Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Now you have Alex Salmond saying that Scotland won't take a portion of the UK's national debt when it leaves, and comparing the referendum to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Och, 'ats a wee bit o' hyperbole, dinna ye think?

If you fellows are going to keep reading the Daily Telegraph commentary on this debate I'm not sure how I'm going to cope. If you must read a Unionist paper's opinion on the referendum then at least read the Herald or the Guardian which are half decent.

I heard him make those same comments last week; he didn't compare the No voters to Apartheid South Africans, he didn't compare the British government to Apartheid. He just said that the surge in vote registration - people literally queuing up in the street to register to vote - was reminiscent of scenes from after Apartheid when people were voting for the first time. Unionists have very thin skins these days.

The debt thing is also not new, and the headline is the hyperbolic part there - he repeated something he's been saying for two years i.e. that if the British government refuses to give us access to the pound in a currency union then we simply won't take on a share of the debt, because that is entirely voluntary. Did Ukraine take on any of the former USSR's debt after it became independent, I wonder?

[LordSlowpoke]

owlie

the ussr ceased to exist

they're going to rename the uk probably (unless they're going to go with england and wales, that's a thing) but it will not just cease to exist

russia was accepted as the successor state to the whole thingamajig, therefore it received all the debt

i think numerous people already told you how that went for them

but no, the situations are comparable i'll admit but not enough to draw parallels

[Owlbread]

russia was accepted as the successor state to the whole thingamajig, therefore it received all the debt

We know that, like Russia, the UK will be the only successor state after the vote on independence and will thus inherit all of the debt.

[LordSlowpoke]

is serbia the successor state to

itself i guess

it wasn't renamed after kosovo split off

[RedKing]

Owly, calm down. I didn't say Salmond compared the British to South African whites, or anything of the sort. Merely that he made the comparison (by his own quote).

One bit that I did find interesting was a piece on how Scottish independence could affect the makeup of Parliament. Because Labour is dominant in Scotland, losing those seats in the House of Commons could swing the UK Parliament even more towards the Tories. Small wonder that Labour seems to be the most strident advocate of the No vote.

Sort of how losing California would make the US Congress more Republican or losing Texas would make it more Democratic.

[Owlbread]

Owly, calm down. I didn't say Salmond compared the British to South African whites, or anything of the sort. Merely that he made the comparison (by his own quote).

One bit that I did find interesting was a piece on how Scottish independence could affect the makeup of Parliament. Because Labour is dominant in Scotland, losing those seats in the House of Commons could swing the UK Parliament even more towards the Tories. Small wonder that Labour seems to be the most strident advocate of the No vote.

Sort of how losing California would make the US Congress more Republican or losing Texas would make it more Democratic.

The line among my colleagues is that Labour does not actually need Scottish seats to succeed. It's unclear exactly how British politics is going to change after this vote, it could shift to the left or to the right or even, as I suspect, remain pretty much the same. I hope that Scotland can at least be an example to England for how to run a country along social-democratic lines. You know, maybe they don't actually need tuition fees if they downsize the military/military technology a bit.

[RedKing]

Owly, calm down. I didn't say Salmond compared the British to South African whites, or anything of the sort. Merely that he made the comparison (by his own quote).

One bit that I did find interesting was a piece on how Scottish independence could affect the makeup of Parliament. Because Labour is dominant in Scotland, losing those seats in the House of Commons could swing the UK Parliament even more towards the Tories. Small wonder that Labour seems to be the most strident advocate of the No vote.

Sort of how losing California would make the US Congress more Republican or losing Texas would make it more Democratic.

The line among my colleagues is that Labour does not actually need Scottish seats to succeed. It's unclear exactly how British politics is going to change after this vote, it could shift to the left or to the right or even, as I suspect, remain pretty much the same. I hope that Scotland can at least be an example to England for how to run a country along social-democratic lines. You know, maybe they don't actually need tuition fees if they downsize the military/military technology a bit.

