|
|
Post by bormes on Jan 16, 2012 14:41:16 GMT -1
From a man who is normally very well researched and puts forward excellent arguments, although I don't always agree with his logic, I find his posting on this issue very low standard particularly when his normal standard is so high.
Seems more like the people in the Trade Unions that I spoke to when asked why they voted labour? The answer was so often, "Ma Da votes labur an' aw ma famly vote labur" A well thought out argument that !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 18:59:49 GMT -1
We all know the whole charade is a pointless exercise. 2 out of 3 Scots want to stay in the union, so the vote is a foregone conclusion. And your evidence for that is? At the moment, the polls indicate that approximately 40-45% are in favour of independence. However, that does not mean that the remaining 55-60% would vote against. It might be helpful to look at the percentage of people in the polls who are so far undecided. It looks at the moment to be around 20%. So talk of 'foregone conclusions' is ridiculous at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 16, 2012 19:00:46 GMT -1
We all know the whole charade is a pointless exercise. 2 out of 3 Scots want to stay in the union, so the vote is a foregone conclusion. At the moment, the polls indicate that approximately 40-45% are in favour of independence. However, that does not mean that the remaining 60-65% would vote against. It might be helpful to look at the percentage of people in the polls who are so far undecided. It looks at the moment to be around 20%. So talk of 'foregone conclusions' is ridiculous at this point. not even a wikipedia link? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 19:07:06 GMT -1
Anyways, how often do the SNP get to hold these referenda? If the voters vote to remain in the union in this election, is that it for ever and ever, or is there a 'decent interval' that the SNP will hold its fire for, before demanding another referendum? And what would that interval be? 10 years? 20? Anyone know? And, for argument's sake, let's say that after a dozen such referenda, the SNP finally realise their dream and get a 50.1% share of the vote, securing independence for Scotland. Is that it for ever and ever, or do the 'antis' get to hold referenda to return us to the union?As far as I know, only the government in power at the time gets to hold referenda. So in order to change back again to Unionism, another party would need to win a big majority in the Scottish government elections. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 19:29:25 GMT -1
Well, I've done a wee google. Turns out that the split between the YES and NO vote in the 1979 devolution was even slimmer than I recall: YES - 1,230,937 NO - 1,153,500 The turnout was around 62%. Since it was realised that not voting was equivalent to a NO vote, many who were against it would simply not have voted. So, the result didn't reflect the will of the people, who were obviously against it. More to the point, here are the figures for Orkney and Shetland: Orkney: YES - 2,104 NO - 5,439 Shetland: YES - 2,020 NO - 5,466 So, unless there's been a very profound change in the thinking of Orcadians and Shetlanders over the past 30 years, then the citizens of those islands that you (ahem) 'know' would appear to be pretty unrepresentative. Would you care to provide more recent figures for asserting Shetland and Orkney would vote as they did 30 years ago? A great deal has shifted in UKE politics since then, including the Thatcherite years. Oh and both islands have a history of voting Lib Dem. As we've seen in both national and council elections since the Tory/LibDem coalition was founded, the Lib Dems have suffered very badly at the polls in Scotland. With the biggest swing being LibDem to SNP, not Labour or Tory or Green. Also, just a quick question, Yonza. Could you explain why these Islanders might want to become part of Norway---or independent of an independent Scotland? What would the rationale be? With a population only in the tens of thousands, they have virtual full employment--mainly because of the oil industry. The oil is in Scottish waters, they couldn't claim it under any circumstances. The islands also receive very significant funding from other sources, such as Europe; Highlands and Islands qualifies for this due to its remoteness and the high cost of living that ensues. Residents also enjoy heavily subsidised flights to mainland UKE. What would the Islands gain from breaking away, Yonza, do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 16, 2012 19:54:02 GMT -1
Well, I've done a wee google. Turns out that the split between the YES and NO vote in the 1979 devolution was even slimmer than I recall: YES - 1,230,937 NO - 1,153,500 The turnout was around 62%. Since it was realised that not voting was equivalent to a NO vote, many who were against it would simply not have voted. So, the result didn't reflect the will of the people, who were obviously against it. More to the point, here are the figures for Orkney and Shetland: Orkney: YES - 2,104 NO - 5,439 Shetland: YES - 2,020 NO - 5,466 So, unless there's been a very profound change in the thinking of Orcadians and Shetlanders over the past 30 years, then the citizens of those islands that you (ahem) 'know' would appear to be pretty unrepresentative. Would you care to provide more recent figures for asserting Shetland and Orkney would vote as they did 30 years ago? A great deal has shifted in UKE politics since then, including the Thatcherite years. Oh and both islands have a history of voting Lib Dem. As we've seen in both national and council elections since the Tory/LibDem coalition was founded, the Lib Dems have suffered very badly at the polls in Scotland. With the biggest swing being LibDem to SNP, not Labour or Tory or