Does "Better Together" Make A Good Case For The Union?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by aikiwolfie, Apr 7, 2013.

  1. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    http://nationalcollective.com/2013/03/14/top-10-better-together-blunders-january-march-2013/

    The above list is taken from the National Collective's web site. They are a group campaigning for a "Yes" vote in the Scottish referendum on independence. The list is what the National Collective considers to be the Better Together campaigns top 10 blunders.

    Given that this is only a "top 10" list and not a complete list of blunders. Which would be quite lengthy. Do the unionists or those otherwise in favour of Scotland remaining part of the UK think the big three that make up the Better Together campaign are doing a good job?

    What do you think about their tactics? Is negative campaigning and scaremongering from our politicians still acceptable?

    Is Alastair Darling an asset or a liability, taking the report into HBOS's collaps into account?

    Then there is the absurd claim by David Cameron that Trident nuclear missiles protect us from North Korea. So far as anybody knows, North Korea has no viable nuclear weapons. No missiles it can use to target the UK and no nuclear war heads for those missiles. This is David Cameron's "45 minute" moment.

    They do have conventional weapons that can possibly reach Japan, Guam and Hawaii. That however is primarily a concern for South Korea, China and the USA.

    Then there's the Ian Taylor dirty money accusation. What effect will this have on the "No" campaign?
     
  2. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    I think the NO campaign has been a shambles so far to be honest, as a stuanch proponent of the yes camp that might be taken with a pinch of salt but being as impartial as I can be its been a gift to Independance supporters how badly its start has gone. If a no vote is the outcome of the referendum it will be inspite of the better together campaign not because of it if they continue in the manner they have exibited up till now.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2013
  3. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    I agree. It has been a shambles from my point of view as well. While I will almost certainly vote "Yes". I'd like there to be a decent debate before hand based on real facts. Which I think will be difficult to achieve with such a pro-unionist media and press industry and an opposition perfectly happy to avoid real debate and default to character assassination, spin and lies.

    Edit: Of course I also wish the SNP would get their act together as well and start putting some serious meat on the bones of their aspirations.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    It simply doesn't matter yet. The undecideds will make their minds up in the 6 months before the referendum.

    The No campaign only needs to maintain the the status quo as every poll I've seen has 'No' leading by double digits. That's a big deficit to claw back on an issue as well understood as independence.

    The irony being that support for a devo max arrangement is really high and the SNP blew that by pushing so hard for an independence referendum.
     
  5. Razgriz

    Razgriz Valued Member

    I am pro union, and I see some big errors in the Yes campaign as well.
    I am interested in seeing the SNP eventually answering a lot of questions that have been posed espesially on terms of business and defence. You can call it scaremongering or maybe facing reality?

    I believe the SNP and the Yes campaign has a lot of work to do, and it willl be interesting to see how the poll's are looking as we come into 2014.


    Raz
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2013
  6. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    I disagree (bet you didn't see that coming :p) I think the Yea camp has done a great job in addressing some of the economic and other doubt's there are about independence, the doubts BTG have been playing on with scare tactics, its more a case of the undecided not paying attention yet and unionists not really wanting to here it.

    http://youtu.be/JDrqamBHqLg
     
  7. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Scare tactics are winning tactics.

    The Yes campaign have to convince people that an independent Scotland would be a better place to live. The No campaign only have to show that an independent Scotland might be a worse place to live, so why risk it?

    The No Campaign has a lot of advantages.
     
  8. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    I agree that on paper they have (maybe had?) the higher ground at the outset but like I and aikiwolf kind of as well said the start of there campaign has been shambolic , clumsy is the word that comes to my mind.
     
  9. Razgriz

    Razgriz Valued Member


    I think both sides are going to have some moments they would rather forget.
    Alex Salmonds little "we got advice?" moment. Not allowing Scottish serving servicemen to vote who are posted/living overseas due to work.

    Many of us enjoy being British/Scottish Scottish/British. And there are many who don't want anything to do with "Britain", but we'll debate, vote and go from there.

    My main gripe, with sect's of the yes campaign is calling those who don't agree Un-Scottish. This off course is not the mainstay of there campaign but to deny this exists would be a lie.

    Anyway, heres to a good debate :D
    Raz
     
  10. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    you seem to equate the SNP with the entire yes campaign.
     
  11. Razgriz

    Razgriz Valued Member

    I seen this one coming but didn't think you would go with it. No I don't believe anyone who wants Scottish Independence is in favour of the SNP. But I think its fair to say a sizable majority do.

