Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Doug P

No EU, possibly no Pound.... doesn't sound like something I would vote for if I were a Scot....

In two months or so we will be asked to make a decision with huge consequences and the lack of information has been scandalous.

We don't know:

• What currency we will use and what conditions will be attached to using it
• Our position in the EU and what conditions will be attached
• How much it will cost to set up an independent Scottish inland revenue, welfare system etc. etc.
• How all the promises are going to be paid for if, as expected by pretty much everyone, oil revenues drop off

That's just off the top of my head. To simply brush off legitimate concerns raised as bullying or scaremongering is an appalling way to run such an important campaign.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Derek

In two months or so we will be asked to make a decision with huge consequences and the lack of information has been scandalous.

We don't know:

• What currency we will use and what conditions will be attached to using it
• Our position in the EU and what conditions will be attached
• How much it will cost to set up an independent Scottish inland revenue, welfare system etc. etc.
• How all the promises are going to be paid for if, as expected by pretty much everyone, oil revenues drop off

That's just off the top of my head. To simply brush off legitimate concerns raised as bullying or scaremongering is an appalling way to run such an important campaign.

They are "unknowns" Derek. All of these things are set to be discussed after the referendum outcome - that was the agreement as was signed up to.

I'm not defending the nats but given this constant "you can't", "you won't" attitude from the pro union parties and others I can understand why some people on one side see it as bullying.

Post referendum (whatever the outcome) negotiation was always the way these things were to be and will be decided.

To state otherwise in advance of the outcome is exactly as you have described it. "Scaremongering" and in the eyes of some an attempt at "bullying".

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

They are "unknowns" Derek. All of these things are set to be discussed after the referendum outcome - that was the agreement as was signed up to.

Except they are being portrayed as a given by the yes camp who are point blank refusing to acknowledge their plans and assurances might not come to fruition.

For normal elections we expect promises to be broken but there is no going back after a yes vote. To find in 5-10 years that a huge mistake was based on lies and half truths would be pointless as nothing could be done at that point.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Derek

Except they are being portrayed as a given by the yes camp who are point blank refusing to acknowledge their plans and assurances might not come to fruition.

Derek, given that you understand the premise of post result negotiation and the potential for positive and negative outcomes for both parties I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion you have arrived at. My understanding, and I could well be wrong, is that the white paper was a vision statement and not a list of promises or a manifesto.

Originally Posted by Derek

For normal elections we expect promises to be broken but there is no going back after a yes vote. To find in 5-10 years that a huge mistake was based on lies and half truths would be pointless as nothing could be done at that point.

This is not a "normal election" it's a referendum. It is a referendum predicated on the understanding that "everything" is up for negotiation once the result, whatever that might be, has been determined.

On that basis you could equally well say that the "No thanks" camp are lying when they say that X or Y won't happen because they too are wedded to the negotiations and are subject to the outworkings of same.

"Fear", "trepidation", "bullying", "lies" or "half truths" - call it what you like.

It's a double edged sword.

[Mr Pharmacist]

I see the referendum as an even more serious event than a "normal election". You get the opportunity to vote every 4-5 years with elections, and are given the right to change your mind about the way your previous selection has, or has not, performed. To ask the electorate to decide yes or no on the basis that you might, or might not, negotiate a positive outcome on the major elements that the country runs on, seems like a very irresponsible way to treat any voter, as this event will probably be the most important one the eligible voters will ever vote on.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Derek, given that you understand the premise of post result negotiation and the potential for positive and negative outcomes for both parties I fail to see how you arrive at the conclusion you have arrived at.

The yes camp are pretty much outright denying any possibility of an outcome of negotiations that's not outrageously generous to iScotland, not just in the white paper but in every leaflet and sound bite.

If they at least pretended they have a plan B for currency union, EU membership, NATO membership, energy and everything else I wouldn't be as bothered but they don't and their debates about it degenerate into a fingers in the ears saying 'la la la. Not listening to you' which for such an important vote is nothing short of disgraceful.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Derek

The yes camp are pretty much outright denying any possibility of an outcome of negotiations that's not outrageously generous to iScotland, not just in the white paper but in every leaflet and sound bite.

