Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote?

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen the rest of the poll. Just the one question.(with the highly surprising result). Unless you can point me in the direction of the actual poll.

It was part of a series of questions the SNP asked in their poll i believe. I think they did the old "look at these" with the 4 othres and *cough* "What other question?" trick with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a small student poll done before and after a debate on Independence in Shetland. Nothing startling, but does indicate the no vote is soft IMO and that if Yes get their message across it will be close come the day.

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/05/10/students-shift-in-favour-of-yes-vote-after-college-debate

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/05/10/students-shift-in-favour-of-yes-vote-after-college-debate

Edited by caleyjaggi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not reading articles doesn't usually prevent you commenting on them. After all, you have substantial form for it, after embarrassing yourself comprehensively on the "Michael Moore says Scotland gets debt but none of the assets!!!!!" debacle you were destroyed on.

It's just an incredible claim by the SNP. I understand their "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" it's just a scratch approach to the nightmare they are making of this campaign at one level, but their performance is bordering on the insane.

Aha, and we were right, weren't we? None of the assets, plenty of debt. Oh, but we might get to keep *some* of our sea. If we're good. I assume a St. Mirren wannabe like yourself enjoys the thought of Scotland losing out.

Just "the SNP" now? No more "Nattard"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was part of a series of questions the SNP asked in their poll i believe. I think they did the old "look at these" with the 4 othres and *cough* "What other question?" trick with this one.

You mean like the "SCOTS FAVOUR NUKES" story that went around the other day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha, and we were right, weren't we? None of the assets, plenty of debt.

No, no you weren't. You were 100% wrong.

This is just such an utter barefaced lie, as you have been called on time and time again. And yet you keep repeating it. For a reason known only to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no you weren't. You were 100% wrong.

This is just such an utter barefaced lie, as you have been called on time and time again. And yet you keep repeating it. For a reason known only to yourself.

Coming from you? The author of the "spectacular own goal"? Its very simple. The British position is that we'll be a new state without the assets. But we get to keep the debt, despite being a new country.

Oh, and our sea is "up for grabs". But hey, we'll get to keep our land at least! Although not all of it. We might have to give the rCDU control over Faslane and the region. None of this is a "bare faced lie".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from you? The author of the "spectacular own goal"? Its very simple. The British position is that we'll be a new state without the assets. But we get to keep the debt, despite being a new country.

Oh, and our sea is "up for grabs". But hey, we'll get to keep our land at least! Although not all of it. We might have to give the rCDU control over Faslane and the region. None of this is a "bare faced lie".

Stop fucking lying. Literally no one has said that Scotland will get "none of the assets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop fucking lying. Literally no one has said that Scotland will get "none of the assets".

But we're a new state, not a continuing one, not a successor one. You have said yourself that we would have to apply to the EU as a new state. The British government have said that as the CDU will be the continuing state, then THEY will have control over (say) the currency, and we will not, as we are a new country. After all, we were "extinguished".

Oh, and it might be dressed up in legal language, but thats what it boils down to. In fact, it might as well be Michael Moore's personal slogan: "none of the assets, some of your sea."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we're a new state, not a continuing one, not a successor one. You have said yourself that we would have to apply to the EU as a new state. The British government have said that as the CDU will be the continuing state, then THEY will have control over (say) the currency, and we will not, as we are a new country. After all, we were "extinguished".Oh, and it might be dressed up in legal language, but thats what it boils down to. In fact, it might as well be Michael Moore's personal slogan: "none of the assets, some of your sea."

Neither EU membership nor the right to issue currency are "assets". Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither EU membership nor the right to issue currency are "assets". Try again.

So what is defined as an asset? Our sea? Of which we will get to keep *some* of? The DVLA? Embassies? Big nuclear subs? The Bank of England?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour want to distance itself from better together and launch its own campaign to stay in the union

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link?

Pleasing if true. It would essentially make Better Together a wing of the Lib Dems and Tories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is defined as an asset? Our sea? Of which we will get to keep *some* of? The DVLA? Embassies? Big nuclear subs? The Bank of England?

Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights. These are both, to use the legal jargon, "delectus personae" or in layman's terms, specific to an individual with legal personality. They aren't rights "in things" but rights to do things in relations with other people and bodies. Here the golf-club analogy is a good one.

