Jump to content

Scottish Independence

xbl

By xbl
in The Politics Forum

Recommended Posts

Tryfield

Tryfield

Posted
Posted

I'm teetering myself, don't know why but that conference filled me confidence and enthusiasm, makes a change from the usual turgid same old same old feeling I get when I listen to politicians.

The last time a leading Scot promised us something and got the country into a frenzy and gave us all hope was Ally MacLeod in 1978. The rest is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 16.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ayrmad

ayrmad

Posted
Posted

Haven't seen it yet as I'm at work, but will give it a look later. Had a quick scan through the White Document, and while it's missing a number of important things from my perspective, (CTRL+F can help you look for bits that pique your interest) I never really expected them to be in there. The things I'm referring to would be more party manifesto specific anyway I'd assume.

I think they're quite rightly taking the stand point that they may well take us into independence but the Scottish people will decide what happens after that.

I'll scan the paper later to see what I think, i'm open to anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ayrmad

ayrmad

Posted
Posted

Let's start with currency. 100% reliant on the UK accepting a currency union on Salmond's terms. No real acknowledgement of the risk involved and no alternative.

That is one hell of a big hole.

How will the UK cope if they don't agree to a currency union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ayrmad

ayrmad

Posted
Posted

The last time a leading Scot promised us something and got the country into a frenzy and gave us all hope was Ally MacLeod in 1978. The rest is history.

That's only a game, this is about the future of your kid and grandkids, entrenched positions aren't a positive attribute when making such big decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SodjesSixteenIncher

SodjesSixteenIncher

Posted
Posted

Only reason I'm here and willing to dip my toe into the debate on here now is that it's being divvied up into threads that can be followed, so won't as easily get lost in petty squabling.

For the record, my general stance is "no is my starting point, but please convince me otherwise". As I believe everyone should be. If we're not substantially worse off, then it'll be a yes from me. It's beginning to look more and more like a yes from me.

The reason I use the word substantially is that for me, it's firstly all about if it makes financial sense then secondly if it doesn't, but we're not substantially worse off, then I would take this as our best ever opportunity of government reform and that Scots deciding Scottish matters would be the best way forward.

So, I'm still a no (I obviously haven't read the entire report), but I'm getting nearer a yes.

Fair enough.

Scotland's economy at this moment in time outperforms the UK. Even as things are, we're in a better position to create wealth and deal with our problems. I can't see any reasons at all we would be much worse off within an Independent Scotland.

As you say though, it's also about being positioned to make things better. If you take massive growth industries like renewables and microelectronics, Scotland is in as good a position as anyone to create massive advantages for its people. To do that you have to want to do it. Instead we have a UK Gov reliant on overheating a tiny corner of the island, whilst taking things that could make Scotland great (RE electronics and technologies e.g, I'm thinking our massively successful higher education institutions) away from those without money in a "permanently leaner state".

No brainer for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AMMjag

AMMjag

Posted
Posted

Let's start with currency. 100% reliant on the UK accepting a currency union on Salmond's terms. No real acknowledgement of the risk involved and no alternative.

Considering Alistair Darling himself claimed a currency union was 'logical and desirable', of course the idea of one being agreed upon is an unbelievably realistic one. Something further added to by the fact not a single relevant figure from BT or Westminster has ruled the idea out. Do you yourself feel that it's something that absolutely wouldn't be agreed upon? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barrysnotter

barrysnotter

Posted
Posted

Considering Alistair Darling himself claimed a currency union was 'logical and desirable', of course the idea of one being agreed upon is an unbelievably realistic one. Something further added to by the fact not a single relevant figure from BT or Westminster has ruled the idea out. Do you yourself feel that it's something that absolutely wouldn't be agreed upon? If so, why?

Complete and utter bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barrysnotter

barrysnotter

Posted
Posted

I'm afraid you've again strayed into the realms of simply saying something without explaining your position, Baz.

You have completely misrepresented Darling's position, very much in a repeat if what was said at the launch this morning. I'm sure you already know that, hence why I didn't feel the need to highlight your flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AMMjag

AMMjag

Posted
Posted

You have completely misrepresented Darling's position, very much in a repeat if what was said at the launch this morning. I'm sure you already know that, hence why I didn't feel the need to highlight your flaw.

Do you deny that Alistair Darling said a currency union would be 'desirable'? Listen out for 'desirable' at the ~50 second mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKht7X6P0T4#t=62

Now regardless of his position on the substance of a currency union, why does he believe it 'desirable'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burma

Burma

Posted
Posted

Let's start with currency. 100% reliant on the UK accepting a currency union on Salmond's terms. No real acknowledgement of the risk involved and no alternative.

That is one hell of a big hole.

This is clearly addressed in great detail in the document. The argument as to why the rUK would readily accept a currency union (tbh it would be the call of the privately owned Bank if England) is compelling.

Why would the rUK refuse to do a deal with the owners of the single biggest asset which underpins its currency to the tune of £39billion per annum?

Without a currency union with Scotland Sterling would lose value even more than it has against the resilient euro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gordon EF

Gordon EF

Posted
Posted

Because the paper has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and doesn't address the fundamental issues in any reasonable manner. The press conference merely highlighted the major flaws.

Barry, Barry, Barry...

You're becoming a parody. You haven't read the paper, you moron. You've just heard Alastair Darling deliver his pre-prepared response to it and copy and pasted your opinion from that. I don't think you're a stupid man, why are you such an idiot when it comes to thigs like this?

Nobody will be able to judge how well the white paper launch has been for quite a while. If it produces a narrowing in the polls, it will have been a success, if it doesn't, it won't have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burma

Burma

Posted
Posted

So Shutting Dungavel, scrapping Trident, protecting welfare, re-nationalising Royal Mail on the white paper today

Over to you Westminster, what can you offer Scotland?

A discussion they will only be prepared to have if Scotland agrees to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...