/ One year to go for Scotland's big day!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
ERH - on 18 Sep 2013
So, are you keen to see Scotland out on their own, or is it a bad idea for them to leave the fold?

Personally I don't care too much, but It would stop them from offering free university to EVERYONE IN EUROPE except the rest of the UK!

Also, for all the people who go on about them getting more in tax than they give, I can't talk, I come from the North East :)

What's it to be- In or Out?
David Barratt - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: I'm not sure the economics statement there is very accurate. It appears that scotland generates more tax per capita... but whether scotland would be better off or worse off, I think it's likely to be marginal. Yet to fully decide which way I'll be voting, but I'm edging towards Yes.
David Barratt - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt: And to add to that, I am finding when I talk to people about it, those undecided are edging in a yes direction rather than the other way. but that could change. Folk at work are fairly evenly split.
Cuthbert on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

There was a lady at the BBC debate tonight who made a very good point which was this is so much bigger than whether a person is £500 better or worse off. Her point was that issues such as going to war or not, the types of social policy implemented and education etc are in many ways more important than the short term gain of being a few hundred pounds better off. I tend to agree.

Challenges will exist, as they do for all countries but, in my view, the best way to face them is with the full range of tools available. I will be voting yes.
David Barratt - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: It was a very good debate wasn't it? I was impressed with the Green Party member. The War/military issue is a big one for me.
Wiley Coyote - on 18 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
I can scarcely contain my indifference though on balance I hope they vote yes and then it will be over and done with, Despite Fat Alex's 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' guff I can't see the nationalists giving up if they lose. It will just keep coming back until either they get their way or we all die of boredom.
buzby - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: as a scot im proud and at times ashamed to be both scottish and britsh in equal measure.
i suspect it will be a no from me.
PeterM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to buzby:

...and a No from me too. I see no benefit in it and have yet to see anything that will convince me. In fact I've yet to see anything (other than nationalistic guff) that actually lays out the real benefits of independence at all.
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: No from me. Geographical, historic, practical, linguistic, economic, emotional considerations all faviour one country with a fair degree of devolved power in the long term. Plus in the short to medium term the lack of thought about the implications of independence by nationalists on so many fronts (pensions, EU, military, currency, national debt etc.) means upheaval would be dramatic with all sorts of unexpected consequences.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG: I think you'll find that all those issues have been carefully considered, when the time is right the snp will reveal the answers.
TOS on 19 Sep 2013 - 10.178.4.87 [dab-hlw1-h-84-6.dab.02.net]
In reply to PeterM:
> (In reply to buzby)
>
> ...and a No from me too. I see no benefit in it and have yet to see anything that will convince me. In fact I've yet to see anything (other than nationalistic guff) that actually lays out the real benefits of independence at all.

+1

Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

It was. I was there and it was interesting to see on the TV afterwards also. I'd say there was about equal support for both camps but the numbers of undecided is rising I think.
zebidee - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

The biggest hindrance to a yes from me is the flip-flopping and lack of previous clarity on currency. Previously it was all "we'll go to the €" then when that ran into difficulty it became "we'll stick with the £".

This makes me concerned that people with a (almost) religious view point to independence are trying to market it by telling people what they want to hear rather than necessarily what the actual outcome will be.

I also dislike the fact that this is a single step process - "do you want independence?" and not "do you want independence? Yes - okay here's what we've now thrashed out on debt, fishing rights, currency union, passports, etc. - now do you really want independence?"

Once we've jumped off the cliff there's no going back. Asking us to trust and believe and fluffy terms like that is one of the reasons I'm an atheist and the reason that at the moment I'll be voting "no."
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Also, what do people think about giving the votes to 16 yr olds?

I for one know that I was a stupid little prick even at 18 (not all that long ago) and wouldn't give me at 16 the vote for love nor money

To be sure, I haven't changed that much since then, but I get the nuance of political situations a lot more now.
dek - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
If you promised to make Judith Ralston,Queen of Scots, count me in.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to zebidee:

Good point. We have to allow for what is best at the current time though. Angus Brendan MacNeill made a good point about Sweden and the Euro is that they never seem to meet the convergence criteria, just so happens that way ;-)

I think we have already taken the first step (Devolution). Really the vote, if it returned yes, would allow negotiations to start. It can't be the other way round as there would be no mandate to spend public resources on these negotiations and even if there were support for that the UK Government refuses to entertain the idea.

I think the fabled white paper will go some way to addressing your concerns.
PeterM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> Also, what do people think about giving the votes to 16 yr olds?

A cynical and exploitative move if ever there was one. 'We' don't consider them mature enough to make decisions about alcohol or tobacco. They can't get married without parents permission, and legally they are considered children, yet we're changing the law to allow them to vote. The govt really are patronising pricks.

Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

> Also, what do people think about giving the votes to 16 yr olds?
> I for one know that I was a stupid little prick even at 18 (not all that long ago) and wouldn't give me at 16 the vote for love nor money

Secondary schoolchildren in Aberdeenshire voted 3:1 against Independence in a mock election yesterday.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I saw that so lots of work to do. It's interesting to note the tone of much of the no camp.
ByEek - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

> Also, what do people think about giving the votes to 16 yr olds?

I think it is brilliant. They after all are the ones who will have to deal with any fall out.

> I for one know that I was a stupid little prick even at 18 (not all that long ago) and wouldn't give me at 16 the vote for love nor money

Perhaps, but I think this is a classic mistake made by adults that youngsters can't take serious decisions seriously.
ads.ukclimbing.com
blurty - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: I'm completely in the dark as to how the big questions would be dealt with the [post] SNP. At the moment it looks like the Scots are being asked to take a leap of faith. (Surely the detail will emerge over the next 12 months??!)

Salmond is a very talented operator though, and Scotland has a much stronger National Identity than mongrel England.

It may well be 'yes'
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:

I think you have hit the nail on the head, more detail (to follow I hope) and this is the long game and for the long term.
Wiley Coyote - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ByEek:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> [...]
>
> I think it is brilliant. They after all are the ones who will have to deal with any fall out.
>
> [...]
By that logic shouldn't five year olds be given the vote too?
zebidee - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:
> (In reply to ERH) I'm completely in the dark as to how the big questions would be dealt with the [post] SNP. At the moment it looks like the Scots are being asked to take a leap of faith. (Surely the detail will emerge over the next 12 months??!)

Hopefully ... because ultimately the yes campaign have quite frankly been crap so far.

I was walking through Stirling town centre a couple of weekends ago & there was a Yes campaign table set up with some people standing behind it being completely ignored.

If they want to get their message out there they're going to have to work a hell of a lot harder.

> Salmond is a very talented operator

Agreed - he's very charismatic which is dangerous as it generates a zeal amongst his followers.

But he's a medium sized fish in a very small pond in the Scottish Parliament and so stands out amongst the rest of the tiddlers there.

It concerns me that we'll end up with small fish attempting to negotiate with some real sharks in Westminster after a "yes" vote. Like what happened in Ireland between Collins & Churchill.
AndrewHuddart - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:

Apart from everything else, a Yes would be a very expensive outcome.

Having been at a few debates in/around Westminster, the things on the "we haven't thought about that yet" list don't seem to get any shorter - particularly around security and defence: for instance borders, customs, (Schengen Agreement aside), sharing of law enforcement and national security intelligence and setting up Scottish services, establishing a Scottish military, signing up to key international accords and treaties, a network of embassies and consulates and diplomats: no coherent and costed plan as yet for maintenance costs let alone establishment costs.

It's going to be an interesting year to, hopefully, see some of this answered.
ring ouzel on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: The whole thing is very risky, there are no certainties. For that reason I am voting yes. Uncertainty means things can change and I see that as an opportunity to change for the better.
Chris the Tall - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
I guess it has been impossible to flesh out the details because, as yet, Cameron has not started the negotiations.

Does anyone know whether Ireland took part of our national debt when it became independent ? I'm guessing not, but surely this will happen with Scotland. I guess the blueprint will be the break-up of Czechoslovakia, which was peaceful but apparently quite acrimonius

Putting out stories like this doesn't due the SNP any credit - there are far more important things to consider

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/24081596
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to zebidee:

I just dont buy this argument about big fish and so on. If you look at many Scottish MPs such as Alexander, Ian Davidson, Michael Moore etc there is no evidence of some enhanced ability that others lack.

