Yes camaign needs to rein back First Minister as he cuts tether to reason in airhead statement on debt default

Economists and financial sector specialists have underlined what every downhome body knows – that if you default on due debt, your credit line dies with that abandoned debt.

Scotland’s First Minster, Alex Salmond has earlier, to the universal dropping of jaws, floated the notion that an independent Scotland would simply walk away from its share of the national debt if the UK didn’t agree to let it use the Great British Pound [GBP], with the Bank of England as lender of last resort. [And yes, of course there are risible ironies here in the resonance of the names of these ‘must haves’ for an ‘independent’ Scotland.]

The continuing crisis in the Eurozone and the core reason behind it – no central control of monetary policy, leaving the currency prey to be being dragged down by irresponsible or failing economies of some member states – could hardy make it more clear why the continuing UK is highly unlikely to take an identical risk with an independent Scotland.

The UK will have its own responsibilities and obligations to deliver and it could not defend putting those at risk.

The UK’s understandable caution is not being mitigated by the fact that the SNP’s prospectus for independence is effectively uncosted, with no attempt now being made to show where the funding will come from to pay for the regular new promises being made on boons that will result from independence.

At a time when the independence campaign is struggling against the prevailing winds of rationality, it would behove Mr Salmond to play a steady game and, to use the idiom which he adopts in wheedling hoedown style, ‘caw canny’.

The First Minister, however, has spectacularly cut loose from reason and from tactical credibility.

He has now repeated in a television interview his earlier threat, only this time he has declared that it is a certainty.

In an unusually maladroit choice of words as well as tactics, the First Minister has said that Scotland’s refusal to accept its share of the debt is not a negotiating position but ‘an absolute fact’.

A fact is something that has been seen to happen. This threat may be Mr Salmond’s absolute commitment. It is not ‘an absolute fact’.

Things got worse.

In one of his surreal mash ups, Mr Salmond said: ‘It was actually a Scot that invented the Bank of England, incidentally. It [Ed: meaning ‘the pound‘] doesn’t belong to George Osborne and therefore we are entitled to have it.’

Try that for a series of loony non-sequiturs.

The financial world is already sizing up Scotland in preparation for the attitudes and strategies it will adopt in relation to lending and investment in the event of this country becoming independent.

How exactly is it going to reassure them about how good a debt we would be or how secure a locus for investment we would  be – if we start by saying if we don’t like something we’ll just walk away from our debts?

Saying ‘Ah but we’d never do that to YOU’, is hardly going to cut it.

Scotland will have to borrow and borrow substantially to fulfil its obligations and promises. If the financial world sees us as a dodgy customer, blithely walking away from our responsibilities in a huff, we will find it difficult to borrow on our bonds; and the interest charges levied on them will be even higher than they will be in any case for the first phase of a new country whose financial performance is unknown.

The First Minister’s grandstanding for the  cameras was unbelievably irresponsible – profoundly damaging to the cause that has shaped his life and which, in the nature of the shoddy campaign he has largely determined, he has so unintentionally let down.

Mr Salmond is showing all the signs of strain in his increasingly erratic and ill-considered pronouncements, falling back on the entertainment value of the Jack-the-Lad persona that served him well when he was younger and burdened with no responsibilities.

For a mature politician with the gravest of responsibilities on his back from what he is asking this country to do on the basis of an unforgivably unsound prospectus, larking around in chest-beating extravagances for the media is no testimony to his fitness for the challenge.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments

  • Ah so Newsies pejorative and apocryphal tale today is that the First Minister is an airhead as the international money men size up Scotland.

    Imagine that eh! Sherlock.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 41 Thumb down 22

    willie January 11, 2014 2:22 am Reply
  • The man is desperate and will say anything. Before the financial crash he was demanding further deregulation of the banks – he hasn’t got a clue and is simply playing a game with the lives of the People of Scotland. It seems that he’ll do and say anything in an attempt to gain independence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 48

    Lowry January 11, 2014 6:23 am Reply
  • Alex Salmond is a tremendous asset to the No campaign. I hope he stays in the job until September to help secure the No vote.

