FREEDOM!!!! [3]

I think YES is in the ascendancy at the moment.
And its not naive- its not saying we wont get down to the nitty gritty, or that its not important- the devil is always in the detail- but its not the question we are currently being asked- thats simply a statement of intent- do we want to be an independent country like almost everyone else, or not.
There is nothing on the ballot paper about currency, oil revenue or anything else for that matter- just if we want to be independent from the rest of the UK or not.
Once we get down to elect our first government- and that might very well not be the SNP- Churchill won WW2 he still got voted out at the first election after it though- then its about politics again.

Unfortunately it seems to be coming down to a vote on the question, "Do you distrust us: Yes/No."

It would have been wiser for the No people to have formed a commission and implemented 3 or 4 significant changes in the run-up to the election as a show of good faith toward further devolved power.  

As it is, I'm picking up on the feeling that "Trust Us" isn't working too well as a campaign slogan.

Certainly who do you trust is large part of this. And when folks go and see who is financially backing each side, well, see for yourself-

No- 19 wealthy backers donated a total of £1.3m, including £10,000 each from two senior figures in the private intelligence firm Hakluyt, which has links to MI6, £600,000 from the hotel and distilleries tycoon Donald Houston and his companies, and £23,000 from Sir Chippendale Keswick, chairman of Arsenal FC and a Tory donor. And Ian Taylor, chief executive of the highly controversial Vitol company.

Unveiling a total of £1.6m in gifts since May, Better Together said it had also taken £50,000 from Ivor Dunbar, a senior executive with Deutsche Bank, and £200,000 from the stockbroker Andrew Fraser, who has given £1m to the Tories and was head of equities at Barings merchant bank before its collapse.

Other notable contributions come frrm Peers of the Realm and a series of Tory Lords.

YES- More than 7,000 small donors have contributed around £112,000 since campaigning began, with a further £1,283,000 coming from five individual donors and a non-cash contribution from SNP equating to £342,797.
The donations have all been made directly to the campaign which has been self-financing since September last year.


So the NO side is backed by the wealthy who want to stay wealthy, friends of the Tory party, and Tories.
The YES campaign is funded form the grass roots.

Who would you trust given that choice?

Or is it from the wealthy who understand what it will mean financially to split versus the flag wavers who have no idea what they are getting themselves in to?

Petty I think thats a gross simplification. The no vote is made up of grass roots unionists.

David H wrote:Unfortunately it seems to be coming down to a vote on the question, "Do you distrust us: Yes/No."

It would have been wiser for the No people to have formed a commission and implemented 3 or 4 significant changes in the run-up to the election as a show of good faith toward further devolved power.  

As it is, I'm picking up on the feeling that "Trust Us" isn't working too well as a campaign slogan.

Yeah. I think that's very much it, David. Also it was the Westminister Govrnement, as in the poeple telling people to trust them and vote no, who decided that the only options on offer would be either full devolution or keeping status quo. Further hurting their own credibility and trustworthyness.

Or is it from the wealthy who understand what it will mean financially to split versus the flag wavers who have no idea what they are getting themselves in to? -Lance

Problem there is that there are just as many business folk and economists, including two nobel prize winners for economy, backing Independence.
If it only were that easy to tell.

But this concerns who is funding either side and what their motivations might be, something the scottish voter has to decide for themselves.



'I think thats a gross simplification. The no vote is made up of grass roots unionists.'

I dont see how it can be a simplification, its just who is backing which side. And I did not say the no vote did not have grass roots backing, I was talking about major donaters to the campaigns. And those backing the NO side are not grass roots, they are not even based in Scotland for the most part but in London. The very place which currently gets all revenue raised in Scotland sent right to it.  


who decided that the only options on offer would be either full devolution or keeping status quo. Further hurting their own credibility and trustworthyness. = Blue

Not only that but in the recent debate when pressed to name one single extra power that Scotland would receive which could help in job creation Darling could not name a single one. Making a NO vote just as much a gamble and a leap in the dark as a YES- we have to trust Westminster will give us extra powers when they cant even hint at what these powers might be.
At least the YES side have a vision to offer for a future Scotland with clear steps clearly laid out in the White Paper.

its not clear though is it? the major factor in people being worried about voting yes is the seeming uncertainty, the seeming attitude that first we vote yes and then sort everything out as it goes along. Its not clear to me after reading up on it, its not clear to Scottish people three weeks before the vote. its alright Salmond giving out promises and saying he wants A and B, but the other people who actually gets to decide A or B may just not play ball. he says he wants currency union, he says he wants a lot of things, but he hasnt actually said how he is going to negotiate everything in his favour. theres too many mebehs.

It cant really be any other way.
We have to vote YES first before the negotiations can begin which will make things clear.

This is a deliberate situation created by the NO camp.
The YES side wanted to negotiate the currency, the trident position ect ahead of the vote, and the electoral commission has twice called on the NO side to agree to this as without it the voters cant have the information they want.
But the NO position is that they will not pre-negotiate anything because they are going to win so dont have to.