And come a yes vote, they would find themselves in a weird position of their jobs going out of existence. They should in that situation join with the Scottish Government and get the best deal possible.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Agreed that is not a particularly helpful story but no big deal. As I am sure you will know, there is an almost daily barage of stories from the UK government. The best one recently has been the roaming charges for mobile phones.
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Well, I'll be a slightly muted Yes, I think.

I'd rather we had more say on our own policies and direction, and think there's a good chance it could improve our national self-esteem and make it easier to market our identity to bring in more tourism, for example. A lot of people seem to be looking for certainty, but they aren't going to get it from either result - better to have uncertainty with greater control over how we navigate it.

But if, as it seems, we're going to be keeping Sterling but losing influence over it, it seems a bit less appealing. We should either join the Euro, or start our own currency.

We'll probably have to agree to take the Euro anyway to keep our EU membership, though we can maybe just keep putting off implementation like Sweden does!

I'm afraid I don't thing a Yes result looks very likely, now, although it could all change suddenly. For example, I suspect Westminster voting against attacking Syria helped the No campaign, and if they try to weasel around that later it'll probably reverse those gains.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:

That more or less exactly mirrors my thinking.

By the way - have you seen Simon Heffer's article in the Mail today? It's a shocker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424713/Why-Scots-MUST-vote-independence-Itll-save-rest-fo...
graeme jackson - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:
> We'll probably have to agree to take the Euro anyway to keep our EU membership,

'We' won't have EU membership automatically, we'd have to apply for it.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to graeme jackson:

Agreed. I can't see any issues though as all law is already EU compliant and the French and Spaniards are unlikely to deprive themselves of the fishing.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to graeme jackson:

> 'We' won't have EU membership automatically, we'd have to apply for it.

What's the latest on the UK potentially voting to leave the EU in 2017 anyway?
AJM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Spain? They'll have the spectre of catalunya hanging over them. Showing the catalunyans how hard independent life can be made to be could provide a useful demonstration...
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to AJM:

France have the same thing with the basque region
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Correct, this is a pressure many of the older countries are under. That it is exists is not a problem at all unless you believe in things never changing.
Wiley Coyote - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to skog)
>
>
> By the way - have you seen Simon Heffer's article in the Mail today? It's a shocker.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424713/Why-Scots-MUST-vote-independence-Itll-save-rest-fo...

Not sure which bit you are finding shocking but it's not far off a lot of the sentiment south of the border. Beyond the Westminister village and the BBC I've found reactions to the Scottish vote fall largely into two camps.

1. The overwhelming one is a profound apathy and deep-seated boredom with the whole thing, already becoming tinged with an irritation at the airtime being devoted to it down here. Most people honestly really don't care either way. As far as they are concerned Scotland is just a cold wet place to the north with two second rate football teams, a tennis player, a cyclist, whisky, Hogmanay, some dodgy banks and Mel Gibson with his face painted like an Argentine football shirt.

Or

2. Less common but much more vehemnetly held: if they gave the English a vote the Scots wouldn't need one. Don't let the door catch your a*se as you leave.

Sorry, but for the most part that's the way it is.


AJM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

It might be a problem in terms of their happiness in two years time to welcoming Scotland into the EU with open arms. In the long term things might change, but in the next two years I can't imagine the position in Madrid or Paris shifting in favour of independence for their own separatist regions.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to AJM:

Me neither. It's not a big issue to the debate here so they will just have to deal with it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

You are probably right on that. Patrick Harvey talked about this at the debate last night when asked what the consequences of a "no" vote would be. He thought that the tone would change to "you have had your chance, made your decision and this is getting too much attention". I tend to agree with him.

The focus would change to the UK EU referendum. It is entirely possible that an individual votes no due to concerns about Scotland's EU membership and finds themselves out of the EU due to the UK EU referendum result. This is a real possibility.
Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Wiley Coyote: Quite a few Scottish athlete are already worrying about not having UK athletics backing them. Personally I think a yes vote will be taking Scotland back into the middle ages, what next, tribalism, independence for Orkney and Shetlands, the whole idea is daft, we should be uniting as a nation not fragmenting in the 21st century.
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I really can't see the UK being so stupid as to leave the EU. It's just some right wing nuts who believe the rest of the country is with them isn't it?

Leaving the EU would be such a massive economic mistake for the UK.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Agreed but it is a real possibility and as likely in many ways as Scottish independence.
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to graeme jackson:
> 'We' won't have EU membership automatically, we'd have to apply for it.

Sure. And we'll get it, of course. But we'll have to agree to joining the Euro to get it.

Which I'm fine with, but it isn't going to be a vote-winner.
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> By the way - have you seen Simon Heffer's article in the Mail today? It's a shocker.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424713/Why-Scots-MUST-vote-independence-Itll-save-rest-fo...

Ugh, that's a nasty piece of work!
r0x0r.wolfo - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> Agreed but it is a real possibility and as likely in many ways as Scottish independence.

Same sentiment as well.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog: "But if, as it seems, we're going to be keeping Sterling but losing influence over it, it seems a bit less appealing. We should either join the Euro, or start our own currency."

how is adopting the Euro more appealing than keeping sterling? Genuinely interested.

Mr Trebus - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I think I could have guessed how you will vote from your username.
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
> how is adopting the Euro more appealing than keeping sterling? Genuinely interested.

Frankly, economically, I don't know whether it's better.

It's a bigger market, but a bit harder to get to, and we'd have even less direct influence over the currency (assuming we had any influence on Sterling, at least!)

But really, for me, it's that I'm a bit idealistic - I feel that European solidarity is worth supporting and buying in to, even if joining the Euro isn't best economically in the short to medium term. I'd love to see Scotland as a small country running most of its own affairs but very much a part of the bigger Union.

I'm aware that this is not necessarily in line with popular opinion, though I think there's less hostility to the EU up here than in the rest of the UK. We've certainly given far fewer votes to Eurosceptic parties.
PeterM - on 19 Sep 2013

I've noticed that this thread is not exactly littered with references or links to info as to why the 'Yes' camp think it'll be a good idea.
Joining the Euro would be a disaster for Scotland.
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:

Why would it?

(honest question)
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
> Same sentiment as well.

Not necessarily (see my previous post), though it would obviously be a lie to say there isn't an overlap.

Clearly, some of those supporting Scottish Independence are English-hating xenophobic idiots, but many of us just think it'd be a better way of managing our own affairs and interests.

Similarly, some of those supporting the UK leaving the EU are motivated by a distrust of Johnny-foreigner, but others just think it'd be a better way to do things. They're wrong, of course! :-)

I am amused, though, by those that say Scottish Independence would be bad because [Scotland's too small / we can't cope ourselves / we'd find it harder to trade with our neighbours / it's all about tribalism / whatever] but think the UK leaving the EU would be good.
Darron - on 19 Sep 2013
blurty - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:

I don't think the UK leaving the EU is probable, but I'm sure the Government of the day will use it as a prime opportunity to negotiate better terms with the commission.

I fail to understand how the (usually very canny) Mr Salmond allowed the Independence question to get separated from Devo-max; (Which I personally think would be a good outcome for the UK overall).



MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:

> I am amused, though, by those that say Scottish Independence would be bad because [Scotland's too small / we can't cope ourselves / we'd find it harder to trade with our neighbours / it's all about tribalism / whatever] but think the UK leaving the EU would be good.


I agree, although equally I find those in favour of independence but wanting to stay in the EU puzzling.
Fraser on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

It'll be a No from me. Likely result will probably be the devo-max thang.
999thAndy on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

In 200 years the oil will have run out, and stuff we can't begin to dream of will be happening (who in 1813 would have dreamed of the atomic bomb or a man walking on the moon, or computers and the internet?)

What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

:-)

But why? I'm a Unionist, but I don't see the need for both unions when we could be focusing on the bigger one.
David Barratt - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> Also, what do people think about giving the votes to 16 yr olds?

They are old enough to pay income tax. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
And what they choose to vote for should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to vote. Those who are too immature to think about it, are less likely to bother voting, but those who have an opinion should have it represented.
ads.ukclimbing.com
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
In 200 years the oil will have run out, and stuff we can't begin to dream of will be happening (who in 1813 would have dreamed of the atomic bomb or a man walking on the moon, or computers and the internet?)

What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as a part of the UK?
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> :-)
>
> But why? I'm a Unionist, but I don't see the need for both unions when we could be focusing on the bigger one.

