darling  By G.A.Ponsonby
The head of Better Together, Alistair Darling, has said that the No campaign has no intention of spelling out what awaits Scots should they vote against independence in 2014.
Responding to a question on BBC Radio Scotland, the Labour MP insisted that the alliance of Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems was formed only to persuade Scots to stay in the UK and that the campaign group was not set up to define what awaited a No vote.

Asked whether the No campaign would spell out what voting No meant, Mr Darling said: "It is for the political parties Labour, Liberal the Conservatives to spell out what they are going to put in their manifestos, what further powers they would like to devolve.

"Better Together is formed simply for the purpose of trying to persuade people we’re better and stronger as part of the UK."

The admission by the Better Together chief came on the same day that the Scottish Government published a document spelling out the route map to independence should Scots vote Yes in the 2014 referendum.

Speaking yesterday, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called on the UK Government to adhere to the Electoral Commission’s recommendations by agreeing to early discussions about how Scotland will move forward following the referendum.  The commission has asked that both sides provide clarity on the referendum outcome, whichever side wins.

However, with the anti-independence campaign chief refusing to accept that it is his groups responsibility to define what No means, there will be fears that Scots could go to the polls with no clear guarantees of what lies in store should they vote against independence.

Commenting on yesterday’s publication by the Scottish government, SNP MSP Annabelle Ewing said that the detail being provided by the Scottish Government stood in stark contrast to the complete lack of detail from the ‘No’ campaign, which she said was a key factor in the fall in support for a No vote since the New year:

Ms Ewing said: "This is the Scottish Government coming out with more detail about the 'why' of independence - spelling out that an independent Scotland will have a written constitution that could ban nuclear weapons, and be a modern, progressive country. 

“With independence we will always get the governments that the people of Scotland vote for, and have economic and welfare policies based on Scotland's circumstances and values.

She added: "The No campaign so far has done nothing except say No to every positive thing that is proposed for Scotland - that is why its support has slipped since the New Year, and why we now require a swing of just over 7.5 per cent for Yes to move ahead in the polls."


# McGillicuddy Dreams 2013-02-06 07:25
Yes Scotland can simply spell out the worst case scenario that voting NO will bring. It will be up to the NO camp to deflect this with ideas to the contrary which they will eventually have to commit to as facts.
# The_Duke 2013-02-06 07:35
Eh.... Sorry Darling..... it is. A start would be telling us of that mythical creature, The Positive case for the Union

It a two answer referendum, it is up to both sides to spell out their vision of what your vote would entail.

Can you imagine if Yes Scotland said "Vote Yes!.... because, vote yes. We will tell you after what it means." The BBC and their MSM chums would have a field day. It beggars belief that the No Camp can get away with this.
# clootie 2013-02-06 07:51

Well put - that is the NO camp case. Be negative / create fear and uncertainty. They should at least be honest and admit that the can give or remove any power at anytime after a NO vote.

On that basis any promise has little value.

Power devolved is power retained!
# mountaincadre 2013-02-06 07:47
The last 4 months of the Indy campaign will very interesting, i imagine that a lot of what MMMM Darling and co have said will come back to haunt them.
# mealer 2013-02-06 07:56
We all know what a NO vote means.More Tory cuts.More nukes on the outskirts of Glasgow.
# Breeks 2013-02-06 07:57
The Unionists go into a frenzy over Alex Salmond's assertions about Scotland's future in Europe, when Better Together can't even be drawn on Scotland's future in the UK.
# Leal 2013-02-06 07:59
Could it be that if You Vote NO Scotland what you get is NO Scotland.

Scary but please Mr Darling assure us of Something else. My mind's running wild at the moment.
# 1314 2013-02-06 09:29
Scotland NO more ?
# Alba4Eva 2013-02-06 08:11
...so simply put, what Darling is saying is that Better Together have NOTHING to offer Scotland.

To his credit, at least he is being honest for once.