It was in their interests as they saw it to refuse to help provide answers to these questions precisely so they can accuse the YES side of not having any answers. Answers no one can possibly have without the negotiations. Project Fear relies on creating uncertainty after all to be successful.

Then Salmond cant make promises he doesnt know he can keep.

He isnt. He is outlying a direction for the country. He can discuss revenues and anything the devolved parliament already has the numbers on.

He cant promise to have a currency union, but he can insist its in the interests of the nation and that it will be negotiated when it comes down to it (the Edinburgh Agreement backs him up legally there).

But he cant answer other questions.

Take entry to the EU- according to the NO side we will be kicked of Eurpoe immediately on voting YES and have to reenter as a completely new member taking years to do so.
According to the YES vote we can renegotiate our position as existing members from within the EU in the time period set aside for negotiations with Ruk prior to independence day.

We could have long known the answer to this however- the UK government as the existing member state can just ask Europe to come to an opinion and publish it. But they refused to do this as the answer will be -it would be negotiated, Europe cant kick out a country of founding members, with 5 million EU citizens for 50 years because they took part in a democratic referendum.

But thats not the answer NO want- they want the uncertainty- so they have simply refused to ask the EU the question.

but if you are asking people to take a massive leap of faith you need concrete answers before the vote, and from what I have heard people are very confused and unsure and dont believe the promises of any politician.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:who decided that the only options on offer would be either full devolution or keeping status quo. Further hurting their own credibility and trustworthyness. = Blue

Not only that but in the recent debate when pressed to name one single extra power that Scotland would receive which could help in job creation Darling could not name a single one. Making a NO vote just as much a gamble and a leap in the dark as a YES- we have to trust Westminster will give us extra powers when they cant even hint at what these powers might be.
At least the YES side have a vision to offer for a future Scotland with clear steps clearly laid out in the White Paper.

Yeah, from my perspective Scotland should be independent because they would do better as an independent nastion. But the fact that Westminister throws away the opportunity most people would prefer, partial devolution, because they think they can get away with giving nothing, through a no vote, certainly helps to push you over the line.

if you are asking people to take a massive leap of faith you need concrete answers before the vote, and from what I have heard people are very confused and unsure and dont believe the promises of any politician.- Figg

But that is precisely what the NO campaign set out to try to do.

The major questions- currency, EU membership, nuclear armaments, the armed forces, assets and debts- all could be known and answered already if NO had not refused on each and every point to engage in discussion.

So we have to take a leap of faith.

And if thats your choice who do you trust? The people who have been refusing to provide you with any answers when they could have done?
It begs the question what are they trying to hide they dont want us to know?

Imagine the campaign now if the people of Scotland knew what the currency would be and how it would work, knew how and when we be in the EU and new how the assets and debts would be divided up.
The NO camp would have no arguments left to make. By not answering any they have created a fog of uncertainty quite delibretly.

And when it comes to vote why would you vote for that? They have clearly not been acting in the best interests of the people of Scotland- which was to provide clear information and negotiate in good faith.

Why believe they will suddenly start acting in the best interests of the Scottish people when they get what they want and n longer need to promise or deliver anything?

at the end of the game you will just get another lot of idiots in power. Just Scottish idiots instead of English idiots. ordinary peoples lives wont change.

Maybe, maybe not. But if we say YES we have at least the opportunity to try, if we say NO we dont even get an opportunity.

For myself, I can deal with idiots. They're sort of a fact of life. Democracy just provides a platform where they're forced to look me in the eye once in a while.

And of course the nearer the leaders live to the people, the more eyes they'll have to look into. That's devolution, and that's the obvious answer. But unfortunately it's not on the table in Scotland's case.

Really I think that a lot of Britain would benefit from more local control, and that's probably what the central government fears most.

Well they have pushed Scotland into a corner now- we have to either stay and trust to promises of jam tomorrow (though how much jam or even what flavour we are not being told) or jump ship and go it alone to get definite change (but it might be good or bad change).
But we dont have any other options on the table.

Perhaps there is also a jar of jelly on the table? Or at the very least some butter or something!
This toast needs something spread on it!

its more like a pickle

I doubt we would even get that.

What a miserable position to be in, "should i stay or should I go ?" These indecisive situations, with no idea of reward or loss are the worst kind. There's a lot of toe dipping at the mo but no one has taken the plunge to see how icy the water is, an unenviable place to be. Forget Petty for a moment. If this concerned you & your country what would be your decision ? Not so easy to decide I think ?

well for a kick off I wouldnt get rid of Trident.

Always good to have some defenses under your belt, something to bribe,blackmail or barter about. How far in telling the masses of your plans would you go if you were in the frame as Salmond, Cameron etc are ?

If England wants trident so bad they can have it in England right next to their densest population area.
And Scotland doesn't want to strut about the world stage pretending we are still an Empire. We would rather not spend billions renewing trident, a weapon we would never use, when we could spend those billions on infrastructure and public services instead.
Scotland will do just fine with a small, mobile conventional forces army and navy.