Well decisions are best taken at an appropriate level. Some (economic, defence, pensions etc) seem best taken at a UK level to me. Others at Scottish, local, global or EU levels. You can argue the UK level is unnecessary but I would say this is wrong, partly because of geography etc (as above) and partly because the EU is not yet set up to act on defence and so on by itself.

lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: I've got absolute faith that Scotland will benefit from independance, I don't just mean short term, I mean long after the oil has gone....way, way in the future our kids kids will know nothing other than their "Scottish Independence" and I would love to be able to give that to them. I'll be voting yes
It's better that we take control of our own resources, particularly now, when there is still a significant amount of value in them....lots of potential in Scotland: it can lead the world in various areas of heavy and complex engineering work, large manufacturing out put, banking and lots more......
999thAndy on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:

Given that Scotland is already part of the UK and has been for 300 years we can look at all the contributions made by Scotland Wales Ireland and Egland over that time and see that we wouldn't have been a world power singly. We speak a common language and inhabit a small number of islands in pretty close proximity so we're well set up to live and work together such that whole is greater than the sum of the parts, like it has been for 300 years.

So I'll ask again - What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?
PeterM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to ERH) I've got absolute faith that Scotland will benefit from independance,
- An idea would maybe to base your voting decision on facts and or some research.

> It's better that we take control of our own resources, particularly now, when there is still a significant amount of value in them....lots of potential in Scotland: it can lead the world in various areas of heavy and complex engineering work, large manufacturing out put, banking and lots more......

- Based on what?
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

We've had this discussion before, and I think I agree with you on the majority of it!

I think the potential benefits of taking more of the decisions in Scotland, and having a stronger national identity (in the sense of come visit Scotland, buy Scottish goods and the like), outweigh the advantages of having the current union across the majority of this archipelago. The geography is already muddled - the entire UK is not on the same landmass, and part of it already shares a land border with a friendly neighbour.

I don't think staying in the UK would/will be a terrible thing, or that Scottish independence would be without drawbacks - I just think independence has the potential to be a bit better, hopefully for both/all 'parts'.
Squarf - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: We used to hear how wealthy we would all be if we joined the "arc of prosperity" along with Spain ,Portugal, Ireland, Iceland how did that work out?
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog: Why would more tourists visit an independent Scotland?
SI - profile removed on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: I'm a firm believer in decentralisation and hope Scotland votes yes. I like to think it will pave the way for Wales and Ireland to follow suit, then eventually England to split into smaller states.

Come on Scots! Watch Braveheart before you hit the polling booths... FREEEDOMMMM!!!
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to shaun l:

As a North-Easterner I really hope this doesn't happen, since for all the arguments about whether or not Scotland is better off without the rest, I know we wouldn't be!
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> We've had this discussion before, and I think I agree with you on the majority of it!

Yes but that was *ages* ago!

The geography is already muddled - the entire UK is not on the same landmass, and part of it already shares a land border with a friendly neighbour.

That bit is just bonkers - sink it or something.


I just think independence has the potential to be a bit better, hopefully for both/all 'parts'.

Hmm, I will be living in England now when the referendum happens. I still hope (and think) the result will be a "no". But I am already thinking that if the answer is "yes", I will really not care at all for Scotland any more than I do for France and would want the English/RUK government to negotiate as hard as possible for as much as possible in a settlement. I would guess most English would think likewise, particularly given the widely held perception that England currently subsidises Scotland. With the greater power that RUK inherently has, I can't see Scotland coming out of negotiations very well.

PeterM - on 19 Sep 2013

> Come on Scots! Watch Braveheart before you hit the polling booths... FREEEDOMMMM!!!

FFS! Grow up...
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:

keep it clean - we've had a UKC debate about a thorny divisive political issue without any descent into name calling yet :)
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
> So I'll ask again - What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?

I don't have one. I've no idea what'll be going on in 200 years, and anyone who says they does can safely be ignored.

I've already said why I think it could be better, and, I think, addressed the whole vs part side. I'm afraid I'm not particularly evangelistic about it - if you disagree, I'm fine with that.

Neither option seems particularly bad to me, but it's clear that neither side is going to be able to make accurate promises about 20 years from now, never mind 200.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:

The UK Government ruled out Devo Max some time ago. That's the reason it's not on the ballot paper.
lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy: Scotland's main contribution to the 300 years of UK membership was its people. It's people invented and pioneered science; its people also served as cannon fodder in lands they'd never heard of; it's people cleared of there lands and sent to the four corners of the planet.
This union that occurred 300 years ago was not at all popular in Scotland, the church, Scottish government, and the vast majority of Scotland objected to the Union but alas, the queen and her huge army at the boarder helped get the papers signed.....

As for Scotland's future: it'll take faith, it'll take a belief that the people of the present and future can make it work. Before every big decision there is a feeling of doubt, when you buy a new house, or car or even climbing a serious route....but you know you can do it so you do.
I have trawled over lots of information relating to Scotland's prospects as an independent country, and see nothing but benefits....but I guess some people will value the things that will be lost more than others ie. Nukes, much smaller army, air force and navy...just like Norway, Denmark etc.....
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> In 200 years the oil will have run out, and stuff we can't begin to dream of will be happening (who in 1813 would have dreamed of the atomic bomb or a man walking on the moon, or computers and the internet?)
>
> What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?

No argument at all. If you think there is about any country you have failed to understand many fundamentals of history, government and pretty much anything else.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: Scottish people invented science? Sounds fascinating, can you expand?
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:
> (In reply to lynx3555)
> [...]
> - An idea would maybe to base your voting decision on facts and or some research.
>
> [...]
>
> - Based on what?

Based upon the arguments put forward in multiple places and on multiple media.

You frequently comment on this topic so I presume you have kept up with the debate? Or do you not believe something unless you read it on UKC?
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> With the greater power that RUK inherently has, I can't see Scotland coming out of negotiations very well.

Good luck with finding a permanent base for your nuclear submarines.

ads.ukclimbing.com
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

I had heard that the union 300 years ago was because Scotland sent a load of money and people off to colonize Panama, and then went bankrupt? (called the Darien Scheme) Most of the ministers who voted for the union expected to get personally bailed out by the rest of the UK
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to skog)
> [...]

> But I am already thinking that if the answer is "yes", I will really not care at all for Scotland any more than I do for France and would want the English/RUK government to negotiate as hard as possible for as much as possible in a settlement.

I think you have surmmarised your position pretty well there Martin. Unless it directly affects you, you don't care. It's this narrow, self centred view of the world that is rejected by so many people.

I was at the BBC debate last night and I listened carefully. The *only* people who asked how they would personally benefit from independence were in the no camp. The yes camp was mostly looking at society at a higher and wider level.

How long have you lived in Scotland for?
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Some Scottish loch, I would guess. No longer RUK's problem...
dale1968 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: not so much a 'big day' but a divorce and they seldom end well
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think you have surmmarised your position pretty well there Martin. Unless it directly affects you, you don't care. It's this narrow, self centred view of the world that is rejected by so many people.
>


Ahh Donnie, as usual completely missing the point! Bits of irony meter everywhere...
a) As I noted I don't want this to happen precisely because I *do* want everyone to carry on doing well.
b)Why should RUK care for a Scotland that has just unilaterlly chosen to piss off leaving RUK to mend all the bits that break as a result.
Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:
> What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as a part of the UK?

The puke making self rightousness of the Scottish IP propagandists makes me sick. Apart from the benefits of being a part of a major organisation which, yes it does, has the Scots interests at heart. And don't get me talking about it's not the same as Yorkshire independence because of course it is. Jesus Christ you don't even have a proper separate language regularly spoken like the Welsh do, grow up and accept that the best thing for Scotland is that it is a part of and protected by the UK, in economic terms not any other.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> Some Scottish loch, I would guess. No longer RUK's problem...

You seriously think that?

Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

It took you a bit longer than it usually does, but you got there...
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Sorry you misunderstood me. I was merely pointing out that you said you wouldn't care. This to me illustrates your position very well Martin.

You leave and your care and interest leaves with you. Contrast that, very starkly, with the many millions of people around the world that care deeply about places they no longer live in.

I don't recall a vote on pissing anyone off? Can you link to it please.

I think they would care given the reasons you gave above.

