Independence - how would you vote?

[ForzaDundee]

It goes beyond independence alone though, doesn't it? The Liberal Democrats are actively working against the best interests of Scotland on all levels.

"We are federalists - and we think Scotland needs this"

...and then, when they have the opportunity to help Scotland:

"Errr, no, Scotland doesn't need this..."

..as they refuse to support the original thing that they suggested. THEN, when they are sure that they will never have any opportunity to do anything good for Scotland ever again, suddenly, they are federalists once again, and are once again proposing the very things they turned down!

A disgusting anti-Scottish party. Although to be fair, they seem to be nicely in tune with their membership.

Very true, they used to try to take the middle ground with the all the federalist talk in the hope of picking up votes but when it comes to crunch time they all revert to British (or Shetland) Nationalist mode.

[Ad Lib]

Short version of the above. A ridiculous and wrong headed defence of the Better Together Campaign. When even their allies are admitting that the campaign is negative and horrendous, one "critical thinking" individual has sprung to their defence.

1. I'm not defending them. I'm telling you what is a legitimate attack, and you're perverting the most credible attacks on them.

2. I agree that their campaign is negative and horrendous. But based on what they've actually said; not on the three headed dog you've presented it as.

I can't believe you're defending the indefensible like this. Take the "not allowed in the EU" claim. I ALREADY posted evidence of Lib Dem ministers saying just that. You hand waved it away. Willie Rennie, MONTHS after Spain said it would not stand in the way, was still talking about a Spanish veto in October last year.

http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/news/2012/10/scotland-cannot-wait-spanish-veto-over-eu-membership

Again, this is a question of being accurate about what you say. I don't dispute that Willie Rennie has suggested that Spain would, in his view, be likely to veto Scotland's membership, at least on the same terms as UK membership is currently enjoyed. The rationale of this, of course, is that they wouldn't want to encourage Catalan independence by making the transition look seamless in terms of specific rights and obligations. I've already said that I think that's unlikely to happen, but it's not an unreasonable position to take to say that the conditions of being allowed in the EU would differ and are likely to include a number of the default terms of membership that don't apply to the UK just now, like rebate, Schengen and ERM obligations. Note, of course, that that article you reference talks about the veto of "a smooth transition". The reference to "forced to join the Euro" is conditional on the SNP being wrong about the terms that would be agreeable to other member states. It is short-hand for "required to join the ERM when the convergence criteria have been met, and within the timetabled provisions to join the Euro, as a condition of membership of the European Union".

You see, these issues are nuanced. Press clippings and soundbites do not a public position make.

Now lets take that "forced to join the Euro" claim

http://www.europeandyou.com/news/1289/7/We then move on to Tory George Osborne, and his toadying Liberal Democrat sidekick, Danny Alexander. Apparently it would be the end of Scottish notes. Scaremongering and lies at their finest. I didn't hear any Lib Dems chirping up in disagreement?

Aha, a third-hand quote. Listen to the actual interview. It's a lot more nuanced than that. He does not say: "An independent Scotland would not be given opt-outs from the Euro and other international deals". He says there will have to be a negotiation and that he thinks it will be very unlikely that the EU would acquiesce to those opt-outs being granted to Scotland's application for membership. It's a very reasonable, if speculative assessment about the likely process for admission to the EU. Indeed he leaves open the possibility of transitional provisions, whilst merely saying that absent those provisions Scotland would "technically" no longer be a territory contained within an EU member-state. Which is correct. What he says is reasonable, the "16 years" comment aside, which I condemned at the time as gross hyperbole (and I suspect it was more of an ill advised rhetorical flourish rather than a literal belief).

Your defence of your precious Unionist bloc is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

It's not a defence of them. It's a criticism of your myopic attitude towards the nuances of this debate.v

[Ad Lib]

Now, on to your bizarre defence of George OsborneListen here Captain Barbosa. Paolo Sergio caught you bang to rights on this one. If it was so "contrary to their interests to acquiesce", why did they not rule it out when they had the many, many opportunities to do so? As has been pointed out in many places, they explicitly didn't. All they did was sow the seeds of doubt with a highly, highly biased report and a nice big mouthful of yellow tory lies. Why is it that plenty of economists seem to think that a Sterling Union is workable? Once again, your defence of the indefensible would make George Galloway blush.

They didn't rule it out because, to quote the Keynesian maxim, "when the facts change, so does my opinion". What would be a set of conditions amenable to currency union may exist at one point, but not exist at another. They haven't ruled it out, because it may, when the time comes, with the prevailing economic conditions at that point in the future, indicate that a Sterling zone is the least unfavourable option. They also can't bind what is likely to be a different UK government in respect of negotiations that will happen mostly in 2015, which haven't happened yet.

No one suggests a Sterling zone isn't "workable". It would be physically possible to set one up. What Osborne's document outlined was why they thought it was a bad idea, and why it would not be in the interests of ALL parties concerned to sign up to it. I think they're right. Some economists think they're right. Some economists think they're wrong. That's how economics works. There are no certainties, only trends.

And now on to Ireland. Would it be fair to say that your actual answer to "how much debt did Ireland pay?" is "I don't know"?

