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

tailwindhome

YIMan wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Do people in Scotland not realise that Salmond is making promises that he can't hope to keep?

Do people in England not realise that the people in Scotland no longer give a monkey's what the people in England think.

Does that include the hundreds of thousands of Scots living in England? Or only the "English"?

Greg mostly

YIMan

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

My yes vote is getting posted in the morning. Loving the mad panic from Westminster now.

What are your thoughts on the likes of Raigmore hospital and its staffing crisis? There are at least 5 consultants in my village, only one of which is Scottish. Raigmore already has real problems in recruiting skilled staff. Do you think your Yes vote will improve the situation? If so, how?

Same goes for any and all specialist skills in the Highlands.

Let's not let such trivia cloud the issue, as long as "we don't have to be ruled by Westminster (those English B******ds)".

aberdeen_lune

meanredspider wrote:

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

My yes vote is getting posted in the morning. Loving the mad panic from Westminster now.

What are your thoughts on the likes of Raigmore hospital and its staffing crisis? There are at least 5 consultants in my village, only one of which is Scottish. Raigmore already has real problems in recruiting skilled staff. Do you think your Yes vote will improve the situation? If so, how?

Same goes for any and all specialist skills in the Highlands.

Why would it have an impact? It's not about being Scottish or English it's just about where the people living in Scotland are governed from and who votes them in. The national health in Scotland may well be better funded in an independent Scotland and may be a more attractive place to live.

meanredspider

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

Why would it have an impact? It's not about being Scottish or English it's just about where the people living in Scotland are governed from and who votes them in. The national health in Scotland may well be better funded in an independent Scotland and may be a more attractive place to live.

Because you're making a decision to move "abroad" to work. Having done that twice, it's complex - taxes, pensions, houses, currencies, banking, schooling, cars, phone contracts, TV contracts (should I go on?). Now, places like Raigmore Hospital and LifeScan Scotland (largest private employer in the Highlands) already struggles to persuade people to move to the Highlands even though it's only a move "up the road". It's a long way from anywhere. Now tell these people that it's a foreign country they're moving to. I can tell you, I would not have moved. My wife, a teacher (another profession that they're finding very hard to fill), has already said she wants to move back if it's a Yes vote. Now, education and NHS are already autonomous in Scotland. Yes voters might believe these are suddenly going to be much better funded under independence. Even IF you believe that, what's going to happen in the years between a Yes vote and clarity of what it means (and even longer before these incredible spending plans make a difference)? Who is going to take the risk? Only the desperate. The Highlands is in real trouble in a Yes vote.

ETA - the other problem is that, having moved up here, and my job having gone (a mistake it now appears but that's by-the-by), there's absolutely nothing else up here for me (hence now working in Amsterdam). If the same thing happened in say Cambridge or Amsterdam (where I used to work and where I work now), there are plenty of options. That's another reason why people don't risk moving up here and, if people leave, there's no pool of people ready to step into those roles.

walkingbootweather

Aberdeen_lune wrote:

[
The national health in Scotland may well be better funded in an independent Scotland

If the yes camp triumphs you will have the option to make it so. What do propose spending less on to balance the books? There will if anything be less money to spend due to the cost in setting up agencies to replicate those that currently operate.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Do people in Scotland not realise that Salmond is making promises that he can't hope to keep?

Do people in England not realise that the people in Scotland no longer give a monkey's what the people in England think.

If someone told me that a major political leader in England was spouting economic claptrap, I think I might just try to make some form of objective assessment of the criticism. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply based on the demographic group of the maker of the statement.

That's just me though.

anonymousblackfg

I can understand why plenty down here are now aggrieved by Westminster promising the earth to keep it all together. Even if they stay I can see the anti Scottish sentiment that the scots believe there is, actually start to exist.

greg66_tri_v2.0

anonymousblackfg wrote:

I can understand why plenty down here are now aggrieved by Westminster promising the earth to keep it all together. Even if they stay I can see the anti Scottish sentiment that the scots believe there is, actually start to exist.

