Scottish Referendum question(s)

tbm

It'll be grand lads.

tbm

THINK OF POOR DAVE.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/david-cameron-to-scottish-people-ill-kill-myself-i,36941/

Clarky

ICBM said:

Clarky said:

and now, no matter what the result, everyone loses..

I don't agree. I think that's being pessimistic. If people want things to be worse, they will. If they want to work to make things better, they can.

Although things have not been helped by the recent desperate promises from London - for what it's worth I think the Barnett Formula needs to be scrapped and the West Lothian Question answered, and they have been specifically ruled out. They cause justified resentment in England because they are fundamentally unfair and are correctly seen as a bribe to Scots, and most Scots can see that too. Hopefully if there is a No vote and a renegotiation of the union, this is something that will change, otherwise you may be right.

the way I see it is that a yes vote breaks apart something that didn't need breaking.. and no one will be better off for that.. if the union needs modifying / updating then fine.. make changes.. these things should be in a constant state of evolution anyhow.. the world is a constantly changing place.. a no vote will mean that Scotland gets a "desperation package" this is grossly unfair to everyone else in the union.. and there's enough of that grossly unfair stuff already.. ask any student [or his parents] that now have debts in the 10's of thousands.. cos at a personal level to the average Joe, that's about as offensive as it gets..

if anything, I'd have liked to see things across the UK become more unified / more equal in every respect.. we all pay / don't pay for Uni fees, prescriptions etc etc.. more investment in regions that are struggling with jobs / infrastructure / etc to bring them up in line with the wealthier regions.. no one region is more special than any other and somehow we try to even out the standard / cost of living as a whole and reduce the differences between the north and the south..

VimFuego

it's important to remember that the SNP wanted a devo max option in the referendum, but the government (in collusion with labour no doubt) said no to that.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

it's important to remember that the SNP wanted a devo max option in the referendum, but the government (in collusion with labour no doubt) said no to that.

I've been told that Cameron was lukewarm about the whole thing and that Labour saw an opportunity to kick the SNP before the 2105 general election. Labour vetoed Devo Max as it would mean fewer Scottish MPs being elected in Parliament. Devo Max would have been the best option for Cameron - Scotland remain in the Union, but run their own affairs so less grief for him, fewer Labour MPs and a possible end to the West Lothian question thus shutting up his grumbling back benchers. As it is he's been forced, by Gordon Brown, to offer Devo Max without any of the controls he would have wanted - he's been shown to be a weak leader.

The fault for this lies with Darling and his Better together's negative campaign.

Drew_TNBD

VimFuego

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

it's important to remember that the SNP wanted a devo max option in the referendum, but the government (in collusion with labour no doubt) said no to that.

I've been told that Cameron was lukewarm about the whole thing and that Labour saw an opportunity to kick the SNP before the 2105 general election. Labour vetoed Devo Max as it would mean fewer Scottish MPs being elected in Parliament.

you got a link for that? My recollection of the time was it was all Cameron/clegg, Don't recall Moribund being involved at all.

Clarky

Bogwhoppit said:

Clarky said:

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about..

There is an issue with reading, viz-a-viz studying, the union. The historiography is awash with conflicting interpretations on the primary sources. I studied the union at uni and postgrad. I can produce primary sources that support the Scottish nationalists, and others that support the union.

From Edward I, the support from France through to Cromwell, there are strong arguments on both sides.

I'm no historian.. far from it.. and I totally accept and agree with you about how specific historical events can be depicted and interptreted.. like all events, people that were there, and people that simply lived at the time but were not involved will all have different perspectives.. so it's not surprising that years later the articles written would be equally conflicting,.. maybe they are all right because they each capture all of these different perspectives.. wrong / right, good / bad, winner / loser are never as black and white as we'd like to think..

from the little I have read on this, it appears to me that creating the union was every bit as scary for both sides and not creating it.. doing nothing looked like it could have serious implications for both parties.. so it was a pretty brave step by both..
the really interesting and unusual thing in that is that the union was created without military action [which is the more common "nation uniting" scenario].. it looked not unlike the merger of two big corparations where both had to give something up, and both had something to gain.. given the state of the world at that time [with respect to nations attaitude towards the use of the military to achieve stuff], the creation of the union looks like an amazingly modern way to solve a few serious problems..

no doubt there were folk on both sides that had their own cynical agendas etc.. but overall, when you look at what came of it.. especially in the context of when it happened, it's really pretty impressive and seriously forward thinking..

it seems like a great shame to me that today, and equally impressive and forward thinking approach couldn't be used to make the entire UK [with Scotland in it] a better / fairer place

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

it's important to remember that the SNP wanted a devo max option in the referendum, but the government (in collusion with labour no doubt) said no to that.