    Raz
     
  12. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    The fact that so many people are undecided is exactly why it's important. This isn't a general election where we get to vote again after 4 or 5 years. I know 6 months or more seems like a long time. But there's a whole lot more to explain and campaign on.

    Then SNP wanted a third option on the ballet paper for further devolution or were at least willing to consider it. But devolution is not what they've been campaigning for for decades. It was actually David Cameron that nixed the devo-max option by insisting on a straight "Yes/No" question.

    Are there specific errors?

    Well there was the whole nonsense where they totally ignored the fact the EU has a common travel area and claimed there would be border controls between Scotland and England.

    Making a fuss about defence spending? Scotland contributes £3.5 billion to the UK's defence spend. But only £2 billion is actually spent in Scotland. The SNP have for a while now said the defence budget would be £2.5 billion. So even though they are cutting the budget. They're also actually increasing the actual spend in Scotland by half a billion.

    How about Cameron claiming we need Trident on the Clyde to protect us from north Korea's non-existent nuclear weapons? Or the OBR claiming oil prices will suddenly plummet to an unrealistic low just as Scotland becomes independent? Or that the oil is about to run out when the industry has consistently said the complete opposite and just as we're starting to explore the Atlantic, opened a massive field off Shetland and are experimenting with offshore fracking which could release more oil and gas from tight reservoirs in the North Sea than has been extracted over the whole of the last 40 years.

    Generally speaking they can be. But in Scotland, negative campaigning has become particularly toxic in politics. Which is the whole reason why the SNP got a supposedly impossible majority in Holyrood. They gave voters who are otherwise unionists the right positive signals.

    The problem they have as I see it is so much of their support in Holyrood is actually unionist and not at all interested in independence.

    There are probably people who hold that view. But I haven't seen it.
     
  13. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    You could see you were pigion holing my politics with a group that doesn't represnt them because of a shared opinion on one issue and you didn't think I would say anything.
     
  14. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Yeah, this is a once a generation deal. It will be a long time before a Scottish parliament can claim a mandate to hold an independence referendum if this one fails.

    Cameron knew that the SNP would throw Devo max under the bus if it meant getting an independence question on the ballot. That means Cameron has Devo max in his back pocket as a campaigning tool. If things look bleak for the No campaign 6 months out, he can offer that (freely) to the Scots as a way of endearing himself and Westminster to the Scottish electorate. That will strip away the support of people who would vote yes only because they want taxation etc to be under Scottish control.

    Yeah, without Scotland, the UK definitely wont be in the EU in 5 years time. Border controls probably wont happen immediately, but it isn't inconceivable that a future government (British or Scottish) might implement immigration controls.
    You can't split up the defense budget like that. There is a very big chunk of defense spending that represents overhead and administration which doesn't get factored into Scotland's share - you would be appalled at how much the procurement process costs. Scotland can probably maintain it's share of the armed forces, but anyone who tells you there will be big savings is living in cloud cuckoo land.
    The Trident comments were silly. But it is just as silly to start talking about Shetland Oil fields when the Shetland islands have a growing independence movement of their own. How ironic would that be - Scotland gets her oil, then the Shetlands break off and take a big chunk of it with them. Oh how I would laugh.

    It doesn't need to be outwardly negative. They just need to pose the questions that lead to uncomfortable or uncertain answers.

    How many people do you think would vote No solely on the basis that they wont be able to watch Top Gear or Doctor Who anymore? Or that they'll have to pay to use the iPlayer. I really think the BBC is one of the No campaigns trump cards.
     
  15. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    If Top Gear won't be available in a post-independance Scotland then I'll move up there like a shot. best reason for a 'yes' vote I've heard so far.
     
  16. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    Except the feeling in Westminster at the moment is that the English question has to be settled first. Cameron can't give a guarantee and won't give one. So it's a fairly limited tool in his box of tricks. So far he has insisted the question of more devolution is a discussion for after the referendum.

    Well if Cameron makes good on his promise for a referendum after the next general election there aren't enough people in Scotland to stop the UK leaving. There are only 5.5 million of us or there about. London alone could out vote the whole of Scotland. If the rest of the UK wants to leave the EU. Scotland can't stop it. In fact when England votes Conservative and Scotland votes Labour. Scotland gets a Conservative government.

    There has also pretty much always been a common travel area within the British Isles with minimal to no border controls. I doubt very much this will ever change significantly to the point where crossing the border will become problematic.

