David Cameron dismisses second Scottish Referendum before 2020

Scroll to see replies

That first link is an article from a Tory-biased, anti-independence newspaper. Within it are precisely zero links to unbiased sources on this.

Is this not the same Telegraph that just recently lied about Gove's hospital visit?

Are the rest of the 'references' from more reliable sources?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/10/alex-salmond-eu-legal-advice

http://m.stv.tv/news/politics/196346-government-took-no-specific-legal-advice-on-scotland-joining-eu/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042069

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-alex-salmond-hid-legal-reality-of-an-independent-scotlands-eu-status-9026325.html

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13078175.Bruised_Salmond_denies_lying_as_rows_engulf_SNP/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-blames-bbc-journalist-1398296

Or we could just ask the EU.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

Reply 81

1420787

Original post by MatureStudent36

Much better! Well done.

I'll pick through the rest of your original links later.

Reply 82

MatureStudent36

Original post by offhegoes

Much better! Well done.

I'll pick through the rest of your original links later.

Just as an FYI I tend not to make outlandish claims without being able to back them up.

I'm sure libs will be along shortly with the original source material.

Reply 83

1420787

Original post by MatureStudent36

Just as an FYI I tend not to make outlandish claims without being able to back them up.

I'm sure libs will be along shortly with the original source material.

I'm sure you don't, but I like to know exactly where information comes from, especially where statistics is involved. I'd say I see more inaccurate uses of statistics than I see accurate ones, and that's even after discounting the Daily Mail out of hand.

My grasp of economics is just based on what I've been able to pick up and through common sense and logic, but even then it's easy to find countless examples of flawed interpretations.

Reply 84

MatureStudent36

Original post by offhegoes

I agree with your sentiments exactly.

Reply 85

ibzombie96

Original post by offhegoes

Sources? For.. any of those statements?

Firms would have left Scotland had there been a no vote - including huge ones like RBS,Lloyds, BP, Standard Chartered amongst others.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-18-of-firms-may-leave-1-3394989

Salmond knowingly lied to the nation about membership of the EU:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-snp-claims-scotland-will-have-automatic-eu-membership-1464801
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13169308.Juncker__No_automatic_EU_entry_for_Scots/

Also untruths told about not taking on UK debt and using the pound (by the way, before you try and squirm out of it, refusing to take the facts presented in this piece on the grounds that it features in the Telegraph is a very weak response)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044798/Entirely-possible-Scotland-wont-share-pound-after-independence-Alex-Salmonds-top-economist-admits.html

Reply 86

1420787

Original post by ibzombie96

Also untruths told about not taking on UK debt and using the pound (by the way, before you try and squirm out of it, refusing to take the facts presented in this piece on the grounds that it features in the Telegraph is a very weak response)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044798/Entirely-possible-Scotland-wont-share-pound-after-independence-Alex-Salmonds-top-economist-admits.html

Why is the simple statement that a currency union would not a certainty so significant?

Reply 87

ibzombie96

Original post by offhegoes

Why is the simple statement that a currency union would not a certainty so significant?

Do I take it you've accepted all my other arguments?

It's significant because Salmond had asserted otherwise. He insisted that Scotland - had it become independent - would have been able to keep the pound. Most likely, he did this to try and allay fears that Scotland's economy would be too risky with independence - given the Scottish Chambers of Commerce's report, businesses either saw through this lie or didn't think a shared currency would have been enough to make Scotland a viable business environment.

Reply 88

Reformed2010

What happened to no more referendum for a generation? You cannot be an independent anti war and anti nuclear state but be a member of the European Union (especially the Eurozone) and NATO. The SNP's ability to spin their dream of an independent Scotland is truly brilliant. But Scotland in the Eurozone will become the European Conservatives bitch, you think the British Conservatives are bad to a left leaning people? go ask Greece.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 89

1420787

Original post by ibzombie96

No, I just haven't had time yet to check the sources, and decided to take a look at one of them. Since you highlighted the Telegraph link, I decided to focus on that one.

The article tells us that a group of the Scottish Government's top economists concluded that it would be in the best interests of both Scotland and the rUK for a currency union to be established.

As part of this, one of them stated his personal opinion that a currency union isn't guaranteed to happen.

Whilst you may be unhappy with Salmond talking about this is if it were a certainty, it goes without saying that he as a politician may have had a clearer understanding of what would be likely to happen. We can speculate, but since Scotland didn't vote for independence we cannot know.