YES 2014
# mudfries 2013-02-06 08:13
The vision of the future the No camp have in mind can be seen already anyway! council tax rises, the NHS slowly privatised, the welfare state taken apart, nuclear power, oversea's wars for oil, business as usuall for bankers bonuses and MPs expenses, we'll be at the mercy of Tory governments we didnt vote for - conflict with Europe etc, bedroom tax etc, for our young people it will be famine road workfare programmes, Scotland stripped of its resourses while its ecomomy stagnates.....I could go on and on, its a scary vision actually, but it will happen if we let it.
# art1001 2013-02-06 11:14
Dont forget privatised Scottish water. Probably the end of out international football team. Turning Scotland the brave into Scotland the feart as we become an international laughing stock.

A damaged national brand will damage sales of Scottish goods internationally such as whisky and food stuffs. Who would drink or eat that stuff if it turns you into a wimp.

Remember its not just the direct consequences of NO that must be enunciated but also those damnable unintended consequences that need to be thought through.

I think the YES camp via the EC have opened up a massive second front in the battle here and it is dripping roast of possibilities to rubbish their option as well as positively contrast ours.
# davemsc 2013-02-06 08:15
Oh Alastair, you just don't realise what you've just done! I've never thought highly of him, but he's even more of a buffoon than I thought.

It's time for Yes to start capitalising on the inertia put forward by Darling and his ilk. They clearly haven't a clue in terms of what they want for Scotland (and you only need to look as far as their tawdry campaign material to see this).

Yes also need to undermine his credibility. I agree that the campaign needs to be positive, but the trust issue is important here: he voted for the Iraq fiasco, led us into a massive recession in 2008, and let's not forget the frequent 'flipping' (which others might call fraud)...
# Dowanhill 2013-02-06 08:16
Persuading people to vote for independence in previous referendums always had a an element of fear of the unknown associated with it, for understandable reasons. Given the contempt msm and the 'bitter together' campaign treat the Scottish electorate for having the audacity to even consider the prospect of being of independent thinking. An even bigger fear I have now is a genuine dread of the consequences of a 'No' vote and what Scotland will be subjected too.
# Macart 2013-02-06 08:37
"It is for the political parties Labour, Liberal the Conservatives to spell out what they are going to put in their manifestos, what further powers they would like to devolve."

Well there you have it folks. Not only are they now officially the NO CAMPAIGN. They are now officially the NO PROMISES or POLICIES CAMPAIGN.

Straight from the horses.............. mouth, as it were. :)
# govanite 2013-02-06 08:38
O/T - the BBC say 'Scotland is the only place where dogs are not micro-chipped'
This must be addressed, it is surely the greatest priority facing the country.
# farrochie 2013-02-06 09:21
What? Has the eagle owl been caught?
# scotswhahae 2013-02-06 11:24
Quoting farrochie:
What? Has the eagle owl been caught?

I hope so, we will be in Inverness for the Spring Conference, & I am feart of BURDS...
# Jo Bloggs 2013-02-06 10:22
What, the only place in the world? Or for the BBC does it go without saying the 'only place' means the only place in the UK, as the UK to them IS the world? Says it all really.
# Silverytay 2013-02-06 08:39
If we are daft enough to vote No ' there will be a rush to bring in new laws before the G.E in 2015 to ensure the Scots are never again in a position to even think about independence .
The No campaign must be having nightmares at the thought of winning the referendum and the the Scots realising the mistake they had made and electing more pro independence m.p,s in 2015 who could conceivably hold the balance of power in a hung parliament . We only have to win once ' the No campaign have the 2015 G.E and the Scottish elections in 2016 to worry about .
# Jim Johnston 2013-02-06 08:44
Alistair Darling just stumbled over a truth.
He is correct to refuse the cup of poison on offer by setting out "what happens next ?" following a referendum No.
That is Westminster political parties responsibility following the Eectoral Commission diktat, not his. Or more accurately the UK Governments responsibility.
The SNP Scottish Government, not Yes Scotland, have set out their "What happens next" as required, now the Unionist parties can set out their scinario following a No vote.
Therefore, for once Darling is correct in not touching this with a barge pole. (Now he may even have found his eventual escape route out of heading the Better Together nonsense.)
# Macart 2013-02-06 08:55
Its the one great advantage the YES campaign has, not only can it paint a picture of a new Scottish democracy, but it already has an independence party in power which can and will deliver on many of the core precepts.

