I didn't see it but, judging by what I have read, it was a clear win for Salmond. Whether it makes any difference is another matter.

I can't see Scotland going independent there's too many people sitting on the fence, myself included. I wonder what will happen with the non voters?

Past experience suggests that undecided voters tend to lean towards the status quo in referendums. However, we haven't had that many so it could change in this one. That said, I still suspect a No vote although I feel it will be closer than many people think.

Salmond did seem to "win" the debate, and I think that it is likely to win a few people over to his side, but I personally found his style of debating to be very off-putting.

I can't see Scotland going independent there's too many people sitting on the fence, myself included. I wonder what will happen with the non voters?

 

And your second name is Wallace :P

 

Salmond clearly won this debate but I don't think it'll matter myself but time will tell.

I can't see Scotland going independent there's too many people sitting on the fence, myself included. I wonder what will happen with the non voters?

 

Make your mind up! Don't be a sheep, Lee! :P

if undecided just try and imagine Prime Minister Salmond's first actions as The Man In Control (most likely) of the new Scottish Government.

 

First off, he's going to blackmail his closest neighbour into getting their taxpayers to support and financially guarantee the new nation for the foreseeable future. If they don't he proposes to default on the fair share of the MASSIVE debt that the 2 main Scottish banks created quite impressively (RBS and HBOS/LLoyds now supported financially by a foreign country having catastrophically gotten themesleves into such huge debt that it would have done in Scotland's economy seriously had they been a nation alone).

 

Then look back into history, and examine the reason behind the United Kingdom in the first place. I understand, and please feel free to correct any historical bias on my part, that Scotland became part of the UK because it's own politicians were trying to prove they were a world power to rival England, dabbled in Central America, invested heavily money they didn't have and went bankrupt, pretty much. The Union was for the benefit of Scotland more than England, though together they both did pretty well eventually.

 

So, despite recent financial catastrophe by Scottish businesses, and historical bailing-out, it's a case of "So long and thanks for all the fish". I think the voters of the remaining parts of the UK would have a very different attitude towards attempted blackmail by a neighbour despite what Mr Salmond predicts, given they've been rescued twice already financially, and at personal cost to all taxpayers in the UK, Scottish AND English, Welsh and Northern Irish.

 

Just a thought.....

Edited August 28, 201410 yr by popchartfreak

If Scotland votes Yes then Salmond will claim, with some justification, that he has a mandate to negotiate to keep the pound. The argument about the banks is rather misleading. They failed because of an inadequacy in UK regulation, not Scottish regulation.

Quite why a country that had declared independence on the back of an argument for economic sovereignty would then want to bind themselves into a currency which they had no say over is beyond me, but under that situation I wouldn't care, given the first policy of Scottish Labour would be immediately obvious - new currency.

Quite why a country that had declared independence on the back of an argument for economic sovereignty would then want to bind themselves into a currency which they had no say over is beyond me, but under that situation I wouldn't care, given the first policy of Scottish Labour would be immediately obvious - new currency.

The poond?

If Scotland votes Yes then Salmond will claim, with some justification, that he has a mandate to negotiate to keep the pound. The argument about the banks is rather misleading. They failed because of an inadequacy in UK regulation, not Scottish regulation.

True. However it was the Scottish banks that failed on a dangerous scale given they had the same regulations as most other banks due to attempting to go global. One can only speculate that Mr salmond and co would have had better regulation as compared to say most other western countries give or take the odd Canada or so and would hypothetically have forced them not to pursue expansion while other banks were raking it in.

 

In terms of mandate its still blackmail mandate or not and the New nation would start as a blackmailer. It's called having your cake and eating it. At least until Scotland tries to borrow money if the remaining parts of the UK decide they'd prefer to have debt rather than support a foreign nation that uses blackmail as a negotiating tactic.

 

Good luck to em of course either way all I'm doing is summarising what's been said will be happening in the event of a yes vote.

I am feeling the need to wheel out Dandys super Manson.

 

I'll start with correcting your 1707 error. You are correct in that Scotland had a wee spot of money issues, brought about by the English refusing to play nice and let Scotland play empires. When shit went tits up the ever so land hungry England played the empire card again and told the rich people in Scotland they'd get their money back if they voted for Union. Being greedy they went aye and against the will of the general population the act of Union came into existance. Were just part of the empire that has yet to get away from the shower of c**ts in London.