    Is it any wonder so many on here are desparate to tell us that A vote Yes has nothing to do with the SNP?!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 46

    Jamie Black January 11, 2014 6:57 am Reply
    • So Jamie, just to clarify, Kassandra who would like to see the disbanding of the SNP post YES and recent convert to a YES from a NO Simon, contributors on here, are both liars?
      Both just closet SNP supporters, pretending not to be who are voting YES?
      The SNP will indeed set the terms for a future independent Scotland initially as they will be the party negotiating with the UK government but nothing will be in stone.
      You disrespect those who have freedom of thought untainted by party politics who simply want what they believe to be best for at least this country.
      Gie us peace.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 9

      JnrTick January 11, 2014 1:22 pm Reply
      • I imagine Jamie would like to believe I was a liar anyway – it’s part of the way I imagine he sees the world – all who disagree with him must be lying, because surely if he says something it must be right. Conservatives and right-wingers tend to have this point of view – it is part of the psychology of such people.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8

        Kassandra January 11, 2014 6:53 pm Reply
        • May I suggest you don’t try and drag other people down to your level Kassandra, you are making a complete fool of yourself with your bitter personal attack which is a million miles of the mark…

          ForJnrTick, why do you care so much if the SNP are associated to the yes campaign and vv? Kassandra and Simon are almost text book examples of the point you try and make, I agree, however, now that you mention them specifically, I do find some things slightly odd…cynical Simon’s ‘Pro Yes despite the SNP’ stance is strange – for someone who is so cynical when it suits him, picking at irrelevant straws of arguements and really quite odd staces, he/she is quite happy to go along with the voting Yes seemingly oblivious to the disaster that awaits Scotland thanks to only the SNP peddling it…given the amount of holes in the independence arguement, I’d have thought that ‘Simon’ would have a field day telling us all about them..instead, he’s suddenly converted. As for Kassandra – for not being an SNP supporter, I can’t recall many, if any occasions where she’s NOT leapt to the defence of the SNP. For someone who apparently is not an SNP supporter, he/she often tells us how popular Alex Salmond and the SNP are….odd…but contrary to Kassandra’s little outburst, i take people on here at face value – how could I do otherwise?! These people, like you, don’t even use their own names!

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21

          Jamie Black January 11, 2014 9:16 pm Reply
          • I support a “Yes” vote, and as long as the SNP also support this, I will be on their side (in this respect anyway).

            What’s so great about using your own name? I have no way on this website of knowing if your name is actually “Jamie Black” – it might really be Agnes White – no-one can tell except the staff of FA, and even they only have an e-mail address, possibly with some other name attached.

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7

            Kassandra January 11, 2014 11:14 pm
  • I think you will find that was actually said that the quid pro quo for a share of the debt is a share of the assets.

    If the UK government were stupid enough to try and play that card the international markets would see sterling collapse like a stone as it’s credibility to service it’s debt would be smashed. The flight of capital out of London would be huge.

    One must remember that AS comments are what would be the Scottish governments reaction in the event of the UK government denying Scotland it’s share of assets so the markets would react first to the UKs actions and not Scotland’s.

    Maybe Newsie will tell how the UK will service its debt without Scotland

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 45 Thumb down 21

    Graeme McCormick January 11, 2014 7:49 am Reply
    • Well said Graeme…

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

      JAM January 11, 2014 5:39 pm Reply
  • Jamie, Lowry and NEWSIE all together and bitter together.

    They would all prefer to bend the knee to Posh Cameron (as he likes to be called) and be told what to do by Westminster than be part of the democratic process in Scotland

    Makes you want to vote YES

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 50 Thumb down 17

    Bitter altogether January 11, 2014 9:46 am Reply
  • Oh dear.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 8

    Longshanks January 11, 2014 10:06 am Reply
    • Exactly LS
      I ask myself, surely these blogs are lobbed into the For Argyll news site, thrown in like sticks of dynamite are in the anticipation of carnage, cats and pigeons, a feeding frenzy for those with an interest in turn giving the FA hits count yet another shot in the arm.
      What other purpose do these anti-indy blogs serve? People aren’t daft Newsie, most, even undecided, can see these blogs for what they are that being unhelpful NO agenda driven opinion, there’s no news of value here whether you are in the YES or NO camp. Not that I’m against debate, the forum is a healthy environment in all this but provoking reaction for the sake of it?

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 12

      JnrTick January 11, 2014 11:04 am Reply
      • Newsie’s secret is that basically she goes off her trolley when anything to do with the SNP, AS, or independence rears it’s ugly head at her. Witness all the crazy talk recently about certain highly placed appratchiks in the SNP (local and national, I gather) conspiring to “shut down For Argyll”). She really believes this sort of stuff. The unfortunate truth is that she is a bit unbalanced, and can’t really help herself.