Nuclear Free
WMDs Gone
Written constitution
Full fiscal and tax control
Scottish international representation

The rest is party policy.
# Mei 2013-02-06 09:14
The No scenario is WMDs will stay on the Clyde - Glasgow will be the Bulleye on the UK target.

Let's make up the Noron manifesto for them!
# Macart 2013-02-06 10:25
Even better than that Mei, let's start asking questions, lot's and lot's of questions of unionist party members and NO campers.

Where do you see Britain's economic future in the next ten years?
What is the (fill in party of choice)'s stance on weapons of mass destruction within Britain?
Will the conservatives be hauling our collective wossinames out of Europe in 2017?
Why the huge delay on this momentous EU vote?
How will your respective parties revitalise the manufacturing industries within the UK? Are there any plans to even try?

Turn about's fair play Mei. :)
# Louperdowg 2013-02-06 10:46
With regards to the Constitution, Gordon Brewer was spluttering on Newsnight last night about how it was 'scary' that the SNP was confusing party policies with the Constitution.

I think that this is inaccurate and dishonest of Mr Brewer as Alex Salmond knows fine well the difference.

What the SNP are saying is that anything is possible and I find this a very exciting prospect, unlike Mr Brewer who was obviously keeching his Harris Tweed underpants.
# Macart 2013-02-06 12:02
We've seen them come and go on various sites Louper. There are many who doubted the SGs commitment to offering a written constitution. Well its a commitment that is very public and out there for all to see, one that offers all of civic Scotland the chance to have a say. The NO campaign have absolutely nothing to offer in return and what will be their defence against the accusation of not offering that level of public engagement in the status quo?
# farrochie 2013-02-06 09:03
Each political party in the No camp has to develop its own position. Currently, there are three commissions that we know about: Labour's is considering "new powers"; LibDems has "home rule"; the Tories propose a "new spread". We also have in progress the results of the Calman Commission.

We know the process. Westminster has to first agree the commission proposals. The government of the day will convert their proposals into a White Paper for discussion. If Parliamentary time permits, they draft a bill which is debated in the House of Commons and Lords, and in Committees. An Act will be prepared, which will go through its readings, passage and amendment stages in the Commons and Lords, until assent. Scotland is then told to implement the legislation.

It is no surprise that Better Together are staying away from any discussion of what would follow a NO vote as this presents a future of complete uncertaintly, in the sole hands of Westminster.
# Lochaberlaird 2013-02-06 09:04
How can Darling campaign for an organisation that claims that we are 'Better Together' when he is not willing to define what a No vote will mean?  He claims that is the duty of the political parties yet they can't agree what it means and refuse to tell us their policies until after the vote. Even then they say they will put any proposals in their manifestos they refuse to be bound by their promises because "circumstances change". The reality is that are simply refusing to admit the consequences of voting No.
# Marian 2013-02-06 09:23
By refusing to make the consequences of a "NO" vote part of his "NO" campaign, Darling is leaving the way open for the unionist parties to individually make all sorts of pie in the sky "hints" rather than firm promises, on what would happen, thus giving them the freedom to renege at will afterwards.
# Marian 2013-02-06 17:51
The "NO" campaign consists entirely of dire warnings and threats against Scotland and her people if we dare vote "YES" to independence.

There is no good grace or wishing us well but just rancour and hate from people who most ironically are in the main mostly home grown Scots.

So if we are going to be punished for daring to go it alone then we can safely assume that the consequences of voting "NO" will also bring severe retribution against Scotland from the unionists in retaliation for us having the temerity to challenge the British state.
# alasdairmac 2013-02-06 09:29
I dont know how many of you guys get to see the regular "briefings" issued by Better Together to their activists but they are a relentless litany of negativity and character assassination. Not once have I seen one which contains anything even remotely positive about a better future for Scotland after a NO vote.
# Keef 2013-02-06 09:45
His message is starting to make sense to me now. I was sort of undecided, all the reasons he gives for staying in the union make sense now, I'm leaning towards a no vote now.
# maisiedotts 2013-02-06 20:30
Good luck with that from the Telegraph today "The think-tank said Chancellor George Osborne's failure to hit deficit reduction targets means tax rises or "substantial" additional cuts in welfare benefits are likely after the 2015 general election to avoid "hard to contemplate" cuts in Whitehall budgets.

