Independence - not having your laws, taxation, money supply (or any other financial control) set by those in a country you do not have a vote in. Yes, we should leave the EU, but because it doesnt have any benefit for us. (and its not actually a country, but does make up a lot of our laws, and does take a lot of our money and resources).
Thats independence for me. Scotland wants to be independent, let them, providing they realise theres no going back.
It's no secret I'm pro independence but we should have had devo max as an option, to be honest I dread the day it happens and we do break free, splitting from the union may be the worst mistake we ever do since the l fated Darien fiasco.
So would I. It's time we properly celebrated the most successful political union in history.
A union which the majority of Scots are unhappy with as the support for devolution max demonstrates. A union where one nation gets the government the other part votes regardless of how massive the scale of the vote against the governing party is. A union so successful that the majority of Scots still feel more Scottish than anything else. This is a union where the proponents of it are unable to articulate any honest positives to maintaing it and have to resort to lies and scaremongering. A union so successful where the only way to ensure it remains is to frighten and mislead the public with scare stories of how Scotland could not be independent. This union isn't successful. It's dysfunctional and what's more it's coming to an end. God willing 2016 will see the union and Britian broken up but if it doesn't it will happen in the medium term. Some union.
When I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be about a Scottish remake of the film 'Independence Day' in which Alex Salmond helps to save Scotland from nasty, ruthless, technologically superior aliens.
It's obvious what's going to happen. Alex Salmond will be league with the aliens (because I read on the internet the SNP are essentially Nazis and EVIL!!! Let's face it, no one on the internet would ever lie.) A ship with a gigantic green laser will blow up Number 10 and we'll be saved by Will Smith and a computer geek, I'm guessing Julian Assange.
On a serious note, it could happen but I don't really see it. Then again a year before the AV referendum AV was in the lead and look how that turned out.
Exactly! It's up to the NO campaign to spell out which ones and the timetable for their introduction BEFORE Scots are asked to vote.
So if Scotland votes 'no' to independence, you're still going to demand more powers? Surely 'no' means the status quo.
He should at least be able to say which powers will NEVER be transferred from Westminster to Holyroood..
Just a wild guess, but the currently reserved ones? Or stuff in the Scotland Bill, which the SNP don't like because it puts more budget responsibilities onto Scotland?
ps.. my bad. Scotland Bill became Act, so powers already transferred. What's left that you Scots still want, and can be trasnferred bearing in mind EU reserved matters?
It's no secret I'm pro independence but we should have had devo max as an option, to be honest I dread the day it happens and we do break free, splitting from the union may be the worst mistake we ever do since the l fated Darien fiasco.
Trouble with Devo Max as an option on a ballot paper is how it would be interpreted by the SNP in the event of that or a no vote winning. They'd maintain that it split the yes vote because it was chosen by those people who wanted independence but in bite sized chunks because they were too worried to commit to it and the whole issue of independence will keep trudging on.
If an in/out referendum for the UK several years down the line is considered a bad thing for potential investors how can leaving Scottish independence forever on the table be any different for Scotland?
I wouldn't have bothered persuing independence and concentrated my efforts on devo max instead. The best of both worlds has got to be better than the unknown - particularly for the next twenty odd years what with
a) Europe changing shape and
b) the economic power drifiting away from the west towards emerging nations.
With that latter point in particular it's going to be harder to attract investors to the south of England with a high speed rail link direct to Europe let alone Scotland when the "easy money" appears to be thousands of miles away so IMO the independence boat sailed back when the North Sea started pumping oil.
If a NO vote means the powers which Holyrood has plus those invested by the Scotland Act, then that is what Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should state clearly on behalf of their parties, any combination of which could form the new Westminster parliament in 2015.
If that is what NO means they can explain why we're better off in the Union on THOSE grounds and fight the Yes campaign's demand for independence.
Seems simple. Why don't they do it? One joint statement should do the job.
If a NO vote means the powers which Holyrood has plus those invested by the Scotland Act, then that is what Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should state clearly on behalf of their parties, any combination of which could form the new Westminster parliament in 2015.
If that is what NO means they can explain why we're better off in the Union on THOSE grounds and fight the Yes campaign's demand for independence.
Seems simple. Why don't they do it? One joint statement should do the job.
You're quite correct. I can only assume that they are waiting for the opportune moment to bang that simple message home. The fact that might be later rather than sooner doesn't surprize me because why leave a window of opportunity open for your political opponents to formulate a counter strategy?
I wouldn't expect to see that message being rammed home until the referendum was only a month or two out. I'd quietly mention it now so that it minimises the chance of the SNP spinning it as a last ditch effort to bribe folk because Westminster is running scared but I'd leave the hard sell to much closer to the date if I was running the campaign.
So if Scotland votes 'no' to independence, you're still going to demand more powers? Surely 'no' means the status quo.
No, not according to the Unionist parties. Perhaps you think they're waffling and dissembling when they claim more powers will be transferred should Scotland do as they say and vote 'no'?
