FREEDOM!!!! [2]

Fook   

What sort of support are they looking for from Russia?  The Sun quote mentions the G8 but I'm not sure what relevance Cameron thinks they have.

And the Catalans have already said they will hold a referendum this year although the central Spanish government says they won't allow it. :/

Russia pretty much wrote the current play-book on dealing with breakaway republics. Maybe the SNP should consider reaching out to the post-Soviet states, particularly the Baltic states. You've all potentially got a lot in common, especially on the navy issues.

sounds a plain case of scare-mongering to me. I seriously doubt theres anything to this story other than Salmond jumping on any reason to make Cameron look shifty. Presumably if there was a shred of evidence this was true Camerons enemies in the English opposition would have had a field day, made it a big deal, and rightly so, but there's nothing in the English press. Its a non event.

There is never anything in the English press about Scottish politics Mrs Figg unless its some Unionists nonsense claiming Salmond wants to make a robot clone army of himself to rule for ever.
And its very unlikely a Murdoch, Unionist newspaper with its parent paper in London would be scaremongering on behalf of the Independence campaign.

Worth remembering when you continually have a go at Salmond the Dictator that he is actually the only elected ruling politician in the UK with a clear democratic mandate from the people.

As David points out Russia has a vested interest in not seeing parts of existing countries seek independence and they have experience at it- more important its Russia's turn to head the G8- if Cameron can get the G8 to flag up a lot of 'problems' that would arise, to add to the Unionist strategy of 'Project Fear', it might be enough to ensure the undecided vote no.


edit add- this seems to be coinciding with a paper due out shortly from the UK government-

"On Friday, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander will be in Glasgow to launch a paper on the EU and international issues.
It is the first UK government analysis to be published since the launch of the Scottish government's White Paper in November.
It will focus on the UK's diplomatic network.....(the paper) will highlight the UK's role in international affairs and look at issues including membership of the EU and Nato."- BBC Scotland

''Worth remembering when you continually have a go at Salmond the Dictator'' Petty

er yeah what the fuck? who mentioned Salmond the dictator?????   
firstly this sounds like paranoia, its ok for you to 'continually have a go' at English politicians but Salmond is out of bounds?' very democractic I must say.
But really I dont much care about Salmond or have much of an opinion on him, (part from wanting to slap those chubby cheeks) I just like to keep a balanced view on things, political shenannigans run both ways in my opinion.
Also are you seriously suggesting that ALL English newspapers, even the left leaning ones wouldnt jump on Cameron if he HAD made such a dodgy alliance? I doubt it. srsly if this was true Milliband would be wetting his pants and dribbling. Left Right or Centre all politicians are shit heads, I wouldnt defend one if I were you.   

oh yeah I forgot this  

All UK newspapers are Unionist- every last one is Unionist editorially- there is not one single newspaper has come out in support of Independence (the fact almost all Scottish newspapers have their parent paper in London may have something to do with this).

And its not the first time you have made a comment or attack on Salmond that seems to me to have no basis in the actual political situation but only at him on a personal level (wanting to slap his chubby cheeks being yet another such example- if his policies are good, if they help me, my country and those I care about he can have cheeks like a giant hamster for all I care or paint himself blue- I dont see what his physical appearance has to do with anything relevant to the independence debate).

And I am not pro SNP and never have been- I am pro Independence- if we vote yes to that it is highly unlikely I would vote SNP into power in the General Election which would follow- assuming they still even exist in that scenario.