With the public finances failing to come into balance as quickly as Mr Osborne had hoped, Paul Johnson, the IFS director, questioned whether the Chancellor can continue to shield the NHS, schools and overseas aid from cuts."
# nchanter 2013-02-06 22:40
Quoting Keef:
His message is starting to make sense to me now. I was sort of undecided, all the reasons he gives for staying in the union make sense now, I'm leaning towards a no vote now.

I also have decided it was watching the BBC news each night that convinced me that I did not wish to be governed by nest of vipers. Can't understand those how do.
# Keef 2013-02-06 23:36
You do realise that I was being fecitious.
I was attempting to put my self in the shoes of an undiceded voter and rationlise how they might ever get to a 'no' vote from the rubbish Darling is feeding them.

I would never contemplate a 'no' vote. There is simply nothing positive to become of it.
# bringiton 2013-02-06 10:04
I can see his point in that it would be up to whichever party(s) form the next Westminster government to lay out their vision for the future of Scotland...sorry North Britain.
Anything else would just be pie in the sky.
However,it does beg the question...what is the point of the No campaign if they have no policies and no vision for Scotland.
They continue to see the independence issue as a party political one and not a civic movement involving people from all parties and none (This applies to the BBC as well).
As someone else has said,it is too important to leave this to possible vague promises in future party manifestos which quite often are ignored once elected to Westminster.
At least we now know...vote No get Nothing.
# CharlieObrien 2013-02-06 10:10
I hope this makes some more people think it through,this is arrogance vote for me and we will tell you later what we will do,just give us the power and we may or may not abuse it? that is what he said as to my understanding.
# Breeks 2013-02-06 10:14
It's curious why revealing the consequences of a NO vote seem to be as difficult for Mr Darling to articulate as the positive case for the Union.
# Christian_Wright 2013-02-06 10:14
As others have noted, this leaves the YES camp free to define the NO outcome, since they refuse to define it themselves.

Top of the list are further cuts into the foreseeable future.

A re-jigging of the Barnett formula leading to a substantial reduction in the block grant, further divesting Scotland of the monies needed to maintain existing services.
# ynot 2013-02-06 14:56
[quote name="Christian_Wrigh t"]As others have noted, this leaves the YES camp free to define the NO outcome, since they refuse to define it themselves.

Absolutely agree and think this is a golden opportunity for the Yes camp. If Darling can't/won't spell out the process which would follow a No vote I think it is perfectly legitimate for the Yes side to spell it out. Giving a factually correct synopsis of the process as farrochie has done earlier today (09.03)could not be challenged, and my bet is it would scare the pants off a lot of those "undecideds" who are still naive enough to believe we will get more powers from Westminster; this is definitely the end of the road. An even worse scenario, would be the return of some devolved powers to Westminster, and again this has already been hinted at by the Conservatives.
So the No-voters need to face up to the reality of what a No vote means; somebody has to tell them!
# proudscot 2013-02-06 10:16
Maybe the Yes Campaign should take a leaf out of the No lot's scaremongering tactics, and produce posters with Johann Lamont's face on them, followed by the caption "If you vote NO, this could be your next First Minister!"

Scary, or what?
# Christian_Wright 2013-02-06 10:46
Consequences of NO vote continued . .

This will mean an end to prescriptions free at the point of service.

The end of at-home services for the elderly.

The end of free tuition for university students.

The end of free bus passes for the over-sixties.

The Unionist parties will argue a no vote gives them a mandate to implement the following:

The repatriation of devolved powers back to Westminster to neuter Nationalist power (curtailing SNP mischief-making) to put an end to the Scottish Question once and for all.
# EphemeralDeception 2013-02-06 11:33
I absolutely agree that these things need spelled out - the certain elements first:

NOT "Together" - Joined with minority represntation (59 Scot Seats, nearly 600 not). No veto on anything impacting Scotland: Trident, Foreign conflict, welfare system, budget, etc.