You're quite correct. I can only assume that they are waiting for the opportune moment to bang that simple message home. The fact that might be later rather than sooner doesn't surprize me because why leave a window of opportunity open for your political opponents to formulate a counter strategy?
I wouldn't expect to see that message being rammed home until the referendum was only a month or two out. I'd quietly mention it now so that it minimises the chance of the SNP spinning it as a last ditch effort to bribe folk because Westminster is running scared but I'd leave the hard sell to much closer to the date if I was running the campaign.
Interesting post but it has one flaw, it credits Cameron with foresight and the ability to plan.
Better Together is not a campaign for more powers or change. Lib's Rennie said a few days ago that they will set it out in their 2015 election manifestos. So these won't appear until several months after the referendum.
Westminster could not pass control of the Crown Estates and the devolution of air passenger duty when it was recommended by Calman. Never mind the big stuff like welfare (64%) and taxes (56%) that people want to Holyrood, according to ScotCen.
- "Do you think there’s any need for more devolution in Scotland?", to which Darling replied "I think that, that, that, that, that’s, that’s a matter of debate." (WOS, 11 Jan 2013)
- "Anyone who believes that the UK Government is itching to give the Scottish Parliament more economic powers than those in last year's Scotland Act really hasn't been keeping up. With the threat of independence removed, the UK will no longer feel any need to placate Scottish demands for what many English voters believe is special treatment." (Herald, 6 Jan 2013)
Aww now, your just not taking this thing seriously, are you?
Correct. For what its worth though, I am in favour of Scottish independence, but partly for their sake and partly because I want an independent England also.
If a NO vote means the powers which Holyrood has plus those invested by the Scotland Act, then that is what Cameron, Clegg and Miliband should state clearly on behalf of their parties, any combination of which could form the new Westminster parliament in 2015.
Err.. why? UK carries on being the UK, and carries on figuring out how to pay for the mess left behind by Labour.
Scotland, or more precisely the small subset of Scotland known as Salmond and cronies want independence. So date's been set and Scottish nationalists and unionists can argue the toss about whether it's a good or bad thing. Salmond's published a paper setting the date for the party, but nothing of substance about how independence will work, or what happens if Scotland votes 'No'.
Surely if Scotland wants more powers after a 'No' vote, it should be thinking about what to ask for now. It's not up to the UK to figure out what bones to throw to FISK next.
Pay the mess left by Labour? We're borrowing MORE despite all the austerity.
We're nearly 3 years into the parliament. It's time the coalition took responsibility for the results of its actions on the economy instead of blaming the previous lot.
Err.. why? UK carries on being the UK, and carries on figuring out how to pay for the mess left behind by Labour.
Scotland, or more precisely the small subset of Scotland known as Salmond and cronies want independence. So date's been set and Scottish nationalists and unionists can argue the toss about whether it's a good or bad thing. Salmond's published a paper setting the date for the party, but nothing of substance about how independence will work, or what happens if Scotland votes 'No'.
Surely if Scotland wants more powers after a 'No' vote, it should be thinking about what to ask for now. It's not up to the UK to figure out what bones to throw to FISK next.
Well since the UK will be no longer.;)
The unionists have said that if there was a no vote more powers could be devolved to Scotland. What are these extra powers they are claiming they could give us. Time for them to spell out the extra powers Scoland would get. Or are they lying like they did in 1979?
What are these extra powers they are claiming they could give us.
Depends who you think the Unionists are I guess. If they're North of the border, then none. Powers are transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. But which powers do you want?
Odd kind of bargaining position from you nats. You don't seem to know what you want, or what you'll do post-independence.
Depends who you think the Unionists are I guess. If they're North of the border, then none. Powers are transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. But which powers do you want?
Odd kind of bargaining position from you nats. You don't seem to know what you want, or what you'll do post-independence.
Cameron made the promise, what, exactly, was he promising. Or is it just another empty promise , the same as happend in 1979.
The SNP's stance is independence, the unionist stance is " say no to independence and we will talk about more powers". They made the offer, it is up to them to come up with what that promise actually means.
Comments
It's no secret I'm pro independence but we should have had devo max as an option, to be honest I dread the day it happens and we do break free, splitting from the union may be the worst mistake we ever do since the l fated Darien fiasco.
A union which the majority of Scots are unhappy with as the support for devolution max demonstrates. A union where one nation gets the government the other part votes regardless of how massive the scale of the vote against the governing party is. A union so successful that the majority of Scots still feel more Scottish than anything else. This is a union where the proponents of it are unable to articulate any honest positives to maintaing it and have to resort to lies and scaremongering. A union so successful where the only way to ensure it remains is to frighten and mislead the public with scare stories of how Scotland could not be independent. This union isn't successful. It's dysfunctional and what's more it's coming to an end. God willing 2016 will see the union and Britian broken up but if it doesn't it will happen in the medium term. Some union.