Green. Also, just a quick question, Yonza. Could you explain why these Islanders might want to become part of Norway---or independent of an independent Scotland? What would the rationale be? With a population only in the tens of thousands, they have virtual full employment--mainly because of the oil industry. The oil is in Scottish waters, they couldn't claim it under any circumstances. The islands also receive very significant funding from other sources, such as Europe; Highlands and Islands qualifies for this due to its remoteness and the high cost of living that ensues. Residents also enjoy heavily subsidised flights to mainland UKE. What would the Islands gain from breaking away, Yonza, do you think? They would gain fuk all The only people who seem to be spouting this pish are the er unionists I'm just waiting on the Free Paddy's Milestone Party being formed, by the likes of Dougie Alexander to fight for freedom for the 20000 gannets who live there Brothers and sisters, we gather here today to recognise the right, no inalienable rights of the seagulls to be independent of er er er Scotlandshire, they need their independence to soar free of perditious alba. The SNP stand accused (aren't they always) of eating babies, not just seagull babaies byraway, but labour voting babaies too Let us reach out to our seagull brothers and sisters in this fight fior their independence To echo my favourite sister "bring it on" A sort of SAOR SEAGULL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2012 20:08:15 GMT -1
All the other points have been addressed in the media. For example:
1) What currency would Scotland use? If it's to be the English pound, don't expect a Westminster parliament to take a foreign country's interests into consideration when making decisions affecting its own currency. And if it's to be the Euro . . . well, that's just a different can o' worms. 2) Scotland would no longer be part of NATO, because of the SNP's stance on nuclear weapons - ie not allowing any NATO subs with nuclear missiles on board into Scottish waters will disbar it from membership. 3) How would Scotland's share of the UK national debt be assessed and transferred to Scotland? Would it be done simply on a per capita basis, or would a more complex formula be required, based on industrial output? And which body would adjudicate on this to the satisfaction of both governments? 4) Who decides what percentage of the UK defence assets, such as warships, planes, tanks etc Scotland gets? You can be sure that's going to be a pretty contentious issue. No, all the other points have NOT been addressed in the media Yonza! What we've seen in the past week merely intense speculation and what if's. The various media have treated it according to their own political bias, which goes from the faintly reasonable to the outright ridiculous. Nothing has changed. SNP said in their election manifesto last April that a referendum would be held in the second half of the parliament. They are entirely correct not to jump to Westminster's call to 'get it over with' and instead work towards concrete plans to put forward to the people of Scotland. Then WE will decide. As to your other points; 1) The intention is to use Sterling (not the English pound!  ) until such times as it may---or may NOT---be in the interests of Scotland to transfer to the Euro or indeed, form our own currency. There are examples of European countries who have not suffered via the latter. 2) It is perfectly possible, if it's the will of the Scottish people, for us to get out of NATO. And have a 'defence' force, rather than an 'attack' force, while forming alliances with other like-minded countries in Northern Europe, of which there are plenty. I'd personally be delighted to see an end to Trident in Scotland. 3) In terms of divvying up the UKE national debt, this could be balanced against divvying up shares of the UKE national assets paid for in part by the Scottish taxpayer, including items of value such as the crown jewels, crown-owned land/property in Scotland, share of public sector jobs--- recent estimates presented at yesterday's meeting indicated there would not be a huge deficit if a reasonable basic formula was applied across share of assets versus share of debt. 4) Re defence if we were to agree on a minimal 'defence' force as a neutral country one solution that's perfectly possible would be to maintain a minimal defence and 'buy in' services from other countries if required, rather than have large armies/AF/navy etc in situ permanently. I suppose one's viewpoint on this is whether you agree to having a highly expensive 'deterrent' against attack, though why anyone would want to 'attack' an independent Scotland's beyond me. As Westie said, the stall will be set out. Each government department is working on solid, credible research and you will see the proposals sooner rather than later. The only brinksmanship going on here is what we're seeing from the Unionist parties. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by westender on Jan 25, 2012 15:40:57 GMT -1
I remember the devolution vote back in the . . erm 70s? Loads of optimism on the part of Margo MacDonald et al, that they would prevail, and Scotland would take a giant step on the road to nationhood. Margo today, at the press conference following the referendum statement (in which it was announced that yes, the Electoral Commission will be allowed to oversee the referendum) "...Margo MacDonald said she trusted the Electoral Commission to oversee the referendum. She said she had been stitched up in referendums before and "believe me I won't let it happen again"."  |
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 26, 2012 21:07:39 GMT -1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 22:23:20 GMT -1