Returning planning powers back to UK.

AT last count, 7 out of 12 High level nuclear waste proposed sites, In Scotland or on border.
No control over broadcasting.
No say in defence, def. spending and no veto.
No constitution.
NO say on Europe if England votes to leave.
No fiscal control, accountability or visibilty.
All transport and infrastructure development concentrated in SE England.
No increased devolution, no commitment in any reserved areas.
No seat at any negotiating table of any international organisations eg. CAP, Fishing rights in Europe.
Paying For 3 parliament in UK: Scot, UK + HOL. + No unelected HOL reform.
# Mei 2013-02-06 10:54
Let's face it,
Alistair Darling is not competent to run the No Campaign.
He campaigned for the No side before the Devolution Referendum and they were beaten 3-1.
He is an open goal so let's go to town.
# Glenbuchat 2013-02-06 22:25
To the contrary, Alistair Darling was a minister in the government which delivered a referendum on devolution within 5 months of being elected and created a new Scottish Parliament within 2 years. Devolution, as it exists, was delivered by Labour politicians like Alistair Darling.
# Adrian B 2013-02-07 01:58
Alistair Darling actively campaigned against Devolution in 1979. It was in the early '80s that he changed his mind on the matter.
# Richard 2013-02-06 11:03
Simply put a No vote means status quo.
Vote No and everything stays the same.
Vote yes and we get to make our own decisions and choose our own future.
For better or worse, I vote yes.
# Alba4Eva 2013-02-06 18:48
Quoting Richard:
Simply put a No vote means status quo.
Vote No and everything stays the same.

Unfortunately Richard, that is not the case... A 'No' vote has yet to be defined. Have you heard any unionist proponent promise you that things will not change? ...of course things will change... Nothing will be as it was, should a 'No' vote result.

The truth is that Westminster would have the mandate to pillage Scotland (remember the Poll Tax?)... and unless we draw the line in the sand and stand our ground in 2014, I strongly believe that there will be serious attempts to remove powers that we currently hold and add further political chains onto us Scots.

Not fear mongering, just analytical judgement from years of listening to unionists and their motivations.
# gayle 2013-02-07 04:36
I'd say things are already decidedly dark. Watch Diomhair then think of all the things that have been stripped from Scotland in the last 100 years (not even that long).
# Christian_Wright 2013-02-06 11:12
A vote NO will mean the effective end of the Scottish Parliament stripped of power and its diminution to a wee pretendy parliament (thus proving Billy Connolly right after all).

Per their current existing secret agreement, concerted and coordinated efforts by Labour and the Tories to end Scotland's status as a country within the UK and to treat it like any other northern region of Britain.

The managed decline of Scotland's economy a la Geoffrey Howe et Liverpool.
# Tappietourrie 2013-02-06 11:13
The ‘back of a fag packet’ mentality will be in full swing amongst the unionist party’s decision makers. The fact that they won’t inform us at this essential time suggests they do not have an alternative other than ‘what you have is what you’ll get’. The YES campaign knows that its’ policy has matured over many years and the arguments have been thought through leading to a mature, balanced judgement. I would now expect to see in the near future piecemeal policy appear from unionist parties as a rabbit from a hat but we all are aware that policy made as reactionary is prone to falling apart. Could be the White Papers being issued by the SG will force their hand.
See wingsland.podgamer.com/.../
# Ped 2013-02-06 11:31
I really don’t mean to be facetious, but has anyone else notice the absence of the comic impersonators that used to be on the telly? I would think they would have a marvellous selection of chancers, sorry “characters” to work on. For example the Wee Willie Rennie character trying desperately to sound intelligent while spouting gibberish nonsense that his mammy would believe, or the Allstar Darling character spluttering his constant drivel of “ye-ye-ye canny dae it, look, look, look what I mean is, ye, ye, ye jist cannae dae it”. But I think my favourite would be the Wee Mental Ruthie character throwing her school girl tantrum routine into everything “ma perty leader has em lining up tae talk tae him when this FM cannie get in the door, na nana nanana”.