But however you cut it Salmond is one of the most recognisable, one of the most successful politicians in the UK at the present time- and he is the only one with a political mandate to rule from the people who voted. And that at least should be respected regardless of personal feelings.

for the record I am as just as much allowed to voice my opinions about Salmond or anyone else, as you are. If you take it as 'attacking', so be it. I havent been particularly negative about him, but if its a sensitive subject then I will just add this to the ever growing list of things I cant discuss with you. sound fair enough?
Its just a shame you jump on me whenever I try to talk about your 'sacred cows'. You wont broke anyone critisizing them but feel yourself free to wade in to people if it suits you. Its not fair in my opinion.
Also you seem to have the mistaken view I am 'having a go' at Scottish Independence, I am categorically NOT. I hope you get what you want, it doesnt really bother me either way, Yes or No, its not my agenda to 'attack' Salmond, I think he is a twat but thats beside the point. If he does the job well thats good for the Scottish. I dont really see things as black and White as you, I dont think of Scottish and English still at loggerheads after 500 years like some of your comments seem to suggest, so it comes as a surprise all the vitriol of Scottish newspapers against the English.

It is a subject you can debate any time with me Mrs Figg- I am more than happy to engage in discussions about the independence debate- its just the pointless name calling I dont understand.
It has nothing to do with the substance of discussion.

Nor is it an issue I am sensitive about- if you had ever actually discussed Scottish politics with me you would know that I find Salmond a fascinating politician and rate his skills in that field very highly- but I have plenty of criticisms especilly on SNP economic policy which is often right of Tory.

In my entire life I have voted SNP twice, and both times for the same reason- to get a referendum on independence. I am not by nature an SNP voter, and never have been so its hardly sensitive.
I just dont like it when you reduce the very serious issues down to personal attacks on one person. I dont think its at all helpful.

by personal attacks you mean I want to slap his chubby cheeks? thats kinda meant in humour, hence the sensitive comment. and you are telling me you have NEVER attacked Cameron personally because I beg to differ

I am also perplexed by the serious discussion bit, that implies I am not debating seriously, which is a bit naughty of you.

You would be right, if it were a one off comment in isolation- but we both know its not and the evidence of that is strewn back throughout the thread.

so it comes as a surprise all the vitriol of Scottish newspapers against the English. - Mrs Figg

I dont see any evidence of that in Scottish newsapers- quite the opposite as all the newspapers are in the Unionist camp.
Its Salmond and the SNP that get the abuse day in and day out, as with so many pro Union papers when one paper isnt doing it, one of the others is.

And its not that I dont think you dont take it seriously, but you seem to me at times somehow personally offended that Scotland might want independence, and I dont really understand why.

It sounds far more like scaremongering in the other direction to me.   It seems very apparent that there is a strong effort from the conservatives not to say you shouldn't be independent, but to make independence seem as bad an idea as possible.

They are probably hoping to swing the public mood, as they did with the voting reform election. Hopefully the Scottish will see through it, it really is a rather pathetic effort.   

''but you seem to me at times somehow personally offended that Scotland might want independence, and I dont really understand why.''

Theres nothing to understand, because I dont take it personally, why on earth would I? Its such a ridiculous thing to say I cant even comment more than that. I dont care enough about it either way to take it personally. srsly. its weird. But as I said before you take offence at anything I say so i will refrain from commenting here as well as Who and Sherlock threads, we wouldnt want to poison the well again would we?  

and I seriously object very strongly to you painting me as the enemy of Scottish Independance, trying to make me look like a dick for having an opinion that doesnt tow your line. thats fucking out of order. You take a relatively neutral statement of mine and turn it against me time and time again, I am seriously fed up with this crap, are you trying to drive me away cos its working?

I am not painting you as anything- you have been critical many times about the idea of independence and of Salmond, and I still dont know exactly what it is you object to. Which policies, which ideals, what parts of it ect.

as this is the last time I post on this thread I hope Scotland gets what it wants. Its been so pleasant discussing it with you.

I dont enough about politics really but, I feel Cameron isnt above word/mind games & a slightly subtle dose of emotional blackmail to get just what he wants. I think the Russian scandal is another case of "lets shake up the locals" Tories seem to think the masses are a bunch of moronic idiots, majority being no better than "trailer trash" We are handy "vermin" (meaning, like rats & mice, there is far to many poor people) wE, the poor, have our uses. Tax us to death, saves the rich being taxed. We die, well,good, less Pension to pay out, but if we work till we are 100, so much the better, more tax, saves the rich. Scotland becomes what many would like to be, free & independent, what then ? Wales also ? Oh dear, looks like the list of Governmental control is growing smaller ! how will Cameron & his cronies sustain a comfortable life style, not only for themselves, but, for future generations of "Cameron's"? With less population to control & dictate to & bleed dry Tories will have to come up with a radical plan post haste ! I know, a touch of fear to make the masses comply, that'll do it for, say, 5yrs ? 10yrs ? more ? And what stick would you use ? someone with an inbuilt powerful reputation, thats who. Good old Cameron proving himself the only one strong enough to control the "Great Bear" that is Russia.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If you get Freedom, would you also be Free from the Brittish purse?- Orwell

Sorry Orwell, I missed this post somehow first time through.

You have touched on a thorny contentious subject at the heart of the debate.

The short answer is yes and no!

The longer answer is when the SNP way back first came up with their outline of an independent Scotland the idea was to switch to the Euro- but when it became politically toxic that was a no go.
The back up position is a Sterling zone- we retain the pound and the Bank of England would retain control over interest rates.

The UK government refuse to pre-negotiate on it though so they can say the SNP cant guarantee it and its a huge risk- its also open to the charge what is the point of independence if the purse strings are still attached to the Bank of England? (who would set interest rates and decide levels of borrowing)

The SNP response is the Bank of England, despite the name is an independent body founded by a Scotsman and that as the pound was created as part of the Union it is equally Scottish as it is English (or Welsh or Irish- and Scottish banks already produce their own bank notes- they are not issued from England and we already have our own financial laws as Scottish justice system is separate from the English and always has been).
And that more importantly England would benefit from a sterling zone as Scottish resources, particularly in oil and fishing, go a long way to offsetting the UK balance of payments- if England were to reject a fiscal pact on sterling they would effectively be adding billions to their debt overnight.
They also argue that as the trade balance and standard of living between the two is so close the setting of interest rates would not be a huge effect- if we had our own central bank doing it or were in the euro it would be just as independent anyway, and more importantly for them it allows Scotland to raise and retain its own revenue and to set tax rates ect whcih they cannot do right now.

Most independent commentators think that if there is a yes vote Westminster would indeed negotiate a sterling zone- but for now the Tories rule it out as part of the politics of the No campaign as it creates an air of uncertainty about would happen after a yes vote.

Its one of the main battle grounds of the referendum.

England YOU SING, England never never will be slaves and I wish that for you and love you but FOR HEAVE'S SAKES LET GO OF IRELAND AND SCOTLAND, THIS IS NOT THE SIXTEEN HUNDREDS. PLEASE LET THEM COMPLETELY GO. We Canadians quite like the Queen but we cannot bear it, stop it.

ok

I think Leelee Ireland will take a bit of time yet to deal with it demons, its problems in some respects will be generations in the solving rather than years (and the same sadly goes for the sectarian aspects that crept into Scottish life too).

On the subject of the economy the UK government recently made a huge climb down over the currency issue- they announced Westminster would honour all Scottish debts up to the referendum.

This is something the SNP have been calling for and something Westminster has been loathe to do as it goes against their stance of not negotiating anything before the vote- and more crucially its the first step in negotiating the sterling zone Westminster claim wont happen (when everyone knows it will). And thats exactly how the markets have reacted to it.

Its being seen as a big victory for the SNP and the removal of an area of uncertainty regarding the debt.

And Mrs Figg- comment away, bugger poising wells, hands on bustle, chin out and give me pelters, tell me to piss off, whack with the handbags   - but don't give up the fight and the barny, it doesnt suit you as a healthy Northern lass.    Bollocks to that, get in about them.   

I see your point Azriel. Still, it does bring the mind to the fact that all brittish prime ministers since Tatcher have been the ones supported by Rupert Murdoch and championed in his papers.

To some degree people must blame themselves for the politicians they elect, I guess.

And the most shocking thing is that the Tories would have won the election if it was only England. In the end you get what you vote for.   

the most shocking thing is that the Tories would have won the election if it was only England- Blue

You hit on the heart of the problem there Blue.