It's obvious what's going to happen. Alex Salmond will be league with the aliens (because I read on the internet the SNP are essentially Nazis and EVIL!!! Let's face it, no one on the internet would ever lie.) A ship with a gigantic green laser will blow up Number 10 and we'll be saved by Will Smith and a computer geek, I'm guessing Julian Assange.
On a serious note, it could happen but I don't really see it. Then again a year before the AV referendum AV was in the lead and look how that turned out.
So if Scotland votes 'no' to independence, you're still going to demand more powers? Surely 'no' means the status quo.
Just a wild guess, but the currently reserved ones? Or stuff in the Scotland Bill, which the SNP don't like because it puts more budget responsibilities onto Scotland?
ps.. my bad. Scotland Bill became Act, so powers already transferred. What's left that you Scots still want, and can be trasnferred bearing in mind EU reserved matters?
Trouble with Devo Max as an option on a ballot paper is how it would be interpreted by the SNP in the event of that or a no vote winning. They'd maintain that it split the yes vote because it was chosen by those people who wanted independence but in bite sized chunks because they were too worried to commit to it and the whole issue of independence will keep trudging on.
If an in/out referendum for the UK several years down the line is considered a bad thing for potential investors how can leaving Scottish independence forever on the table be any different for Scotland?
I wouldn't have bothered persuing independence and concentrated my efforts on devo max instead. The best of both worlds has got to be better than the unknown - particularly for the next twenty odd years what with
a) Europe changing shape and
b) the economic power drifiting away from the west towards emerging nations.
With that latter point in particular it's going to be harder to attract investors to the south of England with a high speed rail link direct to Europe let alone Scotland when the "easy money" appears to be thousands of miles away so IMO the independence boat sailed back when the North Sea started pumping oil.
If that is what NO means they can explain why we're better off in the Union on THOSE grounds and fight the Yes campaign's demand for independence.
Seems simple. Why don't they do it? One joint statement should do the job.
You're quite correct. I can only assume that they are waiting for the opportune moment to bang that simple message home. The fact that might be later rather than sooner doesn't surprize me because why leave a window of opportunity open for your political opponents to formulate a counter strategy?
I wouldn't expect to see that message being rammed home until the referendum was only a month or two out. I'd quietly mention it now so that it minimises the chance of the SNP spinning it as a last ditch effort to bribe folk because Westminster is running scared but I'd leave the hard sell to much closer to the date if I was running the campaign.
No, not according to the Unionist parties. Perhaps you think they're waffling and dissembling when they claim more powers will be transferred should Scotland do as they say and vote 'no'?
Westminster could not pass control of the Crown Estates and the devolution of air passenger duty when it was recommended by Calman. Never mind the big stuff like welfare (64%) and taxes (56%) that people want to Holyrood, according to ScotCen.
- "Do you think there’s any need for more devolution in Scotland?", to which Darling replied "I think that, that, that, that, that’s, that’s a matter of debate." (WOS, 11 Jan 2013)
- "Anyone who believes that the UK Government is itching to give the Scottish Parliament more economic powers than those in last year's Scotland Act really hasn't been keeping up. With the threat of independence removed, the UK will no longer feel any need to placate Scottish demands for what many English voters believe is special treatment." (Herald, 6 Jan 2013)
- "No vote will not kill devolution, pledges Thatcher." (Herald, 28 Feb 1979)
Just because his haircut screams idiot I wouldn't be quite so dismissive. Hes an MP afterall, so by definition - sneaky.
Except he has shown that he isn't . He is the kind of person that would leave their own child behind in a pub:D
He didn't - his staff did
LOL:D:D
Err.. why? UK carries on being the UK, and carries on figuring out how to pay for the mess left behind by Labour.
Scotland, or more precisely the small subset of Scotland known as Salmond and cronies want independence. So date's been set and Scottish nationalists and unionists can argue the toss about whether it's a good or bad thing. Salmond's published a paper setting the date for the party, but nothing of substance about how independence will work, or what happens if Scotland votes 'No'.
Surely if Scotland wants more powers after a 'No' vote, it should be thinking about what to ask for now. It's not up to the UK to figure out what bones to throw to FISK next.
We're nearly 3 years into the parliament. It's time the coalition took responsibility for the results of its actions on the economy instead of blaming the previous lot.
Uniquely will be celebrated both sides of the border, for different reasons.
Well since the UK will be no longer.;)
The unionists have said that if there was a no vote more powers could be devolved to Scotland. What are these extra powers they are claiming they could give us. Time for them to spell out the extra powers Scoland would get. Or are they lying like they did in 1979?
Actually, if you think about it, for the same reason;)
Depends who you think the Unionists are I guess. If they're North of the border, then none. Powers are transferred from Westminster to Holyrood. But which powers do you want?
Odd kind of bargaining position from you nats. You don't seem to know what you want, or what you'll do post-independence.
Cameron made the promise, what, exactly, was he promising. Or is it just another empty promise , the same as happend in 1979.
The SNP's stance is independence, the unionist stance is " say no to independence and we will talk about more powers". They made the offer, it is up to them to come up with what that promise actually means.