I think if there is a no vote, and what has been offered (Devomax?) is implemented, then the so-called West Lothian question will be resolved pdq in the form of Scottish MPs not being allowed to vote on English legislation. Amongst other counterbalances ...

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Do people in Scotland not realise that Salmond is making promises that he can't hope to keep?

Do people in England not realise that the people in Scotland no longer give a monkey's what the people in England think.

If someone told me that a major political leader in England was spouting economic claptrap, I think I might just try to make some form of objective assessment of the criticism. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply based on the demographic group of the maker of the statement.

That's just me though.

I have a sort of grudging respect for Salmond (much as I dislike him): in spite of the gaping holes in his arguments, he has managed to out-manoeuvre the No camp, and apparently persuade a good proportion of Scottish residents. Can't help thinking that the real mistake was offering the all-or-nothing referendum, rather than devo-max. It would certainly have taken the wind out of his sails.

EKE_38BPM

rjsterry wrote:

I have a sort of grudging respect for Salmond (much as I dislike him.

Agreed. A bit like Bob Crow.

In my opinion, there is no rational argument for Yes from a financial point of view. Salmond is promising the world and it'll all be free. It can't work.

However, from a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why Scots would vote Yes. Some Scots dislike the English so much that they are not thinking with their heads and will make their decision with their hearts.
If you feel that you are always being shat on by your evil oppressors, then doing whatever it takes to get their boot from off of your neck makes perfect sense and you vote yes.

So voting Yes may mean higher spending which will lead to more debt and/or a higher deficit which will lead to higher taxes and thus a lower standard of living, but they are Scottish, so they won't live for very long anyway.

UndercoverElephant

Can I point out that my 'Yes' vote won't be anti-English in any way, shape or form? Quite aside from the fact that I would never base such a huge decision on anything so petty, the fact that I am in actual fact English, my wife is English and both our families live in England may help convince you of this.

Removing that, which seems to be what a great proportion of the commenters are assuming that all of this is actually about, may help you take a view of why I will vote yes.

When the referendum was announced, I guess my default position, like many voters, was a no. But over time I have been brought round. When I visited Iceland last year, I saw the difference in how politics in a smaller country worked. It struck me that the politicians seemed to be on a much shorter leash than those in London, from whom I guess I feel more disconnected and trust less. There are also fewer places to hide all the inefficiencies that a sprawling government covers-up so well. Yes, I realise that Scotland and Iceland are different sizes, people and attitudes, but I think the possibility is there.

As for Salmond and the SNP, here's the uncomfortable thing: they're actually pretty good. They've done a reasonable job since they got in - they were elected on a moon-on-a-stick style manifesto (you can offer all kinds of things when you don't actually expect to get in - they were as shocked as anyone, I think, when they pulled it off), but they delivered a lot of it. They actually did. I doubt they'll last very long after the referendum, no matter what the result, they're probably a little too disparate to get along long-term, but I guess they now have a track-record of pulling rabbits from hats.

When the three main parties sent up their clones yesterday, to me it underlined exactly how out of touch they seem to the average voter. For years I've seen my native North-East passed over for everything, left to rot by Westminster. Do I think that anything will change in the way that happens? Certainly not if Scotland doesn't force the UK's hand. I understand the need for a global city of London, but not if it's to the detriment of the rest of the country.

notsoblue

I hope they don't use the pound. Will make it nice and cheap to go on holiday there.

rower63

UndercoverElephant wrote:

When I visited Iceland last year, I saw the difference in how politics in a smaller country worked. It struck me that the politicians seemed to be on a much shorter leash than those in London, from whom I guess I feel more disconnected and trust less. There are also fewer places to hide all the inefficiencies that a sprawling government covers-up so well. Yes, I realise that Scotland and Iceland are different sizes, people and attitudes, but I think the possibility is there ...

I agree.
I'm half Finnish, and pretty much this can be said of most of those European countries with a population at or smaller than 5 million. Think Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland etc etc. Sure some of those countries have had their fair share of problems, but for the same reasons they've managed to get their way out of them quickly too (think Banking crises in Scandinavia and Ireland). Also public infrastructure and standard of education are far superior in these places than in the unmanageable megaliths like UK, US.
In the short run there will be upheaval and uncertainty, but ultimately Scotland will be in a much better place.

elbowloh

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Can I point out that my 'Yes' vote won't be anti-English in any way, shape or form? Quite aside from the fact that I would never base such a huge decision on anything so petty, the fact that I am in actual fact English, my wife is English and both our families live in England may help convince you of this.