Since moving to Scotland, have you stopped caring about where you were before?
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

You remind me of Enoch Powell
dek - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
How others see us, is vastly different from how we see ourselves!
lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM: I see first hand the engineering skills that Scotland has and has even more potential to lead the world with. It still isn't fully appreciated the actual amount of oil and gas potential Scotland has, although even with out it independance could be an economic reality The west coast of Scotland I still delivering massive field....the Clare ridge project being one...eventually producing over 200000 bpd x $100ish pd
If Scotland had followed Norway and started an oil fund back in the 70',s we'd have something similar to them which is a 500 billion dollar sum to help Norway evolve away from fossil fuel industries.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/03/norways-oil-fund-realizing-full-potential-in-a-fiat-currency...
It's never to late and Scotland could easily do the same....
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/28112701/4
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I suspect that when they negotiate the proportions of national debt to be incurred by Scotland (if Yes vote) then some bargaining will take place on keeping the nukes in Faslane for a reduced debt.

Pure guess but it would make complete sense for both parties I would imagine.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

Agreed. Keep up the good work and remember this site is utterly unrepresentative of Scotland.
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

Good point and interesting.
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think you have surmmarised your position pretty well there Martin. Unless it directly affects you, you don't care. It's this narrow, self centred view of the world that is rejected by so many people.

Well if you regard the French and Germans say as self-centred, then yes I suppose so. Otherwise it is just how countries are.


The yes camp was mostly looking at society at a higher and wider level.

I would think most people see both aspects. For example the £500 business.



>
> How long have you lived in Scotland for?

Never really thought before but as it happens 18 years.

MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> You leave and your care and interest leaves with you.

The exact opposite in fact. If *Scotland* leaves my care and interest finishes (or rather reduces to the level I have for say the French). If it stays, I hope everyone in the UK does well.
ccmm on 19 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to the thread:

Come on folks, who spiked Al's drink?
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I'd applaud Al for encouraging support for independence, but I'd rather it happened for positive reasons or not at all!
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: As an interesting aside to your point about Norways Sovereign fund. It is mainly invested in Western Government bonds and oil and gas companies (which is odd as the fund should act as a hedge against the one industry they excel in). Amazingly it doesn't invest in large infrastructure projects (you would think that would be a given...especially domestically).

It hasn't performed particularly well compared to its SWF peers and there is a risk that it could be a lot smaller in value should there be a bond crisis in the Western economies (not implausable)

Still a nice $750b problem to have though...
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I guess a bit more subtle and complex but essentially yes.
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to ERH)
> [...]
>
> They are old enough to pay income tax. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

A 5 year old would pay tax is they had a big enough paper round.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to lynx3555)
>
> Agreed. Keep up the good work and remember this site is utterly unrepresentative of Scotland.

Obviously. But then there isn't a web site that is.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Essentially what? That the whereabouts of its independent nuclear deterrent "wouldn't be the UK's problem"? Well, it's a point of view...
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Essentially what? That the whereabouts of its independent nuclear deterrent "wouldn't be the UK's problem"?

The UK wouldn't exist!

A large, immovable, expensive nuclear submarine base exists in Scotland. Don't you think there would be rather large concessions extracted from a (small) Scottish negotiating team, by a (large) RUK one for taking care of its removal and paying for it? Repeat for any number of other matters. The assumption that we will all be the best of friends seems far-fetched to me.

Still, no doubt I am just a self-centred, bastard for even considering such matters.
SI - profile removed on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Actually sir you don't know that because it's never been tried! I'm from the north east too and I think the best way to improve our little valley would be a localised economy, which I think would come with decentralisation.
lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: 300 years ago Scotland was plagued with dire poverty mostly as a result of continental wars with Europe etc that prevented Scotland trading; King Billy had been on the rampage and now after his death Queen Anne was he'll bent on Scotland joining as one with England.
When the Scotish parliment objected to the Queens terms for the union the English Parliament responded with the Alien Act 1705, which threatened to impose economic sanctions and declare Scottish subjects aliens in England, unless Scotland either repealed the Act of Security or moved to unite with England. The Estates chose the latter option; the English Parliament agreed to repeal the Alien Act, and new commissioners were appointed by Queen Anne in early 1706 to negotiate the terms of a union.
Just as people were starting to starve to death all over Scotland, "The man who came up with the answer was a financial adventurer called William Paterson, a Scot who had made his name down south as one of the founding directors of the Bank of England. Paterson returned to Edinburgh with an audacious scheme to turn Scotland into the major broker of trade across the Pacific Ocean. Whilst in London, he had met a sailor called Lionel Wafer, who had told him about a wonderful paradise on the Isthmus of Panama, with a sheltered bay, friendly Indians and rich, fertile land - a place called Darien."
The whole venture was destined for disaster all along...English partners pulled out and it became a financial nightmare...some would say that it was a set up....



SI - profile removed on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM: Jesus... what's got your knickers in such a twist?
teflonpete - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

I think for the vast majority of people in South Englandshire, EU membership is of greater interest than Scottish independence. Personally, I think for the UK to leave the EU would be foolish but think that the rest of the UK and an independent Scotland would all get along fine, although I doubt that the average UK resident, nor the average Scot, would really notice that much difference in their everyday lives post independence. As usual, those with a taste for political activism stand to enrich their lives from it more than Joe average.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> The UK wouldn't exist!

Not in its present form, no - if you prefer, we'll call it "the rUK" as you did in your previous post You know perfectly well what I'm talking about.

> A large, immovable, expensive nuclear submarine base exists in Scotland. Don't you think there would be rather large concessions extracted from a (small) Scottish negotiating team, by a (large) RUK one for taking care of its removal and paying for it?

Maybe, maybe not - I really don't know. I'm just curious as to how you can in one breath say that it wouldn't be any concern of the rUK, and then in the next recognise that they'd have to negotiate to keep it.
Toby S - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to skog)
> [...]
>
> The puke making self rightousness of the Scottish IP propagandists makes me sick. Apart from the benefits of being a part of a major organisation which, yes it does, has the Scots interests at heart. And don't get me talking about it's not the same as Yorkshire independence because of course it is. Jesus Christ you don't even have a proper separate language regularly spoken like the Welsh do, grow up and accept that the best thing for Scotland is that it is a part of and protected by the UK, in economic terms not any other.


Feasgar Math Al, I had a wee bet with myself that you'd be on havering about Yorkshire Independence sooner or later. I owe myself a pint. Cheers. Although you really should read a wee bit more history.
MG - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
and then in the next recognise that they'd have to negotiate to keep it.

I was suggesting they would not want to keep it!
rossh - on 19 Sep 2013

The most depressing thing about the whole fiasco is that whatever the outcome next year we are going to be stuck listening to the Nats whingeing for years to come. If there's a no vote they'll be demanding more powers for this that and the next, if it's yes then it will be complaints about how Westminster are being nasty to them in the negotiations.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

OK, you think the rUK would simply wave its independent nuclear deterrent goodbye. Well, it's a point of view...
Darren Jackson - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
> Agreed. Keep up the good work and remember this site is utterly unrepresentative of Scotland.

Are you implying that a Yes vote will also fragment this site in to EWNIC and SC?

999thAndy on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
> What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?

No argument at all. If you think there is about any country you have failed to understand many fundamentals of history, government and pretty much anything else.


OK if there is no good reason to break the union, why do you want to?
Slugain Howff - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Are we ready to jump or are we being pushed?

It could be argued that modern Scottish nationalism emerged 40 years ago, not because Scotland rejected the United Kingdom, but because England increasingly lost interest in it. Remember up until the mid 60's the most popular political party were the Scottish Unionists.


S
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

Why the oddly-specific interest in a 200-year projection, by the way?

Are you planning a near-lightspeed return trip to Alpha Andromedae?
Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> You remind me of Enoch Powell

Jesus Christ, he is the most hated politician I can think of hating. The difference is he was a racist, I'm not, certainly not where scots and welsh and irish and English are concerned, or even Jamaicans or Asians etc, how can you have come to that conclusion about me? I just think that it is insane to split nations even more than they are already split, it is madness and the splitting of Scotland from the UK is political and demographic madness,
RomTheBear - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> So, are you keen to see Scotland out on their own, or is it a bad idea for them to leave the fold?
>
> Personally I don't care too much, but It would stop them from offering free university to EVERYONE IN EUROPE except the rest of the UK!
>
> Also, for all the people who go on about them getting more in tax than they give, I can't talk, I come from the North East :)
>
> What's it to be- In or Out?