 

As for the rest of your post. I just can't. In the white paper it is very clearly stated that Scotland would seek to take on an appropriate amount of the UKs debt. Roughly £100bn I believe is the figure often thrown about based on population. What they are saying is without equitable division of the assets, why would we agree to take on an equitable division of the liabilities. It's basic f***ing accounting. If we have more liabilities than assets our Balance Sheet will not balance which is impossible a feat to achieve mainly because it involves inventing debt or assets out of thin air or not accounting for one of them. It's business 101.

 

If we do not have the assets the debt relates to the. Why would we shoulder that debt? As far as I am aware HBOS/RBS would transfer to the Scottish government and the associated debt with it. (A balance of assets and liabilities) the banking debt is not the issue here and never has been. It follows the banks wherever they may be. What is being proposed is that if there is no currency union then Scotland would not take on a share of the debt of the uk that has been built up through deficit spending and as a direct result of the policy decisions of Westminister. Not in any way the costs of the banking bailout. And while were on that subject, yes it may have been our two banks but our economy remained stronger than the rest of the UKs save for London throughout this crisis. So if we have no asset to match the debt to then it does not make economic or accounting sense to take it on. It's basic f***ing logic.

 

In reality it will never happen just as there will be a sterling union at least as a transitional arrangement because it's logical and beneficial for both sides. There are going to be a massive amount of transitional arrangements anyway, what's one more between a fallen empire still acting like it owns ⅓ of the world and the last major colony to escape

crikey all those swearwords! If it makes you feel any less repressed they (and Scotland as partner) helped themselves to a good portion of the world, got rich on the proceeds and which I am not in any way going to defend.

 

Whatever the lead-up to the events of 1707, and arguments over the cause, that's what the Scottish politicians did. The point I was (obviously badly) trying to make is that if Scotland trusts it's own future politicians to do a better job than they did in the past, vote yes. I'm very happy to hear Alex Salmond fully intends to take on the debt of RBS and HBOS - that's not come over at all, as I understand it the money invested in them by the UK taxpayer to keep them afloat is nowhere near paid back by the banks (and may never will be). Does the White Paper state clearly that the money paid out by the UK taxpayer will be proportionately paid back by the new independent Scotland? I can find no reference to that at all, it just mentions overall debt (as you mention), so your trust that is what will happen is reassuring.

 

As for the Yes campaign, watching the promo now, apparently Scotland will be one of the 20 richest countries in the world ahead of the rest of the UK, and is peopled by happy children in playgrounds and content students and well-off pensioners. Wow! The UK really is holding Scotland back! I'm surprised the Yes campaign isn't doing better. Of course that 7 billion annual profit for the financial industries doesnt take out the instant 50 or 60 billion still owed supporting the 2 banks (with Lloyds).

 

White Paper:

 

Lender of last resort to sterling will continue to be the UK. No "if agreed" just a factual statement. According to the White Paper the Bank Of England will be expected to bail out any Scottish banks to save Sterling, should the current or future crop of directors of banks be as completely useless as the last lot. It's not clear whether the Bank Of England has power over the Scottish banks to prevent them taking risks, but it's quite generous of Alex Salmond to allow Westminster to do that if so. And stupid of Westminster, if not. In the event of another crisis it would be the UK taxpayer that bails them out (again). According to the White Paper.

 

Do you not understand at all why that makes the rest of the UK nervous? This is not anti-Scotland feeling. We've just gone through a massive financial calamity thanks to banks, and we haven't recovered. That's "we" as in the UK, Scotland, Europe, North America and the World generally. Calling the pound Scotland's asset is not going it alone. Want to go it alone, fine, want to share out assets and debts equally, fine. No-one will object to that. want a foreign country as Scotland's safety-net, when it has the theoretical potential to do in the other country? Not so fine.

 

Not every Scottish person, incidentally, feels the same way you do about the British Government. Granted, a large proportion of them live outside Scotland and don't have the vote, but they still exist. For the record, I have little good to say about most UK governments in my lifetime, though that should be fairly obvious from my previous (unpopular to some) opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

For the first time in the whole campaign, a poll tonight shows the Yes vote ahead of the No vote. It's only a very narrow lead - well within the margin of error - but it does seem to confirm the trend towards Yes. This could really be happening :o

It's exactly how I expected the Scottish narrative to go at this point. What I expect will happen next is that successive opinion polls will show either a lead or a very narrow loss for the 'Yes' campaign. Then a day or two before the polling day, a hitherto unanticipated major "skeleton" will emerge which will seriously harm the "Yes" campaign (either some major revelation regarding one of the major funders or someone in the campaign's hierarchy, or some overlooked economic story), giving the "No" campaign the win.