Well fancy that! The New York Times piece (syndicated by SMH) tells us the referendum date is June 24 2014. News to me. Did I miss something these past few days?  Utter b*llocks. It's a Tuesday for one thing. And for another it's the start of the Scottish school holidays when us beleaguered vitamin- D-deficient Scots fly off on our holidays in our droves. It's also too close to the European elections that June. Voter fatigue and all that---- too silly  For ALL those reasons it ain't gonna be June 24th. Yet more disinformation and speculation. Though I'd almost love it if it was ;D It'd be the eve of Ms R's 21st birthday. What better gift could we give her than having her wake up next day to a Scotland that defines its own future?  It'll be autumn, folks. Late September or early October. The time major changes happen  |
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 26, 2012 22:47:26 GMT -1
Well fancy that! The New York Times piece (syndicated by SMH) tells us the referendum date is June 24 2014. News to me. Did I miss something these past few days? Utter b*llocks. It's a Tuesday for one thing. And for another it's the start of the Scottish school holidays when us beleaguered vitamin- D-deficient Scots fly off on our holidays in our droves. It's also too close to the European elections that June. Voter fatigue and all that---- too silly For ALL those reasons it ain't gonna be June 24th. Yet more disinformation and speculation. Though I'd almost love it if it was ;D It'd be the eve of Ms R's 21st birthday. What better gift could we give her than having her wake up next day to a Scotland that defines its own future? It'll be autumn, folks. Late September or early October. The time major changes happen Dont knock it! At least its making the news in important countries round the world |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 23:27:00 GMT -1
Aye, well, if you believe the spreading of disinformation's a good thing, hell mend you, Oz!
Remind me, who owns the SMH and the New York Times? And where do that owner's convenient political allegiances lie?
Just asking, like...
|
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 27, 2012 1:35:18 GMT -1
Aye, well, if you believe the spreading of disinformation's a good thing, hell mend you, Oz! Remind me, who owns the SMH and the New York Times? And where do that owner's convenient political allegiances lie? Just asking, like... Sure, no problem NEW YORK TIMES is owned by News Ltd (Murdoch) SYDNEY MORNING HERALD is owned by Fairfax Media Both Australian Companies and arch enemies. News Ltd leans to the right & Fairfax media to the left,( if it leaned any further to the left it would be horizontal............. socialist rag!!!) THat help? PS Is it spreading dis-information... did they get date wrong or something? Wouldnt really matter as most readers would not be voting. At least they will now be aware of the Independence movement in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jan 27, 2012 9:14:49 GMT -1
Aye, well, if you believe the spreading of disinformation's a good thing, hell mend you, Oz! Remind me, who owns the SMH and the New York Times? And where do that owner's convenient political allegiances lie? Just asking, like... Sure, no problem NEW YORK TIMES is owned by News Ltd (Murdoch) SYDNEY MORNING HERALD is owned by Fairfax Media Both Australian Companies and arch enemies. News Ltd leans to the right & Fairfax media to the left,( if it leaned any further to the left it would be horizontal............. socialist rag!!!) THat help? PS Is it spreading dis-information... did they get date wrong or something? Wouldnt really matter as most readers would not be voting. At least they will now be aware of the Independence movement in Scotland. "His plan calls for the Queen to remain the monarch of an independent Scotland, for Scotland to continue using the British pound as its currency and for Scotland to be accepted readily as a member of the European Union, all issues that constitutional and economic experts say could prove problematic." Keeping the Queen as head of state is not problematic in the slightest, did it cause any issues when Oz, Canada etc became independent Sterling is an international traded currency, it is impossible to stop any country from using it as its currency. Currently around 65 countries worldwide share currencies, even some of the Pacific nations use either AUS$ or NZ$ for their currency. There may be an issue with EU membership or there may not - but the UK government said that Spain would object to Scotland becoming a member of the EU - not surprisingly, the Spanish government never said such a thing |
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jan 27, 2012 18:50:10 GMT -1
"His plan calls for the Queen to remain the monarch of an independent Scotland, for Scotland to continue using the British pound as its currency and for Scotland to be accepted readily as a member of the European Union, all issues that constitutional and economic experts say could prove problematic." Keeping the Queen as head of state is not problematic in the slightest, did it cause any issues when Oz, Canada etc became independent Sterling is an international traded currency, it is impossible to stop any country from using it as its currency. Currently around 65 countries worldwide share currencies, even some of the Pacific nations use either AUS$ or NZ$ for their currency. There may be an issue with EU membership or there may not - but the UK government said that Spain would object to Scotland becoming a member of the EU - not surprisingly, the Spanish government never said such a thing Thats Journos for you. Tell them not me. I have no idea whether its right or wrong. I just hope you get what your country wants. I thought you might be interested in what people in other countries are told. I know Im interested in overseas reporting on Australia |
|