As being one of the happy EU citizen who had benefited from free uni in Scotland, I would also point out that all UK students are also free to study for free in France for example, or any other EU country where University is free, it's a reciprocal thing ;-).

In regards to the referendum, we can try to weigh the pros and cons all you want at the end of the day it is probably impossible to predict (at least for me !) whether Scotland will be better off in or out of the UK, there are just too many variables and too many things to consider.

What is is going to come down too is whether a majority of Scots feel that Scotland is a nation and whether they are ready to take all the decision for their future by themselves, either way, everything will be fine, unless Scotland stays in the UK and the Tories win the next UK General Election, because then many people here are going to be really pissed off :-)))
ads.ukclimbing.com
tony on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> Jesus Christ, he is the most hated politician I can think of hating. The difference is he was a racist, I'm not, certainly not where scots and welsh and irish and English are concerned, or even Jamaicans or Asians etc, how can you have come to that conclusion about me?

Perhaps because of the bile you come out with? You might want to reflect on the fact that your attitude as you express is a remarkably efficient recruiting sergeant for independence. Everything you way is about Scots being thankful for what they get from Lady Bountiful in Westminster, and how dare they get ideas above their station. It's the most demeaning patronising guff you could possibly come out with.
Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to tony: I completely resent the accusation that I come out with bile< find me a single sentence that I have posted that could be considered 'bile'
tony on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to tony) I completely resent the accusation that I come out with bile< find me a single sentence that I have posted that could be considered 'bile'

"The puke making self rightousness of the Scottish IP propagandists makes me sick"
Darren Jackson - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:
>
> "The puke making self rightousness of the Scottish IP propagandists makes me sick"

Isn't that vomit, rather than bile?
tony on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

damn you Jackson, always with the details ...
Slugain Howff - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

Another Evansism

"You Scots really do need to join the 21st century, or would you like to have a Balklans like situation going on in Great Britain."
Slugain Howff - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

And another gem from Al

"I think the problem is we are all (anybody N of London) are in it together, it's not just the Scots who are being screwed by Tory Westminster, (even if it's NL tories that are in power). It's about time the Scots joined in wholeheartedly to fight the battle, alongside the Cumbrians, Lancsmen and Yorkshire men etc, insted of trying to wimp off into some perceived, ridiculous, independence with no power of their own."
Tyler - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Leaving aside the economic and emotional arguments, who thinks the respective governments are capable of delivering a project of this scale? If we can't create a national NHS database in five years how long do you think it will take for all the national organisations to untangle themselves. The big arguments taking place will be repeated on a smaller scale by every national organisation including NGOs etc. how much resources will be taken up by, for example, the dept of Transport, while this is done? A simple office move usually means paralysis for a day or two in most organisations; this will lead to inefficiencies for years to come. If there is a yes vote let's hope there turns out to be some damn good reasons for it.
999thAndy on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog: just wanted to mAke it far enough that we'd have no prospect of making predictions.
AJM - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to RomTheBear:

I think the "except the rest of the UK" bit is the bit which annoys people. You can get the reciprocal EU deal in Scotland if you come from Paris but not if you come from Preston.

I understand why they've done it, this is just to clarify which bit it is that gets people's back up.
Donnie - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

>
> Personally I don't care too much, but It would stop them from offering free university to EVERYONE IN EUROPE except the rest of the UK!
>

There are two things that are wrong. One, England doesn’t offer free education. Two, the EU law that says a country that offers free education has to offer that to countries that don’t reciprocate.

If Scotland were forced to offer free education to students from the rest of the UK they’d just have to charge everyone.

Donnie - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Tyler: Pretty irrelevant really in the grand scheme of things - we'd be a long time independent.
Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Slugain Howff: I love it when you talk dirty!
In reply to ERH: A no from me. I cannot see anything the Holyrood politicians have actually got right, so I certainly don't trust them on this one.
skog - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

Ah.

Weeeel, I predict that, in 200 years, large portions of England will be prone to flooding whenever there's a particularly high tide. Scotland will be able to make a fortune exporting small hills to our Southern neighbours, and supplying them with potatoes for deep-frying (they don't grow well in salt marsh).
andymac - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

The kids they say NO.

Thank feck.

Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

> I cannot see anything the Holyrood politicians have actually got right

Absolutely nothing at all?? So you think that, for example, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act of 2003 was a mistake?

Al Evans on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: This whole thing is just terribly sad, I don't have an answer, but it's just terribly sad that some of Scotland wants independence, it is insane but if that is where democracy leads ces't la vie
Slugain Howff - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

As I said in a previous post Al for me it is more of a feeling of being pushed rather than a desire to jump.

S.
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
> [...]
>
> Not sure which bit you are finding shocking but it's not far off a lot of the sentiment south of the border. Beyond the Westminister village and the BBC I've found reactions to the Scottish vote fall largely into two camps.
>
> 1. The overwhelming one is a profound apathy and deep-seated boredom with the whole thing, already becoming tinged with an irritation at the airtime being devoted to it down here. Most people honestly really don't care either way. As far as they are concerned Scotland is just a cold wet place to the north with two second rate football teams, a tennis player, a cyclist, whisky, Hogmanay, some dodgy banks and Mel Gibson with his face painted like an Argentine football shirt.
>
> Or
>
> 2. Less common but much more vehemnetly held: if they gave the English a vote the Scots wouldn't need one. Don't let the door catch your a*se as you leave.
>
> Sorry, but for the most part that's the way it is.


It's an interesting fact that in a survey a couple of days ago across the UK the figures for and against Scottish independence roughly mirrored the opinion held in Scotland. 52% for Scotland to stay in the Uk vs 32% for it to leave.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-scottish?CMP=twt_gu

I'd go on to say that the lack of interest in the issue South of the border is reflected in Scotland as well. The only difference is that we are being forced to make a choice. For example, the Government consultation process on the framing of the referendum got, from memory, about 16000 replies through the internet. A similar process on gay marriage got over three times that number...

Certainly I've noticed that amongst a number of circles of friends and acquaintances the issue is skirted around, mainly I think because most feel it peripheral to their lives but potentially divisive.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Certainly I've noticed that amongst a number of circles of friends and acquaintances the issue is skirted around, mainly I think because most feel it peripheral to their lives but potentially divisive.

Same here. There are people I see every day and I don't know (or especially care) how they feel on the independence question.

I think it was Bill Clinton who said that the way the issue is handled is almost as important as the result. The tone of some of the 'debate' has been fairly shocking (from both sides). I get the sense (from e.g. Twitter) that within Scotland there's a fair bit of ill-feeling being generated which will no doubt persist long after the Referendum, whatever the outcome.
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:

>
> Salmond is a very talented operator though, and Scotland has a much stronger National Identity than mongrel England.
>

I think he's been found out over the past year or so. Yes, a talented politician but not really top flight. When he's come up against top class politicians and interviewers lately he's ended up with his arse getting handed back to him on a plate.

I'd say his credibility has taken a lot of knocks lately.

e.g. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4606031/EU-liar-Salmond-blasted-over-legal-adv...

(from a paper that used to support the SNP)
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> I get the sense (from e.g. Twitter) that within Scotland there's a fair bit of ill-feeling being generated which will no doubt persist long after the Referendum, whatever the outcome.

I really really hope that we can get through this without dividing the nation. I think we need to make sure that nastier elements on both sides are not allowed to hijack the debate.
punj - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: We are not used to long campaigns running up to elections and i think a lot of the electorate won't get interested till far nearer the time. most of those following it at the moment are those who are very interested in it and have made up their minds already.

A lot of people i hear getting interviewed that are undecided say they don't have enough information to make a decision. there is vast amounts of information especially from the Scottish Gov out there and with the internet it is not that hard too find. the mainstream Media isn't helping here, often focusing on petty issues and party politics that are really not what this vote is about.

personally i think that either they are not interested enough 'yet' to go have have a serious look or they expect to be spoonfed.

at the end of the day its 12 months to go and people who will vote but don't feel strongly about it will probably not be engaged for some time yet
David Barratt - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to David Barratt)
> [...]
>
> A 5 year old would pay tax is they had a big enough paper round.

No they wouldn't, that would be illegal. You receive your NI card at 16 and are allowed to work longer hours. Under 16's are not allowed work long enough to pay income tax.
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to skog:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
>
> But if, as it seems, we're going to be keeping Sterling but losing influence over it, it seems a bit less appealing. We should either join the Euro, or start our own currency.
>

While I hesitate to make three consecutive posts containing links I do think this issue could do with facts or at least objective analysis rather than predictions of doom or affirmations of wishful thinking.