    Well someone needs to tell the economists on both sides that then. Because that is how the figures have been presented. You also have to consider that Scotland isn't looking to have a "world police" style army projecting Scotland's will thousands of miles around the globe. An independent Scotland would be looking to have a conventionally armed defence force. Which would be in line with similarly sized countries.

    It would be hilarious in a sort of masochistic way. But we'd still have most of the North Sea and our Atlantic territories. So it wouldn't be the sort of blow the UK might take if Scotland votes "Yes". And right now, Shetlanders still identify as being Scottish (and occasionally Viking).

    So it's not silly. Right now that resource exists. North Korean nukes don't.

    But more often than not it is outwardly negative. That's the problem. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour know how to campaign in Scotland without trying to attack Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.

    Top Gear and Doctor Who are broadcast in the USA. The people can easily be reassured they'll still get their favourite programs just as they do now. Via Virgin Media or BSkyB. We're not especially reliant on the BBC. In fact quite a lot of people would welcome no longer paying £145+ just to watch TV.

    Besides, BBC Scotland along with the rest of the BBC are taking industrial action right now to fight the cuts.
     
  17. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    But he can play the card if he needs to. He can agree (in principle) to Devo Max before the referendum, effectively removing a very strong argument from the Yes campaign.

    Scotland is the most pro EU part of the union, as I understand it. 5.5 million voters leaning towards continued EU membership could be enough to tip the balance of a tight referendum.

    Referendum's aren't like general elections. They are decided on the popular vote, rather than on parliamentary boundaries.

    It can change and if immigration from Scotland/to Scotland ever becomes a political issue (and it could), then immigration controls are entirely feasible. I'm not sure why a future UK government free from EU movement regulations would treat Scotland any different from France or Romania or Poland. And similarly, if Scotland had a problem with a large number of English workers making the trip north, why wouldn't they restrict immigration if it was politically expedient?

    What do economists know about defence procurement costs and the administration of the MoD? It's probably the best part of a billion pounds when you add it all up. And then you have scaling issues. You get a much better deal when you purchase 20 frigates than when you only want to buy 2.

    Sure, Scotland could have a respectable defensive force with NATO membership and all the perks that comes with, but when people start saying "We can carry on as we are and still have a billion left over", they're dreaming.

    I thought the Shetland islanders were happy with UK membership but they were vociferously against being part of an independent Scotland - something to do with past atrocities?
    The SNP still plan a Scottish state broadcaster, but estimates show they'll only be able to afford to run one channel and that it's ability to produce original programming will be very limited. They're also going to have to take up the BBC's gaelic programming (which is surprisingly expensive).

    People do not like paying for services they are used to receiving for free and when it comes to the BBC - that will be the reality. A lot of the independence arguments come down to national pride - but that gets washed away fast if you can show just a few concrete ways that independence will inconvenience people.

    Not sure how that is relevant.
     
  18. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    But he won't. It puts him in a corner and on the spot. If he promises Devo Max and can't deliver his credibility is massively damaged. If he's seen to be pandering to Scottish voters, the English press will turn on him.

    But not all of those 5.5 million voters are pro-EU. I'm not for a start. I'm quite happy to have a trading partnership. But I'm not keen on the level of integration the EU is heading towards. It defeats the purpose of independence. Many Scots feel the same way.

    Because the land border is difficult to patrol and even cuts right through the middle of some towns. It's a political landmine no government wants to deal with if they don't have to. It would also raise questions about the arrangements with the Isle of Man, the channel islands and Northern Ireland.

    Can you imagine a UK government telling the Northern Irish they can't travel to the UK mainland without a passport?

    The figures were published in such detail they revealed the MOD was wasting millions stockpiling supplies they simply did not need while failing to buy equipment they did need? But then again I'm hedging my bets they know more than you or me.

    No, they're looking at the published figures and working with them as best they can.

    Never heard of that.

    I seriously doubt TV programming is going to be the clincher. But I confess I haven't seen that estimate. Almost any service for a minority is expensive.

    The BBC isn't free. The BBC is what your TV license fee pays for. And many Scots already pay for cable or satellite. So I'm really struggling to see how this is going to swing the referendum.

    The independence argument being put forward by the SNP is less about national pride and more about Scotland making it's own decisions for the benefit of Scotland. But if it is about national pride then the "Yes" campaign has already won.

    You've just quoted how Scottish television broadcasting is going to suffer from a reduced budget and are totally failing to appreciate that it's already suffering from a 20% reduction in it's budget imposed by the current government?
     
