and its predecessors), Peter. That was in 1975, when we had already been a member for three years. We were not asked if we wanted to join in the first place and we have not been asked whether we want to continue as members since (39 years).
You emphasise my point perfectly, ellipsis. Your list can really be split into two categories - those for which there should be a definitive answer (e.g. what currency will be used, will Scotland continue EU membership etc) and those that need an estimate or quantification (e.g. cost of transition, effect on jobs).
It is plain to see that the quantifiable questions have had varying answers from both camps, and that is understandable. But the fundamental questions requiring a "Yes/No" type of answer should have been bottomed out long before now.
All credit to Mr Salmond and his mates for gaining such a high level of support with such a weak case and without properly addressing these fundamental points. The Snake Oil salesmen would be proud of him. But, as you say, the "No" camp has been pathetic and should have destroyed the case for independence long ago. Complacency was their worst enemy and they are now reaping the rewards.
You emphasise my point perfectly, ellipsis. Your list can really be split into two categories - those for which there should be a definitive answer (e.g. what currency will be used, will Scotland continue EU membership etc) and those that need an estimate or quantification (e.g. cost of transition, effect on jobs).
It is plain to see that the quantifiable questions have had varying answers from both camps, and that is understandable. But the fundamental questions requiring a "Yes/No" type of answer should have been bottomed out long before now.
All credit to Mr Salmond and his mates for gaining such a high level of support with such a weak case and without properly addressing these fundamental points. The Snake Oil salesmen would be proud of him. But, as you say, the "No" camp has been pathetic and should have destroyed the case for independence long ago. Complacency was their worst enemy and they are now reaping the rewards.
"Why the dislike of referendums, ichkeria? Do you thing the government(s) should have decided this issue? "
I am not saying there should not have been one necessarily, but generally they seem to result in the arguments for and against being trivialised. And that is happening here as both sides get desperate. They should have sent everyone a reasoned written case for each side within days, and got people to vote on that and have done with it.
Incidentally is it just me who finds typing into these text boxes infuriating? I keep losing large chunks of text when the website seems to "freeze"
I am not saying there should not have been one necessarily, but generally they seem to result in the arguments for and against being trivialised. And that is happening here as both sides get desperate. They should have sent everyone a reasoned written case for each side within days, and got people to vote on that and have done with it.
Incidentally is it just me who finds typing into these text boxes infuriating? I keep losing large chunks of text when the website seems to "freeze"
As I said before Corby, although I have not read and digested all 670 page I have thumbed through "Scotland's Future Your Guide To An Independent Scotland".
Page 215:
"We will continue to be linked to other nations of the UK by five continuing unions: the EU; an ongoing Union of the Crowns; a Sterling Area; and as members of the NATO defence union. And a social union..."
Clearly incorrect (or at least highly questionable) on "unions" 1, 3 and 4.
Page 216 (Scotland in the European Union):
"We believe that Scotland’s natural position is as an active participant in the EU....."
"The advantage of independence is that the people of Scotland will have the sole and final say. We will not be taken out of the EU against our wishes as may turn out to be the case if we are not independent. "
Mr Barroso and his successor Mr Junker (who between them probably know a thing or two about the EU) thought quite differently
Page 109 (Currency and monetary policy)
"An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency and the arrangements for monetary policy.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission
– the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. "
It may certainly be the best option for Scotland. Alas Mr Salmond neglected to run that one past the rest of the UK (who will control who shares Sterling and who does not).
Like I said, Corby. I haven't read it all, but I think I've read enough to give me a flavour. On the two critical issues above the information in the document is, at kindest, misleading and at worst downright false.
-------------
It's an unfortunate feature of politics, ichkeria. Politicians get nasty and personal, they trivialise or minimise the issues or (as above) are just plain misleading. People make informed choices despite them rather than with their assistance. Quite how the Scots could vote Yes based on such a shaky document is beyond me.
BTW I don't type directly into the text boxes any more (unless it's just a few words). Too much hassle.
Page 215:
"We will continue to be linked to other nations of the UK by five continuing unions: the EU; an ongoing Union of the Crowns; a Sterling Area; and as members of the NATO defence union. And a social union..."
Clearly incorrect (or at least highly questionable) on "unions" 1, 3 and 4.
Page 216 (Scotland in the European Union):
"We believe that Scotland’s natural position is as an active participant in the EU....."
"The advantage of independence is that the people of Scotland will have the sole and final say. We will not be taken out of the EU against our wishes as may turn out to be the case if we are not independent. "
Mr Barroso and his successor Mr Junker (who between them probably know a thing or two about the EU) thought quite differently
Page 109 (Currency and monetary policy)
"An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency and the arrangements for monetary policy.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission
– the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. "
It may certainly be the best option for Scotland. Alas Mr Salmond neglected to run that one past the rest of the UK (who will control who shares Sterling and who does not).
Like I said, Corby. I haven't read it all, but I think I've read enough to give me a flavour. On the two critical issues above the information in the document is, at kindest, misleading and at worst downright false.
-------------
It's an unfortunate feature of politics, ichkeria. Politicians get nasty and personal, they trivialise or minimise the issues or (as above) are just plain misleading. People make informed choices despite them rather than with their assistance. Quite how the Scots could vote Yes based on such a shaky document is beyond me.
BTW I don't type directly into the text boxes any more (unless it's just a few words). Too much hassle.
Ellipsis, you wrote, “Since when did "disarm" mean "relinquish control to a foreign power"? And to that, TTT replied, “Ellipsis, you are looking for logic, stop it!”
It was to the latter comment that I responded on the matter of logic. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is the best thing that could happen to them.
Under what conceivable circumstances do you see Scotland or the RumpUK using these vastly expensive devices, particularly as we watch food-banks proliferate and the poor and sick being victimised?
In any case, you surely cannot seriously believe either of your own comments:
a) “Scotland has atomic weapons.”
b) (Scotland is in a position to) “relinquish control” (of them).
As I understand it, even the UK as a whole does not really ‘have’ atomic weapons and nor will the RumpUK have if there is a ‘Yes’ vote. Although they are here, they are still largely ‘controlled’ by the USA.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, Wharton’s comment was and remains perfectly logical.
It was to the latter comment that I responded on the matter of logic. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is the best thing that could happen to them.
Under what conceivable circumstances do you see Scotland or the RumpUK using these vastly expensive devices, particularly as we watch food-banks proliferate and the poor and sick being victimised?
In any case, you surely cannot seriously believe either of your own comments:
a) “Scotland has atomic weapons.”
b) (Scotland is in a position to) “relinquish control” (of them).
As I understand it, even the UK as a whole does not really ‘have’ atomic weapons and nor will the RumpUK have if there is a ‘Yes’ vote. Although they are here, they are still largely ‘controlled’ by the USA.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, Wharton’s comment was and remains perfectly logical.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.