Lets talk about the Scottish referendum

[Coaan]

For me it comes down to the devil you know.

The Conservatives have done a lot of stupid shit over the last four years and I sure as hell didn't want David Cameron anywhere near any decision to be made about my country, but you know what? at the end of the day, at least I know he won't purposefully screw up keeping the United Kingdom afloat

I can't say the same for Alex Salmond, who still hasn't given a straight answer on how he plans to bankroll this amazing push for independance. He'd rather spend his time acting like a condescending tool towards people asking serious questions about a very serious future for our country.

For as much as I hate the clowns currently in power, at least I know for sure there will still be a country under their reign.

All we have under the SNP is empty promises and pointless national jingoism.

So no, Salmond can go get bent.

[UnderAGreySky]

I sure as hell didn't want David Cameron anywhere near any decision to be made about my country

Exactly! And more than 50% of the country agreed with you, but you don't see Yorkshire and Cornwall and other remote (read: Southeastern) counties trying to break away.

hasn't given a straight answer on how he plans to bankroll this amazing push for independance

Yup. The lack of economic planning is a disaster, IMO.

[Bedlam]

I actually suspect that Salmond himself just wants to get his name into the history books, if he yes vote won I wouldn't be to surprised if me stepped down between now and 2016 or shortly after. He gets to be remembered as the guy who gave Scotland Independence and the next guy as the one who messed up the economy.

[Irbis]

The Conservatives have done a lot of stupid shit over the last four years and I sure as hell didn't want David Cameron anywhere near any decision to be made about my country, but you know what? at the end of the day, at least I know he won't purposefully screw up keeping the United Kingdom afloat

So, you'd rather pick someone who picked course full steam ahead into the iceberg field, because he would 'never hit one intentionally', as opposed to someone who said to pick any other course as long as it isn't the shitty one (further publicizing the losses and privatizing profits, along with privatizing everything that's left in public ownership and Brexit referendum in 2017), right?

I can't say the same for Alex Salmond, who still hasn't given a straight answer on how he plans to bankroll this amazing push for independance. He'd rather spend his time acting like a condescending tool towards people asking serious questions about a very serious future for our country.

Funny that, Polish commenters (who are sympathetic to Scotland due to our history) from all political sides all pointed out that when Salmond was boring the electorate with complex plans the race was 30:65, it's when he started to appeal to simple, easily internalized things it went 50:50.

All we have under the SNP is empty promises and pointless national jingoism

What?

Salmond calls for increased immigration and more EU. Cameron copies page after page from BNP's program and slanders other EU nations weekly, using mix of lies, doubt and fear. Who is jingoist here?

Exactly! And more than 50% of the country agreed with you, but you don't see Yorkshire and Cornwall and other remote (read: Southeastern) counties trying to break away.

You mean the places that are English or suffered a millennium of cultural cleansing to make them nearly so? As opposed to state that was independent much longer than under the English rule, even including all invasions?

It's just as if I hear 1914 German/Russian arguments about Poland. Thankfully, or maybe sadly, they didn't quite have as much time for Kulturkampf and the results weren't quite as bad/good (depending on your perspective).

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but last I heard from Cornwall they even despite brutal Anglicization managed to keep enough cultural identity to campaign for minority status and now plan to try to obtain similar status as Wales:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035

So, yeah, Cornwall doesn't plan to get independence because only 3 months ago they were even noticed as minority and given any rights. It's like arguing that minor who finally went to police after years of abuse was okay with it the entire time prior to asking for protection. And yet, Salmond is the jingoistic one here, eh guys?

[Welf]

The Conservatives have done a lot of stupid shit over the last four years and I sure as hell didn't want David Cameron anywhere near any decision to be made about my country, but you know what? at the end of the day, at least I know he won't purposefully screw up keeping the United Kingdom afloat

Actually that is not so clear. There are indications that elites might purposely worsen economic crises, because they can then push through their agendas. Also there is election tactics. Voters don't vote with the absolute level of the economy in mind but with the perceived change. So an easy way to make re-election more likely is to hurt the economy the first 2 or 3 years and then have artificial high growth when the economy rebounds.