        Her acolytes Jamie, Lowry, MK and AA don’t have this excuse, but I can confidently say, with a little help from Sigmund Freud and others, that it is probably down to their toilet training – they can’t really help it either, so we have to be tolerant of their foibles – but not let any of them off with printing rubbish either!

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6

        Kassandra January 11, 2014 6:35 pm Reply
  • “Scotland will have to borrow and borrow substantially to fulfil its obligations and promises”
    What promises would they be then Newsie? The promises from one political party from potentially several that will be standing in 2016?
    Or, will it be, as the Better Together/’NO’ campaign deliberately prefer to peddle, come Sept 2014 the choice on the ballot paper will read –
    Should Scotland be an independent country?
    YES and live with the consequences of a one party state as there will be no further elections

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 44 Thumb down 11

    JnrTick January 11, 2014 10:16 am Reply
  • “How exactly is it going to reassure them about how good a debt we would be or how secure a locus for investment we would be – if we start by saying if we don’t like something we’ll just walk away from our debts?”
    This in just nonsense.
    We are witnessing a poker game, the stakes are enormous, these countries casting an eye are not daft. What is daft is suggesting anything other than the outcome and what is finalised post negotiations will be what interests the investors, certainly not the game leading up to it. There will be bluffing and counter bluffing, claims and counter claims, both sides of the debate are and will continue to be big on rhetoric, this is part of their strategy. We’ve already seen the same from the ‘NO’ campaign only far more farcical, think annexing Faslane! How does this threat look to the outside world looking into what is increasingly more likely to be an insular inward looking UK should UKIP continue influencing?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 18

    JnrTick January 11, 2014 10:31 am Reply
  • There are only two multilateral agreements that formally address the question of ‘state succession’ – the Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties (1978), and the Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Property, Archives and Debt (1983) – neither of which has been ratified by a significant number of states.

    The United Kingdom is party to neither agreement. That being said, just because the agreements are not in force in their entirety is not to suppose that the UK has an entirely free hand in determining the arrangements. Other states are liable to have particular views on the issue – particularly where their political, economic interests might seem to be at stake – and the UK will have to expect to engage in extensive negotiations with other parties.

    There are two options with precedent which would be open dissolving the international Treaty of Union 1706/07. The Scottish Government has already stated that option 1 where we assume a share of debts and assets is their preference:

    1: Both Scotland and rUK are successor states (like in Yugoslavia) or none successor states (like Czech Rep + Slovakia) and share assets and debts per population share and negotiate issues such as who takes the UNSC seat as well as continuing membership or participation in treaties/obligations etc.


    2: The rUK is a continuing state (ie when Ireland gained independence) or the sole successor state like Russia after the breakup of the USSR where they took the UNSC seat, treaty obligations as well as becoming liable for all the USSR debt.

    The UK Government has already published information on the UK being the continuing state so in that respect they would assume all debt and assets of the current UK.

    Scotland would get a ‘clean slate’ if they wish to continue with that approach instead of agreeing to option 1 with the Scottish Government.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 6

    Jimmy Reid January 11, 2014 10:53 am Reply
    • First of all let me say that, in the event of an independent Scottish, I believe there will correctly be a split of the debt and assets so this will become a non-issue.

      However that aside I don’t think it is nearly as straight forward as Jimmy Reid makes out, especially the ‘successor’ state definition. For a start the rUK would not be a successor state, a successor state in law is the new state, the rUK will be the ‘continuator’ state and there is nothing in international law that obliges the continuator state to maintain existing debt.

      The Vienna Conventions on Succession of States which jimmy mentions (and which John Swinney has often quoted) states clearly

      “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.
      “In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

      So it would boil down to negotiations and without an agreement then a share of the debt would pass.

      However I agree entirely that this should be matched with a share of the assets and as the UK isn’t signed up to the Vienna convention an independent Scotland could, should it choose to, try and refuse to accept a share of the debt IF they didn’t also get a share of the assets.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12

      Integrity? January 11, 2014 12:39 pm Reply
  • Thank you Jimmy Reid for a clear and accurate explanation.

    The SNP have already explained – repeatedly – why a sterling union would be in the rUK’s best interests. There is no doubt that this is the case. They have also indicated – repeatedly – their willingness for an independent Scotland to take on a proportionate share of the UK debt.