That wasn't your original question. You asked (go check) "what share of our national debt did they take?". The word you used was "take". The answer is £15.15million in basic annual contributions plus or minus the land annuities, depending on how the Anglo-Irish agreement is interpreted.

As for the actual amount they paid: I don't know. Correct. But they did make several of the early payments in the deal that was struck in lieu of their national debt obligations. That was the point. They stopped paying it because they believed/argued the land annuities were included in the annual contribution figures and that they had already, therefore, made up the difference.

[PottingPlant]

A scot can feel absolutely welcome in England,it is his country,Britian.

We are a special peoples and country.

The envy of much of the world.

Better together.

Why do you keep suggesting Britain's a country?

[Ad Lib]

It goes beyond independence alone though, doesn't it? The Liberal Democrats are actively working against the best interests of Scotland on all levels.

"Best interests" are not objective criteria. They disagree with you about what Scotland's best interests ARE. It is literally incoherent to say that someone is actively working against the best interests of Scotland, unless they acknowledge what Scotland's best interests are and specifically say "I want to f**k you over in respect of these issues". The Lib Dems have not done that, and they are not an anti-Scottish party. They are violently anti-SNP and most are violently anti-independence, but that is not remotely the same thing.

"We are federalists - and we think Scotland needs this"

...and then, when they have the opportunity to help Scotland:

"Errr, no, Scotland doesn't need this..."

Example please? Note that being against Scotland being independent doesn't mean you aren't in favour of it having greater control over certain issues in certain contexts, but only from within the structure of a federalist UK, if you think that control over that thing will only work optimally within a federal structure and suboptimally under any alternative.

..as they refuse to support the original thing that they suggested. THEN, when they are sure that they will never have any opportunity to do anything good for Scotland ever again, suddenly, they are federalists once again, and are once again proposing the very things they turned down!

A disgusting anti-Scottish party. Although to be fair, they seem to be nicely in tune with their membership.

What do they oppose that they once supported? Name it. Be HYPER SPECIFIC. I want a detailed policy. Do it now.

[Dindeleux]

Before the thread gets bogged down in the usual technical nonsense, I'd be interested to hear from people who have changed their decision one way or the other!

My original stance was yes.

Now, due to personal circumstances, I'm totally undecided. I work for an English company based in Glasgow - quite worried about my job if we become independent.

[xbl]

What do they oppose that they once supported? Name it. Be HYPER SPECIFIC. I want a detailed policy. Do it now.

Devolution of the Crown Estate. First they supported it (see Steel Commission), then they opposed it (when the SNP won their majority and suggested it be added to the Scotland Act), and then they magically supported it again, once the moment where they had to stand up for their principles was over. As I said, the anti-Scottish party.

My original stance was yes.

Now, due to personal circumstances, I'm totally undecided. I work for an English company based in Glasgow - quite worried about my job if we become independent.

Why though? I mean many companies operating in this country are Indian owned, French owned, American owned etc. etc.

[Ad Lib]

Devolution of the Crown Estate. First they supported it (see Steel Commission), then they opposed it (when the SNP won their majority and suggested it be added to the Scotland Act), and then they magically supported it. As I said, the anti-Scottish party.

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The Steel Report doesn't even mention the words "Crown Estate"

2. In any case, it was the Coalition Government, which the Lib Dems don't fully control, that rejected a specific model the SNP advocated for giving the Crown Estates of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament.

3. What has been delivered by the UK government is a more direct level of control for individual councils to apply the Crown Estates to local projects.

All of which is besides the point, because changing your mind about the specific merits of the control of a specific resource in the context of a devolved or federalised United Kingdom does not make you "anti-Scottish".

[xbl]

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The Steel Report doesn't even mention the words "Crown Estate"

2. In any case, it was the Coalition Government, which the Lib Dems don't fully control, that rejected a specific model the SNP advocated for giving the Crown Estates of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament.

3. What has been delivered by the UK government is a more direct level of control for individual councils to apply the Crown Estates to local projects.

All of which is besides the point, because changing your mind about the specific merits of the control of a specific resource in the context of a devolved or federalised United Kingdom does not make you "anti-Scottish".

1.Okay, so prior to being elected in 2010, the Lib Dems never said they were in favour of devolution of the crown estates? Is this what you are trying to tell me?

2. That isn't what the Lib Dems said. They demanded that the SNP justify the decision to devolve the crown estates, and then refused it. They didn't claim it was done under sufferance. Michael Moore rejected it.

3. I can't believe you actually managed to type that out. What has been delivered is pathetic.

The Lib Dems are an anti-Scottish party who specialise in talking Scotland down. You know it, I know it, Michael Moore certainly knows it, we all know it.

[xbl]

Oh, and I went on the internet. Guess what prominent Scottish Lib Dem had this to say about the Steel Commission?

The Steel Commission (2006) recognised this. Seeking full devolution of most taxes and the Crown Estate, it offered a real framework from which to articulate our vision for Home Rule. Parliaments responsible for raising every penny they spend have greater power, but greater accountability too.