[Coaan]

So, you'd rather pick someone who picked course full steam ahead into the iceberg field, because he would 'never hit one intentionally', as opposed to someone who said to pick any other course as long as it isn't the shitty one (further publicizing the losses and privatizing profits, along with privatizing everything that's left in public ownership and Brexit referendum in 2017), right?

Maybe you missed where I mentioned I didn't care for either? I am, however, not eager to risk the stability of the country on a wait and see policy when it comes to something as critical as finance plans.

If it turns out that breaking from the Union places Scotland in a far worse off position, then what is the fucking point? I am leaning towards the union because the SNP has demonstrated no clear economic plan for the future of Scotland - what they have done is dodge and avoid answering the question when it was brought to them.

What?

Salmond calls for increased immigration and more EU. Cameron copies page after page from BNP's program and slanders other EU nations weekly, using mix of lies, doubt and fear. Who is jingoist here?

The word I was intending to use here was rhetoric, not jingoism. That was my screw up.

[Irbis]

Actually that is not so clear. There are indications that elites might purposely worsen economic crises, because they can then push through their agendas. Also there is election tactics. Voters don't vote with the absolute level of the economy in mind but with the perceived change. So an easy way to make re-election more likely is to hurt the economy the first 2 or 3 years and then have artificial high growth when the economy rebounds.

There is not only that, but also the thing that the whole "No" campaign seems to consist of just veiled threats. Main two arguments are that independent Scotland will lose pound and will get border checks. But, if both are currently so good for Scotland and UK, why deny them after independence? Doesn't UK provide currency union and open borders to a lot of places that aren't part of UK?

Plus, UK would be hurt less proportionally than Scotland, but they would be hurt too. How do you call person that hurts another on purpose out of pure spite?

Now, there is also the fact Scotland has no say in these matters today either. I put a link earlier that Scotland may lose all influence on pound by simple administrative decision by Bank of England. Borders? Both Scotland and Ireland are kept outside of Schengen zone by British insistence of isolationism. Is that really any different?

Maybe, just maybe, it would be better to stand up to bully who can offer just threats and call British bluff. Even if they do make good on the threat, perhaps it would be worth it to lose the Sword of Damocles from above your head. If not, with Scotland and Ireland pushing for same thing, both would get to negotiate with England as more equal partner instead of minor, divided vassals like they do now. Independence doesn't have to equal less influence, IMHO.

Maybe you missed where I mentioned I didn't care for either? I am, however, not eager to risk the stability of the country on a wait and see policy when it comes to something as critical as finance plans.

See, to me, risking the stability is staying on a sinking ship that Cameron leads no one knows where, but we know it's not anywhere worthwhile. My year stay in Scotland was possible thanks to policies Cameron and his stupid cronies are now cutting to pad the pockets of their cronies. While I didn't calculated it, I am pretty sure what I spent from my savings and put in Scotland's pocket in taxes were more than they spent on me. So, yeah, sorry, to me his policies are that of an idiot who just makes everyone but rich cronies worse off.

If it turns out that breaking from the Union places Scotland in a far worse off position, then what is the fucking point?

Because you won't know without trying? Yes, there are a lot of examples of bad separations that ended in tears, but there are a lot of ones that succeeded. Worst comes to worst, Scotland can always rejoin UK. But, there is very real possibility that will see Scotland stay in EU only independent while UK under Cameron and BNP crashes and burns in Brexit.

[Coaan]

Because you won't know without trying? Yes, there are a lot of examples of bad separations that ended in tears, but there are a lot of ones that succeeded. Worst comes to worst, Scotland can always rejoin UK. But, there is very real possibility that will see Scotland stay in EU only independent while UK under Cameron and BNP crashes and burns in Brexit.