    If the rUK – against the best interests of its citizens – denies Scotland the use of the pound then it is in effect declaring itself the sole successor state. In that case logic dictates that it retains sole responsibility for the debt. Westminster cannot have its cake and eat it.

    Why this logical and legal position should result in the use of pejorative terms like ‘airhead’ and ‘cut loose from reason’ is a mystery.

    If anything these pejoratives could be better ascribed to the propaganda buffoons in the NO camp who expect Scots voters to believe Westminster would cut off its nose to spite its faces and deny a currency union irrespective of the cost to the rUK and its citizens.

    But of course it is not going to happen, is it? Leading NO figures have repeatedly been asked to definitely rule out a currency union and have refused to do so. There will be a currency union – however short lived – and Scotland will take on its share of accrued UK debt.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 13

    Longshanks January 11, 2014 12:20 pm Reply
    • I don’t know why you are all wasting your time talking about shares of debts and assets because it is not going to happen.

      Have you all been living on another planet over the past couple of years and are you unaware that those pushing the yes agenda are a small minority of the population.

      I don’t know what you will all find to talk about after September when there is going to be a clear majority rejecting separation from the rest of the UK. VIVA LA UK.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 20

      Harty January 11, 2014 6:52 pm Reply
      • They would be reduced to discussing trivia, for example how to treat gangrene in Scottish local government.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14

        Robert Wakeham January 11, 2014 7:06 pm Reply
      • Since when was 30% – the minimum YES vote if you believe the polls – a ‘small minority’?

        Or – if you include the devo-max brigade with nowhere to go except independence – 60%

        What planet are you living on, Harty? Your attitude shows contempt for the wishes and aspirations of a substantial majority of the Scottish population.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 9

        Longshanks January 11, 2014 7:17 pm Reply
        • Recent YouGov survey on behalf of Better Together, which gave respondents three options found only 29% of people in Scotland support the status quo – the position of the No campaign – with 30% of those polled saying they backed independence and 32% opting for more powers.
          The survey results were:
          Welfare and benefits
Should be run by the Scottish government: 56% 
Should be run by the UK government: 36%
 Not sure: 8%
Should be run by the Scottish government: 51%
 Should be run by the UK government: 41%
 Not sure: 8%
Should be run by the Scottish government: 53%
 Should be run by the UK government: 39% 
Not sure: 9%

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

          Kassandra January 11, 2014 7:25 pm Reply
          • As someone who will vote No, I’m happy to declare that I’m one of those that support ‘more powers’, and fairly relaxed and confident it will happen post-No.

            There is nothing but Nationalist scaremongering to suggest the contrary.

            I support independence as a longer term outcome, but the SNP are making a complete pigs ear of what would already be a fairly shaky proposition. My previously uninformed ‘No’ has turned into a more informed ‘No’.

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8

            Jamie Black January 12, 2014 3:59 pm
          • Jamie, with due respect as you are an articulate poster on here and although our views on these constitutional matters differ greatly, I am of the opinion you are not being completely honest with us.
            You say you would like to see an independent Scotland long term (whether you or I would like to see it or not it will happen, it’s already finger in the dyke time) however, lets presume for some reason that genuinely evades me that you have swallowed the ‘Better Together’ line and believe that Scotland’s interests are best served together, within this union, what will change your mind without seeing into the future which none of us can?
            I think you should be up front with those you share this platform with Jamie, I suspect there is something disingenuous about your line.
            Are you Welsh or English and a bit hurt or are taking offence at what the SNP have offered the people of this nation?
            Are you a member of the Labour party and simply toeing the party line in putting the interests of the party before the interests of those you share this country with?

            I could be wrong here but do believe there is more to your stance than your posts indicate.

            It’s too convenient to use the SNP’s Post YES propositions as an argument not to vote for independence but what about the other parties in 2016. There, in proper Scottish elections where if we want a Conservative government we’ll get one, or a coalition, we’ll get that too, a newly formed party arising from the new situation we will find ourselves encountering, that’s what we’ll get if Scotland elects it, there is your long awaited democratic opportunity as a voter to contribute in taking Scotland where the Scottish electorate want Scotland to be.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

            JnrTick January 12, 2014 9:46 pm
          • JnrTick,

            I can confirm that I am none of the suggested and maybe did not articulate my position as well as i could have (no surprise there!).