I've been told that Cameron was lukewarm about the whole thing and that Labour saw an opportunity to kick the SNP before the 2105 general election. Labour vetoed Devo Max as it would mean fewer Scottish MPs being elected in Parliament.

you got a link for that? My recollection of the time was it was all Cameron/clegg, Don't recall Moribund being involved at all.

No link as this is what I've been told by people on the inside which is why Labour aren't blaming Dave - no doubt this will all come out in the next few weeks. In fairness to Dave [people know I'm not a fan] he had no choice but to offer a referendum but the terms were all agreed by the three party leaders who arrogantly thought they could win. The people running scared of the SNP were Labour and the Lib Dems so I'm sure Clegg has his hands all over this - neither would want a Devo Max option as it wouldn't be in their interests. Dave will no doubt fall on his sword no matter what happens [his back bencher's want his head] and England will end up as a nasty right-wing country probably run by Farage who's no doubt praying the Scots vote yes. If that happens it's time to emigrate ... :-)

There's this that gives some background:

Devo max is, in poll after poll after poll, currently the Scottish people’s most favoured constitutional choice. On that nobody disagrees. But Scottish Labour has been so spectacularly and deftly manoeuvred off this ground by Alex Salmond in the last eight months that it now finds itself in the absurd position of actively and bitterly opposing the policy it has advocated since 1999, and which most of its own supporters also back. Pitifully, the party’s leader Johann Lamont is now reduced to feebly offering the Scottish electorate a vague promise of “some extra powers, sometime, somehow“, with neither the powers nor the schedule nor the method specified.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-want-devo-max/

Fretwired

Ha ha ...

Looks like Scotland owns Doncaster - Ed Miliband's seat ... there's a treaty that's just been dug out .. :-)

Bogwhoppit

Clarky said:

Bogwhoppit said:

Clarky said:

I did some reading on the original union and how it came about..

There is an issue with reading, viz-a-viz studying, the union. The historiography is awash with conflicting interpretations on the primary sources. I studied the union at uni and postgrad. I can produce primary sources that support the Scottish nationalists, and others that support the union.

From Edward I, the support from France through to Cromwell, there are strong arguments on both sides.

 

it seems like a great shame to me that today, and equally impressive and forward thinking approach couldn't be used to make the entire UK [with Scotland in it] a better / fairer place

Whilst there is national identity - which the scots have in bucket loads - there is an argument for statehood. Scotland has gone from a vassal state to a union with just about every other political and religious epoch in between.

I think its a case of pick a time period and try to understand the socio- political climate of the day, however, overarching all of that is Scotlands core history of fighting for an independent state.

Its in the hands of the Scottish people today, although I have a sense that the rest of the UK will be wanting a slice of Devo-Max pie if the vote is no.

VimFuego

I dunno fret, the whole thing smacks of dave trying to distance himself from any defeat. The old bloke down the pub told me routine is getting old hat frankly.

 

And two minutes googling revealed that wingsover Scotland is a pro independence website, set up by a chap who seems vehemently anti labour, that whole quote you posted sounds like anti labour spin. Still, nice he's got someone doing his dirty work for him.

Clarky

thinking on it.. I wonder how an independent Scotland would fair having replaced Westminster with Brussels.

being a 'new' EU member, I suspect they'd have to comply with crap that the UK managed to sidestep early on, in addition to all the crap that the UK has to comply to today..

I'm thinking "be careful what you wish for".. maybe a truly independent Scotland may need to be out of the EU too.. cos the new member states seem to have to give up quite a lot of their independence..

out of the pan, into the fire maybe..??

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

I dunno fret, the whole thing smacks of dave trying to distance himself from any defeat. The old bloke down the pub told me routine is getting old hat frankly.