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2012/01/no-is-not-enough-why-scottish-lib-dems.html

[DeeGas]

My original stance was yes.

Now, due to personal circumstances, I'm totally undecided. I work for an English company based in Glasgow - quite worried about my job if we become independent.

No idea if your firm would be effected by Scotland leaving the Union,but if Scotland and the remaining UK become foreign to each other there's gonna be change and less business between the two.The rUK will look inwards and protect their £.

Salmond seems to think he can 'dump' England and Wales and get all his wishes too.

No chance.

[xbl]

And from the very same post!

Boyd Tunnock, prominent confectionery tycoon, wanted clarity on the currency and whether Anglo-Scot trade barriers would exist. These questions have been answered several times! The SNP would keep Sterling (we would be joint-stakeholders of the BOE) in the interim before putting any change (Euro or otherwise) to the people in a referendum. Further, Scotland wouldn’t have trade tariffs with England provided it was an EU/EFTA member, the first being almost certain. Absolutely there are questions that remain to be answered, for example how to separate assets and the national debt and structural EU issues, but they don’t give cause for scaremongering.

[Tryfield]

Here's why you're wrong:

1. The Steel Report doesn't even mention the words "Crown Estate"

2. In any case, it was the Coalition Government, which the Lib Dems don't fully control, that rejected a specific model the SNP advocated for giving the Crown Estates of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament.

3. What has been delivered by the UK government is a more direct level of control for individual councils to apply the Crown Estates to local projects.

All of which is besides the point, because changing your mind about the specific merits of the control of a specific resource in the context of a devolved or federalised United Kingdom does not make you "anti-Scottish".

Do the LIB DEMS know you are in favour of independence? Would they sling you out if you were found out you wanted to go against the party grain?

You are a very intelligent poster, but you are coming across as two faced. IMO.

[Ad Lib]

1. Okay, so prior to being elected in 2010, the Lib Dems never said they were in favour of devolution of the crown estates? Is this what you are trying to tell me?

I'm telling you that your assertion that we supported it in the Steel Commission is false. Incidentally, it also wasn't mentioned in our 2010 general manifesto or our 2010 Scottish manifesto. Our 2011 Scottish manifesto merely committed us to:

"Review the functions of the Crown Estate to ensure that the benefits of our marine resources are retained as far as possible within the communities reliant upon them."

By no measure can this be interpreted as a commitment to devolve the Crown Estate. Our position has always been in favour of accountable control, and a general presumption in favour of more local administration of the Crown Estate. We did NOT commit ourselves at least as far back as before the last UK General Election specifically to devolve the Crown Estates, a policy which was not in the Calman Commission, not in the Steel Report, and whose closest equivalent we committed ourselves to when still under the guise of the Liberal Party some 30 years ago, when we had argued, at that point, when oil revenues were at their opportune moment, to do a Norway and set up an oil fund.

2. That isn't what the Lib Dems said. They demanded that the SNP justify the decision to devolve the crown estates, and then refused it. They didn't claim it was done under sufferance. Michael Moore rejected it.

I didn't say they "did it under sufferance". Michael Moore, as a Minister in a Coalition Government who is aligned with a minority party of that Coalition, refused, in his capacity as a UK minister, the specific SNP proposal in relation to the allocation of Crown Estates to Holyrood. They did not oppose either the principle of devolving or more locally applying the Crown Estate. The UK government rejected a specific proposal. This is completely different.

3. I can't believe you actually managed to type that out. What has been delivered is pathetic.

I don't think it goes far enough. I agree. But it is a more local accountability of the Crown Estate than existed in April 2010. Which was all the Lib Dems ever promised to pursue.

The Lib Dems are an anti-Scottish party who specialise in talking Scotland down. You know it, I know it, Michael Moore certainly knows it, we all know it.

This is unadulterated nonsense. They are not an anti-Scottish party.

[Ad Lib]

Oh, and I went on the internet. Guess what prominent Scottish Lib Dem had this to say about the Steel Commission?

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2012/01/no-is-not-enough-why-scottish-lib-dems.html

Hey, guess what, I was wrong. Read the actual report. It's not mentioned!

And look, I admit when I'm wrong. That must be about the 4th or 5th time I've proved you wrong on this "Ad Lib never admits when he's wrong" nonsense just in the last 2 months.

[Ad Lib]

And from the very same post!

They would be joint stakeholders. They are stakeholders in the deposits in the BoE that underpin the Sterling. I merely said that the SNP's policy was to keep Sterling, and as I've said several times they can do that if they want (unilaterally). Note I specifically refrained from saying there would be a currency union.

[Ad Lib]

Do the LIB DEMS know you are in favour of independence? Would they sling you out if you were found out you wanted to go against the party grain?

You are a very intelligent poster, but you are coming across as two faced. IMO.

Yes, the Lib Dems know I am in favour of independence. Willie Rennie is exasperated at the fact!

[Tryfield]

f**k it, I'm voting YES.........

[Mr.Bojangles]

f**k it, I'm voting YES.........

I was hoping this wouldn't be a joke post.

[DeeGas]

God save King Longshanks.