Imagine that a golf-club offers an Oil and Gas company, who sponsor them, free membership to all those who work within that company. Imagine then that a division of that company is subject to a management buy-out, becomes a different company, with no direct and continuing connection to the original company, and which is in no sense by continued agreement held to be liable for the continuing sponsorship. Are the people in this new company automatically entiled to free membership and bound by the members-rules of the golf-club? Of course not. They might want to sponsor the golf-club, and to reach their own agreement with them, but they forfeit the rights of membership at the moment they ceased to be part of a member, and ceased to share the duties with them under the terms of that arrangement.

The right to be a member of an international organisation is incumbent on your ratifying its treaties, often with the consent mechanisms provided by the organisation or its constituent members in the treaties themselves. This is why the whole international legal personality thing, that I have been banging on about, matters. For organisations like the EU, continuity of legal personality is critical to legal entitlement to automatic continued membership following an "independence event". Under no circumstances will Scotland inherit the international legal personality of the United Kingdom, though rUK most likely will do so.

The right to issue a bill of exchange (i.e. currency) is a sovereign right, not an asset. The value of that currency or bill of exchange will be underpinned by actual physical assets, but that's not the same thing. There absolutely will be negotiations about what share of the Bank of England's assets (note, not "the Bank of England", a body created by and part of the machinery of a sovereign state, but its "assets") Scotland should be entitled to, and whether that entitlement would take the form of physical ownership and division of those assets, or a right to the value of those assets, honoured some other way by the provision of something else.

So for example we might get the Bank of England's gold, but we might instead be given an equivalent reduction in our agreed liability arising out of the UK's national debt. Or an independent Scottish government might be paid in Bank of England notes, which as I've suggested before Scotland ought then to put into its own central bank and issue Scottish notes, to create a medium-term currency peg but also to have the institutions ready to have our own free-floating currency if need be at a whim. On things like government agencies, we wouldn't automatically own a share in them. To take your DVLA example, there would have to be an arrangement either to split it into two agencies, one operating in each state, or some sort of combined agreement to share a drivers' licencing scheme. The divvying up of test centres would probably be done in a common-sense manner: Scotland keeps all the centres in Scotland, rUK all those in rUK, and where services are combined at a fixed place, some sort of financial accommodation made to allow for shadow institutions to be set-up north of the border. It would mean organisational re-jigging and probably some redundancies here and there to reflect the new geographical needs of the organisations, but Scotland would get "its share" in terms of the value of, say, the physical buildings the DVLA have in some b*****d English backwater as their HQ, in order to set up their own.

Do you understand the differences yet? Literally no one is saying we'll get none of the assets, because that would be an absurd thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour want to distance itself from better together and launch its own campaign to stay in the union

... but it's a fucking Labour front! Most of the BetterTogether infrastructure IS Scottish Labour! It's run by Alistair fucking Darling! Most of the staffers are Labour activists and quite a lot of them, even at a junior level, are former Labour staffers! They actually recruit people who are Parliamentary assistants at Holyrood to Labour MSPs for their task-forces etc.

Only Scottish Labour could want to distance themselves from themselves. You could understand if this was in response to the dirty Tory donations, but Darling and co specifically and warmly welcomed it!

As a slight aside, I and a few others in the Lib Dems have been arguing pretty much from the outset that, even if the party wanted to campaign for a No vote, they should have done so in a campaign distinct from Better Together. The internal argument was that there were operational advantages (sharing of canvass data, reduced overheads etc) and that it would prevent perceptions of weakness among the No campaign. But it entirely missed the point. Even by campaigning as a non-BT No voice, it would have actually given the Scottish Lib Dems infinitely more attention as a voice of reason distinct from the two more charged campaigns. It would have created a clear platform for a third-way (solid commitment to significantly more powers) without them having to spend a single penny, save perhaps to register a domain name. They could have avoided all the negativity of the party-political mud-slinging, and done something properly constructive. Hell, it might even have won us back some votes from gradualists and incrementalists on the Scottish question.