The day that someone can show me a viable plan for making Scotland fiscally viable as it's own master, or at least have the bare bones of a plan to do so, I will be right on board and A-okay with that.

Until then, I maintain that the future leaders of a should at least have *some* kind of plan for making sure the economy doesn't collapse in on itself. Until they can power countries with nothing but happy thoughts and dreams, fiscal responsibility is going to continue to be a critical issue.

The SNP have some good ideas, don't get me wrong. I'm not a rabid hater of their manifesto, I just think they're treating the subject of the economy all wrong and it's cost them a vote in my case.

[Starglider]

Economically, if Scotland becomes independent but keeps the pound, they will have all the same problems but lose much of the influence needed to fix them. I would note that Scotland currently has a disproportionately high influence over the economic policy of the UK as a whole, which would become disproportionately low following independence. Starting a new currency would be disasterous given the desire of the SNP to do massive borrowing (to allow handouts to their supporters). Joining the euro is not going to happen any time soon and given the fiscal direction of the euro block is not likely to help anyway.

But, there is very real possibility that will see Scotland stay in EU only independent while UK under Cameron and BNP crashes and burns in Brexit.

Scotland cannot practically rejoin the UK. It is nonsensical to support even the idea of a referendum on Scottish independence (regardless of your preferred outcome) while denying the possibility of a referendum on UK independence (from the EU). Both are positive expressions of democratic decision making.

[Zaune]

Well, in the absolute worst case, there's nothing stopping them simply keeping their currency pegged to sterling until further notice while they negotiate membership conditions with the EU.

[mr friendly guy]

Australia weighs in, because apparently our words carry so much weight.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-16/p ... ti/5676148

Tony Abbott criticised over comments opposing Scottish independence
Updated Wed at 10:37am

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared supporters of Scottish independence are not "friends of freedom" or "friends of justice" in an interview with a British newspaper.

Mr Abbott's comments, which were published in The Times, are the strongest yet by a major foreign leader on the Scottish independence debate, and follow on from calls from United States president Barack Obama to keep the union intact.

Scotland goes to the polls on September 18 to decide whether to break away from the 307-year-old union with England.

"What the Scots do is a matter for the Scots and not for a moment do I presume to tell Scottish voters which way they should vote," Mr Abbott said.

"As a friend of Britain, as an observer from afar, it's hard to see how the world would be helped by an independent Scotland.

"I think that the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom, and the countries that would cheer at the prospect ... are not the countries whose company one would like to keep."

A spokesman for Scottish first minister Alex Salmond, who is leading the pro-independence campaign, said Mr Abbott had "put his foot in it".

"Tony Abbott has a reputation for gaffes, but his bewildering comments have all the hallmarks of one of the Westminster government's international briefings against Scotland," he said.

"Many Australians, including the great number with close Scottish connections, will look on in bafflement at these remarks - Australia is a country that has gained its independence from Westminster and has never looked back."

Mr Obama last month backed the union, saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Chinese premier Li Keqiang, during a visit to London in June, also said he wanted a "strong, prosperous and united United Kingdom".

Yes the irony of a country which gained independence from the British criticising some Scots for choosing the same. You can't make this shit up. But Tony Abbott can.

[madd0ct0r]

Apparently the foreign office has been doing a ring around asking other nations to come out against it

[Gandalf]

Apparently the foreign office has been doing a ring around asking other nations to come out against it

Holding on to the Empire just isn't what it used to be.

[streetad]

I have spent the last few days in a bit of a depression about what is happening to this country. I suppose I have been as guilty as anyone of assuming that the referendum was a foregone conclusion and that 'Yes' would never even get close. I am fairly sure that this has nothing to do with 'arrogance' though – I just never in a million years thought that Salmond would be able to convince so many of the Left that he has their best interests at heart.

I can understand how he can appeal to the ultra-nationalists who need no persuasion more complicated than 'Vote yes because you love Scotland', although of course the question people are being asked is not 'do I love Scotland?'. Every single person who is taking the time to go out to vote NO in the referendum loves Scotland and wants Scottish people to prosper. They may have some fundamental disagreements about how to achieve that goal, but that remains constant. I love Scotland - I have chosen to live here; the plan was to bring up my children here.

