Scottish Independence

• Scottish independence: Lord Robertson says Yes vote 'would be cataclysmic'

• Scottish independence: Labour MP threatened

edited 7th Apr '14 11:41:09 PM by Greenmantle

Also, if there's a Yes vote, every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

And I'm sure a man who has a lifetime seat in the Lords thanks to his Scottish Barony in no way personally benefits from a 'No' vote...

edited 8th Apr '14 6:27:24 PM by TheBatPencil

I don't know if this is off-topic, but I was checking the comments on the article regarding Robertson's insane statements and I keep seeing mentions of this "Project Fear". Can anyone enlighten me on this, please?

"Project Fear" is the name given to the Better Together campaign's tactics (by the Better Together campaign!)

"The sky will fall and the dead will rise" type stuff.

Really?!

Their PR team must suck. A lot.

Thanks for the info. Scotland is awesome, btw!

edited 8th Apr '14 8:04:28 PM by Quag15

They do have a certain "shoot ourselves in the foot" quality to them, yeah. Last week it was "an independent Scotland will have no influence on the world", and today it's "Scotland has the potential to destabilize civilization itself!"

Robertson's showing on Scotland Tonight last night was a sight.

We've got an unelected Life Peer, who sits on the board of a Russian state-owned oil company (strange job for the former Gen Sec of NATO), babbling on to a Washington DC crowd about how Scotland having 59 MPs in Westminster is all that stands between the West and Doomageddeonarock.

Robertson, of course, couldn't help himself from getting in the "I've talked to heads of states, so I know what I'm talking about" line (presumably us yokels couldn't possibly understand the nuances of how Scottish independence impacts on the Syrian Civil War without his Lordship there to explain it. Which he failed to do).

edited 8th Apr '14 8:54:17 PM by TheBatPencil

Yeah, their tone in terms of declarations causes severe whiplash in me.

Also:

So, he's a Lord, and he's also in a Russian oil company? Damn, he smells of corruption!

Talking to heads of state means nothing in the world of today (except for lip service, of course).

If the Yes wins, he'll lose his job/place at Westminster, so maybe he's worried about that only.

This sounds like a good idea. Let's quit Britain and join that.

I've heard that, because the population is more Nordic than Celtic, there's talk in the Shetlands and Orkneys of doing exactly that should the independence vote go through.

Not happening. The Teuchters have always been like that. No legal mechanism for it either.

I'm sure there's talk of John Smith in some pub somewhere setting up his house as an independent republic - doesn't mean it's happening.

Nationalist MSP assaulted during exchange in pub about referendum.

I'm afraid the campaign is getting nasty on both sides, with Death Threats and more being thrown around. And more, from The Scotsman article I posted at the top of the page:

Interestingly, Labour pledge devolved powers for the Scottish islands if they win the next General Election.

Of course, if they were actually serious about winning the 2015 election, they would be talking about greater devolved powers for the north of England, not the north of Scotland.

Donkeys led by donkeys.

That quote does not constitute "nasty", though you may not have meant it as such. I agree that there are bastards on all sides. I saw what Barrhead Travel did, and frankly it's really not cool for the boss to be attempting to influence the workers through such emails.

edited 9th Apr '14 3:26:13 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

SNP conference: Salmond says independence vote 'not about SNP' — Then what is about then? Hatred of the English^note  ...because if it is, we will return it?

Nice try Greenmantle but even a cursory glance at the article indicates that it is not about the SNP, but about Scotland as a whole moving forward in a positive way. The referendum is not about crowning "King Alex", which Yes supporters have been saying for a long time (including in this thread). Scotland itself stands to massively benefit from independence and that transcends party politics. They're now doing the sensible thing in reaching out to Labour voters and others who may not like the SNP generally but who may support independence. I'm in groups like "Lib Dem voters for independence" on Facebook so there are plenty out there, and hopefully they can be integrated with the SNP's own Yes campaigns.

Maybe, I'm just worried about having a Identity Crisis if Scotland leaves — I'm British because I'm not English. I wasn't born here, even though I was born British. I'm a Military Child.

In a way, I'm an outsider because of my status. I always have been.

May I ask where they think they're pulling that "14th richest" number from? because a quick glance at the GDP of scotland tells me they're quite a bit further down the list. more like 40th, actually. Just ahead of Greece, just behind the Philippines.

Statistics from the OECD

oh, by person. guess that makes sense. not quite "14th richest country" then, though. richest per capita.

edited 12th Apr '14 6:15:55 PM by Joesolo

That probably counts for more though (or should) it been sod all to be the richest country in the world when 80% of your nations wealth is sitting in the bank accounts of 5 people.

It works both ways. On the one hand, you have countries like Luxembourg which are hugely rich per capita because of all the company registered addresses that are really just broom cupboards and only for tax purposes, with a very tiny number of people being the beneficiaries of such money. On the other hand, yeah, you have Banana Republics run by dictator who hoard the money while leaving the peasant masses to starve.

On balance, per capita is probably the better judge. A nation of 6 million is obviously not going to have, in absolute terms, more money than major world powers. The absolute figure speaks closer to the size of the country than the effective wealth.

OECD figures have problems with comparing across nations. The OECD always gives the disclaimer that, due to different national methodologies, there are problems comparing countries because it's not always like-for-like (sometimes, their data aren't even made up from the same years because deadlines can affect when different countries can report their figures to them so '2012' data may include '2011' data instead for some countries - OECD declares all this in their source reports, however).

The Scottish Government also keeps calculating on the basis of 'geographic' oil because the statistics come out in their favour if they do that - that's obviously cherry picking assumptions (assumptions also get cherry-picked to give the worst-case scenario).

The big issue is that this report isn't really OECD data, it's a report that's trying to shoe-horn everything together from multiple different statistical sources which can be a dangerous thing to do (it's not automatically something that shouldn't be done, it's just very problematic and the report has glossed over that). I think an independent, more detailed look would be necessary for this, especially as they're not being as free with their methodologies as they are with their conclusions (which has been the case for almost anything on any side of the fence).

I wonder if fullfact.org has spotted this one yet? It would be interesting to see their take on it.

edited 20th Apr '14 6:37:15 AM by Wyldchyld