Alas, the leadership just don't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights. These are both, to use the legal jargon, "delectus personae" or in layman's terms, specific to an individual with legal personality. They aren't rights "in things" but rights to do things in relations with other people and bodies. Here the golf-club analogy is a good one.

Imagine that a golf-club offers an Oil and Gas company, who sponsor them, free membership to all those who work within that company. Imagine then that a division of that company is subject to a management buy-out, becomes a different company, with no direct and continuing connection to the original company, and which is in no sense by continued agreement held to be liable for the continuing sponsorship. Are the people in this new company automatically entiled to free membership and bound by the members-rules of the golf-club? Of course not. They might want to sponsor the golf-club, and to reach their own agreement with them, but they forfeit the rights of membership at the moment they ceased to be part of a member, and ceased to share the duties with them under the terms of that arrangement.

The right to be a member of an international organisation is incumbent on your ratifying its treaties, often with the consent mechanisms provided by the organisation or its constituent members in the treaties themselves. This is why the whole international legal personality thing, that I have been banging on about, matters. For organisations like the EU, continuity of legal personality is critical to legal entitlement to automatic continued membership following an "independence event". Under no circumstances will Scotland inherit the international legal personality of the United Kingdom, though rUK most likely will do so.

The right to issue a bill of exchange (i.e. currency) is a sovereign right, not an asset. The value of that currency or bill of exchange will be underpinned by actual physical assets, but that's not the same thing. There absolutely will be negotiations about what share of the Bank of England's assets (note, not "the Bank of England", a body created by and part of the machinery of a sovereign state, but its "assets") Scotland should be entitled to, and whether that entitlement would take the form of physical ownership and division of those assets, or a right to the value of those assets, honoured some other way by the provision of something else.

So for example we might get the Bank of England's gold, but we might instead be given an equivalent reduction in our agreed liability arising out of the UK's national debt. Or an independent Scottish government might be paid in Bank of England notes, which as I've suggested before Scotland ought then to put into its own central bank and issue Scottish notes, to create a medium-term currency peg but also to have the institutions ready to have our own free-floating currency if need be at a whim. On things like government agencies, we wouldn't automatically own a share in them. To take your DVLA example, there would have to be an arrangement either to split it into two agencies, one operating in each state, or some sort of combined agreement to share a drivers' licencing scheme. The divvying up of test centres would probably be done in a common-sense manner: Scotland keeps all the centres in Scotland, rUK all those in rUK, and where services are combined at a fixed place, some sort of financial accommodation made to allow for shadow institutions to be set-up north of the border. It would mean organisational re-jigging and probably some redundancies here and there to reflect the new geographical needs of the organisations, but Scotland would get "its share" in terms of the value of, say, the physical buildings the DVLA have in some b*****d English backwater as their HQ, in order to set up their own.

Do you understand the differences yet? Literally no one is saying we'll get none of the assets, because that would be an absurd thing to say.

... but it's a fucking Labour front! Most of the BetterTogether infrastructure IS Scottish Labour! It's run by Alistair fucking Darling! Most of the staffers are Labour activists and quite a lot of them, even at a junior level, are former Labour staffers! They actually recruit people who are Parliamentary assistants at Holyrood to Labour MSPs for their task-forces etc.

Only Scottish Labour could want to distance themselves from themselves. You could understand if this was in response to the dirty Tory donations, but Darling and co specifically and warmly welcomed it!

As a slight aside, I and a few others in the Lib Dems have been arguing pretty much from the outset that, even if the party wanted to campaign for a No vote, they should have done so in a campaign distinct from Better Together. The internal argument was that there were operational advantages (sharing of canvass data, reduced overheads etc) and that it would prevent perceptions of weakness among the No campaign. But it entirely missed the point. Even by campaigning as a non-BT No voice, it would have actually given the Scottish Lib Dems infinitely more attention as a voice of reason distinct from the two more charged campaigns. It would have created a clear platform for a third-way (solid commitment to significantly more powers) without them having to spend a single penny, save perhaps to register a domain name. They could have avoided all the negativity of the party-political mud-slinging, and done something properly constructive. Hell, it might even have won us back some votes from gradualists and incrementalists on the Scottish question.

Alas, the leadership just don't buy it.