That's because they are not the "No thanks" camp.

Originally Posted by Derek

If they at least pretended they have a plan B for currency union, EU membership, NATO membership, energy and everything else I wouldn't be as bothered but they don't and their debates about it degenerate into a fingers in the ears saying 'la la la. Not listening to you' which for such an important vote is nothing short of disgraceful.

They don't need to "pretend" anything - it's all up for negotiation. You are singularly refusing to acknowledge that as being a fact. If they were to "pretend" anything then you'd be accusing them of pretending. Isn't that how it works?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

They are "unknowns" Derek. All of these things are set to be discussed after the referendum outcome - that was the agreement as was signed up to.

It's not unreasonable for the those actually voting in the referendum to have some of these questions properly answered though. Before they vote, so they can make an informed decision.

It's not like the SNP have only just thought about it. Surely they have been planning for this for decades?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That's because they are not the "No thanks" camp.



They don't need to "pretend" anything - it's all up for negotiation. You are singularly refusing to acknowledge that as being a fact. If they were to "pretend" anything then you'd be accusing them of pretending. Isn't that how it works?

Negotiations can go either way. Voters should know the various possible outcomes, so they can make an "informed" choice. Otherwise it is quite possible that the situation after any negotiations is not one that people would have voted for had they known about it.

It seems absolutely crazy that after all these decades of talk on the matter, that nobody really knows what is going to happen with a yes vote. There has been plenty of time to thrash out the issues.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's not unreasonable for the those actually voting in the referendum to have some of these questions properly answered though. Before they vote, so they can make an informed decision.

It's not like the SNP have only just thought about it. Surely they have been planning for this for decades?

I agree.

However the way the referendum has been, rather cleverly, set up means that there are no "certainties". Ergo neither side (no matter the outcome) is tied to the current status quo.

They are where they are.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Negotiations can go either way. Voters should know the various possible outcomes, so they can make an "informed" choice. Otherwise it is quite possible that the situation after any negotiations is not one that people would have voted for had they known about it.

It seems absolutely crazy that after all these decades of talk on the matter, that nobody really knows what is going to happen with a yes vote. There has been plenty of time to thrash out the issues.

As above.

[greeninferno]

Originally Posted by Mr Pharmacist

I see the referendum as an even more serious event than a "normal election". You get the opportunity to vote every 4-5 years with elections, and are given the right to change your mind about the way your previous selection has, or has not, performed. To ask the electorate to decide yes or no on the basis that you might, or might not, negotiate a positive outcome on the major elements that the country runs on, seems like a very irresponsible way to treat any voter, as this event will probably be the most important one the eligible voters will ever vote on.

Its insanity

[Osem]

It'll all be OK, Bravemouth has his fingers and toes crossed...

Of course if it turns out the Scots vote yes and subsequently find they've been sold a tartan pup, I'd like to know what "Plan B" is?

Originally Posted by Osem

It'll all be OK, Bravemouth has his fingers and toes crossed...

Of course if it turns out the Scots vote yes and subsequently find they've been sold a tartan pup, I'd like to know what "Plan B" is?

*Blame the English.....

*note no smiley....

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

*Blame the English.....

*note no smiley....

Yup I imagine many will but at the end of the day their bargaining power at that point will be pretty poor and they'll be the ones having to pick up the pieces not us.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

And no politicians on the panel, by the looks of it. Might make a nice change.

Just watched this, as I taped it from last night.

I couldn't believe the naivety of some of the people. They seem to think they will all be living in some kind of socialist utopia in the event of a YES vote.

Some of them really have swallowed the bull.

An independent Scotland will be a socially just place, away from the morally corrupt English bankers.

they seem to think that there will be no super rich in a independent Scotland, and the wealth will be magically spread to all.