Sorry for perhaps lowering the tone, but whit can ye dea eh? I mean, I mean, I mean, you jist cannie take em seriously. ;)
# bringiton 2013-02-06 13:34
Couldn't agree more Ped.
I have been thinking for some time that a Scottish version of Spitting Image would have a field day with some of our politicians and their posturing.
Can't see BBC promoting this but STV could do very well out of it.
# chicmac 2013-02-06 23:40
I think there is an anti independence series starring unionist Rory Bremner and produced by 'Mr Wark' planned.

Not quite what you have in mind I think, but the Us always use comedy propaganda before key elections.

e.g. Rab C., the return for one show only of McGlashan, etc.

I'm afraid they control that as well.
# bringiton 2013-02-06 12:14
The No campaign can now be seen for what it is.
They do not believe that managing your own affairs is a good idea(presumably based on Westminster's woeful efforts at managing an economy).
Yes,we would probably all have been better off together if some establishment other than Westminster had
been managing our affairs.
The moral of this story for Darling and friends is do not judge others as you view yourself.
I think most Scots would agree (if they are allowed to "agree" to anything) that London rule has been a total disaster for the Scottish economy and we couldn't possibly do any worse.
# Massan_Gow 2013-02-06 12:26
So, Mister Darling, it's not the job of the organisation campaigning for a 'NO' vote to define what the outcome of a vote for 'NO' would mean? And you presumably managed to say this with a straight face?

If I wrote this in a book I would be castigated for being too ridiculous.

It actually saddens me that people actually voted for a man such as this to represent them; a man, it seems, has no positive case for what he is arguing for and a man who is unwilling/unable to spell out what a vote for his organisation would mean.

Actually, you couldn't make it up.

Vote YES!
# rapid 2013-02-06 12:53
tactically, this could be a big problem for the better together campaign,

  • The YES side might end up defining the NO worst case through a social media negative campaign (i doubt YES Scotland or the SNP will get involved with negative campaigning unless this turns into an almight bruhaha in 2014)
  • The unionist parties will show weakness by having differing views in a post-No Scotland
  • and the possibility that the London party and Scotland party may show cracks were there is a difference of opinion. I'd imagine the Tory's would do this first...
# Rannoch 2013-02-06 13:07
Q:Is this the new trend in UK democracy or just for the Scottish referendum ?
A:Just for the Scottish referendum.
Why not have manifestos asking the electorate to vote for the political party and then only revealing what was in the manifesto after the political party forms the Government.
This is the same as the no campaign asking the electorate to vote 'no', then we will reveal what if any plans we had for devolution but only if the majority vote 'no'.
# pmcrek 2013-02-06 14:00
So basically, if anybody wants Devo Max your best chance is to actually vote yes.

You have to then start a political party in Scotland with the manifesto comittment to have a referendum on opting in to the various aspects of the UK you want to keep.

Next win a majority or a majority consensus for such a referendum in a Holyrood election.

Then win the referendum and finally begin diplomatic negotiations with the Rest of UK to opt in, in return for concessions.

Well... it is a far more likely scenario than a UK party putting Devo Max on their manifesto, winning a UK election, actually keeping their promise and passing the referendum bill, before somehow then winning a UK referendum on an issue that doesnt even register on UK polls.
# Jim Johnston 2013-02-06 14:13
From the article, Mr Darling said: "It is for the political parties Labour, Liberal the Conservatives to spell out what they are going to put in their manifestos, what further powers they would like to devolve.

"Better Together is formed simply for the purpose of trying to persuade people we’re better and stronger as part of the UK."