Removing that, which seems to be what a great proportion of the commenters are assuming that all of this is actually about, may help you take a view of why I will vote yes.

When the referendum was announced, I guess my default position, like many voters, was a no. But over time I have been brought round. When I visited Iceland last year, I saw the difference in how politics in a smaller country worked. It struck me that the politicians seemed to be on a much shorter leash than those in London, from whom I guess I feel more disconnected and trust less. There are also fewer places to hide all the inefficiencies that a sprawling government covers-up so well. Yes, I realise that Scotland and Iceland are different sizes, people and attitudes, but I think the possibility is there.

As for Salmond and the SNP, here's the uncomfortable thing: they're actually pretty good. They've done a reasonable job since they got in - they were elected on a moon-on-a-stick style manifesto (you can offer all kinds of things when you don't actually expect to get in - they were as shocked as anyone, I think, when they pulled it off), but they delivered a lot of it. They actually did. I doubt they'll last very long after the referendum, no matter what the result, they're probably a little too disparate to get along long-term, but I guess they now have a track-record of pulling rabbits from hats.

When the three main parties sent up their clones yesterday, to me it underlined exactly how out of touch they seem to the average voter. For years I've seen my native North-East passed over for everything, left to rot by Westminster. Do I think that anything will change in the way that happens? Certainly not if Scotland doesn't force the UK's hand. I understand the need for a global city of London, but not if it's to the detriment of the rest of the country.

Yeah, yeah, but look at the cost of a beer in Iceland!

meanredspider

rower63 wrote:

(think Banking crises in ....... Ireland)

In what way did Ireland get out of it quickly???? With a mahoosive bailout (AKA loan). And, if Ireland is what you're basing your judgement of how a Scotland will do under independence, I have no clue of why you think Scotland will be a better place. I cycled through Ireland (E2E) - it was sobering: unfinished or unsold ESTATES of houses from one end of the country to the other. The poor people that actually bought property during the boom will be in negative equity forever (if the economics of supply and demand actually work). If Scotland is going down the same route as Ireland, it's screwed.

meanredspider

UndercoverElephant wrote:

As for Salmond and the SNP, here's the uncomfortable thing: they're actually pretty good. They've done a reasonable job since they got in - they were elected on a moon-on-a-stick style manifesto (you can offer all kinds of things when you don't actually expect to get in - they were as shocked as anyone, I think, when they pulled it off), but they delivered a lot of it. They actually did. I doubt they'll last very long after the referendum, no matter what the result, they're probably a little too disparate to get along long-term, but I guess they now have a track-record of pulling rabbits from hats.

You're living in a different Scotland from the one I'm living in

UndercoverElephant

elbowloh wrote:

Yeah, yeah, but look at the cost of a beer in Iceland!

Since the collapse of the currency, it's not that bad...

I may see if the company I work for will pay me in US dollars.

meanredspider wrote:

You're living in a different Scotland from the one I'm living in

I think I may be. Perhaps that's the benefit of living in the prosperous South-East, rather than the forgotten North.

arthur_scrimshaw

Part of Cameron's speech yesterday was highlighting the risk that apart neither Country would carry the same gravitas as the current UK and have less fluence with the rest of the World. I see this as true and Cameron's concerns are most likely linked to his possible reduction in status as a World leader. I think it could be a good thing if it meant we no longer had to try to behave like we were still a superpower and get involved with the big boys of World politics and their (expensive) squables.

dhope

UndercoverElephant wrote:

[

meanredspider wrote:

You're living in a different Scotland from the one I'm living in

I think I may be. Perhaps that's the benefit of living in the prosperous South-East, rather than the forgotten North.

See, Scotland's not so different from England after all.