Here's a link to a 9 minute cartoon produced by a neutral organisation (they say so at the end) which examines the currency options open to Scotland in the event of it voting for independence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o

lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans: Terribly sad! If your Scottish, live in Scotland and have the energy and drive to help build an independent nation, then it's not sad at all.
How is it surprising that a lot of Scottish people want to be split from the union? Scotland has always had a lot of national pride and nationalism has been around for as long as it's been called Scotland.
I'm flattered that a lot of our southern cousins would want to keep us, but just like HongKong and all the other colonies it's time for us to stand on our own again.
What really sickens me regarding the "No campaign" is the continual use of fear tactics designed to scare worried and insecure potential voters. It's relentless and unfortunately the majority of the media tend to express there very bias opinions. In reality a lot of what they say is challenged and debunked but to late to avoid it adding to the growing pile of lies and under handed practices of certain groups and media out lets.
I look forward to my political business being here in Scotland and not out of London.
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I think he's been found out over the past year or so. Yes, a talented politician but not really top flight.

I'd disagree with that - I think he's one of the most effective politicians in the UK. Without Salmond I don't even think we'd be having a referendum on Independence.
Dr.S at work - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Slugain Howff:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> As I said in a previous post Al for me it is more of a feeling of being pushed rather than a desire to jump.
>
> S.

I do not really follow the argument - why do you think the english lost interest in the union, and how does that translate into being pushed away?

ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

hmm, what if they managed miraculously to land a well paying job? Or could you give your kids a load of stocks and shares, and not pay as much tax on the dividends?
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Fraser:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> It'll be a No from me. Likely result will probably be the devo-max thang.

Yep, that's how I see it panning out.

Most Scots like the Scottish Parliament and would like it to have more powers but don't want to leave the UK. It's hardly suprising that after a little over a decade of devolution that it's apparent that we should be re assessing what Holyrood should be responsible for and it's probably a good time to bring in some changes.

Further, going on from my earlier post about the divisiveness that this campaign could bring to Scotland, Devo Max would be the ideal way of bringing most of Scotland back together again. Many pro indepenence argumnents could equally be arguments for Devo Max. Those that make them as an argument for separation now would presumably be satisfied if the powers they argue for were granted to Holyrood after a No vote.
coinneach - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin) This whole thing is just terribly sad, I don't have an answer, but it's just terribly sad that some of Scotland wants independence, it is insane but if that is where democracy leads ces't la vie


Hey Al,

If I was you you I'd give up on the whole idea of a United Kingdom and just go and live somewhere else instead................


Oh hang on!

Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> I'd disagree with that - I think he's one of the most effective politicians in the UK.

We'll have to disagree on that one Doug!

> Without Salmond I don't even think we'd be having a referendum on Independence.

Absolutely! The SNP would be a shadow of themselves if he weren't in charge. You'll remember what a shambles they were when John Swinney was in power. The one thing that puzzles me is why he stayed in Westminster for so long after devolution.
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

> It's better that we take control of our own resources, particularly now, when there is still a significant amount of value in them....lots of potential in Scotland: it can lead the world in various areas of heavy and complex engineering work, large manufacturing out put, banking and lots more......

I've worked in the engineering industry for over thirty years making products for a worldwide markets and competing with companies all over the world. I'm afraid your assertion is hugely optimistic. Competing with low wage economies is incredibly difficult in manufacturing and I see little prospect of a significant revival in manufacturing in Europe, let alone Scotland, for the foreseeable future.

If anything, as Chinese engineers become better educated our remaining competitive advantage will be eroded.
blurty - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Here's a link to a 9 minute cartoon produced by a neutral organisation (they say so at the end) which examines the currency options open to Scotland in the event of it voting for independence.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o

Excellent video, thanks.
David Barratt - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to David Barratt)
>
> hmm, what if they managed miraculously to land a well paying job? Or could you give your kids a load of stocks and shares, and not pay as much tax on the dividends?

A far quicker way to pick holes in my logic would be to point out that anyone buying anything pays VAT... But regardless, at 16 you can pay income tax, you can join the military, you should be allowed to vote, should it interest you.
andymac - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

I must be "worried and insecure" then .

Or maybe it's that I'm a realist and don't much like looking through tartan tinted glasses.

These tartan tinted glasses tend to give a almost romantic,distorted view of things.

lynx3555 - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: you have a very negative out look regarding Scotland future regardless of whether it's independent or not!
For 5 million people we have a lot going for our selves, we contributed immensely to the Union and I see no reason we won't contribute to creating a great independent Scotland.
The oil and gas industry is serviced by very high tech and world leading engineering service companies, a lots of the equipment is developed and constructed here in Scotland.
Manufacturing in Scotland has been on the rise for some time here in Scotland, 6% increase in 2011 alone.
Scotland is more than capable of looking after it's own business and making a very good job of managing its own affairs both here and abroad.
RomTheBear - on 19 Sep 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1tJJO_pVvQ ;-) Still makes me laugh ;-)
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

I was actually wondering, do you know what does happen when a person under 16 breaks the tax barrier?
ads.ukclimbing.com
ERH - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Apparently, you get a temporary NI with a temporary tax code, so you could pay tax if you earnt enough when under 16.

Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) you have a very negative out look regarding Scotland future regardless of whether it's independent or not!
> For 5 million people we have a lot going for our selves, we contributed immensely to the Union

Yes, Scotland has done very well out of the Union, as has the rest of the UK.


> The oil and gas industry is serviced by very high tech and world leading engineering service companies, a lots of the equipment is developed and constructed here in Scotland.

And that industry will gradually move from scotland after the Oil goes. It'll go for just the same reasons as it came here in the first place.

> Manufacturing in Scotland has been on the rise for some time here in Scotland, 6% increase in 2011 alone.

Sorry but I'm afraid I don't see any particularly strong growth in Scottish manufacturing as a whole, let alone in engineering:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00428398.pdf

Regarding an oil fund. There have been a couple of really illuminating discussions on Newsnight Scotland over the past few months. Certainly the Scottish Government has gone rather cool on the idea, you can't spend money and save it at the same time. At best an oil fund would be used to smooth out the fluctuations in our revenue due to the fluctuations in the world oil price. Oil of course would account for a very substantial part of our economy if Scotland were to leave the UK. 16% vs 1.6% if I recall correctly.

Regarding remaining oil reserves and future income from them. There was an excellent discussion between three academics (including the famous prof McCrone) on future North Sea oil revenue. There were all agreed that the future value of UK oil reserves, which would mainly become Scottish in the event of separation, could be anywhere between the lowest estimate from the OBR and the highest estimate from the Scottish government. The message is simple, don't believe anyone who predicts future revenues with certainty.
doz - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: What I continue to struggle with is how we can disassociate a yes vote for independence from a yes vote for President Alex and his cronies..unfortunately these are two very separate questions.....
coinneach - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to doz:

It's quite easy really.............vote "yes" for independence. Then, if you don't like the way that Alex and his cronies run things, vote for someone else at the next election.
andymac - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to coinneach:

Who?

I can only see Chaiman Galloway possibly forming an opposition
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

This isn't the discussion I was referring to but essential viewing nevertheless, an interview with prof McCrone about his infamous report, future oil revenues and the issues facing the economy of an independent Scotland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2F-H01Qm1I

coinneach - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to andymac:

That would be mental!

We'd all have to be Dundee Utd supporters............
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> And that industry will gradually move from scotland after the Oil goes. It'll go for just the same reasons as it came here in the first place.

By no means all of it, Eric. A substantial (and increasing) proportion of the work that takes place in and around Aberdeen is for oil exploration and production in other parts of the world - Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, Australia, the Middle East...
andymac - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to coinneach:

"Have to"

Are you suggesting that under George we would be living in a Dictatorship?
coinneach - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to andymac:

Your choice andy............

George or Alex?

Doesn't affect me as I live in Englandshire.
Eric9Points - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> By no means all of it, Eric. A substantial (and increasing) proportion of the work that takes place in and around Aberdeen is for oil exploration and production in other parts of the world - Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, Australia, the Middle East...