The real question is 'do I hate the way things are in Britain so much that I am willing to gamble everything positive about it on the chance that Alex Salmond and his cronies are going to build something better'?

I think this is the part I have the most trouble understanding – given that people seem to have such a (at least somewhat earned) distrust of politicians how can they not see through the Nats? Alex Salmond does not care about you. He is not a 'socialist'. He is an opportunistic, smug, strutting bully and a fitting leader for his party. He has been caught out lying time and again, about Europe, the NHS, currency, you name it. In power, his party have never made a tough decision, they will say and do absolutely anything if they think it will get them what they want. Any criticism is met with a combination of condescension, Tory-bashing and questioning their opponent's 'Scottishness'. Their efforts to silence criticism from the likes of academics, the CBI and even mothers of disabled children have been downright sinister and they have never criticised their more bigoted, extremist followers without an insincere smirk on their faces.

During the referendum campaign their main tactic has been to rubbish anyone bringing up any legitimate concerns as 'scaremongering' or 'talking Scotland down'. At the same time they have done nothing but spread their own brand of fearmongering lies about how the NHS is being privatised (notwithstanding that is a devolved issue anyway, it isn't and never will be), how the English will somehow 'punish' Scotland for voting no (what does this even mean?), how the UK will pull out/stay in the EU (depending on who they are trying to persuade). Rather than trying to come up with a plausible policy on currency they have deliberately attempted to confuse the Scottish people about the difference between a currency union and being able to use the Pound.

These are the people who will be in charge of creating the institutions, the constitution, and even the character of a new Scottish nation – even if the next election goes off on schedule, they have a parliamentary majority and plenty of time to do it in and their pals in the Green party and 'Labour for Independence' can safely be pushed to the side once they have no more need of them. Behind the facade of social justice lies only a belief in nationalism, and this is what they will base a new Scottish nation on. Nationalism is about division and the creation of a perceived enemy. How can anyone possibly trust them or want to live in the kind of nation they would create?

I am sure that I will be called a 'fearmonger' by Nationalists who will have a whole set of 'facts' ready about what will happen after the referendum, each one more unsubstantiated than the last. The only ACTUAL fact is that, like every divorce, a Yes vote will result in years of hard fought, bitter negotiations about absolutely everything from currency on down and the only people who will eventually go home completely happy are a thousand international lawyers. Scotland has some cards to play, but anyone who tells you that Scotland will get everything they want and nothing will change is either unbelievably naive or lying to you.

I know there will be die hard nationalists out there who would still vote for independence even if it would make everyone materially worse off – but as for everyone else - is this really what you want? Are things really so bad that we need to shatter everything to bits in the hope that somehow the worst possible candidates for the job will be able to build something better out of the pieces?

[Zaune]

I think it's because he's offering policies that are genuinely different from anything the big two-and-a-half in Westminster are talking about. An immigration policy that isn't pandering to the yellow press, a social welfare policy that isn't based on less eligibility; frankly, if I were living in Scotland I'd vote SNP just for the novelty value.

[Lonestar]

I am sure that I will be called a 'fearmonger' by Nationalists who will have a whole set of 'facts' ready about what will happen after the referendum, each one more unsubstantiated than the last. The only ACTUAL fact is that, like every divorce, a Yes vote will result in years of hard fought, bitter negotiations about absolutely everything from currency on down and the only people who will eventually go home completely happy are a thousand international lawyers. Scotland has some cards to play, but anyone who tells you that Scotland will get everything they want and nothing will change is either unbelievably naive or lying to you.

Some cards to play, but not many. Scotland is asking a lot(especially with regards to divying up the UKs defense assets) but they don't have a lot of chips to put on the table. The white paper the SNP had on defense was absurd. At best they're gonna be like Ireland, and they seriously think they're going to walk into NATO spending less than 1% of it's GDP on defense.