UndercoverElephant

dhope wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

[

meanredspider wrote:

You're living in a different Scotland from the one I'm living in

I think I may be. Perhaps that's the benefit of living in the prosperous South-East, rather than the forgotten North.

See, Scotland's not so different from England after all.

I did that on purpose, glad to see you're paying attention.

Whatever happens, I've never know politics be like this in the UK. People actually seem involved and to have an opinion, there's very little apathy about this one. Apparently the bookies are giving the shortest odds on an 80-86% turnout.

meanredspider

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I think I may be. Perhaps that's the benefit of living in the prosperous South-East, rather than the forgotten North.

A case of "I'm alright, Jock"? Having just dropped my daughter back to Glasgow, I'm glad you added the "East" part.

The funny thing is that seeing Salmond up here is probably rarer than Cameron in Scotland.

meanredspider

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Whatever happens, I've never know politics be like this in the UK. People actually seem involved and to have an opinion, there's very little apathy about this one. Apparently the bookies are giving the shortest odds on an 80-86% turnout.

I'm not surprised. The business people I know up here are genuinely scared sh!tless by a Yes vote.

I find it deeply depressing to hear the seemingly endless interviews they are doing with 16-17 year olds at the moment. There's a reason why these kids don't normally get to vote. Even the smarter kids that get wheeled out really have no clue about the realities of a decision (and that goes for the No as well as the Yes voters) and they are incredibly impressionable at that age. At least they won't be able to blame anybody else for the outcome.

bompington

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Whatever happens, I've never know politics be like this in the UK. People actually seem involved and to have an opinion

Oh, they've got opinions alright. Shame that few are actually thinking, never mind genuinely considering evidence - the way that all the Yessers, from Eck himself all the way down through his puppet minions, silence any queries with "Lies! You're bluffing! You're wrong! English Tory lickspittles!" is quite depressing.

elbowloh

From a purely selfish point of view, a Yes vote would leave England to suffer a Tory government for eternity as we'll no longer have the Scottish Labour votes.

vermin

elbowloh wrote:

From a purely selfish point of view, a Yes vote would leave England to suffer a Tory government for eternity as we'll no longer have the Scottish Labour votes.

Every cloud. ...

rjsterry

vermin wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

From a purely selfish point of view, a Yes vote would leave England to suffer a Tory government for eternity as we'll no longer have the Scottish Labour votes.

Every cloud. ...

This has been debunked already. I think the maths showed that the removal of the Scottish MPs would only have changed the results of 3 general elections since the 1940s, and then by pretty small margins.

vermin

Isn't 3 out of 17 quite a lot? Especially given that Scots only represent 1 in 12 of the UK population.

Come on, elbowloh has found a real positive for us to cling to.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Do people in Scotland not realise that Salmond is making promises that he can't hope to keep?

Do people in England not realise that the people in Scotland no longer give a monkey's what the people in England think.

If someone told me that a major political leader in England was spouting economic claptrap, I think I might just try to make some form of objective assessment of the criticism. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply based on the demographic group of the maker of the statement.

That's just me though.

I have a sort of grudging respect for Salmond (much as I dislike him): in spite of the gaping holes in his arguments, he has managed to out-manoeuvre the No camp, and apparently persuade a good proportion of Scottish residents. Can't help thinking that the real mistake was offering the all-or-nothing referendum, rather than devo-max. It would certainly have taken the wind out of his sails.

I have huge respect for Salmond, if he wins he wins, if he loses he wins. He wanted devomax and Cameron said no.

meanredspider

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I have huge respect for Salmond, if he wins he wins, if he loses he wins. He wanted devomax and Cameron said no.

Did he? I thought Salmond asked for a referendum on independence and that's what he got.

corriebee1

The guy's a (very good) salesman. He knows that he only has to win once, and he doesn't seem to give a shoot about what he has to say to do it.

I can see how people can appreciate his skill at avoiding most of the difficult questions. However, i personally think he's an odious and arrogant little pirck and I would find the whole idea more pallatable if it wasn't for him and his inane, patronising slapable face.

However, I've just seen George Galloway tweeting for the "No" campaign, so i guess both sides have a bit of that!