Scotland doesn't feel like it has a voice in UK politics, because we dont.
London alone can outvote us.

The current Tory led coalition government is a classic example- there is exactly 1 Tory MP in Scotland, and yet they are the government of rule over us.
Its the lack of any sense of democratic voice that for me is the most important issue at stake here.

The Thatcher era was another good example- 17 years of Tory rule and Scotland voted majority Labour every single time, but England voted Tory so we got Tory.

Yes, and you are and always were a seperate nationality. Despite the Union of Parliments and all that.

The thing for me with Scottish independence is that when I read about hardship, poor housing and poverty in Scotland, it pretty much seems clear to me you would have been better off if you had been a seperate nation.

The Scottish Parliament has been hearing from experts about the likelihood of Scotland remaining in the EU.

The starting positions for the YES and NO camps are respectively-

Yes- Scotland would negotiate membership in the interim period whilst negotiations are taking place with RUK- we would remain part of the UK until the conclusion of negotiations with the RUK and so would technically never not be a member until independence day, when we would then join as a new member state, having already negotiated the entry.

No- Scotland would be a new and separate country and be forced to leave first. RUK would remain the member state but Scotland would not. We would have to reapply to join from scratch from the outside.

Here what the experts had to give in their evidence to the Holyrood Committee-

'Former civil servant and EU negotiator, David Crawley, and academics Laura Cram, Dr Paolo Dardanelli and John Bachtler came before MSPs.
They agreed that in the event of independence there would have to be interim arrangements over the EU.
Mr Crawley told members of the Scottish Parliament's external relations committee that Scotland would probably have to apply as a new state, a process that had historically taken between a year and 14 years.
But he added: "I think the consensus of this panel is that there ought to be a set of interim arrangements agreed at some stage in this process which one would hope would protect rights.
"We don't know that, there are no guarantees and there are risks, but that is what we would hope."
Ms Cram, professor of European politics at Edinburgh University, agreed.
She told MSPs: "A general preference for continuity within the EU machine is what we have seen historically when there are transitions.
"While we are talking about a lengthy, lengthy period of time, potentially, until all of the ends are tied up and a final membership package agreed, the notion that Scotland would somehow be out in the cold and floating in that interim period, even if it were to come entirely as an applicant state, would be considered unusual in the EU context.
"The general approach has been to agree transition arrangements.
"I think lawyers will come up with a compromise. It would be surprising that it would be in the interests of anybody to throw everything up immediately and not find some kind of working relationship that could work in the interim."

Dr Dardanelli, lecturer in comparative politics at Kent University, said: "I personally find the reframing of membership not unreasonable as a scenario, because it would be very problematic to expel Scotland following independence.
"So, the course that the [Scottish] government has charted I don't find unreasonable, but it would be based entirely on negotiations and agreements with other member states.
"It seems to me like there is a bit of a game being played and a number of nationalist parties around Europe want to use the argument to direct member states to shift the politics of independence within those prospective states."- BBC Scotland


So in short, we would count as new country, but importantly the most likely outcome is the one the SNP envision- we would negotiate our position from within the EU before becoming independent, which will take a couple of years anyway.

The No claim that we would be cast out first and we would have to negotiate from outside from scratch and adopt the Euro (a ludicrous notion anyway as you have to first be a member of the exchange rate for several years) is dead in the water.

You might want to read the above post before reading this one   

"Foreign Secretary William Hague has said an independent Scottish state may not be able to negotiate the same terms of EU membership as the UK.
He told BBC Scotland, people "should be in no doubt" that if Scotland left the UK it would have to reapply for European Union membership.
Mr Hague told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that, even if the European negotiations were "constructively-minded", it would still be a complicated process.
The foreign secretary said Scotland would be obliged to join the Euro single currency, which the Scottish government had said it would not do.
He also said Scotland would also need to sign the Schengen agreement on border controls."- BBC Scotland


The very next day and they are back to scaremongering like the expert evidence was never heard at all. Amazing.