Someone's in a mood, or on the gin.

:lol:

Anyway, telt x2.

Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link?

Pleasing if true. It would essentially make Better Together a wing of the Lib Dems and Tories!

http://news.stv.tv/politics/224940-labour-to-launch-own-campaign-to-keep-scotland-in-united-kingdom/

Labour will distance itself from Better Together colleagues in the Tories and Liberal Democrats by launching its own campaign to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

The party works with its political opponents inside the pro-Union campaign but wants to put across a "different view" of Scotland's future.

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont and her deputy, the MP Anas Sarwar, will be among the speakers at the launch of United with Labour at the Emirates Arena in Glasgow on Monday.

Mr Sarwar, who is campaign co-ordinator, said: "We are excited about putting forward our case for Scotland in the United Kingdom based on Labour values of solidarity, community, fairness, equality and social justice.

"Our vision is for a fairer, better Scotland that stands strong within the United Kingdom, working in partnership with our neighbours.

"Constitutional politics brings together people who wouldn't normally be on the same side and we will continue to work with the Better Together campaign.

"But the Labour movement has a different view of Scotland's future from the Conservatives and Liberals.

"The referendum is the biggest decision the people of Scotland will face for 300 years and it is important that we have strong Labour voices speaking for the majority of Scots who believe we are better working together with our neighbours in the United Kingdom."

The campaign aims to contact half a million households in the next three months. A mixture of senior Labour figures and new faces will be invited to put the case for Scotland "standing strong" within the United Kingdom, the party said.

The launch comes less than a month since the Scottish Labour party conference in Inverness, where the leadership was urged to put forward a distinct, positive argument for remaining in the UK.

Dave Watson, of Unison, told the conference: "While I appreciate the referendum campaign has to have a formal Yes and No campaign, most of us in the Labour movement have a huge difficulty with any campaign that includes the Tories."

Unite's Scottish secretary Pat Rafferty said undecided members "won't be bounced into taking sides".

Richard Leonard, of the GMB union, said: "Let's get out of the slipstream of the nationalists and the unionists and be ourselves.

"It's no good simply saying what we are against, we need to tell people what we are for."

Scottish Labour has already drafted a recommendation for the devolution of income tax to bolster the Scottish Parliament within the UK.

The tax was described as the "best candidate" but the proposal attracted concerns from within the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now Vaubel, a member of the Advisory Council to the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, has published a paper that is closer to the SNP's position on the issue.

In The Political Economy of Secession in the European Union, he argues: "If, say, Catalonia seceded from Spain or Scotland from the UK, both would remain members of the European Union. The seceding state and the rump state would have to negotiate an agreement on how they wished to share the rights and obligations of the predecessor state. If they did not meet their joint obligations, both could be expelled by the international organisation."

Vaubel also stated: "The legal position taken by Barroso - and van Rompuy has no basis in the European treaties. Nor is there a precedent in EU law. Nor has this question ever been settled in any UN agreement or Vienna Convention. There are merely practices, and they vary."

Note the key word there? "Remain".

www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/adviser-to-german-government-indy-scotland-would-still-be-in-europe.20948699

Oh and very funny about BT, guess that makes them a Lib Dem front!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and:

"SCOTLAND can legally walk away from its share of the UKs debt mountain and start independence with a clean slate, according to a top constitutional expert.

Lawyer Dr Matt Qvortrup says the nation could begin its life outside the union unshackled from a £125BILLION overdraft equivalent to four years spending at Holyrood.

And the world-renowned academic believes his findings, based on studies of historic state separations, could have a massive impact on the independence debate."

Debt free Scotland. :D

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/scotlandfeatures/4924051/Expert-Scotland-can-legally-leave-the-UK-and-be-debt-free.html

Edited by xbl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seceding state and the rump state would have to negotiate an agreement on how they wished to share the rights and obligations of the predecessor state. If they did not meet their joint obligations, both could be expelled by the international organisation."

"The legal position taken by Barroso - and van Rompuy has no basis in the European treaties.

:lol:

What barefaced cheek. Invents a completely ludicrous scenario utterly without precedent or basis in the European treaties in one breath, then bemoans the Barroso poistion as, erm, having no basis in the European treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...