He is right ! The Yes Scotland and Better Together organisations are in the same boat as supporters clubs. They don't pick the team or set game plans.
The Scottish Government have set their plans out for the day after a Yes vote, now it's for Westminster to likewise set out their plans for the day after a No vote.
The Electorial Commission Report told both Governments loud and clear, that is what people want to know. If Westminster fail to step up now, they will be crucified in the vote, and they surely must know they will be.
# davemsc 2013-02-06 16:39
Erm, Darling is in the Labour party. He ought to at least know Labour's proposals. Oh, that's right - they haven't got any.
# Nation Libre 2013-02-06 14:15
O/T here, but it occurred to me that Ruth Davidson finding it hilarious that Nicola S was not able to speak to Barroso, should be turned against her. Better Together's stronger voice in Europe, seat at the top table rubbish just falls apart by pointing out that the elected government of Scotland can't even get an audience with Barroso. Guess what, an Independent Scotland would. Also, it must be hammered home that the UK government will not ask the EC the question as they won't like what the answer will be. If the request for clarification must come from a member state, can't the Scottish Government lobby another EC country to ask the question?
# Zed 2013-02-06 15:14
Don't know why Davidson would find anything like Barroso hilarious? She can't even get her own party leader Cameron to inform her of anything that's going on!
# BigHeed 2013-02-06 14:22

That is the exact point - seriously - "What is the point of the NO campaign" ??

They cannot give a vision for a future Scotland in the Union. Each "NO - body" can only give the reason for staying as "just cause" with a shrug of their shoulders. Hopefully we can relay this to the general public.....VOTE NO - NO VISION NO FUTURE!!
# UpSpake 2013-02-06 15:26
The whole Better Together lot are a fraud. Darling keeps on harping on about the Yes campaign having no figures. He doesn't either so he is in precisely the same boat.
Whilst the SNP may well spell out their proposals for an independent Scotland theirs is after all just a view. It might be 100% accurate but then again, it might not. However, all those supporters of Yes MUST hear the options along with those of the SNP for come Referendum day, it is way to late to discover faults.
# farrochie 2013-02-06 16:41
To BBC journalists and presenters who may on occasions be tempted to read Newsnet Scotland:-

Do you now see the absolute absurdity of the Better Together NO Campaign strategy to refuse to tell us what happens after a No vote? Armed with suitable quotes from Alistair Darling, are you going to relentlessly pursue their representatives to explain their inability to deliver any constitutional future for Scotland, except that which Westminster dictates?
# gus1940 2013-02-06 17:34
If Better Together or any of the other parties backing them are not prepared to tell us what their previously voiced Jam Tomorrow 'promises' re further devolution consist of should Scotland be daft enough to vote NO should they not be asked specific questions and to provide totally unambiguous answers as to what they would NOT do subsequent to a NO vote.

The questions should be aimed at getting a commitment that there would be no triumphal reversal whatsoever of Devolution in particular return of powers to Westminster.
# gayle 2013-02-06 19:25
You'd think they'd have some reasons for staying in the UK. Better Together can't even get one reason between all the unionist parties, wow that is some argument to stay.

In regards to the EU is there a way to get a petition to the EU council getting them to state what would happen since Westminster are derelict of duty?
# gfaetheblock 2013-02-06 21:23
Yes and No have similar stances here. Yes don't define what post independance will be, if the Yes campaign is a success, the future shape of scotland will be defined by the government of the day.

This could mean a return of prescription charges and the like if Labour win in 2016. Or in 2021.
# cjmasta 2013-02-07 00:53
In the event of a possible no vote could the SNP go into the next election stating that they will renegotiate a new deal for Scotland in the UK if elected? The mandate being that the sovereign Scottish people have voted them in to do just that.

Westminster if it refused would not be looked on very well by Scots, further entrenching the divide between Scottish aspirations and a union which could but will not listen or deliver what we want and need.
# call me dave 2013-02-07 21:50
Just before the turn of the year I made a similar point that I would not accept that a no vote would ' put independence on the back burner for a generation'

If it's a NO there is a final ace up the sleeve. SNP go to the country and try to get enough MP's to form a majority of the Scottish traunch at Westminster.

The strawberry unionist jam tomorrow will have left a bitter taste in the mouths of the Scots by that time.
The status quo (wiki def: "in the state in which things were before the war".)will have been a smokescreen and a pig in a poke.

What a prospect.
In 2014 we must not fail.
# bruman 2013-02-07 20:00
But why would they (other than sheer spite)? We'll have more money to distribute through less people. Simples.

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.


Donate to Newsnet Scotland


Latest Comments