[Lonestar]

I think it's because he's offering policies that are genuinely different from anything the big two-and-a-half in Westminster are talking about. An immigration policy that isn't pandering to the yellow press, a social welfare policy that isn't based on less eligibility; frankly, if I were living in Scotland I'd vote SNP just for the novelty value.

Oh, pfff. Seriously? He can offer all his radical policy proposals that he wants, it doesn't mean that he can implement them if he doesn't have the money or resources but ~~magically~~ they will when they beocme independent.

[Thanas]

Some cards to play, but not many. Scotland is asking a lot(especially with regards to divying up the UKs defense assets) but they don't have a lot of chips to put on the table. The white paper the SNP had on defense was absurd. At best they're gonna be like Ireland, and they seriously think they're going to walk into NATO spending less than 1% of it's GDP on defense.

Why are the defence demands absurd? They want 1 of 2 Typhoon squadrons, 10% of the surface fleet, 3 out of 36 bataillons. Based on population size that sounds fair.

[Lonestar]

They want a bunch of high-end stuff that gives them very uneven capabilities. It's obvious that they picked some high-profile items out of the hat and gave no thought to ISR, logistics, maritime/air mobility...just to name three areas. And they think they can afford to run the equipment while duplicating the command structure of the UK, creating a intelligence apparatus and creating a social welfare paradise.

Like I said; The SNP's position on what they should get out of the split is absurd. They very clearly picked the army units that had "Scottish" in the name, and then high profile items, and called it a day.

[Darmalus]

Isn't the first rule of bargaining to demand more than you think you could possibly get, then bargain down to what you really want? Or is there some context I missed that makes this seem to be what they actually want?

[Thanas]

They want a bunch of high-end stuff that gives them very uneven capabilities.

Such as? The only real item is that they want half the operational Typhoon squadrons.

They very clearly picked the army units that had "Scottish" in the name, and then high profile items, and called it a day.

Given the territorial principles along which the Royal Army is organized, I don't see the problem?

[Lonestar]

Isn't the first rule of bargaining to demand more than you think you could possibly get, then bargain down to what you really want?

It doesn't work if it's either obviously a colossal bluff, or it's clear to everyone that you don't know what the fuck you're doing by omitting a lot of stuff.

[Lonestar]

Such as? The only real item is that they want half the operational Typhoon squadrons.

Yes, half the Typhoons and two Frigates when the Scottish navy is going to be glorified fisheries protection. Again, they're shooting for big ticket items that they can't really afford, especially in the context of their social wealfare plans, dicey monetary future, and replicating the new command structure/intelligence apparatus. And they are doing it very unevenly, it's doubtful the SNP gave their white paper any thoughts beyond "how can we prove we got what we need out of the UKs assets?"

Given the territorial principles along which the Royal Army is organized, I don't see the problem?

Read very carefully what I said about stuff like "unevenly capable". It was written with a alck of understanding as to what's needed to get the whole thing up and running. The Royal Regiment of Scotland consist of 4 regular and 2 reserve infantry battalions, there are also the Scots Guards and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, although not all of these are based in Scotland. Were these to become the Scottish army then it would consist of 3 battalions of light infantry, 2 battalions of armoured infantry, and 1 battalion of heavy armour. They haven't requested anything for the logistics back end for it, meaning it'll ultimately be a very unbalanced force.

Assuming, of course, they can man it. I mean, it isn't like there's a not-small probability that a bunch of Scottish soldiers/would-be soldiers would seek to remain in the UK forces because promotion prospects were better and such.

The White Paper was absurd.

[Thanas]

They are not wanting 6 Bataillons. They want 3. And two frigates doesn't sound so bad considering they have to have something to offer the EU/Nato.

I agree about the lack of support etc.

[K. A. Pital]

So when there's a genuine alternative, people still hate it because of uncertainty? Well... I cannot blame them, but I cannot support this position either.