Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

Why can't fellow Yes campaigners work together though. Alastair Darling addressed the Tory conference for the Union.

"Labour MP Alistair Darling has received a standing ovation from the Conservative Party faithful at the launch of a new campaign to keep the British armed forces together.

Mr Darling, chairman of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, launched Forces Together at the Tory conference in Stirling on Saturday.

One Tory delegate asked if Mr Darling's appearance at conference has been recorded so it can be distributed to schools
http://news.stv.tv/stirling-central/228607-better-together-chief-alistair-darling-to-attend-tory-conference/

Actually, Darling spoke at a fringe event, not to conference. At a party conference, there are numerous fringe events held by external organisations. Either way, Al Darling has never campaigned for a Tory organisation. You would never see him giving out Conservative Friends of the Union leaflets, just as you will never see Ruth Davidson handing out United With Labour leaflets. Moreover, since these organisations actually have numerous real members, they can distribute their own materials perfectly well.

The reason SNP people gave out "Labour for Independence" leaflets is that it is a fake front organisation and always has been. They are using it to attack the Labour Party.

The Better Together campaign doctored those photos and removed the names.
The pro-British Union ‘Better Together’ campaign has been caught doctoring a photo and claiming Ayrshire SNP activists were masquerading as members of pressure group ‘Labour for Independence’.

An absolute lie. I've seen what these idiots produced to back up that claim: it was a facebook page, with names tagged on it. Not part of the image at all, and not even necessarily the original or only source of the image. Lies, not even addressing the numerous photographs featuring SNP members actively leafleting and supporting this pretend organisation.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2481

L i b

Original post by arson_fire

Hopefully it will put the issue to rest one way or another for a generation.

Although I could see the SNP taking the EU approach of keeping asking the question until they get the "correct" result.

Luckily the SNP don't have that option, even if they secured a majority in the Scottish Parliament. The UK legislation devolving the right to have a referendum on Scottish independence expires at the end of 2014. At that point, the Scottish Parliament loses the legal power to hold one.

Reply 2482

Kj91

Lib,With regards to your comment about Alastair Darling never giving out 'Conservative Friends of the Union Leaflets' Could he not if he wanted to though?. As shown below.Since friends of the Union is not binding to support of the Conservative party. Why not the same stance with the Yes campaign?

(edited 10 years ago)

1004479_508374972573848_1867043087_n.jpg62.3KB

Reply 2483

ihateocr

Original post by Solarstorm

'Enough educated Scots'

I am sick of hearing things like that in this debate and especially from the same people who would say that the nats are chauvinistic and jingoistic.

"Most Scots are dumb as ****, but hopefully enough of them are smart enough to realize there is no benefit of independence."

Really do you hate Scots or just hate people in general?

If you disagree with a persons political opinion or even an entire nations democratic choice are you prepared to tarnish them all as 'uneducated'?

If the Scots vote yes to independence then will they forever in your eyes be regarded as a despicable, worthless, stupid and uneducated people.

We can think for ourselves you know. Some of us don't buy the SNP's arguments nor the unionists 'better together' propaganda, but some people can't view this debate in any other way than 1/0 unionist or 1/0 nationalist and have to resort to ridiculous name calling of those they don't agree with such as 'uneducated'.

If you had take the time to properly read my argument, you would have understood that my point was not that Scottish independence is what I consider to be the problem.Yet, in fact, the lack of devolution of an English parliamentary system which gives more localised constituencies a legislative power. As I'm sure you probably know, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's have the right to vote on acts of parliament affecting English citizens yet English MP's have no power in these areas.

Don't start with outrageous claims that I think all Scots want the SNP to win, many support the independence movement, but have become disenfranchised with the SNP after successive years of failures to meet targets. I come from Yorkshire which like Scotland has a very weak Conservative party following, yet both areas are governed by a conservative government.Only by sticking together do we have any basis to create a strong enough economic standpoint to have some influence in this ever increasingly globalized world. My argument is entirely based on factors of quality of life (money, health, education) and nothing to do with interests of pride and national identity. This perpetuated anti-English attitude that some Scots have contributes nothing to the world and only creates dumb-founded weak counter-arguments which present no real incentive to benefit from independence.

Give me ****, but what real argument can you give that independence has any benefit that isn't outweighed by a lesser counter-argument?

Reply 2484

MatureStudent36

Original post by L i b

So we have a party claiming to want to have a positive campaign, criticising anybody who criticises their made up claims as being negative, whilst getting its supporters to conduct personal attacks and spread lies, not spin, but lies, at the same time.

Spectacular.

Reply 2485

cowsforsale

Original post by MatureStudent36

Ah the mythical labour for independence movement made up of members of the SNP posing as members of the Labour Party.

http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/250

but you seem to have forgotten about the 40% of SNP voters who don't support seperation.

Tsk tsk.

You can do better than that..

Wonder why they chose a photoshopped picture, instead of these other ones.

Jack Andrea

Definitely better together, meanwhile..

Also,you can be Scottish and British, as you can be English, Welsh or Nothern Irish and British. Being British requires being in the British Isles :s-smilie:

Reply 2486

MatureStudent36

Original post by cowsforsale

Tsk tsk.

You can do better than that..

Wonder why they chose a photoshopped picture, instead of these other ones.

Definitely better together, meanwhile..

Also,you can be Scottish and British, as you can be English, Welsh or Nothern Irish and British. Being British requires being in the British Isles :s-smilie:

You must be working for the SNP with pushing out that. Are you seriously accusing one political grouping Photoshopping in pictures of SNP Councillors posing as members of Labour for independence?

I especially like your British as being defined as living on the British Isles. I always tend to take it as backed by pound sterling.