Yes, but Scotland can afford the luxury of a tiny military more than the UK can. The article was interesting, and something to think about, but I'm not totally convinced. I think removing Scotland from the equation makes Labour's job much harder in the UK. Although, you can argue that they were going to fuck it up anyways (or were going to landslide anyways), and there may be something to that.

[Sergarr]

Owly, calm down. I didn't say Salmond compared the British to South African whites, or anything of the sort. Merely that he made the comparison (by his own quote).

One bit that I did find interesting was a piece on how Scottish independence could affect the makeup of Parliament. Because Labour is dominant in Scotland, losing those seats in the House of Commons could swing the UK Parliament even more towards the Tories. Small wonder that Labour seems to be the most strident advocate of the No vote.

Sort of how losing California would make the US Congress more Republican or losing Texas would make it more Democratic.

The line among my colleagues is that Labour does not actually need Scottish seats to succeed. It's unclear exactly how British politics is going to change after this vote, it could shift to the left or to the right or even, as I suspect, remain pretty much the same. I hope that Scotland can at least be an example to England for how to run a country along social-democratic lines. You know, maybe they don't actually need tuition fees if they downsize the military/military technology a bit.

Yes, but Scotland can afford the luxury of a tiny military more than the UK can. The article was interesting, and something to think about, but I'm not totally convinced. I think removing Scotland from the equation makes Labour's job much harder in the UK. Although, you can argue that they were going to fuck it up anyways (or were going to landslide anyways), and there may be something to that.

Don't forget that most of UK's nuclear potential is in Scotland.

[MonkeyHead]

The Tory swing is something I am fucking paranoid about if Scotland goes. Wales is split between Plaid and Labour, both in the Senedd and in Westminster. Continual Tory rule thanks to England's blue masses dominating any vote is going to be hard to take, and may fuel separatist feelings here in Wales more than anything else (we do not do Tory thinking - hanks Thatcher), and I hope that Plaid will hopefully harness these well, should events pan out that way.

[Sergarr]

History shows that when a single party becomes too strong, it will very soon experience serious inner tensions inside the party, which usually ends up with splinter factions.

[Aerval]

Can someone explain for me, why sports betting websites bet more and more on a NO in the referendum? Currently, chance are 1.33 for No vs. 3.25 for YES. I mean they make money from that, they can not be that unreliable?

[martinuzz]

Indeed, which is why I said might be huge. We don't know for sure yet.

I doubt it. This info came from the BBC a few days ago, I believe even before the EU members voted, and decided to not impose any more sanctions atm.
I think no one will take any action based on whatever media story, until the final crash investigation report comes out, in about a year from now.

[Helgoland]

Can someone explain for me, why sports betting websites bet more and more on a NO in the referendum? Currently, chance are 1.33 for No vs. 3.25 for YES. I mean they make money from that, they can not be that unreliable?

Who's saying they are? All we have is one poll showing what is essentially a tie, after months of a clear no lead. If too many undecideds get cold feet, Scotland won't secede.

[mainiac]

Can someone explain for me, why sports betting websites bet more and more on a NO in the referendum? Currently, chance are 1.33 for No vs. 3.25 for YES. I mean they make money from that, they can not be that unreliable?

Polling is erratic and big surges after high profile events like debates often disappear.  So you just practice Bayesian statistics.  You have a strong prior (Scotland will probably vote no) which has received some evidence (polling says yes).  There is a very high chance that the polls would say yes if Scotland will decide on yes eventually but there is a moderately high chance that yes will lead at the polls at some point if the final result will be no.  So you adjust your expectations in light of the new information but you don't discard what you already knew.

[Aerval]

That's true, but I would have thought if it would be really undecided, the chance would have been more equal. Also, the chances they gave YES last week were around 2.8, so according to them it is becoming more likely that they wont secede. It's just against all media coverage I currently notice and states (for me, from overseas) the real chances in the situation.

So for me, this just states some evidence that the media is clearly biased. I wish they had a similar poll for ukraine