My prediction before the second debate:

 

I'd expect Salmond to win with the weight of expectations on Darling to win again after the first, and a subsequent bump for Yes, with maybe a poll having it at 52-48 with undecideds taken out (or even maybe 51-49, or a Panelbase poll showing Yes in the lead), a load of panicking, recriminations, columns trying to link it in with 'UKIP's ascendancy' and all that crap, before the polls revert to the mean (as they always do after debates which don't feature identifiable game changing moments) and a final result of 56-44, give or take one or two points either way.

 

Apart from it being YouGov and not Panelbase (which inclines me to think it's possibly a rogue), it's all pretty much on track so far.

 

And there's no chance I'll get listened to, but I feel now's probably a good time to say that, as ever, no good ever came of overinterpreting a single poll. Things have swayed Yes to within a couple of points of No over the last two weeks - natural margin of error (i.e. that the result will always be within three points of the actual result 19 times out of 20) means that it's always likely that one or two polls will show them leading by a point under that scenario. It's only when you get a couple from the same organisation showing it consistently that you can be confident it's actually the case.

 

Everyone's going to go fucking mental for the next couple of days though.

It's exactly how I expected the Scottish narrative to go at this point. What I expect will happen next is that successive opinion polls will show either a lead or a very narrow loss for the 'Yes' campaign. Then a day or two before the polling day, a hitherto unanticipated major "skeleton" will emerge which will seriously harm the "Yes" campaign (either some major revelation regarding one of the major funders or someone in the campaign's hierarchy, or some overlooked economic story), giving the "No" campaign the win.

The McZinoviev letter?

My prediction before the second debate:

Apart from it being YouGov and not Panelbase (which inclines me to think it's possibly a rogue), it's all pretty much on track so far.

 

And there's no chance I'll get listened to, but I feel now's probably a good time to say that, as ever, no good ever came of overinterpreting a single poll. Things have swayed Yes to within a couple of points of No over the last two weeks - natural margin of error (i.e. that the result will always be within three points of the actual result 19 times out of 20) means that it's always likely that one or two polls will show them leading by a point under that scenario. It's only when you get a couple from the same organisation showing it consistently that you can be confident it's actually the case.

 

Everyone's going to go fucking mental for the next couple of days though.

As I said in my earlier post, tonight's poll lead for Yes is well within the margin of error. That is why I referred to the general trend over the last week or so. The momentum is undoubtedly with the Yes campaign at the moment.

 

The No campaign really has been abysmal. They have been making all sorts of assertions which will be proved to be rubbish if Scotland votes Yes. If there is a Yes vote then the UK government will have to negotiate on matters such as the currency. To pretend otherwise is a gift for the Yes campaign.

I have maintained all along that you cannot count against Salmond. He is by far the 'best' politician in the UK.

 

Right at the start of this referendum I predicted a Yes win purely based on what happened at the 2011 Scottish election. So far this seems to be mirroring the 2011 result. The SNP were behind right until the last minute when they took a narrow lead then on polling day utterly annihilated the competition.

I have maintained all along that you cannot count against Salmond. He is by far the 'best' politician in the UK.

 

Right at the start of this referendum I predicted a Yes win purely based on what happened at the 2011 Scottish election. So far this seems to be mirroring the 2011 result. The SNP were behind right until the last minute when they took a narrow lead then on polling day utterly annihilated the competition.

Salmond is definitely one of the best political campaigners in the UK. That is why I have always felt the vote would be closer than many people were predicting. It remains to be seen whether the latest pol persuades the undecideds to vote Yes or pushes the nervous Yes voters into the No camp.

 

Even if there is a No vote I think I could well see an independent Scotland in my lifetime. I have already set out how that could happen if the Tories win the next election. Even if that calamity does not happen, all three main parties have said they would devolve more power to the Scottish government. Assuming the Scottish government do not screw up that will give voters more confidence that they can thrive as an independent country.