            The independence agreement has come about prematurely, in my opinion. It is completely logical that you do things a stage at a time. As they say, Rome was not built in a day, and as far as I’m concerned, Scotland or the UK is not ready to be spilt yet. That said, the direction of travel is clear, and I cannot ever see that direction being reversed, no matter what the SNP would have me believe.

            It’s like a trek to the Antarctic – to just set out with a map showing you where to go is not going to get you there. You need to prepare, build up, train, have your support mechanisms ready, funding in place, contingencies worked out, and most crucially, have complete and utter faith that you have done everything to be successful and have your plans worked out to the letter.

            Compare that to the current vision for independence – surely even you can agree it’s fairly flimsy. It’s full of it’s, but’s and maybe’s, with people driving it who are driven more emotionally than rationally. I doubt not for a second that their motives are genuine, but with the best will in the world, it’s a shambles.

            Now, why indeed would Scotland not wish to be an independent country? No real reason ideologically, except you need to accept where we have come from, where we are at, and where we are going. Before we are independent, we need to have everything in place to make it a relatively simple decouple.

            Right now, it’s not going to be easy. In fact, were it to be a yes vote, the first things the SNp would be doing would be to ensure that we could keep in place many aspects of the ties we have with the UK and Europe. And I’m not taking small things. ‘We want to be independent but btw can we keep all this….?’

            Almost as an aside, but I do feel is important is that, regardless of the SNP, I feel completely let down that there is no real commitment to listening to people in a democratic way. The first thing I would expect post Yes would be a series of referendums on key issues, but as I’ve pointed out before, no such commitment is in place.

            The reality as it stands is that as soon as a Yes vote is returned, a certain party will simply take that as carte blanche to do what they wish. THen after they have inflicted a much of their dubious plans as possible, only then will they allow the people to have their say. Too little far too late.

            So in summary of my badly worded explanation above (easier face to face!), there are a variety of reasons I will not vote Yes, the SNP being only a part of it. That they are making a dogs dinner of it is actually neither here nor there. Contrast my view now with that of 6 months ago, and it’s changed. I’ve considered it, I’ve read most of the White Paper and completely unconvinced of a real case to put the future of Scotland at risk.

            To pass power from one set of politicians to another is not worth the longer term issues it’s likely to create.   I do not believe that democracy is served by electing one party or another every 5 years. It’s a pathetic model and not one that independence will change except in the minds of dreamers.Whilst your suggetion sounds good, let’s be honest – this is not a revolution, it’ll never happen. It’ll be the same old, same old.

            I have no issues with my identify as Scottish as part of the UK, and so for me, I don’t feel a great emotional reason to leave the UK. So for me, there is not really a sense of ‘missing the opportunity of a lifetime’.

            Sorry that dragged on… 🙂

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

            Jamie Black January 12, 2014 10:32 pm
          • That’s fair enough Jamie although I take issue with a lot of what you say above, much of what I disagree with will no doubt be raised between now and then.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

            JnrTick January 12, 2014 10:51 pm
  • “struggling against the prevailing winds of rationality” – you do provide some good quotes newsie – mind if I use this again later?
    As others have pointed out above – either we have a share of the assets and a share of the debits in leaving the UK – or we have neither. What other possible scenarios are there?
    And here is a challenge for you. Instead of your typical “no” campaign tactic of printing scare stories such as the one above – for your next three articles on independence print stories which offer solely the (credible) benefits of remaining within the UK – and without spin!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

    Kassandra January 11, 2014 7:03 pm Reply
    • Given the SG’s energy policy, the interference in Argyll and Bute Council, etc, the prevailing wind has surely been ‘irrationality’, so ‘bending with the prevailing winds of irrationality’ would, perhaps, have been more accurate?

