Friday Thread: If Scotland vote YES will TWH have to leave?

ShandyH

I hope no. I find the idea of a former oil economist getting his hands on the North Sea oil pretty unpalatable.

anonymousblackfg

I think no by 8% and everyone calling for heads after Westminster have given them the moon on a stick when they had a decent margin all along.

I hope yes and Scotland descends into chaos thus negating my trip up to see the outlaws in October.

UndercoverElephant

I really don't know. There's a hell of a lot of 'Yes' flags around at the moment, but I guess those in the 'No' camp may be too embarrassed to fly theirs.

greg66_tri_v2.0

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Westminster have given them the moon on a stick

Not sure it is as clear cut as that. The give is slowly being revealed as accompanied by a resolution of the West Lothian question.

meanredspider

I don't mind Scotland having more power within the broader framework of the UK - I can see how fine-tuning some government policy can be a Good Thing. It's the splitting off entirely that loses me.

meanredspider

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I really don't know. There's a hell of a lot of 'Yes' flags around at the moment, but I guess those in the 'No' camp may be too embarrassed to fly theirs.

I think the Yes campaign is better organised and better funded. There was, without doubt, quite some complacency within the No camp. I, for one, never expected the polls to be so close so I guess I was complacent too.

elbowloh

There does seem to be some talk of those of the NO persuasion being less likely to outwardly demonstrate how they intend to vote - either through embarrassment at being perceived as less patriotic and possible intimidation.

That may explain why you seem to see less NO posters in windows etc.

There's an obvious disparity between the number of posters seen on the streets and what the polls are showing.

UndercoverElephant

elbowloh wrote:

There does seem to be some talk of those of the NO persuasion being less likely to outwardly demonstrate how they intend to vote - either through embarrassment at being perceived as less patriotic and possible intimidation.

That may explain why you seem to see less NO posters in windows etc.

There's an obvious disparity between the number of posters seen on the streets and what the polls are showing.

Could be that the polls are flawed too. Apparently it's much less likely that young people will spend the time to answer phone polls, so you tend to get a skewed bias.

And I've certainly seen nothing in the way of intimidation either. If you watched the news, you'd think there had been riots, but there's really nothing at all.

meanredspider

UndercoverElephant wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

There does seem to be some talk of those of the NO persuasion being less likely to outwardly demonstrate how they intend to vote - either through embarrassment at being perceived as less patriotic and possible intimidation.

That may explain why you seem to see less NO posters in windows etc.

There's an obvious disparity between the number of posters seen on the streets and what the polls are showing.

Could be that the polls are flawed too. Apparently it's much less likely that young people will spend the time to answer phone polls, so you tend to get a skewed bias.

And I've certainly seen nothing in the way of intimidation either. If you watched the news, you'd think there had been riots, but there's really nothing at all.

The pollsters were clear from quite early on that people would be more likely to respond Yes when asked in a poll. There were two guys from different polling agencies and they both agreed that the polls would bias towards Yes.

ETA - my daughter, at least, feels pretty intimidated in Glasgow by the Yes side. She said she's keeping a low profile over the next couple of days.

corriebee1

Forgive me if this sounds snobby! I'll caveat it by saying that I'm a state school boy from Glasgow.

It strikes me that a huge number of the rallies (particularly those highly publicised ones in Glasgow) have taken place in the middle of the day on a weekday.

It's a reasonably commonly accepted generalisation that the No campaign does well amongst the affluent East-coasters (and borderers). It makes sense that those who are doing well under the status quo are more likely to be keen to maintain it. The "Yes" campaign however, with it's promises of "everything will be brilliant and if we can't afford it then Alex will just use some of his magic beans" appeals (NOT EXCLUSIVELY) to those for whom a leap into the unknown is better than sticking it out under the current regime. When people are in a bad place, the unknown (regardless of it's potential downsides) is often worth a shot.

Therefore, many of those with loud voices, anger and a bit of time on their hands through the week (unemployed, part-time workers, shift workers etc) are more likely to be yes voters. The silent (or more quiet) majority are exactly that. This (i hope) will explain why all the shouting in the world will not win the day, providing the quiet majority show up at the polls.

Agent57

I think I hope for a "No", but I'm intrigued and excited by the idea of a "Yes" and then seeing how "they" make it work. Currency, borders (assuming Scotland isn't in the EU), the name of the UK and the flag for what's left behind. Could be such interesting times.

I think if I were a Scot, I could see myself going with the more emotional argument, and voting yes.

Either way, I hope it leads to more devolved powers, such as a North of England Assembly.

surrey_commuter

Apparently it's much less likely that young people will spend the time to answer phone polls, so you tend to get a skewed bias.

and much less likely that young people will spend the time/effort to vote

UndercoverElephant

Agent57 wrote:

Either way, I hope it leads to more devolved powers, such as a North of England Assembly.