  19. Razgriz

    Razgriz Valued Member

    My issues with the Yes Campaign are as follows:

    Failure to release their list of donars,Better Together has released this.
    Accepting foreign donations, Better together does not.

    Then the other week about the millions the SNP Government intend to spend on tax-payer funded propaganda. Better Together has raised all our own money. Better Together has not received a penny from any of the political parties or the taxpayer


    The Yes side, also argue that Scots living and working in the rest of the UK should be treated like foreigners.Sir Alex Ferguson recently said: “Scots living outside Scotland but inside the UK might not get a vote in the referendum, but we have a voice and we care deeply about our country. It is quite wrong to try and silence people like this. I played for Scotland and managed the Scotland team. No-one should question my Scottishness just because I live south of the Border.”

    On defence,The Scottish Affairs Select Committee have published a report into the impact of independence on defence job.

    The defence industry sustains more than 15,000 jobs and contributes between £ 1.8 billion-£2 billion annually to the Scottish economy. As much as 80% of defence industry sales are dependent on the UK Ministry of Defence. Shipyard unions recently made clear their views that the future of shipbuilding in Scotland depends on staying a part of the UK

    Meanwhile the nationalists continue to pretend there would be no defence job losses and that we could spend more on defence in an independent Scotland. Even though , Finance Secretary John Swinney even said in private in his leaked cabinet paper: “I have made clear to Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”


    They say one thing to one crowd and say another to a different.
    Its 0630 and im sleep so sorry about spelling and grammar.
    Raz
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013
  20. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    The "Better Together" campaign has accepted £500,000 from Ian Taylor. A man who's company has a very chequered history. Which includes some very dodgy dealings in Iraq. The British government also set out to publish a number of papers over the course of the debate in support of the Union. I doubt David Cameron is paying for those papers personally.

    The first paper published told us each person in Scotland would be £1 worse off every year if we vote "Yes". Clearly well worth the tax payer spend. Or are we pretending the UK government are not part of the "Better Together" campaign?

    I don't remember getting a say on devolution in London. That was a matter for Londoners and yet London is the capital of the UK. What's your point?

    Simply put who does or doesn't get a vote has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with who is actually registered to vote in Scotland and lives in Scotland. The case for independence is not one of nationality. It's one of democracy.

    Far too often Scotland ends up with a government that has no democratic mandate to impose policy in Scotland, from a Scottish perspective. Devolution does not yet go far enough to mitigate this.

    Okay there are a couple of things here. First of all the "Better Together" campaign's presentation of the "leaked" cabinet document was totally disingenuous to the point where they created a fake "James Bond" style cover stamped "TOP SECRET" which the BBC couldn't help but lap up. If this is the foundation of your argument then you're on shaky ground.

    John Swinney is an excellent finance minister who is ultra cautious. It is his job to look at all eventualities and produce reports for the cabinet's consumption and consideration. It's his job to keep a tight grip on spending, assess and reassess the economic climate and the state of the economy and public finances.

    Absolutely no government divulges every cabinet report ever written. Gordon Brown certainly wasn't fourth coming when he removed the ring fence around your NHS contributions. Which effectively turned your NHS contributions into a stealth income tax. And that was exactly his intention.

    The paper that "Better Together", "leaked", was already a year or more out of date.

    The SNP have already said they aim to spend £2.5 billion on defence in Scotland after independence. However even if that figure falls. Defence isn't exactly a strong suit for the "Better Together" campaign. The UK government have reneged on promise after promise with respect to defence spending in Scotland. In fact about the only thing we know they will definitely keep in Scotland is Trident. Which the Scots do not want and are bitterly opposed to.

    With respect to ship building defence contracts. This has always been at risk. BAE are currently trying to decide if they should close their ship yards on the Clyde or in England. So even if we remain part of the UK. Scotland's shipyards have no guaranteed future until BAE and the UK government come to a conclusion. So frankly raising the issue of ship building on the Clyde as part of the independence debate is utter scaremongering. It hangs in the balance one way or the other.

    A newly independent Scotland will however obviously need patrol vessels. Maybe the UK will give us one of their aircraft-less carriers that the ConDemed intend to mothball. I suppose we could always sell it for scrap value.

    You shouldn't post while tired. You're supposed to say "they say one thing in privet and another in public". Which is nonsense. The SNP had a debate on their defence plans at their annual conference which the BBC covered in a live broadcast.
     

Share This Page