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15

      Andrew Argyle January 11, 2014 7:55 pm Reply
  • re January 11th @ 9.16
    @ Jamie Black
    Futile to get into petty personal arguments as in the general scheme of things whether one person votes one or another way and who they support politically detracts from the main issues we face in this referendum, the bigger more important picture.
    Just to touch on the individuals who are perfectly able to defend their corner, Simon has explained why he now opposes a NO vote and it appears to have nothing to do with the SNP and quite rightly. The fact Kassandra tells us how popular both the First Minister of Scotland and the SNP are, whether you like to hear that or not her comments on this can be robustly backed up with figures in many polls, go check.
    The one point I certainly do take issue with is your comment regarding anonymity on this forum an opinion shared by Neil and Councillor Breslin amongst others so your not alone.
    There are many rational sensible reasons some of us choose to remain anonymous on any forum, I have defended my position in length on several occasions and do not intend to again any time soon.
    It is your choice to reveal your identity, I prefer to let commenters concentrate on my opinions rather than me as I’m pretty insignificant within the context of the issues we discuss on here. All commenters unless directly involved or related to Newsies blog ie a councillor, a business owner etc should feel no requirement to reveal their name unless the ego prevents them from not doing so.
    Besides, as Kassandra quite correctly says, we can all call ourselves whatever name we choose but there is no way of proving you are who you say you are, so utterly pointless to even bring this up as an issue at all, just a really annoying indefensible stance to take, questioning commenters right to anonimity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    JnrTick January 12, 2014 1:24 pm Reply
    • I think there are probably some people who have understandable reasons for remaining anonymous, I can accept that, but I think that time is showing that there are quite a few people on here who post anonymously and act like trolls (actually, they probably are trolls) and who make attacks personal or otherwise that they would never make under their own name.

      It’s that type of activity that happens more and more here and means that people like you actually have less credibility when you post.

      However, just to focus on your comments on Kassandra – Kassandra has stated clearly that he/she supports the Yes and therefore the SNP…

      quote Kassandra – I support a “Yes” vote, and as long as the SNP also support this, I will be on their side

      Maybe best not use Kassandra as an example of supporting Yes not meaning supporting the SNP…lol

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      Jamie Black January 12, 2014 3:52 pm Reply
      • Jamie
        You say you support more powers but your B T pals refused to put forward such an option to the Scottish public. Personally the Tories if they could would get rid of Holyrood.
        So what powers would you be happy to accept and why?
        At the moment all we have is the rhetoric.

        Ps do you support Lib dems, Tory, Labour?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

        Bitter altogether January 12, 2014 7:46 pm Reply
        • Refused? You are aware that there is about 8months to go to the referendum? It would appear that the SNP have played most of their cards which culminated in the anti-climax of the ‘White Paper’ . My feeling was that the SNP were stringing out the referendum date for their own gain, but not sure what else they can offer, apart from various uncosted, completely caveated and unaccounted bribes and a lot of anti-UK rhetoric. .

          BT/Tories/Labour etc have plenty of time to make their commitment on what would happen in the evet of a no.

          But now that you raise it, I’d like to know what the SNP will offer Scotland in the event of a No vote. They want every other party, rightly, to do so, so maybe the SNP will take the initiative and go first?

          After all, the types of polls they use to justify policy decisions like Trident also show that a majority wish to stay in the UK – so there is a clear mandate for them to tell us their plans.

          Any ideas?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

          Jamie Black January 12, 2014 8:20 pm Reply
          • Yes campaign has produced their docs BT folk have produced nothing to say why someone should vote No and complained for a year that there was nothing on the table.
            Your lot refused to put in a 3rd question but now say they will bribe us with some additional powers?
            So first things first. What powers?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

            Bitter altogether January 12, 2014 9:05 pm
          • It’s a good question and as I say, I’m sure over the next 8months it will be answered.

            As for the ‘third question’ – I’ve asked this before and never gotten an answer. Where in the SNP manifesto does it commit to a referendum on further devolution? Yes, that embarasing omision that was the hole they dug for themselves. The finger cannot be pointed at anyone else because the SNP forgot a get out clause!

            As I say, I’m sure the SNP will share their vision for a post-No Scotland in due course…they are obliged to.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

            Jamie Black January 12, 2014 9:30 pm
      • Jamie – I support anyone in favour of a “YES” vote, including the SNP – especially as they are the leading party in this effort, but I have never voted for the SNP, and never will. Does this clear up your confusion? Or are you just trolling, yourself.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        Kassandra January 12, 2014 7:52 pm Reply
        • I thought the whole point of your and JnrTicks arguement was that supporting the ‘Yes’ camp did not mean you supported the SNP? Surely Kassandra you could support the Yes campaign but be able to criticise the SNP, something you rarely, if ever do? After all, even the people I know who might vote Yes have lost faith in the SNP, they freely admit that.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7

          Jamie Black January 12, 2014 8:24 pm Reply
          • I’ll criticise them after a “Yes” vote – or before only if I thought it would help that.
            However mainstream (journalistic) opinion is so overwhelmingly “anti” that criticism of the SNP just now would probably always be counter-productive.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

            Kassandra January 12, 2014 8:45 pm
  • According to today’s Herald David (‘it’s a matter for the Scots’) Cameron is asking Vladimir Putin, well-known champion of the free peoples of Eurasia, to help him push for a big fat NYET.