Any Salmond would be far from the first politician to talk in certainties when the reality may be more a case of likelihoods.

Reply 90

ibzombie96

Original post by offhegoes

First of all, I didn't highlight the Telegraph article. Having seen your squirming earlier, I thought it best to preempt any such behaviour by asking you to address the facts rather than the source itself.

Secondly, we're not even dealing in likelihoods. Some Scottish government economists thought it would be good to use the pound; that's neither surprising nor relevant. The problem was that Salmond was presenting it as fact. I could understand, given your perfectly accurate comment that politicians like to exaggerate, if he were to present a likelihood as a certainty, but he wasn't. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor and the PM all said they would prevent Scotland from using the pound (at least in any way that is tied to the UK).

Once you've had some time to check those articles, I'd like to know whether or not you accept the evidence put to you.

Reply 91

1420787

Original post by ibzombie96

And David Cameron would be far from the first politician to use an a bluff to get his own way. Yes Salmond was wrong to portray it as a certainty, but it was not dishonest of him to tell the country that he believed it to be a likelihood. After all, we don't know what would have happened.

As for the rest, I will check them tomorrow and get back to you. But I fundamentally disagree that asking people to provide sources in a form that even vaguely resembles accepted convention for references is me squirming. I want to check sources and feedback, whether that is to agree or disagree. But simply I don't have time to fish around for exactly which fact is contained in which link.

Reply 92

ibzombie96

Original post by offhegoes

I can't remember Cameron lying with same the frequency and flagrantly as Salmond in the referendum, can you?

And you cannot accept that he genuinely thought he could just take the pound accept none of the UK's debt. He's a clever man - the markets would have punished him for the latter, whilst the PM and others would have prevented the former.

When you're given a list of articles and already know to what they refer (though not in which order), you only need to look at the headlines to glean the topic on which they are focussed. You may not have enough time to read them properly to locate the facts (though I'd suggest this really is the minimum you need to put in in order to put up a decent response), but given you're posting on a politics forum, you must have enough free time to look at the headlines to classify each article. I'd also suggest that considering the location in which this discussion is taking place, you don't expect a list of references as they would occur in a piece of academic literature - insisting on such is petty and shows a complete lack of mental flexibility.
Anyway, that wasn't what I was talking about when I accused you of squirming - when a Telegraph article was first put to you by someone else you, rather than engage with the material, cast off the evidence contained in the piece by criticising the paper itself.

I hope you noticed the organised way I laid out my links to save you time and allow you to put up a speedy response :wink:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 93

ibzombie96

Original post by Reformed2010

Exactly this. The SNP say they refuse to be a country that owns nuclear weapons but is perfectly happy to be supported by them - the party's number two got absolutely smashed to bits by Marr on this question during the referendum. However, the SNP never suggested they would be in the Eurozone.

By the way, have you got a response on the Corbynmania thread?

Reply 94

L i b

Original post by offhegoes

The article tells us that a group of the Scottish Government's top economists concluded that it would be in the best interests of both Scotland and the rUK for a currency union to be established.

While the Governor of the Bank of England and the Treasury said otherwise. I for one don't think the Scottish Government's advisory board are remotely independent, and I think they were largely picked because of their political allegiances.

The case against a currency union was clear: but in reality, if I had to pick a preference, there's probably not a lot in it: all the currency options an independent Scotland faced were pretty dire. The fact was that the currency union was expressly ruled out by the UK Government for good reasons.

I suspect a lot of this has been demonstrated quite ably by the Greek crisis. But if there are any slow learners out there, I'm sure the weight of commentary on the SNP's so-called "Plan A" is enough to dispel any notion that it would somehow work if only we willed it to do so.

Original post by offhegoes

The average supporter of independence has no interest in fiscal autonomy as part of the UK. Some think Scotland will be wealthier. Some think it will be poorer. They all just want freedom to make their own choices, mistakes included.

The economy is not the most important factor for the majority of independence voters.

This is true, but plenty of 'yes' voters were not 'independence supporters' as such, they were swing voters, undecided at the outset, who at some stage made up their minds to put a cross in a box.

Many voted one way or another with some hesitation, not buying all the arguments on one side or another but believing one might be a bit better, all said and done. In the case of the yes side, it exploited the fears of a lot of vulnerable and desperate people - selling them a completely false hope that their lot would be improved.

They're the people that are easily won over, and were targeted by both sides in the campaign. They're certainly not immune to changing their minds.