It's great news on the export front though. I guess all of those lovely British Embassies that we have access to have helped along the way. It's also a good indication that we're not really being held back as much as Mr Salmond likes to make out. Although I'm still waiting for the Saudi Arabia of Renewables to come along.

EDIT. With 50% of the vote and support for seperation hovering between 30 to 35%, have you identified the 30 to 40% of people who voted for the SNP who aren't backing their original policy? Do we have an SNP for staying in the Union movement.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2487

Wilder Airs

Bad, very bad - for all of us, Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Especially if they manage to wing the rights to the North Sea fossil fuel blocks - the cost of fuel in the UK would most likely sky rocket, and they wouldn't be much better, given that the North Sea reserves aren't exactly plentiful any more as it is.

Reply 2488

MatureStudent36

Interesting news article how the YeSNP campaign need to win over 2/3 of undecided voters yet sill have the problem that "the yes vote was “less solid” than the no vote, with “proportionally more yes voters saying ‘I might change my mind’ than no voters”.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/yes-vote-needs-2-3-of-undecided-voters-poll-1-3045382

It does appear however that "also identified a correlation between support for independence and those living in deprived areas........“Support for independence is mainly higher, so at 50% or more, in neighbourhoods across the central belt, some up in Aberdeen and in other pockets of the country,”

So I see that someof the most vulnerable people have fallen for the attempts to buy votes wth promise of a more financially soud future.

It's just a pity that the SNP don't believe that behind closed doors.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee08022eec_u9m6vd74f.pdf

Reply 2489

MatureStudent36

Original post by Wilder Airs

You do realise that having access to North Sea Oil doesn't actually change the cost of it in the UK? If that were the case we'd actually have some of the lowest fuel prices in Europe, but we actually have some of the most expensive.

The SNP seems to have forgotten as well that 12 of the 13 oil refineries in the UK aren't in Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_refineries_in_the_United_Kingdom

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2490

Good bloke

Original post by cowsforsale

Being British requires being in the British Isles.

You obviously haven't spoke to someone who lives in Gibraltar, the Falklands or the Channel islands. Or the Republic of Ireland, which is in the British Isles but isn't British.

Reply 2491

Psyk

Original post by Good bloke

You obviously haven't spoke to someone who lives in Gibraltar, the Falklands or the Channel islands. Or the Republic of Ireland, which is in the British Isles but isn't British.

But most people in the Republic of Ireland would dispute that it is in the British Isles (I'm not taking any side on that argument by the way).

Reply 2492

MatureStudent36

Original post by Psyk

But most people in the Republic of Ireland would dispute that it is in the British Isles (I'm not taking any side on that argument by the way).

Don't worry about it. It's one of the SNPs, we can change everything, but everything will remain exactly the same phrases that have come out recently. They've tried to alleviate concerns about which currency we'd be using by saying we'll keep the pound, even though as they want us to join the EU they're ignoring the fact that we'll have to take on the Euro for that to happen.

Reply 2493

Good bloke

Original post by Psyk

But most people in the Republic of Ireland would dispute that it is in the British Isles (I'm not taking any side on that argument by the way).

I've not met one that would. It is a simple geographical, non-political term - just like the Irish Sea.

Reply 2494

Psyk

Original post by Good bloke

I've not met one that would. It is a simple geographical, non-political term - just like the Irish Sea.

Maybe it's only Irish people on Youtube then :tongue:

Reply 2495

Good bloke

Original post by Psyk

Maybe it's only Irish people on Youtube then :tongue:

Keyboard warriors, not everyday normal people.

Reply 2496

MatureStudent36

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy

Reply 2497

Blue Meltwater

Original post by MatureStudent36

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy

Hm, that's a bit worrying. I wonder what the SNP response to this will be? Though:

the Scottish delegation was also told that no new member would be allowed to join Nato if that state had unresolved military or territorial disputes with other countries.

I wonder when/why this became a rule? It must be a new policy, else how did the likes of the UK, Spain or West Germany ever become members? And would the issue of Faslane really count as a 'territorial dispute'? The article even acknowledges that NATO would have an interest in allowing Scotland into the alliance, and I imagine there would be pressure on both sides to settle any disputes that could emerge.

Certainly a blow for Salmond's campaign, but once you get past the headline and scaremongering it doesn't necessarily have to be a major problem. The main issue appears to be Salmond's incoherent policy rather than the implications of NATO membership.

Reply 2498

c.a1979

I'll be honest here. I'm English, and let them have their independence. Maybe then Salmond as the first Scottish PM can invest money into the SFA and make them a decent football team lol..

In seriousness, people who moan about lost power miss the point. I personally think being "powerful" is overrated (yeah... Norway and Switzerland give a **** about being "powerful"). But most of our power doesn't come from Scotland or north sea oil, it's from England and frankly always has been. England attracts the most tourists, has London as its capital, and is the reason why the UK is still a large world economy.

The Scots only joined the Union anyhow since they went bankrupt after their colonialism. And they obviously must have seen the growing English empire and thought "me too!"

Reply 2499

c.a1979

Original post by Blue Meltwater

Hm, that's a bit worrying. I wonder what the SNP response to this will be? Though:

I wonder when/why this became a rule? It must be a new policy, else how did the likes of the UK, Spain or West Germany ever become members? And would the issue of Faslane really count as a 'territorial dispute'? The article even acknowledges that NATO would have an interest in allowing Scotland into the alliance, and I imagine there would be pressure on both sides to settle any disputes that could emerge.

Certainly a blow for Salmond's campaign, but once you get past the headline and scaremongering it doesn't necessarily have to be a major problem. The main issue appears to be Salmond's incoherent policy rather than the implications of NATO membership.