Didn't you reject the idea of that back in 2004? Certainly the North-East did, nearly 80% of the votes that day.

veronese68

I think the majority of the undecided may plump for a NO on the day. If you're not sure I'd think you wouldn't vote for major change.

arran77

Agent57 wrote:

I think I hope for a "No", but I'm intrigued and excited by the idea of a "Yes" and then seeing how "they" make it work. Currency, borders (assuming Scotland isn't in the EU), the name of the UK and the flag for what's left behind. Could be such interesting times.

I'd like to see how it works out for the Scots if it goes yes as well, after all they did such a cracking job with their 'costumes' for the Commonwealth Games

Agent57

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Either way, I hope it leads to more devolved powers, such as a North of England Assembly.

Didn't you reject the idea of that back in 2004? Certainly the North-East did, nearly 80% of the votes that day.

No, we didn't get our referendum in the North West.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3992435.stm

MaxwellBygraves

Gordon Brown gave the best speech of his career earlier today defending the union.

Nuts out: I think it might be a Yes, by a whisker. I live in England, if that matters.

tailwindhome

YIMan wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

See MkII - the community association where the assets are owned by the community. They cannot be readily split up and apportioned to individuals who off their own back decide they don't want to be part of it any more.

By "The English" , I presume you mean the UK which will still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it. Yes, the UK will want to trade with Scotland (which will also still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it).

The UK also wants to trade with France and Germany but that doesn't mean it will start handing over its assets to them.

Is that the plan "The UK will want to trade with Scotland so they'll be kind to us during negotiations"?


MkII is fundamentally flawed for the same reason highlighted

Yup. Same as if I said 'The French' in this context I'd mean all creeds, colours and nationalities in that country.
Yeah Northern Ireland will trade with Scotland - about 700mil a year - England is the dominant partner.

Not France or Germany as they are strong econcomies which don't need support. This isn't a new concept - GB loaned Ireland 10 Billion recently, not because they like Terry Wogan but because Ireland is a key customer for British goods. Customers going bust is bad for UK Plc.

Being kind is nothing to do with anything.

Then you have fundamentally misunderstood MKII if you think being owned by the community means you can start stripping the community's assets if you decide to leave it..

If the community association's liabilities exceeded their assets would you not expect the splinter group to pay a contribution? Why would assets be treated differently than liabilities?

Oh and Big Dave says it's his big screen TV - he's coming round for it tonight. What you gonna do?

tailwindhome

No. By a surprisingly big margin.

To be blunt there's been no sort of violent separatist movement in Scotland for generations.
Reasonable to assume that the passion for an independent Scotland isn't that deep.

pblakeney

anonymousblackfg wrote:

I think no by 8% and everyone calling for heads after Westminster have given them the moon on a stick when they had a decent margin all along.

As far as I have seen, the only thing being offered is promises.
Politicians giving promises? I think that we all know how that will pan out.

I think that it will be a no vote but not by a large enough a margin to calm everything down.

The only acceptable vote for this kind of thing IMHO is one with an overwhelming majority.

YIMan

TailWindHome wrote:

YIMan wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

See MkII - the community association where the assets are owned by the community. They cannot be readily split up and apportioned to individuals who off their own back decide they don't want to be part of it any more.

By "The English" , I presume you mean the UK which will still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it. Yes, the UK will want to trade with Scotland (which will also still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it).

The UK also wants to trade with France and Germany but that doesn't mean it will start handing over its assets to them.

Is that the plan "The UK will want to trade with Scotland so they'll be kind to us during negotiations"?


MkII is fundamentally flawed for the same reason highlighted

Yup. Same as if I said 'The French' in this context I'd mean all creeds, colours and nationalities in that country.
Yeah Northern Ireland will trade with Scotland - about 700mil a year - England is the dominant partner.

Not France or Germany as they are strong econcomies which don't need support. This isn't a new concept - GB loaned Ireland 10 Billion recently, not because they like Terry Wogan but because Ireland is a key customer for British goods. Customers going bust is bad for UK Plc.

Being kind is nothing to do with anything.

Then you have fundamentally misunderstood MKII if you think being owned by the community means you can start stripping the community's assets if you decide to leave it..

If the community association's liabilities exceeded their assets would you not expect the splinter group to pay a contribution? Why would assets be treated differently than liabilities?

Oh and Big Dave says it's his big screen TV - he's coming round for it tonight. What you gonna do?

The splinter group is getting a share of both assets (the ones near it in the geographic north of the village) and liabilities.

What the splinter is saying is "Ah well, the apple orchard is in our part of the village and we think we'll be better off keeping all the apples ourselves".

The splinter group believes it can have the best of both worlds and share the village assets when it suits them but keep assets to themselves when it suits them too. Understandably the rest of the people in the village are becoming somewhat peed off with this "I'm alright jock when it suits me" attitude.

tailwindhome

YIMan wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

YIMan wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

See MkII - the community association where the assets are owned by the community. They cannot be readily split up and apportioned to individuals who off their own back decide they don't want to be part of it any more.