    Labour rejecting Labour policies and fronting for the Tories so the Bullingdon Club can keep their hands clean, the UK Prime Minister asking a man with an appalling record on human rights to interfere in domestic UK politics . . .

    The tether to reason is certainly looking a bit frayed, but it’s not Salmond who is sawing away at it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 9

    Longshanks January 12, 2014 1:43 pm Reply
  • Why don’t you report some of these news items, newsie, as part of your pursuit of the “principle of objective fairness,” © newsie. and “the imperative for objective justice” © newsie.

    Europe would have “everything to lose” if it immediately excluded states like Scotland from the European Union following a vote in favour of independence, according to the former chief of staff for the French Minister of European Affairs. Yves Gounin, who worked in the role until 2012, made the comments in an article for French journal Politique Etrangere


    Or are you still “struggling against the prevailing winds of rationality”? © newsie.

    Because “It’s not – nor ought any issue to be – about who you like, who you don’t like or who your group or tribe like and do not like. As soon as we start skewing judgments on right and wrong on the basis of who we do and do not like and on the basis of tribal affiliations, we are fostering primitive and not enlightened values.” © newsie

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

    Kassandra January 12, 2014 2:15 pm Reply
    • If you can’t swallow those what about:

      Actually, I don’t expect you to print any of these – your mouthings about “fairness” and “justice” are just hogwash (that’s the polite term). You are a hypocrite of the first water newsie – you should be ashamed to utter the words I’ve quoted from you.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

      Kassandra January 12, 2014 5:21 pm Reply
  • trolls for YES YES YES

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    Burlingtoninbed January 12, 2014 9:25 pm Reply
  • I would say that newsroom has lost it BIG TIME

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    JPJ2 January 12, 2014 9:57 pm Reply
  • Anyone seen the latest case for the union which has resurfaced after seven years?
    Courtesy of Jack Straw –
    “A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England. Our voting power in the European Union would diminish. We’d slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN Security Council.”
    “The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent and of course we have used this propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Then we used it in Europe and with our empire. You have within the UK three small nations under the cosh of the English.”
    Yep, words from the Shadow Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. What a fine endorsement of this ‘served its time’ union.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

    JnrTick January 12, 2014 10:39 pm Reply
  • Couldn’t find a really suitable place to post this but as this site is full of SNP supporters I thought it might be relevant:-

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

    Malcolm Kirk January 15, 2014 6:50 pm Reply
    • Malcoml, not really any point in posting this. The good party members will not even entertain that Scotland should have a genuine balance of power generation sources.

      This is despite their own party’s hypocrisy when it comes to nuclear. No problem with Hunterston for as long as it gets them out of a hole. Even nuclear armed subs will faill under a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Complete shambles.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

      Jamie Black January 15, 2014 7:15 pm Reply
      • The point is Jamie – that’s a whole Union membership voting against so called Independence and the SNP.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

        Malcolm Kirk January 15, 2014 7:21 pm Reply
        • This is a typical “no” scare story – spun out of all recognition by the usual suspects, who should be rounded up immediately. Where is Claude Rains when you need him?

          In the article linked to above, the GMB haven’t said that they are voting against Independence. And they aren’t voting against no-nuclear as a union either- even the labour/union movement has some pretence to democracy -at least, one would hope so – although nothing “Labour” associated groups would do could surprise me – except perhaps becoming leftist.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          Kassandra January 15, 2014 7:36 pm Reply
        • Mr Kirk
          The GMB cannot dictate how their members vote in national elections or referenda.
          I know GMB members who are SNP members, and also some that have no party affiliation, all are voting for Independence whatever their union says.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

          Ian Anderson January 16, 2014 12:44 pm Reply
  • Really pleased to see the Better Together campaign is growing in Argyll & Bute .
    Facebook has new pages by Better Together Isle of Islay , Better Together Kintyre , Better Together Isle of Mull.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    Islay for ever January 17, 2014 8:09 pm Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *