UKC

A good thing?

I'm not sure but overall I can't see why they shouldn't have independence.

Any strong views (with reasons)?

In reply to KTT: Other than, as I understand it, we would still be shipping them vast amounts of money under the Barnett Formula?

In reply to Oceanrower: Surely if they become independent then the stop getting money from us and have MP's in Westminster?

In reply to KTT: I'll try and find the article but I'm sure I read that the payments would continue. Not sure how long for though.

In reply to KTT: from "Us"?

In reply to drunken monkey: I think it's safe to say that under the Barnett Formula, England is the nett contributor? So, speaking as someone who is English, yes. Us.

In reply to Oceanrower: Get ur facts right for a start. Last year Scotland put more money INTO the treasury than it had taken out.

Looks at the comments already, "they", "us" etc, you wonder why we want to break away.


WE would like independence so that Scotland can run its own country. Why is that so hard to understand?

In reply to Gately169: It's not, that's why I think you should be allowed your referendum, the thing is should the rest of the Union also have a vote?

In reply to Gately169:

+1.
However... looking at the comments on the various related articles today on the websites of The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc. - these are pretty tame in that respect. These threads really do make extremely depressing reading.
I saw quite a few people saying that the whole of the UK should get a say in a vote on Scottish Independence, on the basis that it affects the whole of the UK. If so, should the whole of the EU ought to be allowed to vote if the lunatic fringe of the Tory Party gets its way, and there's a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU?
I had to laugh too when I saw Osborne's claim today about the lack of certainty about Scotland's future being damaging to its economy. This will be the same Osborne that didn't hesitate to shaft the (largely Scottish) oil industry with a tax grab last year?

In reply to KTT:

Ah, bang on cue!

In reply to KTT:
I am English but I believe that the people of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have the right to vote on if the wish to remain part of the UK or become independent. I assume that the people of England don’t want to leave the UK.

That said, I hope that they would all choose to remain with the UK. Over the centuries we have all had our ups & downs but overall I believe that we would be better of remaining together.

As to who would vote & what they would vote on that is more problematic.
Would all British citizens living in Scotland have the right to vote?
Would the vote be to remain in the UK or become Independent, or would Scotland want a third option (some sort of increased devolution), if so would that need to be agreed by all the people of the UK before it was put to Scotland?

Over the centuries we have all had our ups & downs but overall I believe that we would be better of remaining as we are.

In reply to Auld Nick: Has the buckfast affected your ability to read? I said 'should' and finished my post with a '?'.

In reply to KTT:
Apologies, I tend to scan-read your posts as there's very rarely anything worthwhile in them.

In reply to Auld Nick: Apologies accepted Jock, you'd probably given up after not finding a deep fryed mars bar.

In reply to KTT:we don,t need anybody to allow us to have a referendum!

we the scottish people voted for it when we elected the snp and Alex Salmond and what would the rest of the union want a vote on? whether to kick scotland out of the union or not? lol don,t think that would go down too well, who know,s most of scotland might not want it independance anyway

In reply to KTT:

The main reason Scotland won't get independence is because only about a third of Scots are in favour of it. This minority is however, highly vocal; if you look at letters in the papers, comments on BBC articles, or even posts on UKC, you might think those seeking separation are a majority in Scotland, but opinion polls consistently show most people don't want independence.

The Nats don't want an early referendum because they know the answer will be 'no' to separation, and their whole raison d'etre will be put on ice for three or four decades.

Now that Cameron has engaged, the SNP know they have a more serious opponent than the lacklustre opposition at Holyrood and they don't like it. Hence all the obfuscation coming from Salmond et al about dates, wording, how many questions etc. Anything to avoid being put on the spot.

In reply to KTT:

Yes, I'm beginning to believe that we should be independent although I'm still to be 100% convinced.

We need to see the facts and figures and I'd be keen to see these sooner rather than later. I'm with Salmond though, I think the referendum should be held in the latter half of the parliamentary term. It's not like they've got plenty of other things to be getting on with. I'd much rather see them getting on with the business of running the country first.

In reply to dunirie: Actually you do, you need the permission of Westminster.

As I said, I'm quite happy for the Scots to have a referendum, I can see there's an argument for letting the rest of the union have a say: after all would a Scot living in London have a vote? What about a cockney living in Edinburgh? Jocks in New York?

I think the only sensible answer would be that only people living in Scotland should get the vote.

In reply to KTT: Having seen the damage this lot are causing to the environment there is no way I would vote for independence. They are doing things that even Thatchers lot would have baulked at.

In reply to peterd:

Aye very good.
On this issue Cameron has no mandate whatsoever in Scotland and his current stance (i.e. we'll tell you when you can have your referendum) is more likely to increase support for independence than anything Alex Salmond can say or do.

In reply to KTT:

Are we supposed to be grateful? Hate to disappoint, but none of us give a flying f*ck.

In reply to Auld Nick: No just ginger, drunk and unemployed at least that's what my Daily Mail briefing tells me.

In reply to peterd:

Not any more, the last poll I saw had 39% in favour with 25% unsure. It's pretty finely balanced. It's anecdotal so doesn't really count, but most of my friends are broadly suppportive of independence.

In reply to KTT:

actually we don,t need permission, because if that was the case westminster would just knock it back and that would be the end of the matter.

and obviously anybody living in scotland at the time of the referendum would get a vote

In reply to KTT:


That's what will end up being proposed. Anyone on the electoral register with a Scottish address will get to vote.

In reply to KTT:
No we don't. They can call a referendum on anything they want. However it's non-binding.


Already been answered by the SNP. All registered voters in Scotland would be entitled to vote.

'zactly!

In reply to peterd:

>Now that Cameron has engaged, the SNP know they have a more serious opponent than the lacklustre opposition at Holyrood and they don't like it. Hence all the obfuscation coming from Salmond et al about dates, wording, how many questions etc. Anything to avoid being put on the spot.

I agree, I'm proud to be a Scot but will always remain a Unionist rather than a Patriot.

God save the Queen!

In reply to the weegy:

The Queen or her successor will still be head of state in an independent Scotland. It is possible to be a Royalist and pro-independence.

In reply to Auld Nick:

And some bravehearters wonder why some people don't take some bravehearters seriously....

In reply to KTT: Cameron is right - clear, decisive and soon, then we can all. Make decisions based on the result. If the SNP thought they could win they would jump at it.

In reply to KTT:

Much as I disike the guy, Nick Robinson on this evening's BBC news put the situation quite clearly.

Cameron and Salmond both know full well that a direct, single-question referendum would result in a 'NO' to the independence question. That's why Salmond is so against a simple yes/no vote. What he's really angling for is "devo-max" (as Robinson put it), whereby Scotland would get much more independent power but would retain monarchy, currency, armed forces etc etc.

It's also why Cameron is so keen on a quick, single-question vote.

Personally, and speaking as a Scot, I'm dead against independence. You only need to look at the desperately poor quality of MSPs we currently have to see why. Having that bunch of numbskulls fully in command would only worsen the nation. You wouldn't see me for dust if a referendum voted for independence.

In reply to MG:

cameron does seem to have a talent for choosing referendum questions that suit his position.

In reply to KTT: I am English and I would love for the Scottish people to be finally free and independent!!!

However if were going to do it do it with pride and go all out, as any proud person would, refuse any funding from Westminster, for anything from DEFENCE through to foreign policy, i mean who will protect their shore lines etc???

All of the concessions that Scotland already get from Westminster money would stop!

I personally believe it would be difficult yet not impossible for Scotland to attain FULL independence.

I hope that Scotland do get full independence and would not mind too much for the Union to break up, so atleast only English MP's would vote on matters that effect England.

But id still like to climb in Scotland tho lol.

In reply to MG:
That's right. Never mind the fact that the SNP won an overwhelming election victory last year and part of their manifesto was a referendum in the *second* half of the current Scottish Parliament. Let David Cameron - he of the popular mandate - decide when it should be instead.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
Interesting that you don't appear to take issue with the shite that KTT has posted though, eh?

In reply to Fraser:
Aye you get a far better quality of numskull at Westminster.

That's a risk that the rest of us might just have to take.

In reply to KTT: and just to note, all of the articles ive read and interviews ive seen, this full independence misses out certain key points such as DEFENCE lol, CLASSIC!!!!!

In reply to Auld Nick: Try reading the manifesto before making claims abou it. There is no mention of a date and only a very small section on independence. They won the election on other matters. Their flyers barely mentioned independence at all.

In reply to Auld Nick:


Well, you said it, not me. You at least get a wider selection. ;D

In reply to Auld Nick:

where does it say the second half?

http://manifesto.votesnp.com/independence

In reply to IanHarrison:

Yes, why Salmond has always insisted that EU residency should be the test is bizarre.

In reply to Auld Nick: What shite has KTT posted?

In reply to dissonance: That's just a niggling little criticism.

In reply to KTT: maybe it is time for the English to have a referendum on independance. If Scotland can talk about stepping away from the union why csnt we. Scotland, Wales and Ireland could carry on and England can stand alone.

I'm maybe stating the obvious but I'm fairly certain it takes a long time to plan a defining referendem; plus an action plan for the end result. I'm no MP but I'd like to think it wasn't a case of "Cool, we won/lost, what do we do now?"

Perhaps that's why the SNP haven't "jumped at the chance".

In reply to Dax H: my sentiments exactly!!!

In reply to jamesofdeath:


well their original plan was to have it in 2010 so would really hope some planning has occurred.

In reply to KTT: it would be nice for only English Kn**heads, I mean politicians to have a say on English matters, i want the same rights as Scotland, Wales and NI.

In reply to Dax H:

Perhaps....but England needs Scotland according to Mr Salmond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15551366

In reply to KTT: Lol, it's easy to say how "scotland put more into the treasury than it took out", but who pays all the military bills, social services bills and hospital bills? Btw, I'm actually asking, as I don't know. I think they should have their independence, they are nothing to do with England, just a country to the north shielding us from polar winds.

In reply to KTT: I can see why we would benefit from being in Union with Scotland, However I believe England would suffer least on their own.

I mean Scotland does have some natural resources and areas that benefit the Union, However its no good having 30 million pounds if you have no means to protect it.

Full independence would leave Scotland very exposed, or be subject to hiring protection from other Countries which you could only imagine being very expensive??

In reply to payney1973:

The newly-formed Scottish navy, presumably?

In reply to payney1973:

Hey, we stopped the Romans didn't we?

In reply to payney1973:

What, like The Republic of Ireland? Who do you think defends them, Securicor?

In reply to winhill:

It's not that bizarre, it's the same qualification required to vote in a UK ballot to ellect Local Authorities, Regional Assemblies and the European Parliament itself.

In reply to hokkyokusei: yeah with all that surplus cash you would have to buy ships and train a navy, and army and airforce?? yeah your probably right its a five minute job!!!!!

In reply to jamesofdeath: no, the 3 hr walk in to the mountains stopped them, the Italians are use to having mountains on their door step lol

In reply to KTT:

The thing that is most likely to bring Scottish independence is people telling us that it won't work or that we're subsidy junkies or that we'll be thrown out of the EU or other such nonsense. Worst, and most effective of all, is when members of the government tell us these things. Who wants to be ruled by stupid liars after all?

These are the effects that helped to bring us a SNP government. That and another phase of the Labour Party's periodic desire to self-destruct.


If you look around the UK, there is a general picture of dependence being very very costly.

Though lagging behind Wales on the language question, Scotland has an independent education system, legal system and a credible independent transport network. Because of those things, it is credible to talk of a Scottish economy independent of influence from other parts of the UK and business responds to that. Therefore, broadly, you can detach Scotland from the UK and it makes little difference to the overall economic balance.

In Wales, even your road system is not your own. There is a massive structural problem with transport. This, laid on top the lack of appropriate independent legal frameworks, leaves Wales in a more dependent position than Scotland.

Northern Ireland's position is quite ridiculous. It is on an island called Ireland and has spent the last hundred years trying to deny that fact. Until that changes, it's position of dependence on the UK is deeply entrenched and far more expensive than anything happening in Wales or Scotland.


The conclusion of that analysis has to be that centuries spent crushing independence are bl00dy expensive.

If the English didn't want to have dependent home nations then they shouldn't have spent centuries working hard to crush independence and thus economic development. Too late to complain now, you parasites. If you'd spent the time more constructively then we could all be as rich as the Germans.



[Not an SNP supporter. Not against independence. Prefer unity. Against people blethering complete sh1te about my country.]

In reply to Jim Fraser:


that was the English?
A cursory look at history would show plenty of Irish, Welsh and Scots joining in the fun figuring it was more better for them to be part of a larger set of countries rather than going alone.
You can start with James the 1st and 6th and his cronies starting with, since you mention NI, the plantations of Ulster which he kicked off (the previous attempts to settle using English bods mostly failing after they routinely went native).


the everyone else getting a vote on whether to keep Scotland seems more appealing.

In reply to KTT:

The main reason to be against Scottish independance is the resulting concentration of Tory MPs in Westminister that will occur.

In reply to KTT:

Thanks KTT,we're so glad that you can't think of a reason why we should'nt have it.

In reply to KTT: That Alex Salmond, he's a clever bloke isn't he. Remind me what his job was before he became a full time politician?

In reply to KTT:

... and just cheer you up, we're going to let you keep Glasgow.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
You mean you have found some one in a governemnt that wasn't stupid & a liar? Who is it?

In reply to KTT:

I'm totally in favour of independence and will vote for it. Some facts:

* No party has proposed to hold a UK wide referendum on Scottish Independence, that's why people outwith Scotland wont get to vote on it

* The Lib Dems, Labour and Tories were all against a referendum before the election and have done a complete u-turn

* The referendum was promised for the second half of the parliament

The tories have no mandate at all in Scotland. Even less than the Scots MPs do at Westminster.

In reply to Jim Fraser: Great we'l see how Celtic and Rangers fare in the Premier League . . . ahem I mean Championship.

In reply to IanHarrison:

The Guardian have a sort of opinion map here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2012/jan/09/scotland-indepen...

Not sure how you get a summary of the results though.

In reply to Saor Alba: There are apparently 15 Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament. http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_the_Scottish_Parliament.aspx

Scottish MP's have a sizeable mandate at Westminster.

Someone else ahs linked above to the SNP manifesto which makes no reference to when the referendum would be held.

So other than missing the point and talking bollocks have you anything to add?

In reply to KTT:

Yes - you have completely misunderstood my point but keep up the good work I say, you are indeed a kind man.

In reply to Gately169:


Speak for yourself son.

In reply to KTT:

they got 16.7% in the last general election as well so not insignificant support.
Its just in Scotland the tories are equivalent of the lib dems in England (well minus the power sharing), thinly spread and hence the votes dont count for much.

In reply to dissonance:

Sort of true but bear in mind that the same voting system is not used.

In reply to Saor Alba:


it isnt? for general elections? You sure about that?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Have I missed something here? I am English & live in England. I do NOT believe that I have the right to vote on Scotlands independance. I do however believe that I have the right to vote on "Partial" Independance as this will have a continued affect on me & England (and any other countries which remain within the UK).

In reply to dissonance: So they have >1:10 of the votes & >1:10 seats in Holyrood but you don't think they have a mandate?

I'd say their votes counted for an awful lot, unlike lib dem votes in England & Wales.

In reply to IanHarrison:

Unfortunately for you none of the British parties want to give you that choice. You wont get to vote on it unless you move to Scotland.

In reply to dissonance:

Sorry, I was referring to the Scottish Election. Not the GE.

In reply to payney1973:

That's right, because it's like a divorce isn't it? And in a divorce one party walks away with nothing and the other party keeps the lot. No, wait ...

In reply to Saor Alba:

Sorry I didn't make myself clear "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON SCOTLANDS INDEPENDANCE", is that clear enough for you?
Its not a case of anyone giving me the chance or not.

In reply to KTT:

why dont you look up the meaning of General election and then come back.

Note i am not talking about their mandate or lack thereof, just commenting on the level of support and how it is actually high than would be attributed just by looking at votes solely in Scotland.

In reply to IanHarrison:

Yes very clear thanks, I have no issue with anything you say so no need to shout.

In reply to Removed User:

Ah another self loathing Scot, tell you what Eric post me your wages and i'll post you back your pocket money, or is it that you just believe in dear old blighty. Sorry if i seem contemptuous Eric but a man who needs his neibour to run his life is no man at all.

In reply to KTT:

Couldn't give a rats arse to be honest. I am more worried about how I'm paying my mortgage next month than to worry about the break up of the so called Union. I mean in every day life is it going to affect me???? Nah, life will still go on like it is now.

One thing, Devolution Max but still be apart of the union???...not on your nelly just shows how weak some of real desire is to break away. Its got to simply be a straight YES or NO.

Devolution Max - its not you, its me, your a great person still, we could be friends....Err I don't think so love.

I do hope the UK government plays hard ball here and says its a YES or a NO and no other outcome is on the table from our side (remaining UK countries).

Why don't you look up the meaning of the word 'in'? The point is that Tories having a presence 'in' Scotland as opposed to The United Kingdom of GB & NI.

Most people with an IQ above 70 realise that a general election includes, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Most people with an IQ >70 also realise that MSP refers to Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than MPs at Westminster.

If your point was that there are far fewer Tory MP's in Scotland than the proportionate number of voters, well done your stupidity disgusied that perfectly valid point.

Labour have very few MP's with seats in England, does this mean they have no mandate in England? No only an idiot who can't distinguish between an election in Scotland and one in UK GB & NI would say that.

In reply to KTT:


no your inability to read did. i will try smaller words in the hope you might catch on.
The tories have greater support in Scotland than commonly perceived.


i like your definition of very few.
They have more seats in England than the tories had throughout the UK in 2001 and not far off the number in 2005.

In reply to hokkyokusei:

Er, that is exactly why it is bizarre.

You may notice, or more accurately you may need it explaining, that all those elections are Regional. EU citizens don't have the right to vote in National (General in the UK) Elections.

So Salmond wants EU citizens to have the power to separate Scotland from the UK but they would not then have the right to vote in the national elections of an independent Scotland.

If SNPers want EU (but non UK) citizens to vote on Independence then I don't see how they can complain if the little englanders say they want a vote on it too.

There is already a perverse reaction from the Torygraph readers to say f*ck off to the lot of you then, so it seems bizarre for Salmond to insist east europeans have a say on the union, without then quid quo pro accepting that england can define their own relation with Scotland.

In reply to dissonance: Ok very few comared with MP's with seats in Scotland & Wales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

In reply to winhill:

I hadn't thought about this until now, Because of european law it seems quite bizarre that people from relatively newly independant east european country who choose to leave that country will be allowed to vote for the independance or otherwise of their newly adopted west european country.

I wonder if they will leave if it does become independant?

In reply to dissonance: The Tories in scotland won almost 1 seat in holyrood for every 1% of the vote.

Now by comparison the lib dems won <1 seat for >2% of the vote in the general election.

Hence the Tory votes in scotland count for >x2 the lib dem votes in the General Election.

In reply to IanHarrison: Can we please make sure that independent is spelled with 3x E and no A?

In reply to IanHarrison:

Yes, I'm sure Salmond thinks they are more likely to view independence as a good thing, for that reason.

UK wide figures suggest 50-60% have left in the first five years after arrival AFAIK, permanent residency (more than 10 years) is less than 25%.

In reply to KTT:


ermm, no because you are not comparing the same thing.
That the tories do better in the Scottish Parliament is a given since they have got a bit further than first past the post, ironic really given the tories campaign against it for General elections.

For a referendum the General election is possible a better guide since there is no figuring out of where the secondary votes went although that makes the big assumption the parties voted for will reflect to any decent degree the vote on independence, given the past tory record in Scotland it might actually benefit the party to be completely separate from London and hence use it as a break from the recent past and try to jump back to the position they were in before the 80s.

In reply to KTT:
My apologies.

In reply to Saor Alba:

One NO vote in Invergarry. That'll be Danny Alexander's Dad then?

And is that massed panic I see in Newcastle? "Please don't leave us with those bar stewards."

In reply to dissonance: So which part of having a mandate don't you get?

As someone who has the right to live, work, visit freely and settle permanently in Scotland, why shouldn't I have the right to a vote in the referendum?

OK, so I live in the South East but if circumstances were different I could very well be living in Scotland.

Who has more right to vote, someone who left Scotland at 18 and has been working in London for 5 years or someone who left London at 25 and has been working in Gretna for 18 months at the time of the vote?

Will I get a Scottish passport?

In reply to Eric the Red:
>
On that basis, the French, Germans, Polish etc. can all have a say as all citizens of the EU have these rights. Do we really need, for example, the Greeks voting on a domestic matter?

In reply to Oceanrower:

I do not have an automatic right to settle permanently anywhere else in the EU. Therefore my future may be affected. Surely I should get a vote.

In reply to KTT:

Seems a bit pointless to me. The UK is primarily an economic unit. Logic would dictate that it will remain stronger as a unified group and therefore more beneficial to each of it's component countries than it would by fragmenting and going it alone. What about the effect on British businesses with offices and trade in all parts of the UK?

Also for individual countries to try and maintain an independent defence or National Health policies would seem crazy.

Imagine New England or California pulling out of the USA?

In reply to Eric the Red:

Ok. My mistake then.
http://europa.eu/abc/12lessons/lesson_9/index_en.htm

In reply to KTT:

As an English man, London born, now living in Scotland for >13 years, I would vote for Scottish independence. Why, because Scotland is a different country with needs that are not sufficiently dealt with by the combination of a Westminster government and a devolved Scottish administration. The NHS in England is being forced into blatant privatisation, under Tony Blair, corporations such as United Healthcare, were allowed to bid for the provision of primary care and now run many GP surgeries in England. Once Cameron's further health bill gets completed, in addition to residual independent GPs, these companies will also become the commissioners of all healthcare, primary and secondary. It will only be time before the NHS desists from being free at the point of need. Devolution has afforded the Scots the mechanisms to resist these changes occurring in Scotland. No private corporation American or otherwise is running a GP practise in Scotland. However, the Westminster government have made it quite clear that they will force pressure on Scottish health spending, through manipulation of the Barnett formula, that would make it difficult for the SNP to proceed without engaging in similar solutions. As it is, because of the relative expense of providing healthcare in Scotland (which is large given the extended geogrpahy over which people live), the limitation of funds is putting pressure on the provision of basic primary care services, e.g. current threats to the provision of primary care in Ardnamurchan, Glenelg, Torridon and what loss of these services might mean for local people; for example, losing cover in Glenelg would mean the nearest GP contact would be in Broadford hospital in Skye, this is a 75 to 90min drive; the ambulance would have to cover a similar distance to come to you. I believe that an independent Scotland can address these uniquely Scottish problems both in terms of policy and in terms of greater financial investment (that I believe would be possible under independence). Next, on renewables and the environment, the SNP have stimulated significant inward investment and the growth of a new manufacturing sector, including the small scale hydro company for which my wife works. While the SNPs perspective on the provision of power and the complement in renewables is unrealistic, it is nevertheless very much helping to stimulate a local economy that is punching above its weight. As it is, Scotland is a net exported of power to England. Infact, the Scottish contribution to the UK's exports is well in excess of the rest of the UK relative to its population. So, while it receives greater per capita government spending (e.g. in health), this is more than outstripped by the relatively large contributions of Scotland to the treasury, the relative strength of its exports and the growth of manufacturing. Not only would Scotland be better off managing its own affairs, but I think England is in much need of a kick of the backside to shift it from an obsessively South East / London bias through to providing a greater uniformity of production across the UK, and especially in the North. In my view, the real reason for fear over the loss of Scotland has nothing to do with sentimental unionism, it has to do with the economic cost to England that would be incurred by such a separation. England, however, would be forced, especially in the current impoverishment both morally and economically due to the financial sector, and look to grow the economy in other areas and in a more geographically national way. Failing the umbilical obsessions of Westminster, of which the HS2 is just another example in seeing that the main path to economic growth in the North is to eventually connect its people a little faster with the city of London, Prescott's idea of devolution for the North East looks increasingly attractive.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Good post Jim and well thought out. As I said before I left these forums, there will be hundreds of reasons to vote yes or no. We can't get a decent debate for a variety of reasons on both sides and so much history, including prior to the Union, can't be ignored whatever your view on it.

I simply feel that Scotland would be better when it took power and responsibility for itself. Certainly I think infrastructure needs major investment.

In reply to Oceanrower:

There is no automatic right for any EU citizen to settle permanently in any other EU country. You can work there, and if you live there long enough you can apply. But you have to prove you have a job, you have to prove you can support yourself. Right now, I can sell my one bed flat in Sussex and move into a manor house in the Scottish wastelands with no other income and no other checks. An independent Scotland would remove my right to do so.

So why don't I have a say?

In reply to Eric the Red:

Because the SNP don't stand in anywhere other than scotland and none of the Lib Dems, Tories or Labour want to give you that say.

In reply to Jimbo W:

How do you get there?

2010 figures show Scotland's GVA at 8.3% of the UK total compared to 8.4% of population. Exports (2009 figs) were 8.1%.1998-2007 Scottish manufacturing exports fell by 17% whereas UK's as a whole grew by 76%.

Scottish GDP has persistently grown slower than the UK total over 30 years (2% v 2.5%)
85% of jobs created in Scotland created over that decade (1997-2008)came from "non market" jobs ie.public sector, defence,etc

So, the Scottish economy overall punches about its weight for the UK as a whole but is probably overdependent on the public sector. I'm all in favour of Scottish independence which would ultimately be good for both Scotland and the rest of the UK but your argument about the economics isn't supported by the numbers.

(Incidentally over the decades the oil revenues v subsidies have been roughly a wash do they don't really support a long term argument either.)

In reply to Eric the Red:


Because you're not a registered voter in Scotland. If it bothers you that much move back.

Can anybody tell me whay exactly Westminster want to keep us? Forget all this sentimental nonsense about the union, not buying it. There must be a very hard, logical, pragmatic reason for the English at Westminster (we'll excuse the rabid BBC commenters on either side of the argument from the argument here....)to want to preserve the union, what is it?

Oh aye and to any Scots harping on about freedom, do one, we are as free as we are going to be either side of independance.

In reply to Removed User:

I don't think anybody sees it as "keeping" Scotland. More that it makes sense for an small island which is also very integrated socially, linguistically, economically and historically to have a single government for large matters such as defence, foreign affairs, economic policy and some other things. The degree of desirable uniformity below that is debatable.

In reply to Removed User:

There was an article in the Irish Times about the rest of the UK, or whatever it might be called, losing it's seat on the UN Security Council etc. Basically a loss of global status and control of resources and territory as well as potential new resources.

In reply to winhill:
>

Yes, I already noticed that.

>

EU citizens that live in Scotland, including 'English', yes.


If they live in Scotland they can.


He's not saying he wants _all_ EU citizens to vote on Scottish Independence. He's saying that he wants all EU citizens living in Scotland to vote on Scottish independence. The reason I don't find that bizarre is that the electorate is the same as the electorate that gave him his mandate in the first place, in the Scottish Parliament.

In reply to KTT: I just want to check, apart from the oil and gas which we've had, is there anything else we need to pinch before we hand the place back? No diamonds or gold or anything??

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Well there is a bit of gold but probably not worth bothering with. You might want to keep the highlands for climbing, shooting etc. No one lives in the highlands so you could keep them on the basis that a referendum doesn't count there. You could extend HS2 via a tunnel under the grim central belt bit and pop up in Aviemore or somewhere.

In reply to KTT: There seem to be lots of replies saying something like ....
"I'm all in favour of Scottish independence which would ultimately be good for both Scotland and the rest of the UK "

can you post a series of bullet points explaining exactly why independence would be good for Scotland and the UK please?

In reply to MG:

Oi! Cheeky monkey.

In reply to KTT:

For me it's a case of "better the devil you know." I don't trust politicians and the governement not to mess something up. Starting a new independant country is going to be very messy and cost a load at a lot of inconvenience to us all (new driving licence/ passport/ NI number?)

As far as I can tell, no one has done the figures to see if Scotland can afford to be independant yet, which would be the first thing to be done. After that, the prospective government should figure out who is going to do what job and then tell the lot of us how it is going to be done. Until then, how can you make a serious decision on which is better?

The really good thing came out over the last election when the SNP figured out what people actually wanted and offered it to them (though didn't mention independance!) The other parties weren't close, hopefully they'll learn now and base their policies on keeping voters happy.

With a lot of other countries going down the pan, I think it's safer to be part of a big one as I'd like a pension when I'm old.

Anyone thought of how a vote would go? Would it be 51% to win? The other 49% may be a bit miffed? Or overwhelming majority to prove that the country as a whole wants it, not just a voting majority? I'd love to see the Aussie system of forced voting brought in. (Pros and Cons of it half way down here: http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/317/read/compulsory_vs_voluntary_vo... ) Or maybe no voting for the over 40's, as their experiences of the past conflict with what is happening now and it is the youth of Scotland that will be affected most?

In reply to Eric the Red:

That's strange. None of the EU but non-UK citizens I know here in Scotland including the one I married have mentioned real barriers to living, working, house buying or voting here (except they're inelligible to vote for Westminster MPs).


When you gained the right to vote where you reside now you have to accept you lost the right to vote where you were before.

In reply to graeme jackson:

No, I can't be bothered and don't have time but in a nutshell the political centre of gravity in Scotland is well to the left of that in England (Wales and NI are different again). Independence would thus enable England to pursue market led policies which would be positive for its economy and people.

Scotland would be both enabled and forced to make it's own decisions and would ultimately recognise that it's old labour form of socialism is not sustainable and also move towards a market led solution. As long as the old spectre of Thatcher/Tory/Westminster is there that change is culturally impossible.
Many Scots would no doubt argue that they could and would follow a more socialist path and that would be preferable. Well the independence argument works for them on that basis as well.

Aside from that it is apparent that both populations are (culturally and emotionally) unhappy with the status quo. Looking at the Irish precedent (not NI) both countries seem to be happier and have a better relationship than have done for centuries. One would hope the same would happy to England and Scotland.

Whoops, got carried away!

In reply to Postmanpat:

That seems to suggest that Westminster isn't already pursuing market-led policies, which would come as something of a surprise to many, I suspect.

In reply to Postmanpat:
The consequneces for the remaining UK may be greater than for Scotland, without PR the remaining UK may be very disunited at the prospect of a democratically elected one party state.

In reply to tony:


Indeed, but they just aren't Friedman enough yet.

In reply to tony:

Well, do you think Westminster policies over the past 15 years would have been the same had Scotland been independent? I don't.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pretty much, yes, I do. I suppose one thing might have been that without Gordon Brown's restraining influence, Blair might have pressed harder for membership of the Euro.

In reply to tony:

And for reform of public services.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The trouble is, the man in the street voting for or against (and I fall into this category) is more interested in how independence will effect him and probably isn't that interested in woolly 'market' arguments.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Agreed, but then again a lot of decisions will be based on emotion and instinct rather than a clear understanding of the likely individual impact.

In reply to elsewhere:

I don't think that would be the case, Labour had a majority of 179 in '97, with only about 50 Scottish seats. Labour would have to adjust (easier without Scottish Labour) and would probably pick up Lib Dem voters in the process, Leading to a 2 party state.

Personally I think devo-max would suit everybody better. An English parliament and a UK gov. elected by PR (they could sit were the lords now do).

In reply to elsewhere:


That about sums up the present situation in the EU. I can live in France, Italy or anywhere as long as I want, but I have lost my vote in British national elections, which seems to me quite logical and correct, but have not gained my right to vote in France despite nearly 40 years of fiscal residence, which seems to me to be quite wrong.

I don't understand what the poster who said we don't have the right to move about freely within the EU meant, that was one of the basic reasons for setting it all up - free movement of labour, capital and products. There are a few short term restrictions for new members but none for the other countries.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Yes you are quite right. Simple things like last week I was in France where road infrastructure is great in the Alps with tunnels, bridges etc in challenging terrain. Same in Norway. So the question begs why don't we have this in Scotland and would be more likely to get it under independence. Currently the road between Strathcarron and Strome Ferry is shut due to landslides and measures could be taken to reduce this. But any Scottish Government can't borrow and tax revenue goes to London and comes back in the block grant. So how can this infrastructure be got?

Same as the Rest and be thankful. A tunnel or shelter would work but there is no money for it. Will the Union give us it or Independence?

In reply to Saor Alba:
Will the Union give us it or Independence?

No.

http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/european_union_population_density.png

In reply to KTT:

I just read on Facebook that 157 people joined the SNP yesterday.

In reply to MG:

How come Norway has it then? Or is it the Unionist way to say that few people live there so we won't provide much and the other way to say few people live there, how can we help those communities become less fragile and better connected.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Does it in the far north where the population is similarly sparse? If so probably because of huge oil revenues and a small population. Lucky them.

Independent or not, Scotland won't have the money to pave the highlands in superb roads overnight. Given the population, the road network is pretty good overall (with some obvious exceptions) - average speeds to most main centres are probably higher than in many parts of the country

In reply to MG:

yes, there are many tunnels all over the country. Interesting to note that the Swiss were also building tunnels back at the start of the 1900s and electrifying them.

I don't think it would happen overnight, no one does but certainly there are pinch points that need to be dealt with.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Is road building not a 'devolved power'? (Genuinely don't know the answer to this)

In reply to 999thAndy:

Yes it is but the timescales involved means it takes a long time. That power has be with the SP since 1999. It's a question of money mainly.

In reply to Dirk Didler:

You know I've been wondering for a while why it is that some nationalists accuse anyone who disagrees with their views as having a character defect. I've come to the conclusion that it's some way of dealing with cognitive dissonance.

As the for the rest of your post, I was going to suggest that you take that pile of keich that passes in your eyes for some sort political argument and stick it back up your hairy wee outbox. However I see you were posting at nearly 11.00 pm so I'll assume you were just a bit pished so no hard feelings.

In reply to Saor Alba: And post independence the money will suddenly become available? Brilliant!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think the point was there are absolutely no restrictions on English citizens moving to Scotland currently but there are some when moving within the EU.

In reply to Saor Alba:


So you're suggesting that the fist thing a Scottish Government would do is borrow loads of money to spend on infra structure?

That sounds fically responsible. Any idea what interest rate they'd have to pay? I guess they could do some sort of PFI deal.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Yes the decision seems to come down to a few hundred pounds, not some more refined or grander political vision:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16024399

Almost two-thirds of Scots would vote for independence if they were guaranteed to be just £500 better off a year, a survey has claimed.

However, the Scottish social attitudes survey said only 21% would vote for it if they would be £500 worse off.

So the sweet spot is probably if Scots were £227 better off they'd vote for it.

In reply to winhill:

Pounds sterling ? as underwritten by the bank of England ? surely you mean Euros or Scottish Pounds ?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well for a start the government coffers wont have to pay for 2 parliaments

As a smaller country the Scots could also do somewhat better from EU grants (assuming the EU membership continues)

In reply to KTT: A quick count shows 41 Scottish Labour MPs. On the plus side, if Scotland does go independant it might be DECADES before we have to suffer another Labour govenment in England.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Have you been on Mars for the past year????? I think you may find that particular gravy train is coming to a messy end.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Really? So EU supported farming subsidies are ending are they? That would be pretty catastrophic!!

In reply to Jimbo W: That's the post-independence fiscal plan? Use farming subsidies for transport projects. I'm so glad you think Scotland can stand on it's own 2 feet.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Which the devolved SP has chosen to spend on other things presumably?

In reply to Removed User:

No which is why I didn't say that.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Correct. It's fixed pot. Clearly you don't agree with me that Scotland would have, in the long run, more money than currently. I want modern up to date in infrastructure. We don't have it currently being part of the UK so I suggest we leave that and try to get it other ways - mainly having control over our finances in a similar way to which the UK controls it's finances.

In reply to Removed User:

First up Eric, why would you think i was a nationalist?Wanting to run your own affairs is a perfectly natural state for any person. As for the rest Eric it is perhaps simplistic but it is never the less still valid, what you proscribe is that in fact we are all really very happy in these islands and that West Minister has Scotlands best interests at heart and that they are somehow just misunderstood?.
The simple fact Eric is that you are quiet happy to let a West Minister goverment with no mandate run Scotland even if it is against the wishes of the majority, this is after all what passes for your political argument is'nt it Eric.

In reply to Jimbo W:

You build motorways and bridges with farm subsidies? Actually what's to say the Greeks didn't? But yes, I think we can expect even farm subsidies to be revised over the next few years.

In reply to Saor Alba:

The point I was making was really that however big your pot is, it's still a finite size and decisions would still have to be made about where the money is spent. If the Scottish parliament already has the responsibility for roads but chooses to prioritise other things, that's just democracy in action (<- space optional there).

I don't think the argument for or against independence is an economic one at all, because of the timescales involved. Presumably once you regain independence you want to stay that way forever, and who knows what size or structure Scotland's economy will have in 2317 (which is far into the future as the act of union is in the past).

In reply to 999thAndy:

Yes it's a finite pot but I think it would be bigger. I'd prefer my own company paid it's corporation tax to an Edinburgh Government rather than a London one and that every penny stayed in Scotland. In return I am quite happy to take the risk that I am wrong.

I also agree that it's not just an economic one. There will be hundreds of reasons for an against. Some macro and some micro.

In reply to Saor Alba:

See it's all about emotion, not numbers. As an aside, your assumption is that your tax bill would remain the same, which is a whole new can of worms to open.

Anyway I for one would be perfectly happy with Scottish independence as long as it doesn't raise the price of bananas in Stockport. Slainte mhath.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Yeah you are right. I've decided, I'm happy with the risks.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ah, so you understand the term EU "gravy train" to apply only to grants for roads / transport. I took it to mean grants provided in general. I was making a broad not a focal point.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Clearly, that was not my point.

In reply to Postmanpat:


"revised".. ..rather different from coming to a messy end

In reply to winhill:


There aren't many. I suppose the term "English citizens" was a slip of the keyboard, as far as I know we are still all British citizens, at least that what it says on my passport

If that's what he meant though his wording was odd. I moved to France in 1973 and I hope to me moving back to Britain - Sussex - this year, or more likely 50/50 at first... the principal formalities are buying a ticket to cross the Channel. If I change my official country of residence there will be a bit of paperwork though which I wouldn't have if I moved to Scotland from another part of Britain.

That seems unlikely though as judging by this and numerous other threads I wouldn't feel very welcome, what with denying them their freedom for all these years, proper roads and such like horrors

PS. The roads in France, once you get off the motorways are no better than in Britain, often much worse, so does this imply that the SNP would privatise Scottish motorways and turn them into toll roads, as in France, in the near future? If so I think car owners should be told!

In reply to Jimbo W: But the UK is currently a net contributor to the eu, surely post-independence that will still be the case for Scotland and the remainder. So where does the extra funding come from? Or is the plan to be a very poor country and live on eu handouts?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

What's the best option here? To agree with your stupid post and allow you to spout nonsense on another one? Yes that is the plan, to be poor and live on EU subsidies and then to look south at mighty England freed from the cost of Scotland and now ruling the world, resplendent in 21st century infra structure and a place of modern values and debate.

In reply to Saor Alba: Apparently the best option is to throw your toys out of the pram when asked where the money for transport infrastructure is coming from.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Tax revenue. Where else?

In reply to Saor Alba: That's better. So in order to pay for landslip tunnels on the a83 and a890 and improving the a82 are you going to increase taxation or cut funding elsewhere?

In reply to KTT:

If the current UK coalition holds I can see maxi devolution or independence as the only real option as way beyond the average Scot will find the consequences of Westminster politics too unpalatable as it hits their beloved public services. Until now relatively moderate treatment of Scotland by UK governments didn't generate much of a push factor.

There really are some bizarre views expressed here about small countries being able to afford to be independent: if they really applied how do all the other small European countries manage? Irrespective of gravy trains slowing down, small countries will get EU subsidies if they behave themselves (do people seriously think the Scots will act like Greeks??). The reality of politics is that the remaining UK will certainly have to subsidise Scotland for defence.

Another benefit of this IMHO is that the lazy remaining UK swing voters will soon get pissed off with 'free market' ideas being applied to their education and health services as the people doing this will be the same as the global corporations that are ripping off the American people; using free market rhetoric in a very unfree market way. One think Blair showed was that the natural conservative voting English majority was anything but, all most voters seem to want is someone pretending to be centrist.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You could increase taxation, change the banding and/or grow the economy. Like I said above I think that would happen and I am happy with the risks.

Better from you also, keep up the adult work.

In reply to Offwidth:


Probably more like the Irish. Small countries are far more vunerable to external shocks (Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Portugal). I am extremely grateful 2008 didn't happen with an independent Scotland given what happened to RBS and HBOS. Mr Alba, or whatever he calls himself today, would not have got any road repairs for a very long time, let alone tunnels.

The reality of politics is that the remaining UK will certainly have to subsidise Scotland for defence.

How do you square this with small countries doing just fine by themselves?

In reply to Jimbo W:

Yes. As per last post was referring to regional grants. Just to avoid confusion, I don't suppose they will end either but I suspect the train may become a trickle, espscially to a country with a booming economy like
Scotland.
Anyway, well spotted on this but you appear to have missed my reply on your post about the economy.

In reply to Jimbo W:

In this context,yes. I was back referencing to Donald's arguments about infrastructure which was what had led to balmybaldwin's point to which I was replying.

In reply to MG: I'm intrigued by the defence issue.

Scotland could probably survive with quite a small army/navy/air force, so could "save" a lot of public spending. On the other hand, 9as far as I'm aware) quite a lot of UK defence spending goes to Scotland (Faslane/BAE Systems/Rosyth etc.)

I wonder if an independent Scotland would still be able to attract inward investment into defence manufacturing?

In reply to KTT:

Does anyone know what currency an independant Scotland would use ?

In reply to Offwidth:

Assuming Scotland is allowed into the EU. This is far from a given. In fact I would bet a reasonably large sum of dosh that Scotland would be prevented from joining rather than welcomed with open arms.


Are you serious? Four words. Royal Bank of Scotland would have sunk an independent Scotland.

In reply to KTT:

I'm English (as English as anyone can be anyway - it's really not a 'thing' that enters my everyday life like being Scottish or Irish) and I don't have an issue with Scotland being an entirely separate entity, if they want to.

I do, however, seriously object to being called an "occupier" or a "crusher of independence". I also think we would do best to look at the dissolution of Czechoslovakia - seeing as it is a Union which was not forced upon Scotland -for the bores who think that it is ok to say that "if the English didn't want dependent nations they shouldn't have spent hundreds of years crushing rebellions" - I can barely dress myself most mornings let alone crush anything, and I've only had 22 years to do so. But then again, I've never met a single person who makes their nationality the biggest part of their identity who was capable of separating individuals from nasty actions - you wouldn't dream of calling a modern German a Nazi so why it's ok to suggest that the bad things done in Englands name (while frequently forgetting all the bad things the Scottish did to each other, the Irish to the Scottish and vice versa, etc etc ad nauseam) are anything remotely to do with me I don't know.

Anyway, Czechoslovakia. Both nations had the chance to say whether they wanted a split (funnily enough, the majority didn't really but there was a vocal minority and the wheels of policy were already spinning).

To conclude - if the Scottish want independence then of course, but there's no need to be rude.

In reply to Tdubs:
Also I'm not an economist so I won't try and predict what would happen. But I have a lot of really great friends in Scotland and I'm very fond of it and I really hope it doesn't get into economic trouble if we do become separate.

In reply to Tdubs:


Who's calling you that? I'm certainly not and its not something I've read in this thread or in the media.


I'm not so sure about that. Historical accounts say that the majority of Scots were against it at the time. The Scottish people didn't get to vote on it after all.

That works both ways. I've seen equal amounts of rudeness from pro-Unionists.

In reply to Toby S:


Really?

In reply to Toby S:
There's definitely one or two comments, I could find you a couple if I could be arsed to trawl through the tedium - more it was meant at the bores I've met in Scottish pubs in the last year or so when it's become more of a talking point.
Yes I agree it looks that way 300 years ago. There's been plenty of time for political discussion since and yet Mr Salmond doesn't really seem to want to get a statistic on how people feel for a few more years. So at the moment, which in my opinion is what really matters, it looks like it's a bit of an unsure thing. All I know is that the more it gets talked about, the more people will focus on rude/nasty things that have been said/done on whatever 'side' people want to create and so the independence movement will grow.

Of course you have. There are rude, small-minded nationalist idiots everywhere in every culture. Best thing to do with them is to rise above them and engage the brain, I find.

In reply to KTT:

"Royal Bank of Scotland would have sunk an independent Scotland"

Why? Just because it has the word 'Scotland' in the title - it's not the same as the Bank of England, it's a privately owned bank, operating within the UK regulatory structure imposed by Westminster. If Scotland had been independent prior to 2007, there's no way of knowing what regulatory arrangements would have been in place if RBS, or HBOS, had been transformed into the central bank of an independent Scotland.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey: Given that Salmond was chuntering about an "arc of prosperity" at the time that included Iceland and Ireland, it seems likely that RBS and HBOS would if anything have been given freer rein and got into even deeper trouble. The problems these banks are causing the UK are significant; it would have been much, much worse for an independent Scotland, as Ireland and Iceland discovered with their large banks that went bust.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey:

For the same reason it had to be bailed out by the UK government it would have had to have been bailed out by a Scottish government-or allowed to go bankrupt.
This would proportionately have been a much much bigger problem for a Scottish government to swallow.

It was not the central bank of the UK and there is no reason to suppose it would have been for Scotland-at least in form it had taken as an international bank-so that is a red herring.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey: And if the Royal Bank of Scotland was operating under a Scottish regulatory structure imposed by Holyrood, it would have been left to Scotland to bail out which would have wiped out the Scottish coffers several times over, just as the Irish banks did to Ireland, and the Icelandic banks did to Iceland.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey:
There are no ways of knowing what regulatory arrangements would have been in place, no. But I'd put a substantial amount of money (if I had any) on them being as lax or even more so than under a UK regulatory framework, if Ireland, Iceland and Salmonds desire to start big financial centres in Scotland are anything to go by.

In reply to Tdubs:

Practically speaking, how does a newly independant country set up their own currency ?

In reply to GrahamD:

…and what credit rating would they have from the IMF?

In reply to MG:

Yes. You are a unionist and you have no trouble with calling a lot of people xenophobic with no evidence to back you up.

In reply to MG:

Small countries across Europe are subsidised for defence by their larger neighbours and all of Europe gets partly subsidised by the US through NATO. My point about Scotland is that the strategic defense issues (bases etc) are more important for Westminster than they are for Scotland and the local business attached makes it worthwhile for Scotland to accept a subsidised umbrella irrespective of how much they feel they need defending.

I don't buy the RBS wrecking Scotland bit for many reasons not least of which is the futility of speculating on some weirdly distorted alternative universe hindsight. Independence wasn't feasible at the time and there are probably no equivalents now. Even if it had existed in a similar state at independence the result may have been different under different regulations and the rest of the UK (or Europe) may still have needed to bail it out even if it did crash.

The reason I'm more positive about prospects than some here is the Scots are better educated on average than the UK and their structures (despite their own idiosyncrasies) have less class idiocy than south of the border and all our wide nation has done pretty well, even for an empire in decline.

Somebody else talked about Scotland not being admitted to the EU: when I stopped laughing and thought about it I guess they meant the euro.

In reply to GrahamD:

There must be plenty of expertise in eastern europe.

I'd guess you'd announce that on a certain date all cash, bank balances & debts will be converted at a fixed rate to the new currency prior to a certain date when exchange rate will float.

In reply to Offwidth:


Indeed, way too many ifs and buts. How would banking and fund management sectors have contributed revenue to an independent Scotland for example? Would an icelandic approach to the current crisis been appropriate for Scotland? It seems an absurd attempt at a cheap argument against Scottish independence.

In reply to elsewhere: ... or you don't change (ie they keep the pound).

In reply to Offwidth:

Can that work, with the value of the pound against other major currencies effectively controlled by the Not_so_United_Kingdom ?

In reply to Offwidth:
>

Er, that "somebody" being the EU Commission

" THE SNP's case for independence was dealt a damaging blow last night when the European Commission and senior academics challenged the Nationalists' core assumption - that an independent Scotland would automatically become a member of the European Union.

The EC stressed that Scotland's entry as a member state would have to be "negotiated" and would not be the "seamless" transition the SNP has claimed.

The Commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison, confirmed that Scotland would not be granted automatic entry into the EU, as the Nationalists insist."

In reply to Offwidth:

I think that may be the plan!

In reply to Tdubs:

Doesn't Scotland have a bit of track record on extravagant financial schemes that require bailouts from next door. What was the name of that one around 1700 and what happened next?

In reply to GrahamD:

Well, Scotland would be in a similar position to countries like Panama and El Salvador that have adopted the US dollar, or indeed to the countries in the Eurozone where the exchange rate is mostly controlled by the strength of the big 2 or 3 economies. Essentially Scotland would give up control over monetary policy in a similar way to the members of the Euro, for example you can't print your own money and you can't control the exchange rate. Basically it means you have to have fiscal discipline or sooner or later the sh*t will really hit the fan...

In reply to KTT:
Spanish, living in England and married to a Scot, so to some degree impartial, to some degree interested. Independence for Scotland would be in my opinion impractical a lot of the reasons discussed here already. More importantly there are some reasons why it should not happen: a) when people say we are different they typically they do not mean it, they mean we are better - over time that has lead to a good numbers of deaths out there b) there is nothing to stop the the Western Isled deciding that they are separate enough or different enough or needing a different political system than Glasgow and at that point you would not be able to denying them a referendum. Ultimately it is a process that leads to atomisation.

However, if Scotland votes for it, well and good. What should never be allowed by the English is devo-max as it is a recipe for disaster as all problems would still get blamed on the Union/Westminster and the Scots/Hollyrood gets representation without taxation. The mess in Spain is a good example of how politicians would use the system to get elected and saddle their voters and their sons/daughters with the debt forever.

In reply to Dirk Didler:



Which 'majority' would that be? It can't be the SNP, who got 902,915 votes in the 2010 Scottish Election out of an electorate of around 4 million, and only 45% of those who actually voted.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Most estimates of GVA do not attempt any integration of the contribution of North Sea oil and gas. Yet, ONS figures taking into account an estimated geographically proportional contribution of North Sea oil and gas to GVA shows a greater per capita GVA for Scotland compared to England. Also, you chose to look up till 2007, a time when the opportunities of a more aggresive approach to devolution had not been pursued, and since then, despite the financial crisis, growth in scotland has been strong and indeed the highest of any region of the UK in 2008. While UK net exports are 428.6 billion, Scottish exports are estimated at £21.1 billion. However, looking at rest of the UK and international Scottish exports, this figure is £66.4 billion. I doubt the contribution of export from the rest of the UK to Scotland is likely to change the total rest of the UK export significantly, and therefore, Scotland looks like a strong exporter. Lastly, HMRC and ONS assesments of gross value added are likely to be underestimates given the relative Scottish contribution of UK companies is not often or easily taken into account. Furthermore, the contribution of value added due to "rest of the uk" product finishing of Scottish source is also largely not accountable.


For a bunch of lefty, subsidy junkies managing a population with a relatively greater geographic dispersal than the rest of the UK (and the additional costs that implies), if Scotland was punching just about its weight, that would be pretty damn impressive.

In reply to peterd:

It would be the majority of the representatives elected to that structure. That being through the system set up by the British Government.

Voting systems are required. How many MSPs would each part have under fptp out of interest? I genuinely have no idea, presumable it's just a question of excluding the list MSPs?

In reply to Timmd:

PMPs in favour of Scottish independence because he wants the unwarranted influence of the left in Scotland to be removed leaving the neoliberal freemarketeers of the rest of the UK to be free to pursue the treasures of such an uninhibited approach.

In reply to peterd:

Think you just answered your own question.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Thanks for replying to me deleted post asking why you mentioned lefty.

In reply to KTT: I'm not hugely convinced of the need for independence. I'd be much more for significantly reduced government at all levels as we are over burdened with politicians, both nationally and locally as well as councillors. Allow local areas to decided more for themselves and have Westminster at least half size making nationally strategic decisions.

I'd rather see how that worked but politicians aren't going to vote for their own demise are they?

In reply to Offwidth:

Does that mean you think they'd be accepted as a EU state?

In reply to Kipper:

What do you think we've done that would get us kicked out? Spoken to David Cameron?

In reply to orejas:


Yes, Spain. The only other country daft enough to have a dog's breakfast of devolution on a scale equal to the mess in the UK. The real problem, in both cases, is the position of the dominant group who want to ignore the whole inevitable thing while it falls apart around them.

In reply to Jimbo W:
Well the ONS figures are much the same as mine so either they don't account proportionately for oil and gas or they don't change the picture much. The only estimate I have seen which explicitly tries to account for oil and gas is an old Scottish Office one but that fails to net out the loss of Bartlett formula revenue so I am not sure it makes much sense. The numbers are inherently awkward to calculate on a regional basis.

I am not sure that your export point makes much sense since the bulk of the "exports" are to England . (I am not sure they are really quntifiable anyway)Since they are not currently exports any more than M&S processsing food in Birmingham to sell in Bristol they are hardly a sign of export prowess. Moreover, the UK exports about £24bn to Ireland and given the greater integration of the English and Scottish economies I would think that England exports at least that to Scotland.

Not really, Scotland has oil and gas and whether that is recognised directly in GVA terms or indirectly in payments channelled via London to the public sector it boosts the number.
But anyway, my point was not to denigrate the Scottish economy but just to point out that there is nothing especially brilliant about it that supports your case that this is the real reason English unionists want to keep the union.

A quick question by someone who hasn't a clue about politics or this devolution/indepenence business.

Just watching the news and the claim and counter claim by the UK and Scottish Governments. The argument seems to be around Westminster saying no legal mandate with out Westminsters say so. Salmond saying he can basically do what he wants as he has a mandate to ask what he wants, when he wants and to who ever he wants.

My question is this.

Say the Scots have an idependence vote and go for the Devo Max option which Salmond seems to want to ask but Westminster dont. If the Scottish public voted for it. As that would change the whole UK make up i.e in the UK but not ran by the UK apart from sharing major expense like defence etc. If this was voted for and not wanted by Westminster would this give a mandate for the UK government to disregard the result? Would this potentially put to vote within England and Wales whether we change our relationship with Scotland i.e accept the new set up or see Scotland as independent but separate to the UK i.e have agreements like we have with Ireland. I.e in simple terms Scotland votes for Full devolution but not full independence from the UK. The UK doesnt want this so returns with says see ya later alligator, ya either in or ya out, what do you want it to be?!!!

Does that make sense?

In reply to KTT:

As a Glaswegian I'd rather have independence from Edinburgh and the East Coast than the rest of the UK. If we can put the SNP supporters there then everybody is happy, no?

In reply to KTT: I say that any vote has to include England & Wales. If we don't want them to leave the union then it's a big, fat NO. Personally, I think that's going to be the PM's next move hehehe.

In reply to Anonymous:

I see your point but the UK Government would have no mandate on a question they haven't asked. No-one has defined what devo max means but it appears that it means all powers other than defence and foreign affairs.

There are legal argument and then there is reality. Whilst it might be possible in the short term, to simply ignore results would be impossible in the long term.

The problem for anyone other than those living in Scotland is that all of the Unionist parties want to avoid a referendum anywhere. They now have no choice and are trying to limit the terms of reference. But either way there wont be a vote in England and Wales unless a party puts that in their manifesto and none appear willing to.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Aye, if Scotland leaves the UK, we'll lose our representation at "the top table" of Europe.
Oh, wait a minute...

In reply to Saor Alba:

Thanks for attempting to give me an answer, which I admit I havent asked in the best possible manner.

I see your point but I still dont understand how in theory

Devo Max - Scotland votes for full devolution but still be apart of the UK. I dont unerstand how Scotland ccould dictate its relationship with the rest of the UK and how this agreement would work without full agreement. Surely the rest of the UK would have to agree to continue sharing things like defence etc. Would it give Westminster ground to in theory exclude Scotland from the UK. I'e you have voted for Devo Max we dont recognise that so in our eyes your are fully idependent!

I can understand how Scotland could determine itself as fully idependent and negotiate treaties etc with the remaining UK if the vote was for YES on a purely "should Scotland leave the UK". But how could it decide that its wants to be separate but still attached with out Westminster agreeing to this new arrangement?

This is just me asking quetsions, so bear with me.

In reply to KTT:

It would seem quite an exciting prospect breaking away from this Toryland who unleashed that &%£!*? %&**! on us (and the rest of the UK workers)in 1979.
Scots were driven from voting Labour by the antics of that Blair and his mob and have naturally gone for the SNP as the only alternative.We don't like Tories but it doesn't help our brothers and sisters over the border if we go for independance so i'm undecided and really don't know what to do about this one.

Oh and something else theres about 7 different friggin Socialist parties in Scotland to vote for so why the hell dont they all just join together ?

In reply to workingclasslass:

Don't you worry about us, do what's right for you, we'll be alright. Don't fancy Labour's chances of getting back into power any time soon without the Scottish seats mind.


Maybe that tells you something about the real unity of socialism...

In reply to teflonpete:

Haha!

But i do worry about yous!

In reply to Saor Alba:

It comes back down to the quid pro quo I mentioned further up, the Nats assume it is up to them to decide their relationship to the UK, without considering that the rest of the UK may want a say in it.

If the referendum includes anything less than full independence how does that offer a negotiating position? In order to deliver on the referendum it would need to be non-negotiable. Salmond's rhetoric about being dictated to by Westminster suggests he is not in a negotiating position.

This would be especially apparent over the nuclear question. If Salmond wants a nuclear free Scotland then the UK is in a very bad position, with all of it's capability currently held in Scotland.

Moving it is really the last possible option, so if forced into it, the big weapon the UK has is to veto Scotland joining the EU, forcing Scotland to join as an accessionary state and therefore forcing the euro on them.

But Salmond says he wants a referendum on the euro too, even though it's compulsory (and where's the euro going to be in 5-10 years time?) so his non-negotiable backup is sterling, except if he has just cost the UK billions by closing the nuclear bases how is he going to persuade the UK to offer the sterling umbrella?

Eurosceptic Tories are already saying the apron strings should be cut but perversely the best argument to persuade them to keep Scotland is their own euroscepticism. Unless Ed turns things round Cameron is looking at a second term, the weak eurozone means it is less attractive for Scots to vote for full independence and a UK without Scotland will be weaker in Europe exactly at the time when they're calling for a more muscular approach.

In reply to workingclasslass:

As a thank you for devolution?

In reply to workingclasslass:

I hope you're not being tempted towards nationalism

Workers of the world unite!

In reply to winhill:


They have a political mandate to do so in Scotland for the simple reason that they were elected on such a promise. Furthermore, an "advisory" referendum that is not legally binding is not something that can be prevented on legal grounds. The problem for Westminster and unionists across the UK is that such an advisory referendum would nevertheless act as a powerful political and, on the face of it, democratic tool further building a group consciousness in Scotland in the direction of independence. That has to be the main reason why Cameron has felt he needed to try and steel the initiative on this one. However, as the taxi driver last night pointed out, his timing is bad coming at the time when a film and billboards everywhere are showing the iconic image of a certain lady and reminding the Scots what the Tories are really about. I don't think Salmond is in the slightest bit interested in any form of negotiation in advance of kicking this wedge into the union. All other arguments regarding the euro are ultimately derivative, but if the tories want to wield the threat of a veto over the Scots, it will stimulate the reverse sentiment and fail to help the unionist cause.

In reply to Offwidth:


Well unless you think a change in the form of government should be done without any sort of consideration for the effects it might have, you have to speculate as best you can on what the consequences might be (or obtain a crystal ball). Given that there were several other countries, in particular Ireland, that took the path the SNP suggested for Scotland before the crises, suggesting that the same might have happened to Scotland is hardly "weird". On the contrary it is much more firmly based than anything separatists propose might happen, such as a superb road network suddenly being affordable.

In reply to MG:


I don't get this "superb road network" thing. The roads have been the responsibility of the Scottish government for more than 10 years so even though this sort of thing takes a bit of planning there should already be at least plans published for discussion and a bit of work under way. It couldn't be a question of money by any chance, could it?

In reply to winhill:

There would be no "UK" as if one kingdom leaves then it isn't united any more. Not sure I am right about that but it doesn't really matter that much to me.

There is only one structure than take a UK-wide view - The British Government - and it appears they don't want to have a UK wide referendum. There is nothing stopping them doing so though.

Agree re 2nd term, unless Labour in England can sort things out they have little chance.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There have been (and are planned to be) lots of road improvements, e.g the A9 dual carriageway conversion. I don't think this has anything whatever to do with independence.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Quite true - the plans are there but the money isn't, or hasn't been in the past. Interesting to note that the "truly British railway" (BBC's words last night) of HS2 will never even come to Scotland or Wales under the current British Government plans. For the record, I think HS2 is a great idea.

In reply to KTT:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7565553/salmonds-running-rings-aroun...

In reply to Saor Alba:

Like the BoE issues gilts to borrow money, can I be first to suggest that an independent Scotland borrows money by issuing kilts

In reply to Anonymous:

To answer your question, it's only the UK Government that can hold a referendum on Scotlands constitutional future that *would be legally binding*. The Scottish goverment can hold a referendum but no one would be legally bound to accept it's result, it would be more like a very big opinion poll.

So the SNP can hold a referendum and there could be a change in legislation to make it legally binding if the UK Government agreed to it.

In reply to Michael Woods:

Please do. Maybe Gold Kilts might work. Have you seen that Craig guy with the pink kilt?

In reply to Jimbo W:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9006294/Salmond-caught-out-...

I don't think Hamish's point that Salmond had the date in his back pocket but chose the optimum time to release it holds much water.

Salmond said in December that Scotland would keep the pound but he isn't in the mood for negotiation? How does that work?

BTW in two years, since before the 2009 election, he has gone euro, then pound, then euro, and now pound again.

In reply to KTT:

I'd like to see Scotland leave the Union, I'd vote for it to happen.

If it happens though I think there needs to be complete and total severence. Even to the lengths that we don't have Service/Military bases there. However, given that they have contributed towards the Services over the years, I think that they should be given some of the hardware to defend themselves. So, do a head count of the population and then proportionly dish out some to them, ie they get 31 tanks and 62 Armoured vehicles, 17 Tornado's, 3 Typhoon's a VC10 and 4 Hercs and 5 helicopters, 2 destroyers and 8 assualt ships, a nuclear sub (or 4 ordinary ones, if they don't want a nuc one). You get my drift. Oh yes, and anyone from Scotland that is in the Services can then have a free transfer to their homeland military.

Could Westminster have a referendum for just the English to vote? That would exclude any Scots living in England.

In reply to Dirk Didler:


The point you've forgotten is that we're British as well as Scottish. Britain is my country and I have a say in it how it's run just like every other British citizen. I don't want a Tory/Lib Dem Government in power but neither do English, welsh or Northern Irish Labour voters and at the next election there wil be another chance to change things. In the mean time we have ouir own administration which is able to set policy in many areas of our lives thus insulating us from differences in politics between Scotland and the UK as a whole. Please let's not start a pointless argument about one side or other trying to force the other side to do what they want, what can be achieved is very limited.

Regarding money which no doubt you think Scotland is starved of. Every part of the UK puts what it can into the pot and it's shared out in the best interests of the UK. That's the deal. I can't help but think that if the majority of oil and gas fields had been discovered off the Scily Isles there would be a lot less of this nonsense about the UK Government cheating Scotland of it's money getting thrown about by nationalists.

Emotionally I feel British and you don't. I don't know why you don't and feel you're missing a lot because of that. If Scotland did become independent I would feel that I had lost a large part of my country and gained very little in return. A tunnel or two built on borrowed money and the St Andrews cross flying above Edinburgh castle instead of the Union Jack, big deal.

In reply to Removed User:

Very true but regardless of the result it would be a very weird situation where the results of a referendum were completely ignored. Laws can be changed and life doesn't work accord to strict systems which are inflexible. Mandates are just systemic.

In reply to Removed User:


The emotional aspect doesn't get discussed very much but is clearly at the core of a lot of people's views. A British identity is very inclusive and doesn't exclude also being Scottish or English or European or even all of those. Dissolving Britain would remove a large element of many people's identities without adding anything to those of people who feel mostly Scottish or English. Only those who feel so strongly anti-British that dislike the concept benefit. Nationalists (worldwide) seem to have difficulty with having multiple aspects to their identities, which is a pity and leads to lots of problems.

In reply to Removed User:

Again you are quite right Eric but it's the future we are talking about. Your view is clearly Scotland can do no better and that being in the Union is the best situation possible. Things like no high speed rail to Scotland are a price worth paying for the other benefits we get.

I don't take the same view. I think we could do better by having control over the decisions that affect us and doing so directly. I don't feel emotionally British despite some in my family taking another view. The majority of oil and gas hasn't yet been discovered off the Scily Isles so it's purely hypothetical.

Either way, it's a real shame that the Scottish Unionist MSPs are so far behind the Nationalists as the standard of debate is awful. Scottish Labour in particular are bereft of any talent at all.

In reply to MG:

Yes you are right. A European identity is as inclusive as any British one and I don't feel patronised by it at all.

Any evidence of xenophobia yet? I joined the SNP about 2 months ago and haven't noted any but it would be good if you could state whether I am now a xenophobe due to this.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yes plenty, as I stated above, try any comment section on news articles for xenophobia in both directions.

I joined the SNP about 2 months ago and haven't noted any but it would be good if you could state whether I am now a xenophobe due to this.

I doubt you joining the SNP is linked to whether you are becoming xenophobic, no.

How does being independent increase the chances of HS2 coming Scotland?

In reply to MG:

I have and I mostly find bile from idiots claiming the SNP are xenophobic but with no evidence.

So please spell it out for people less able to see it than you as you said you have dug down and found it. You have this clear evidence so it shouldn't be too much work to show it to us. Simply saying have a look on a website means nothing and unless you come up with something real then your silly suggestions should be dismissed.

Re HS2, currently there is no chance of it coming to Scotland under the Union so the vague chance that a more prosperous Scotland would build it to the border then the England could build north from Leeds is good enough for me.

But that might be pie in the sky but at least I wont have to pay for a project described as a truly British railway which doesn't go to Wales or Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba: On this thread? Perhaps Jim Fraser comes the closest to xenophobia( 21:35 mon), but perhaps he would claim it's hyperbole or attempt the Edinburgh defence.

In reply to Saor Alba:

?? Not sure what you are getting at here. I expressed the opposite view.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Don't think so really. This thread has been pretty civilised. Try the BBC comments section though.

In reply to Removed User:

First of all Eric thanks for losing the condesending tone as it does help, Eric i am not and have never regarded myself as British no matter what diffinition is given for it,secondly your assumtion that i think Scotland is starved of money is absolutely correct but only in the fact of wishing the money raised in Scotland to be spent in Scotland,your point about the money being shared out for the benifit of all is either a crude joke or more likely the result of blinkered thinking,"South East is fine abdae else is'nt is the truth of it".
One of the truths of Scots wishing Independance is that we no longer wish to be governed by rightwing public school boys with no thought of anything north of the Watford gap,we in Scotland have a what you could call a,"get out of jail card" this is Independance.
There may be some that would say that we can work this out,this is nonsense,that is what we thought when we voted for Blair and look were that got us, no Eric the changes that need to be made can and will only be made after Independance.

In reply to MG:

I mean you said the SNP are xenophobic when you dig down which you have done. So therefore you should provide this proof. It could be anyone on an internet forum. That isn't proof. However you are right, it's just as bad on the unionist "side".

In reply to Saor Alba:

I assume you are referring to this from the other thread?

"Although the SNP try and portray themselves as "nice" nationalists, you don't have to dig very far to find really unpleasant xenophobia. "

I was meaning that the SNP do *not* present a xenophobic position but other nationalists do. Re-reading it I can see how it could be interpreted as you did (although given the rest of my comments I would have thought my position was clear)

In reply to KTT: I think we should have a referendum to decide if we should be allowed to have a referendum to decide if we should be allowed to decide if we should have a referendum to decide if we want to be indepent.

In reply to aln:

Ah so someone understands where we are.

In reply to aln:

Who do you mean by 'we'?

In reply to tony:

We think it was all so easy till you came along and complicated things.

In reply to MG:

Many thanks for the clarification as I did indeed take the other meaning from it and got a bit annoyed. Let's draw a line under it.

In reply to KTT:
A good thing?
Anyone thought about The Border Regions? Berwick for example has changed hands between Scotland & England 13 times. At the moment they are officially in England, but play in the Scottish football league. The residents there recently realised that social benefits were better in Scotland & so queried the status quo as to which country they were in.
Cumbria was for a long time a southern extension of the kingdom of Strathclyde. The border reivers centuries made alliances between Scottish & English families. Cumbria & Northumberland border on Scotland. Has anyone thought about the attitude of the English border counties? We may be more on the side of Scotland than a southern dominated admin.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Are you Donald under yet another pseudo? You certainly have a very similar posting style if you're not.

In reply to mockerkin:
If the Jocks go their own way then the buck will stop with the Cumbrians and Northumbrians. Without the Jocks someone will need to take the blame for all of Middle Englands woes. Shit only flows North in this green and unpleasant land.

In reply to Kipper and Postman Pat:

Can anyone come up with some serious convincing reasons for rejecting an independant Scotland as an EU state given the recent new members and when places like Turkey are moving towards that goal (and for Pat yes of course they have to negotiate, just like anyone else, so what?). Maybe I should cry rather than laugh?

In reply to Offwidth:
Maybe just a technical point, but presumably we, on this island, joined the EU as 'the united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'

If the union breaks up, does our original treaty go with it? Hence affecting all the home nations?

In reply to Soren Lorenson:

I can't quite make out who you are trying to offend in this rather odd post

In reply to All: Up here everyones hates the SNP and their sectarian hatemongery. Lets stick them on a remote island and leave them hehe!

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

Bless. Have you been forgetting to take your medicine again?

And where is 'up here' exactly?

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist: That'll be why they won a previously unthinkable landslide victory in a PR system as well, or am I looking through a negative?

I can't invisage it happening, but the DevoMax option is certainly the way to go for Scotland as well as a regionalised England. Smaller big brother, more responsible and representative regional government (as in Scotland is a region of the UK) and no councillors. I've no doubt the next step is for those in England to start calling for regional government. Way to go.

As I said before, Westminster MPs won't go for Devo Max as it dilutes their status. However, it could actually lead to a better position for the Toriesin Scotland.

In reply to Toby S: Just trying something here:

SOar Alba: Gaelic is a dead language!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes I said that higher up on on another thread about nuclear weapons. Personal matters have meant that I have been away for a bit.

Salmond just put some meat on the bone in a C4 news interview.

Scotland will take share of national debt based on either GDP or population proportion.

Oil will get split based on territorial waters (about 90/10)

Scotland will keep the pound until the Scottish people otherwise (hmm, pegged currency, not sure how this would work with Scotland having an oil rich hard currency economy and fiscal policy being dictated by another state of vastly different economic priorities - this wont work)

Salmond refused to be baited on RBS £180 billion of liabilities and blamed it on London rather than the company.

In reply to Ken Lewis:

In the same way the Euro hasn't worked I assume.

In reply to yer maw:
Will the English get a Referendum on whether they want to continue to be attached to Scotland. We could always build a canal to create full independence...
Will Scots in 'exile' be allowed a vote? Will I? My grandparents were Scottish so I could play sport for Scotland (but I'm not even good enough to get into the Scottish teams). If my grandparents had been australian I could have an australian passport, will I be able to have A Scottish one if independence is gained (or lost?) Who is Scottish? How is it defined?
A Shetland Island friend of mine also pointed out a great many of them don't consider themselves Scottish and would prefer not to allow Edinburgh have the oil revenues.

In reply to yer maw:

I'd say that in the event of a yes vote, the currency issue is not something for another vote of the Scots and it will be inevitable that it issues its own currency*


* before people come forward with the usual uninformed comment regarding this, that is not in any way the same as having commercial banks print banknotes as currently happens.

In reply to andyhodges:
Andy this gets to the core of the issue, which is that if you let people go the way they feel you end up with every region ,city, town, hell my house deciding we want to be independent because I do not want to do what the majority of my neighbours want to, I want to do, what I want to do, when I want to. Clearly as you point out the Shetland ( I keep the oil) could go their own way as would over time go the Western Isles (they do not speak Gaelic in Glasgow, etc. I have to say it is pretty petty but hey, it is an emotional thing, not a rational choice.

In reply to Ken Lewis:

So every cross-border penion, mortagage, mail-order and other transaction becomes subject to c£5 exchange cost. Sounds a great plan!

In reply to orejas:
Yep, welcome to the Independent State of My House. There is no room for greedy bankers or nuclear weapons (unless they can fit in the spare room).
A really good point made by someone else though - Who 'owns' the RBS debt? Scotland (it's their bank!) Or does Salmond want to only own the valuable things with 'Scotland' in them?
In my humble opinion (with enough Scottish blood to be in the National teams if only I wasn't old, slow and not fit enough) the SNP are little better than a school parliament - little people playing at politics.
At least without Scottish MPs Westminster won't need any answers to the Mid-Lothian Question.

In reply to MG:

The devil isn't in the micro detail on the currency issue. Its in the big picture effect of oil wealth being balanced across the whole UK economy or being concentrated in an independent Scotland

For example, the $100 basket of goods which currently costs $124 in the UK costs $170 in Norway.

If Scotland goes independent then its oil resource will (or should) affect its PPP in that manner, how will that work with an independent Scotland pegged to the UK currency, and how will that affect the UK PPP which no longer has oil revenue to compensate?

Take the oil out of it and the UK and Scotland are close enough economically for a pegged currency to work.

When 90% of the oil wealth is concentrated in 10% of the population I dont understand how a pegged could work.

In reply to Ken Lewis:



I agree but also think that two currencies would be higly inconvenient (and expensive). The current situation works well.

In reply to Ken Lewis: I suspect though that it'd be the Scottish Pound linked with it's own valuation/inflation that would start from set point onwards.
Though it could be amusing naming a new currency or coins!

In reply to andyhodges:


I'm Scottish. Please explain in what sense it is 'my' bank.

In reply to orejas and andyhodges:


I think a reality check is called for here.

In reply to yer maw:

I always envisaged it would be called the Poond, or 'That's Legal Tender' :-D

What you are suggesting is in effect a new currency.

In reply to Auld Nick:
So am I (by grandparents, tenuous but works for passports and sports and I fully intend to claim my Scottish rights if Independence works out, free alsorts for me!)
RBS: Royal Bank of Scotland. A clue in the name maybe?

In reply to Auld Nick: I assume it is Scotland's bank because no-one outside Scotland had an account, worked for, invested with them.

In reply to Auld Nick:
Am I being denied my rights as a native 'My House' resident? I'll bring in the Human rights lawyers.
PS: Don't forget Cornwall, they'll want independence too - Free the Pasties!
I love it! Independence for all!

In reply to Ken Lewis:

I know but the option with the least transitional affects.

In reply to andyhodges:


Sorry to be rude, but are you really that dim?

In reply to yer maw:

I recall John Prescott tried to interest the NE of England in that back in the early years of the New Labour government and was met with either disinterest or roundly told to bog off...

In reply to Auld Nick:


Its a Scottish company. Company registration and legal entity has always been separate.

http://www.rbs.com/global/legal-information.ashx

"The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, registered in Scotland no. 90312. Registered office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, EH2 2YB"


When independent, Scotland will have its own exchange, and PLC's registered in Scotland will float on the Scottish market, (i think... not 100% sure on that but I cant see it working any other way)

In reply to yer maw:
Didn't the tosspot (sorry Treasurer) let the Royal Bank of SCOTLAND go totally off the rails. Then give the Tw@t of a Chief Exec a £640K pension because otherwise we'd be 'in breach of contract '?
Wasn't the treasurer (sharp intake of breath) Scottish???
Was it a conspiracy?
remind me again, where does the CEO live?

In reply to Auld Nick:
Obviously!

In reply to andyhodges:
Oh, I've just remembered - SCOTLAND!

In reply to yer maw:

Given the headquarters is in Edinburgh and the company is registered in Scotland I would think that would make it a multi-national company based in Scotland and so you can have it back if you decide to part ways...

In reply to andyhodges:


In addition to that, I recall reading that the SNP are (unsurprisingly) being disingenous about oil rights. International law regarding sea areas does NOT run in a horizontal line (in the sense of Latitude) from the border, rather sea rights follow the trend-line of the border, i.e. from Gretna to Berwick, rising steeply left-to-right. Hence quite a large chunk of the oilfields would actually legally acrue to England, while if Shetland broke away from Scotland, even less would be left. All on a declining production anyway.

In reply to Simon4:
Where's your evidence that the SNP is claiming anything different?

"Quite a large chunk"? I think you need to look at a map of the UKCS, and the oilfields on it.
All of the major oil producers are well inside the Scottish sector. Many of the biggest are now West of Shetland, i.e. not even in the North Sea at all.

And if Orkney broke away, there'd be less again. And if... and if... and if Northumbria broke away from England, England would lose the little oil it was able to claim... it's about as likely as Orkney or Shetland breaking away.
Reality check, please!

In reply to Simon4:

Here - the border is marked on this map.
http://og.decc.gov.uk/assets/og/data-maps/maps/infrast-off.pdf
"Large chunk", eh? You're welcome to it.

In reply to Ken Lewis:


That all sounds very cut and dried. Has he already agreed all that with David Cameron or is he just talking a good game?


I didn't see the interview but I assume you mean that he made a few typically sarcastic and tangential remarks to avoid looking stupid. I thought the liabilities were a lot more than that by the way. Is that just the share that would come Scotland's way if it received a fair proportion of the RBS equity that the Government currently holds?

You've got the case wrong by the way, "will" should really be "would" etc. Sorry but thought I should point out the grammatical error, no offence intended.

In reply to andyhodges:

Your post is nonsense. The SNP are a party, not a parliament. RBS are as British as Barclays.

The general message as I read it, is that many such as Martin see things like setting up new relationships with the EU, remainder of UK, new structures and tax systems etc are too difficult. They aren't.

All of this is possible and no administrative hassle is a barrier by itself. The value judgement is to assess whether the work and potential upheaval will yield results. Like I say I am happy with that and want to proceed.

In reply to Jimbo W: fantastic post, my only concern is alex salmond is surrounded by half wits. get independance and replace these arseholes wuth real talent from a broad spectrum of scottish society

In reply to Saor Alba:

There is no such thing as a British company.

In reply to orejas:

Ehh... aye they do. There's quite a strong Gaelic speaking population in Glasgow, there's a GME primary school and High School an' everything!

In reply to Toby S:

In reply to Toby S:

I'd be surprised if there wasn't more Urdu and Cantonese spoken in Glasgow than Gaelic. In fact I'd be amazed.

I get what you mean though.

In reply to andyhodges:

Good grief, this question has been answered umpteen times already.

Only registered voters living in Scotland will have the right to vote in the referendum. Quite simple.

In reply to Removed User:

Yes, but I got the sense it wasnt to avoid looking stupid, more that it was because he plain didnt want to admit the liability would shift.

He answered every other question pretty directly and concisely, and when asked the RBS question he reverted to the usual politicians-question-avoidance.



I think its the amount UK govt pumped in to recapitilise the bank, not the total liabilities of the RBS balence sheet (which are bigger than the whole UK economy)

In reply to Ken Lewis:



In reply to Ken Lewis:

Fair enough, I was thinking that the £180 billion would be about 10% of the liabilities which would be roughly what Scotland would get if the shares were divided up on a percentage of population basis.

A moment's reflection tells me why he probably didn't want to answer that one. £180 billion would most likely equal or exceed the GDP of an independent Scotland. Alec is very good at pointing out all the good things that might come our way if we voted for independence but invariably gets a bit tetchy and evasive when folk try to pin him down on the less positive aspects of it all.

In reply to andyhodges:

You should be a comedien,







given your natural flair for making fun of yourself. ROFLMFAO ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hmmm?

In reply to Auld Nick:


As long as the isle of purbeck stays in the UK it will still have some....

In reply to Dr.S at work:

What's left of Wytch Farm and a few nodding donkeys at Kimmeridge?

In reply to: The scottish "nation" (that's a laugh!) has only survived the recession due to the largesse of the English tax payer. Lets see how well they do on their own. They will be begging to be allowed back into the British union within a year, so that they can get their hands on yet another bumper pay-out from Westminster. Listening to salmond today on the scottish news he sounds like a petty-minded and immature schoolboy bitching about his parents because he wants more pocket money, as it were. I for one am just about sick and tired with the selfish and ignorant attitudes up here, I'm definately moving back to Blighty ASAP. The atmosphere for an Englishman in Scotland at the moment is very very reminiscent of Berlin just prior to WW2, only instead of the Jewish peoples it is the Englishman living in scotland who is the victim this time. I think it's about to get a whole lot worse if uncle joe salmond gets his way!!

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

Aye very good Peetzy. Bless.

In reply to Auld Nick:
exactly!

but of course the Isle is a proud independant sort of place - even has its own railway!

In reply to Toby S:
Please Toby don't be desingenious. Of course they don't speak Gaelic in Glasgo any more than Spanish or German in London. There are German and Spanish speakers in London too, and even schools. My point stands, I think. Where do you stop the I do not want part of these lot?

They could call their currency the Haggis with one hundred Sporrans to the Haggis

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist: you should also be a comedien along with Andy Hodges. Humpty & Dumpty, or should that be numpty?

Please stay as I'm sure you'll make a good victim to nail to the Saltire shaped crosses as our first independence crucifixion when we wipe out all the obviously unwelcome English.

Get off the drink dude.

I've got no feel good factor about the prospect. Very few politicains in either westminster or edinburgh fill me with any confidence. I fail to see why it would be any better after devolution.

The old adage 'those that most want to govern are least fit to do so' springs to mind.

In reply to mypyrex: Haggis is possible but ye can't be putting sporrans in your sporran. Maybe Neeps?

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

I'm British, English and support the union, but that post is just embarrassing. Are you some sort of nationalist mole trying to make the English seem like knobbers?

In reply to George Ormerod: I think that's a bit much don't you? I'm not saying anything new or controversial. I know and have met plenty of guys with the same views. Noticed a lot on here too. I still stand by what I posted.

In reply to George Ormerod: ...oh and in any case: why would you want scotland to remain in the union? We can't afford it. The scots take take take and do not contribute anything.

In reply to KTT:

As a matter of interest does anyone know how long UK oil production is going to last for? I see it's declining quite steeply now.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/19/135819/75 (you may need to register)

Is another twenty years of significant income too optimistic?

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

As you have put no smiley's or lol...I will take you as a fool.


On another note, I've been reading around my decision and its final the question has to be a simple yes or no.

Reason why:

Scotland to leave the UK or remain is for the Scottish people to decide on their own. No interference from the remaining UK

Devo Max - increased powers in the UK. This is a UK as a whole issue as it impacts up on the every day running of the UK. The remaining UK (predominantly Westminster) should be involved in the consultation. I would also go as far as saying that If Scotland was to vote Devo Max a referendum should be held in the remaing UK to ask the UK people as a whole if the new arrangment is acceptable. A bit like how its in law that a referendu must be held to make significant changes to the EU treaty.

so basics...Scotland wants FULL indepenence = Scottish people to decide on their own. Devo Max as it changes the UK and impacts on the remaining UK = Scotland votes, UK remaining UK gets the chance to agree or disagree.

You can all end this discussion now as I have ruled!!

In reply to Anonymous:

If what you are saying is that the UK has no right to dictate to the Scots on their independence and the Scots have no right to dictate to the UK on the whole UK, I agree.

Scotland is in full control of its future on the binary issue of independence.

The UK is in full control of the future of the UK.

In reply to mypyrex:


You seem to have it all worked out, including the currency to be use post-devolution! Mypyrex for Prime Minister...







...of Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Welcome back.... hoping we can stay on a cool level this time!

In reply to chris j:


I thought there was a referendum and they turned the idea down?

In reply to orejas:

I'm not being disingenous at all. There is a strong tradition of Gaelic in the city. You claimed no-one speaks Gaelic in the city. You're wrong. It's still a minority language but to claim that no-one speaks it is utter nonsense.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You're right, back in 2004, on a 48% turn-out 78% said no. Or in other words only just shy of 11% of the electorate liked the idea enough to vote yes.

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

Again with the loopy juice? Comparing whats going on in Scotland with pre-war Berlin is pretty sick btw. The thread on the whole has been pretty civil. Back under your bridge.

Can I invoke Godwin's Law now?

In reply to yer maw: Aye, neeps are fine

In reply to Ken Lewis:


Re: RBoS, to add to your point about RBoS company registration

26 National Westminster Bank Plc. Registered in England and Wales (Registered Number 929027), Registered Office: 135 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3UR. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. NatWest is entered on the FSA's Register and its Register number is 121878. The FSA's Register can be accessed at www.fsa.gov.uk/register. NatWest's registered VAT number is GB 243852752. Credit facilities other than regulated mortgages are not regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

In reply to Jimbo W: That's a subsidiary, the group is registered in Scotland

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.

It's a bit childish to pretend RBS is irrelevant to Scotland when it is head-quartered and registered in Scotland. Until a few years ago nationalists were only too happy to point to the Scottish banking industry as a example of how things would be in an independent Scotland. If the banks have suddenly become British then why not oil too?

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist:

As an Englishman living in Scotland... ...that is quite some twaddle. I've been living here for almost 14 years and have only once had a whiff of racism in my direction and other than that none, nor toward other English friends. I have seen plenty of football/Irish related sectarianism, but that's another matter entirely. I think there is very little negative sentimental nationalism involved in the move toward independence, but where it exists it has far more to do with dislike of historical establishment structure and control, which can be seen in the attitudes in the big cities as well as the feelings of crofters still living in the shadow of large estate houses.

In reply to Cathcart_Alpinist: On reflection, maybe the nationalists have point.

In reply to MG:

Its a subsidiary... ...and.

In reply to Toby S:

I don't think so! His words are excessive but I don't think there is any doubt that the rise of nationalism has led to a change of attitudes, or maybe a hardening of them. I have some friends who bought a beef farm in Scotland, both of them from the South of England, and after a few years sold up because of the hostility of local people. The last straw was when someone, an adult, at a school party poured a glass of orange juice on their young daughters head.

Not all nationalists are nasty but it does bring out the worst in people.

In reply to Jimbo W:

any problems would need to be sorted out by the parent group in Scotland, or failing that in an independent Scotland, the Scottish taxpayer.

In reply to MG:

Here's an article on today's BBC site about the RBS:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16517432

The last paragraph may have some relevance (or maybe not):

"The bank is now 84%-owned by the UK government after taxpayers injected £45.5bn of new capital into RBS."

It seems they've sacked 30 000 people over the last two years and are about to sack 3500 more.