Jump to content

Scottish Independence


xbl

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't know how anyone could actually be FOR independence with Alex Salmond at the helm; what a p***k of a man.

...

You do realise you won't be electing him as life president?

I'm also no great fan of Wee Eck's, but I'm willing to see past that and look to what's best for Scotland and her people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how anyone could actually be FOR independence with Alex Salmond at the helm; what a p***k of a man.

...

Wow where to start with this statement, it appears the whole referendum debate has passed you by and I really hope you are trolling but I will indulge you

You are NOT voting for Alex Salmond or David Cameron or ANY political figure

You are NOT voting for the SNP or Labour or any political party

You ARE voting for whether Scotland should be Independent and run our own country or Whether we should remain part of the United Kingdom and have Westminster make our choices.

Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going to become the high overlords of SNPland in 2016 after cross party negotiations with Westminster there would be an election and Alex Salmond may or may not win that election he may never win a Scottish general election and become Prime Minister but that will be for the people of Scotland to decide.

Now you can either understand what the vote is about and debate actual facts and opinions or call the First Minister names. One is the action of an adult and the other a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draft independence bill and interim constitution being published by people with absolutely no political mandate whatsoever to do so. Setting out the foundations for an independent Scotland if the country votes yes ! Undemocratic in the extreme and puts paid to any of the yes campaign being bigger than the SNP.

Its a referendum on a single question which provides no basis for decisions on what the country will look like.

You do know what 'draft' means, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it yourself; they stood on a ticket of providing a referendum. Not a ticket of what a post referendum yes would mean.

Some people may vote yes but want a separate Scottish currency for example - how do they influence that? Instead anyone voting yes is effectively endorsing all SNP policies or writing them a blank cheque re negotiations.

If the yes campaign is wider than the SNP how do you get the currency arrangements preferred by its chairman ie a Scottish currency ?

Unionists keep fecking ASKING what a post-yes Scotland will looks like. Are the SNP supposed to just shrug their shoulders and grunt "dunno"? They are setting out THEIR vision of what THEY think an independent Scotland would look. It's all open to discussion, debate and negotiation after a Yes vote.

I'm sick top the back teeth of unionists demanding answers and then whingeing like little bitches that Scotland is being railroaded by the SNP when they get the answers the demanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being offered the opportunity to vote this down.

No he isn;t - it;s a parliamentary bill.

Dunno about this - I think the SNP kind of have to do it to help with the "smooth transition" idea, but it opens them up to these attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I thought all those Shetlanders wanted to remain part of the UK or join Norway or claim their oil or something... nope seems they're coming round to Scottish Independence too... http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/8211-majority-favour-independence-at-althing-debate

To be fair Carmichael was involved so of course there will b a swing to yes.

Also I would suggest the sample may be disproportionate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he isn;t - it;s a parliamentary bill.

Erm, I assume "vote this down" meant the referendum itself.

The argument that the SNP are overreaching or being presumptuous here is so flagrantly disingenuous you'd only get it from someone paid for the cause or a PnB troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, I assume "vote this down" meant the referendum itself.

The argument that the SNP are overreaching or being presumptuous here is so flagrantly disingenuous you'd only get it from someone paid for the cause or a PnB troll.

Yeah i thought that, but the posters intital point was about the bill.

Like I said, i'm not sure here. I think the SNP probably need to do it, but i think it might go against their previous stance that a written constituion would be cross-party and non-party - not unlike the National Constituional Convention. I see it's being described as a "draft" though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh?

I think we're at cross purposes.

All he has to do is vote No in September and if enough people agree with him in that democratic process then the worries he has will go away.

Either way it's democracy in action.

We are a bit - the question of whether the SNP has a mandate to draft a constituion bill is iffy, but then again, if they weren't they'd be getting criticsed for it. I think on balance this is the right move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sick top the back teeth of unionists demanding answers and then whingeing like little bitches that Scotland is being railroaded by the SNP when they get the answers the demanded.

That also applies to independence supporters and the currency union debate to be fair.

I think there are a good chunk of people on both sides who have no real interest in what the alternative arguments are. The SNP (and Salmond in particular) are constantly subjected to ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with whatever is being discussed, while as we saw with the budget threads on here, Westminster could promise us all a free gold bar each, a night with the celebrity of our choice and World Cup wins for each of the home nations, and the response would still be "f*cking Tory b*stards."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think they should have simply announced the referendum and then what? Refused to comment for 2 years whilst Labour sat and attacked their lack of a vision of what a post independence Scotland would look like?

If people want a new currency - they vote in a government AFTER the referendum in a democratic process who advocates a new currency.

What exactly is the problem here?

A blank cheque for the SNP?????? What?

Honestly bud I have absolutely no idea where you are going with any of this at all.

My point is very simple in the event of a yes vote the SNP does not have any mandate on the terms of negotiation re the break up of the UK. The referendum is a simple yes or no; it does not show any will of the people in terms of what the new country should look like Your comment re the last 2 years misses the point, I am presuming deliberately.

The currency issue is a good example; its possible that any negotiations on a shared currency (if they happen at all post a yes vote) could include HMG wishing a lock in period or period of notice to bring some stability and its a point that could suit both sides. Accordingly with no mandate the current Scottish Government could lock in the first properly elected parliament to the new Scotland with a currency they don't want.

Right across the whole range of negotiations the current SG would be acting perhaps on the white paper? (or perhaps not) which is a manifesto never tested by the election process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. It's all open to discussion, debate and negotiation after a Yes vote.

Crucially no election, which would allow the people of Scotland to influence the potentially massive negotiations to bring about the potential new Scotland in a matter of 18 months in the event of a yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That also applies to independence supporters and the currency union debate to be fair.

Hmmm. My understanding was that the Yes campaign's position was that the Edinburgh Agreement allowed them to defer getting a solid answer to that until after the referendum, but with the expectation of a good-faith response. Instead, six months before the vote, every political party in the country announced in unison (holding hands and braiding each others' hair) that the good faith response was to be "ehh naw, youse are pure on yer ain".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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