Topic: Scottish Independence May Be Coming Soon - page 4. (Read 5061 times)

I should've said "might/could" instead of "would."  AFAIK these are options and nothing has been set in stone? Mark Carney saying any move to keep the pound would need to be negotiated on independence being obtained but that he would implement whatever came out of negotiations.

That is not the position of the Yes Scotland campaign:
http://yesscotland.net/news/common-sense-currency

If the result is Yes, it wouldn't be a move to keep GBP as it is but to have our own currency. This currency would just be called the Scottish Pound and start off at same rate as GBP.

The No side want to use this a scaremongering tactic, which may have worked to some extent with many people not realising or forgetting that many places in England won't accept Scottish notes as it is. It wouldn't be much of a big deal to have a Scottish pound.  There are so many fake pound coins in circulation, they will be making a new one in any case.

 

It was this debate that cemented my Yes vote. Darling wouldn't even look at Salmond and spent a lot of his time mudslinging rather than getting down to numbers. Pushing the "fear of what could happen to our children" without actually backing that up successfully.

What's best for the people of Manchester and Birmingham and Newcastle is not what's best for us all of the time. We have tried having our own parliament and we still get important issues outvoted by Westminster. They don't take into account what's best for the people of Scotland when making decisions for England so I don't feel that's a good enough statement to vote no on.

Vote Aye for me.


Himself and England, specifically London.


This is the Yes proposal but it would be voted on in independence.

Hm, it seems that I was wrong.

http://rt.com/uk/183672-scottish-independence-votes-ebay/

You may be right, I don't have a very high opinion of the average voter though (I mean voting to begin with is an act of futility) .. I wish them the best of luck with it.

I don't think that all of the younger voters are economically ignorant. Maybe some of the 16-year olds and 17-year olds might be ignorant. But the same won't be true for those who are in their 30s. These people are from the "Braveheart" generation. That is, the generation which is the most influenced by that movie. For them, independence is more valuable than anything else. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE

I think the percentages are hilarious:

Younger voters (prideful and economically ignorant) voting yes. And the elderly worrying about their pensions! 

If that's what they vote (for a set of slightly different masters) then let them have it. Unless they adopt free-er markets (unlikely in the short term) they're   screwed. Though I suppose they can capitalize in the medium term on oilfields (I'm not too clued up on it).

On the plus side it could significantly reduce Labour's strength in the south... While I don't vote myself and the progressive policies merge into pretty much the same, the rhetoric from Labour is economically ignorant. So I guess the least crappy guys (Con men) are better for the country.

Now if UKIP is more than a barking dog, things could get depressingly interesting for a while.

Its innevitable that the Better Together campaign will be negative. You are asking people if they want to change something, and the Better Together campaign is about saying No to that change. No is a negative answer - in fact it is 'the negative'. That doesn't imply its negative in the values sense of being bad.

Here are the results from the latest opinion polls:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/07/scotland-yes-blitzkrieg-wipes-out-no-lead/

Main findings:

#1. Amazingly, 60% of the younger voters (<40 yrs.) want to vote YES.
#2. By two-to-one, Scots say Better Together has been negative
#3. 47% of the women plan to vote YES, the highest figure so far.
#4. Elderly voters are supporting NO by a huge margin (62% vs 38%)
#5. The gender gap has narrowed, but not disappeared

Surprise... surprise... surprise...



The big question is whether they can sustain the momentum for another two weeks or not.

My advice to the YES camp: discourage English immigrants and the ethnic minorities from casting their vote. Also, make sure that the teenagers and those in their 20s cast their vote. (Polling is usually lower in these groups). Organize special mobilization in the Highlands.

My advice to the NO camp: Encourage elderly voters to cast their vote. Organize special mobilization for the ethnic minorities and the elderly. Also, make sure that the English immigrants are allowed to vote.

That's not my point. What I mean as that many people are making a mistake believing the referendum in two weeks will turn Scotland into an independent country straight away. No. Even with 60% of votes, this will be a very lengthy process. The Clair oilfield, to name one, is 75 km west of Shetland, definitely in Scottish territorial waters. It's operated by BP, but like most oil fields, it has several partners (Shell, Chevron...). Right now, there is a contract between those companies and the UK, so the oil companies pay a share of their income to the UK. There's assuredly something in the contract which allows the oil companies to sell their rights to others oil companies, but I don't think there's a provision to transfer ownership of the fields from to the UK to another party. If something has to change, the oil companies will ask for a complete review of the deal to protect their interests. Don't underestimate the difficulty, they will bring an army of lawyers. There's no doubt Scotland will win the case, but England may want to slow things down, and the process may last five years. Without force, just to make everything legal.

It's simple.

1) Get a ballot from the previous voter;
2) Mark the "right" answer;
3) Get your ballot at the polling station;
4) Cast your vote using ballot, which was given to you by previous voter;
5) Leave the polling station with your ballot and then give it to next voter;
6) Next voter repeats the same steps with your ballot and so on.

Actually it was a joke and I don't think that any kind of such activity is possible in case of indepencence referendum, because share of loyal voters will be too high. But it's possible in case of elections when there is a competition between two major candidates with similar political orientation.

What is carousel voting?

Prepare for carousel voting

Reason why Scottish Independence will not happen. UK will never let go of such lucrative source of income without a fight.

IF Scotland becomes an independent country, and IF these fields still fall within the Scottish borders, then the royalty payments will go to Scotland. Any exception to this is not going to happen. Can you imagine a situation in which England asking for royalty payments from fields in Norway, which are being operated by British firms?

It would be political suicide. We're in the XXI° century. The Brits can't use force against the Scots anymore. It's a political issue asking for a political solution, and there's no force needed as the fields, if in Scottish waters, generate an income which goes straight into British pockets. It's the Scots who may have to use force to get that income to fall into their hands, and that will take years.

That would be a problem because a major part of fleet is located in scottish waters.

In case of the Scots voting for independence, I don't think that the UK will cede control of the North Sea oil and gas fields. Almost all of these fields are currently being operated by British firms and the loss of these can result in complete economic ruin for England. The marine boundary between England and Scotland is not clearly defined. So I believe that in case of an independent Scotland, the UK will use force and seize all the major fields.