By "The English" , I presume you mean the UK which will still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it. Yes, the UK will want to trade with Scotland (which will also still have English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish residing in it).

The UK also wants to trade with France and Germany but that doesn't mean it will start handing over its assets to them.

Is that the plan "The UK will want to trade with Scotland so they'll be kind to us during negotiations"?


MkII is fundamentally flawed for the same reason highlighted

Yup. Same as if I said 'The French' in this context I'd mean all creeds, colours and nationalities in that country.
Yeah Northern Ireland will trade with Scotland - about 700mil a year - England is the dominant partner.

Not France or Germany as they are strong econcomies which don't need support. This isn't a new concept - GB loaned Ireland 10 Billion recently, not because they like Terry Wogan but because Ireland is a key customer for British goods. Customers going bust is bad for UK Plc.

Being kind is nothing to do with anything.

Then you have fundamentally misunderstood MKII if you think being owned by the community means you can start stripping the community's assets if you decide to leave it..

If the community association's liabilities exceeded their assets would you not expect the splinter group to pay a contribution? Why would assets be treated differently than liabilities?

Oh and Big Dave says it's his big screen TV - he's coming round for it tonight. What you gonna do?

The splinter group is getting a share of both assets (the ones near it in the geographic north of the village) and liabilities.

What the splinter is saying is "Ah well, the apple orchard is in our part of the village and we think we'll be better off keeping all the apples ourselves".

The splinter group believes it can have the best of both worlds and share the village assets when it suits them but keep assets to themselves when it suits them too. Understandably the rest of the people in the village are becoming somewhat peed off with this "I'm alright jock when it suits me" attitude.

It seems that you have accepted the basic principle that the assets and liabilities should be split. Your issue seems to be a distaste for the opening negotiating of the splinter group.

As for the orchard, it would be fair to say that you've had the benefit of the delicious apples for many years, some say you've had the best fruit off the tree. You've built a fine cider plant and a factory making a fine selection of pies crumbles and other yummy treats. The splinter group are more than happy to let you keep the factories and bakeries and provide you will a supply of apples for many years to come.

Apples are £2 per kg.

tailwindhome

Here's a question.

Should agreement not be reached over the orchard. What happens next? War? Is there a Court of Arbitration for new countries?

pblakeney

TailWindHome wrote:

Here's a question.

Should agreement not be reached over the orchard. What happens next? War? Is there a Court of Arbitration for new countries?

Why should war be the first response?
That is a worrying outlook.

The only thing (possibly,as it always seems to be the reason) to fight over would be the oil and the way that would be divided up has been internationally agreed. I cannot see anything to fight over.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

I think no by 8% and everyone calling for heads after Westminster have given them the moon on a stick when they had a decent margin all along.

As far as I have seen, the only thing being offered is promises.
Politicians giving promises? I think that we all know how that will pan out.

I think that it will be a no vote but not by a large enough a margin to calm everything down.

The only acceptable vote for this kind of thing IMHO is one with an overwhelming majority.

Better than just over 36% of the voting public....

And if politicians shouldn't make promises - what should they do?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

And if politicians shouldn't make promises - what should they do?

They are in power. They could have used that power over the past 1 1/2 years and acted to negate such a close call.
I wouldn't trust them if it were me.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And if politicians shouldn't make promises - what should they do?

They are in power. They could have used that power over the past 1 1/2 years and acted to negate such a close call.
I wouldn't trust them if it were me.

Not all of them are! How d'ya get in?

tailwindhome

PBlakeney wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Here's a question.

Should agreement not be reached over the orchard. What happens next? War? Is there a Court of Arbitration for new countries?

Why should war be the first response?
That is a worrying outlook.

The only thing (possibly,as it always seems to be the reason) to fight over would be the oil and the way that would be divided up has been internationally agreed. I cannot see anything to fight over.

So if agreement isn't reached what happens?

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Here's a question.

Should agreement not be reached over the orchard. What happens next? War? Is there a Court of Arbitration for new countries?

Why should war be the first response?
That is a worrying outlook.

The only thing (possibly,as it always seems to be the reason) to fight over would be the oil and the way that would be divided up has been internationally agreed. I cannot see anything to fight over.

So if agreement isn't reached what happens?

Depends what's in issue, I suspect. The starting point in negotiations is "what is each side entitled to/obliged to take". Those questions can, I think, be answered by the application of public international law - the law that governs relationships between nations, on which the International Court of Justice can adjudicate (enforcement against a non co-operative losing nation has a separate set of problems).

Negotiations should be a process of swapsies (what one side has/is entitled to against what the other side wants/isn't entitled to). If the swapsie can't be agreed, then id guess each side ends up with what they are entitled to and nothing more.

Probably. I doubt it would get that far.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Not all of them are! How d'ya get in?

Enough of them have been in power for 4 years.
Long enough to act.
I always judge people not by what they say, but what they do.