 

And two minutes googling revealed that wingsover Scotland is a pro independence website, set up by a chap who seems vehemently anti labour, that whole quote you posted sounds like anti labour spin. Still, nice he's got someone doing his dirty work for him.

Didn't say it was a bloke down the pub .. twas an elected member at Westminster. Dave's toast anyway .. rumours he could be gone by early next week. If it's a yes vote he'll get the blame in the history books. Personally I can't stand the bloke .. he's a weak and feeble leader and the quicker he's gone the better. I also think Miliband will follow him through the revolving door.

And with respect who has most to lose? Devo Max would be ideal for the Tories and bad news for Labour/Lib Dems. That's not anti-Labour but a fact. And Labour did run the naff campaign.

VimFuego

there is no doubt that labour have the most to lose from devo max, but it doesn't change the basic fact that Cameron is PM not Milliband. It was Cameron who was the one who said it was a straight yes or no and turned down devo max.

As for who has the most to lose, I never mentioned that. Who ran the campaign is utterly irrelevant to my point that it was Cameron who said no to devo max in the first place.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

there is no doubt that labour have the most to lose from devo max, but it doesn't change the basic fact that Cameron is PM not Milliband. It was Cameron who was the one who said it was a straight yes or no and turned down devo max.

As for who has the most to lose, I never mentioned that. Who ran the campaign is utterly irrelevant to my point that it was Cameron who said no to devo max in the first place.

We'll have to disagree as I know all three leaders agreed to it .. wait and see. Cameron maybe PM but he has no majority nor a mandate to govern. He is in a coalition government so everything has to be run past Clegg and co and on this issue Miliband. We do not live in a dictatorship. That's why there was no criticism of Cameron from Miliband about the Devo Max issue after Cameron said "I didn't make this decision alone". Salmond's done well as he's a wiley old fox and Westminster doesn't have a strong government

Cameron should carry the can and fall on his sword as he's the PM but I think the blame game will extend to Labour.

VimFuego

I'm sure the blame will extend to labour, but you have repeatedly said the fault for devo max not being an option was labours and that Cameron just went along with it, without any evidence to support this other than your tired old routine of an "inside source". So offer up proof that Milliband veto'd devo max is all I'm saying, can't be that hard. Hell you could even name your source. As I already said, the whole thing smacks to me of Cameron trying to deflect blame if it all goes south, and you're being used to disseminate false information. I believe the term is shill.

camf

Regarding parallels with what happened in 1707: that was a politically expedient resolution to an economic and political crisis determined by, at best, a few hundred very powerful members of the hereditary elite. Whatever the outcome of today's referendum, despite any perceived or actual attempts by the various vested interests to exert influence on the people of Scotland, the result will be an expression of the will of almost the entire adult population, regardless of class, colour or creed. Whatever way it falls, that must be a good thing... and a far better basis for moving forward than still relying on a self-serving agreement secured by jiggery-pokery by a few discontented nobles three hundred years ago. Maybe. 

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

I'm sure the blame will extend to labour, but you have repeatedly said the fault for devo max not being an option was labours and that Cameron just went along with it, without any evidence to support this other than your tired old routine of an "inside source". So offer up proof that Milliband veto'd devo max is all I'm saying, can't be that hard. Hell you could even name your source. As I already said, the whole thing smacks to me of Cameron trying to deflect blame if it all goes south, and you're being used to disseminate false information. I believe the term is shill.

I said Cameron was lukewarm and Labour were against .. veto was probably too strong a word .. but this had to be voted on by Parliament and Cameron's in a minority. I'm sure all this will come out and the guy I spoke to is not a Tory. It's all irrelevant .. I guess the BBC are a bunch of shills when they say 'sources close to said..' .. it's how information drips out. I think the biggest charge against Cameron will be indifference. I don't think he gave a toss as he was told the no vote would win. Scotland isn't on his radar politics wise.

VimFuego

a shill is someone who spreads smear or spin on behalf of a party or organisation, not someone who says "sources close to". As I said, everything you have said reads like classic shill talk to me, and what with a general election coming I guess the damage mitigation teams are out in full force.  Now, everytime I gave said it was Cameron who, as PM, vetod devo max you have said no it wasn't (or words to that effect) and it's all labour so I'm asking you to prove it. If it's true it can't be that hard to find evidence...