I'd like to think you're right Doug but without having a substantial market on it's doorstep CEOs will start to question the reasons for maintaining a presence in Scotland...and when it comes to that fight, as it surely will, I wonder whether it would be better if a UK government were fightng to keep them in Scotland or a Scottish government? I suspect a UK government that still retained the £ would be the best ally the Aberdeen oil industry could have.
doz - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to coinneach:
> (In reply to doz)
>
> It's quite easy really.............vote "yes" for independence. Then, if you don't like the way that Alex and his cronies run things, vote for someone else at the next election.

Well that's the problem..a yes vote potentially gives Mr Salmond five years to take Scotland wherever he wants before any serious political opposition has formed....and to date he has not exactly shown respect for local democratic decision making...but then again he is a politician
Douglas Griffin - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to doz:

> Well that's the problem..a yes vote potentially gives Mr Salmond five years to take Scotland wherever he wants before any serious political opposition has formed

How do you work that out?! The referendum isn't a Scottish general election.
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt: It's nothing to do with how long you work, it's about how much you make.

A one year old that makes £1,000,000 when their parents make £8,000 would pay tax.
Greenbanks - on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
Thanks - really good thread with lots of decent & varied contributions. It has pulled me away from work, but in a positive sense. Not got an opinion on all of this, but the thread (I have lurkingly read it all) has been informative.
Cheers
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: Scotland is not a colony of the UK, it is an integral part of the UK.

The UK doesn't equal England. Salmond and Co can claim whatever they want but not all of us English Brits think that Scottish Brits are inferior
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Glad you answered him. It is a widely held but incorrect belief that 5 year olds aren't due for tax. If it wasn't the case then Brooklyn Beckham would make £50 million a year and David Beckham would make nothing.

Saying TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is in reality a high jack of a noble campaign for equal rights
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

It's an interesting one that, based on paranoia I think. Salmond has never claimed that but it's continually rolled out all the time. I can only presume that is due to some feeling of being threatened.
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Which post are you replying to?
Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

This one: "The UK doesn't equal England. Salmond and Co can claim whatever they want but not all of us English Brits think that Scottish Brits are inferior"

No one has ever claimed that but you appear to hold that belief quite strongly.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Graeme Alderson on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Really, no other English person has ever expressed that opinion. I am amazed. I know loads of English/(N)Irish/Welsh that share my opinion.

Cuthbert on 19 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I am referring to your belief that Salmond and Co have claimed what you say. You are plain wrong.
Graeme Alderson on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: I am glad that you have pointed out that Salmond & Co have never actually spoken the thoughts that I credited them with. I withdraw my acussation.

However the argument that 16 year olds should have the vote because they pay tax is complete and utter bollocks is the one that I was progressing. What are your views on this?
Al Evans on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
I think it was Bill Clinton who said that the way the issue is handled is almost as important as the result.

Didn't he also say that about his d*ck.
Al Evans on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to blurty:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> Excellent video, thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o

Yes I think all Scots intending to vote for devolution should read and digest this.
silhouette - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to doz:
> Well that's the problem..a yes vote potentially gives Mr Salmond five years to take Scotland wherever he wants before any serious political opposition has formed.

No. To state the bl**ding obvious, when Scotland becomes independent it will have to have a general election soon thereafter. Although Labour, the Tories and LibDems are opposed to independence now, when it happens they're hardly likely to all give up and withdraw from politics altogether are they? So an independent Scotland will get the government it elects, which I'll wager will be a Labour / LibDem coalition.

So a major plank of unionist scaremongering collapses; a vote for independence is not a vote for Salmond to endure. He would help himself if he made that clear.
silhouette - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> Yes I think all Scots intending to vote for devolution should read and digest this.

Only those Scots who have been in a flotation tank since 1997 think they are going to vote for devolution.

Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

> Yes I think all Scots intending to vote for devolution should read and digest this.

While we're busy doing that, could you maybe take the time to familiarise yourself with some basic terminology?
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Thanks. I think our short exchange typifies much of the debate where the NO camp make up, imagine or create information which has no basis in reality and then the YES camp has to spend resources countering it. I understand why the NO camp would want to do this but I question whether many people, including a fair few on this thread, understand the subject.

Regarding 16 year olds voting, I have no strong opinions on it.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

I am sure you aren't aware of this, but almost every single post you type on this subject is nonsense.
tony on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to silhouette:
>
> So a major plank of unionist scaremongering collapses; a vote for independence is not a vote for Salmond to endure. He would help himself if he made that clear.

Does he need to? It takes an enormous leap to get to the idea that a vote for independence is a vote for Mr Potatohead in perpetuity, and I haven't seen any suggestion that the current type of parliamentary arrangements would not continue in an independent Scotland.
Graeme Alderson on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: So the argument that 16 year olds should vote because they pay tax has a basis in reality?

When you say that people don't understand the subject you mean they disagree with you. You are beginning to sound like Bruce.
lynx3555 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: "Project Fear" as it's commonly referred to, is an attempt to use negative propaganda, to petrify the Scottish people in to remaining British. It's absolutely relentless and "Project Fear" has friends in high places.....the BBC, ITV, Scotsman, The Tories, Labour, the Armed Forces....the number of prominent objectors to Independence is just way too big to list.
The Media has controlled the general out let of information regarding the Independence debate and it's obvious to nationalists that the media are giving the upper hand to the Unionists.
Even with all those Unionists applying all that pressure to the nationalists, the percentage of nationalists remains the same, why would that be? Personally I think it's because, a lot of Scots are big enough and brave enough to say Yes, and become a responsible and totally independent country....it's in our blood, psyche and we would vote yes with out hesitation at any given opportunity.
Ask Norway if they regret becoming independent, ask Ireland, ask all the other countries that took the opportunity that Scotland is being given now.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Yeah I think he, the campaign, does need to make that clear. From the posts here, letters pages in papers, Facebook and conversations, it's very clear that many people do not understand that this is not an election.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No I mean they don't understand it. That is why I said that. You may disagree with me or misunderstand my post but let me be 100% clear - I mean they dont understand it.

Re voting again, I don't have a strong opinion either way and can't be bothered discussing it in relation to tax.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:


...has anyone asked themselves why England wants to hold onto Scotland within the UK ?
Think about it...and when you've worked out the answer you'll realise why everyone in Scotland should vote Yes for independence.......
...and before anyone starts slinging crap I'm a Yorkshireman......

ANdy
Jim Fraser - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

Since there are 10 times more English than us, the biggest question has to be not whether Scotland should be independent but what are the English and their friends so scared of.

The insane rants of the NO/BetterTogether lot hide questions of what is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

- what is the validity of the current relationship?
- why has it never been set down in a proper constitutional document?
- who is protected by not addressing the major imbalances in the current relationship?
- do Wales and Northern Ireland have a valid relationship with a group that does not include Scotland?
- is it Southern England that is clearly a different country rather than Scotland?
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
>
> ...has anyone asked themselves why England wants to hold onto Scotland within the UK ?
> Think about it...and when you've worked out the answer you'll realise why everyone in Scotland should vote Yes for independence.......
> ...and before anyone starts slinging crap I'm a Yorkshireman......
>
> ANdy

+1

Sir Chasm - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: Don't forget that anyone who votes no isn't a true Scotsman.
silhouette - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:
> It takes an enormous leap to get to the idea that a vote for independence is a vote for Mr Potatohead in perpetuity...

Unfortunately the electors don't always think things through (and I don't just mean electors in Scotland) and many people do indeed believe that a vote for independence is a vote for Eck.

dek - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to lynx3555) Don't forget that anyone who votes no isn't a true Scotsman.

Do we have a definition of a 'true' Scot?
silhouette - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
> ...has anyone asked themselves why England wants to hold onto Scotland within the UK ?

The same reasons England wants to have an adventure in Syria. Oh, hold on a minute.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to dek:
> Do we have a definition of a 'true' Scot?

One who is "big and brave enough" to vote yes. Obviously. Anyone else is a weedy coward and not a true Scot.
tony on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Yeah I think he, the campaign, does need to make that clear. From the posts here, letters pages in papers, Facebook and conversations, it's very clear that many people do not understand that this is not an election.

Really? Oh well, I'll take your word for it - I make a point of avoiding letters pages and such like. I must say I'm surprised, as it's never crossed my mind that this is anything other than a single question to be asked.

