Peteryes Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 You yes yet? After much soul searching.I realise libDems have to be on both sides of the argument.Like every other issue. We are centre left but govern with right wing vicious attacks on the disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Again not an unreasonable point. What would happen if people voted for Independence but voted against the negotiated settlement? There's clearly no way we can simply abandon Independence because that is what people voted for. How do we handle a No vote for the settlement though? The country would be gridlocked. The Uk won't budge and neither will Scotland. From a practical point of view the only possible practical solution is to vote Yes or No, accept the settlement process and then use future Scottish elections to vote in or out the parties who would use their power to create the Scotland we wish to see. In short, your question is valid but the logical outcome of having a second vote simply isn't practical. In the event of a yes - there is an immediate election - probably under the auspices of a Scottish Parliamentary election as there is the legal framework in place; and its manifestos would be based on how we would crate the new Scotland via negotiation with HMG, EU etc. Whatever party or coalition is in power has the mandate to carry out these negotiations. Just after a yes vote; no would want or would campaign on going back; it would be an election based on the outcome of the referendum not a platform to re-visit what the people have chosen. During the say 4 week election campaign ( or could it be done quicker since the planning for it can start now) would mean a month worth of negotiation time 'lost' however the 18 month clock currently in place would not apply since the new SG would not need to call an election in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Having an election after a Yes vote would also require that LibLabTory concede the position that independence is a possible reality and that they need to make contingency plans for negotiations. I think by then it would be too late for them and all three would me roundly trounced by the SNP who would be coming off of the back of a victory in the biggest constitutional change in the history of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Having an election after a Yes vote would also require that LibLabTory concede the position that independence is a possible reality and that they need to make contingency plans for negotiations. I think by then it would be too late for them and all three would me roundly trounced by the SNP who would be coming off of the back of a victory in the biggest constitutional change in the history of the UK. Keep on dreaming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1396130955.510459.jpg http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/29/alistair-carmichael-scottish-independence-poll-losing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Indeed we will - the SG's intentions are clear. So if you want independence but disagree with SNP policies you do what ? vote no ? The reality is that without the SNP any labour, tory or libdem supporter would NEVER have had the chance to vote on indy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 In the event of a yes - there is an immediate election - probably under the auspices of a Scottish Parliamentary election as there is the legal framework in place; and its manifestos would be based on how we would crate the new Scotland via negotiation with HMG, EU etc. Whatever party or coalition is in power has the mandate to carry out these negotiations. Just after a yes vote; no would want or would campaign on going back; it would be an election based on the outcome of the referendum not a platform to re-visit what the people have chosen. During the say 4 week election campaign ( or could it be done quicker since the planning for it can start now) would mean a month worth of negotiation time 'lost' however the 18 month clock currently in place would not apply since the new SG would not need to call an election in 2016. We have already discussed this previously. The SG cannot dictate that elections are held early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 So much for the shipyard threat http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-dockyards-to-carry-on-building-warships-even-if-there-is-a-yes-vote-for-independence-9223811.html Oh and it looks like another bad day for the unionists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Looks like The Herald's about to/already has taken a side. I'd be interested in seeing if it's had an effect on circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 There will be a currency union, Trident will stay as part of the deal. You read it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryfield Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It's good that you accept that the No campaign has been lying it's arse off. Not sure you could claim to be the first source of this "exclusive insight" though. You read it here first. Comprendy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Looks like The Herald's about to/already has taken a side. I'd be interested in seeing if it's had an effect on circulation. A certain Labour council leader from Port Glasgow who is "proud to be British" has already been slagging The Herald. Apparently he wouldn't wipe his agree with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would not say that cowardice is driving intentions. I would say that we as canny Scots are more interested in how it would affect us financially. Sterling as a currency would be ideal, it would save a lot of hassle. Politicians are by their nature not to be trusted. Aberdeen city council are a prime example of that. As for your opinion about defence forces, then I too would like all the worlds military disbanded so we could all live in a peaceful world the way its meant to be, but in all honesty I think its a pipe dream. We have to maintain some form of security force. An independent Scotland would have a defence force suitable for a nation of its size. Similar to Norway, a nation that shares a land border with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 A certain Labour council leader from Port Glasgow who is "proud to be British" has already been slagging The Herald. Apparently he wouldn't wipe his agree with it Labour! Hahahahahahahahaha! Ed Milliband! Johan Lamont Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Carmichael starting to shite it also http://news.stv.tv/politics/269843-alistair-carmichael-admits-better-together-must-work-harder/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 We have already discussed this previously. The SG cannot dictate that elections are held early. I think it was confirmed that elections can take place outwith the intended schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Well look at the chaos in Ukraine. Shouldn't we have a force larger than suitable for our nation? I know this is very unlikely but if a country tried to invade us then the more people we have the better. History shows us that we cannot fight as a seperate people, we need England and the rest of the UK just as much as they need us. Why are we intent on destroying what King James created anyway? No, I think we are making a big mistake here if we go down the path of Independence. United we stand, divided we fall, and all that. Look at the military relationship between USA & Canada to give you a better idea how things would work. Also, nobody is going to invade us. I know you're obviously a troll, but unfortunately thanks to the unionists campaign and the media we have people who believe this shite being spouted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 While this news is making the unionists cack themselves, I do have to criticise some of my fellow Yes voters who were doing the same thing after Osborne's speech. "They can't keep up the currency union line now". "They have to outline an alternative, or else they'll look stubborn". Awful scaremongering from the gnats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 There will be a currency union, Trident will stay as part of the deal. You read it here first. So, you have changed your mind about the likelihood of a Yes win in the referendum then? In my opinion there will be no deal on Trident, (except maybe a little delay in its removal), for a Currency Union. Whoever made the leak in the WG is mischief making to try to draw a response from the SG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.