I do wonder how long Nicola Sturgeon is going to remain content to be Salmond's deputy. She's much more capable and credible, and must be a bit fed up about clearing up his various messes. I'm sure she won't do anything before the referendum, but I could imagine moves being made afterwards.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

...correct....I'm a true Yorkshireman, not Scottish.......and I'll be voting Yes for Scotland's independence....
Because, and make no mistake about this folks, all the English Government want is Scotland's money.......
...I refer to my earlier post....the answer to which you will NEVER get anyone from the Better Together campaign to answer....


ANdy
teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to ERH)

> - is it Southern England that is clearly a different country rather than Scotland?

So do you think Southern England should have a referendum on independence from the rest of the UK?

Actually, when I look at it in terms of what would be the benefits of South East independence to the South East, I can understand why pro independence Scots are so in favour of a yes vote in their referendum.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

...don't ever make a comment like that....

ANdy
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Yeah really. Many intelligent individuals have raised this. It's on this thread and multiple others. I was at both BBC debates this week and it was raised there too. On facebook it's raised on an hourly basis almost. It really is very widespread.

I see what you mean about NS but I think the world will be a different place in a years time. Either way it doesn't matter as this isn't about political parties.
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
>
> Really? Oh well, I'll take your word for it - I make a point of avoiding letters pages and such like. I must say I'm surprised, as it's never crossed my mind that this is anything other than a single question to be asked.
>

People understand quite well, of course. They also understand if the answer is yes, Salmond is hardly going to quitetly retire and will be in a strong position to remain as FM. For many this isn't an appealing prospect, even if it is a relatively short-term consideration.
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: No. But don't worry your little head about it, you won't understand.
999thAndy on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
>
> ...has anyone asked themselves why England wants to hold onto Scotland within the UK ?
> Think about it...and when you've worked out the answer you'll realise why everyone in Scotland should vote Yes for independence.......
> ...and before anyone starts slinging crap I'm a Yorkshireman......
>
> ANdy

I gave some reasons further up the thread, based on how well Britain as whole has done since union. Based on the last few hundred years during which we went from a divided island to the 8th biggest economy in the world. It's possible that the rest of Britain might have got there without Scotland, but I would doubt it. As I said earlier Britain has been more than the sum of the parts for a long time, and breaking the union seems at best pointless and at worst highly detrimental to both parties in the long run.

In what way is England holding onto Scotland? At the moment we are united - England didn't conquer Scotland and claim it as English territory.
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> People understand quite well, of course.

Well if they do, some of them are going to great pains to make it look like they don't. There has been at least one example on this thread.

ps - Re. your reply at 10:39 you can put me in the "WTF??" camp as well.
lynx3555 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: It seems very clear to me, that "Unionists" are just using there I'll gotten impression of Alex Salmond as an excuse to justify there "No" vote.
In reality Alex Salmond is doing a reasonable job of running Scotland right now, personally I think he's a damn site better than west ministers coalition government.
It saddens me to think that some people will vote because of there loyalty to Protestant loyalist groups....or even which team they support!
I've seen one flyer going around face book and it reads "British Protestant Loyalists" you can stick your independence up your arse.
The "No campaign" have some sinister supporters and unfortunately they are home grown here in Scotland or over in Northern Ireland.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/ulster-unionists-in-scots-poll-protest.21269603
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

> ps - Re. your reply at 10:39 you can put me in the "WTF??" camp as well.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loaded%20question
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

I know what it means, the "WTF" was in response to your chosing to express it in those terms as opposed to just saying that you thought it was a loaded question.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

I can see and understand.

Summary: You find change and thoughts you don't like to be very challenging. Your conservative and Conservative outlook is very rigid. Your knowledge of Scotland is actually quite limited due to this attitude. When you get angry you find yourself writing stupid stuff to strangers about them beating their wives. Despite the above, you consider yourself to be very well informed on this and multiple other subject.
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: It's a well known example.
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: yeah yeah - just piss off.
In reply to lynx3555: Sure, ticking Yes won't be a vote for Salmond, or even a party, but that is hard to disentangle for many (me included, I'm no fan of his). But even if we accept that, there does seem to be a logical slight of hand going on here. After all, Nats seem very happy to trade on the unpopularity of the Tories to bolster their case (such as it is) for separation. That looks like double standards from where I'm sat. It's not about 'us', but it is about 'them'. Cake and eat it?

I can't speak for 'sinister supporters' but I'd guess that view of the opposition cuts either way, depending on your own personal bias (and no offence, but you've some pretty strong emotive sounding views on the subject). I personally find some of the unhinged fantasist cybernats that you see cropping up on the Scotsman and elsewhere pretty unpleasant too, but I really try not to let them colour my judgement of the perfectly reasonable majority in the Yes campaign.
In reply to Saor Alba: Can't help sticking my oar in briefly. I think MG was referring for rhetorical purposes to a well-known example of a loaded question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question , not suggesting anyone's actually beating anyone else. I'll duck out again now.
In reply to lynx3555: P.S. Just read my post back. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not tarring you with the 'cybernat' brush!
Tyler - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
> When you get angry you find yourself writing stupid stuff to strangers about them beating their wives.

In fairness to MG "when did you stop bearing your wife" is known shorthand for indicating what he wanted to say, I'm surprised you didn't know that. It's not your fault but in terms of who is left looking an idiot, I guess, no one is but those familiar with the phrase will think you the one who has spoken hastily and without thought.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

See there you go again Martin. The YES campaign has been talking about multiple ways to improve things. You may not agree with them or think they are silly, but they are all valid points of view.

That your reaction and that of others is so severe is indicative that this debate is lost on many. It's too challenging for them. The notion that after 300+ years of union there is a significant body of people who want to change things or at least talk about it is met with a dismissive tone and attempts to put down. This is very telling.

The reason I want independence is that I want taxes raised in Scotland to be decided upon in Scotland. I want things like taxation and other currently reserved powers to be within the powers of the Scottish Parliament so that when these powers are used they are representative of the electorate.

I don't want the yah-booh, punch and judy war that is the tone of Westminister and filters into Scotland all the time.

My priorities are not large aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, "the city", a permanent seat on the UN security council etc.

I don't want to sell the entire asset base of the country.

My priorities are communities, families, education, the environment and young people and a more open and mature, tong term, type of politics that is so lacking in Britain.

I think all of those interests would be better served by an independent Scotland.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Neither do I. I just think it was indicative of many other issues, a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to deal with the issues. It's a very scary conversation for some to deal with things that they have held dearly for so long. Challenging one's own beliefs is never a bad thing.
In reply to Saor Alba: You've a lot of political energy. In the event of a No vote, would you work with enthusiasm towards all the positive things you just listed, within the context of devomax in a continuing UK? You might find, counter to your apparent opinion that nothing positive can ever be achieved without separation, that good changes can still be brought about. Only they'd be of benefit to 60million rather than 5. I guess accepting that possiblity might be a bit like challenging your own dearly-held beliefs? ;-)
lynx3555 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: The very existence of the term "cybernats" is offensive to me.....it's a term used as a derogatry handle, by "cyber bully's", to try and prevent passionate Nationalists supporters from talking out...belittle them, make there voice seem worthless, silence them
Chris the Tall - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> Since there are 10 times more English than us, the biggest question has to be not whether Scotland should be independent but what are the English and their friends so scared of.

I'm scared of a return to the 80s when the Tories had a permanent majority in Parliament
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I don't know Dan but I think in general people would come together. The things I listed are too important to not do that.

If devomax is the outcome of a no vote so be it. We get on with it. The history of this whole movement is one of gradualism. The notion of a federation is a red herring and also utterly dead. Only the Lib Dems want this and they are probably going to be destroyed at the next election.

It's not may apparent opinion that positive things cannot be acheived. In fact I said nothing of the sort. You imagined that.

I just see the way things are going with lots of more privitisaton, a large military including nuclear weapons, and a lurch to the right. I don't want that.

If the rest of the UK want to support UKIP for example so be it. I don't and see no good reason Scotland should be subject to policies or parties that Scotland has so clearly rejected on multiple occassions.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
> (In reply to Saor Alba) You might find ...... that good changes can still be brought about. Only they'd be of benefit to 60million rather than 5.

Aye right Dan, Douglas Alexander (AKA staff seargant Fear) won't spell out what the benefits of devo max will be before the referendum. Can you state what the benefit is to the UK population as a whole is and why it's better than us looking after our own affairs?

ericinbristol - on 20 Sep 2013
For what it's worth (not much - I'm not important), I hope that Scotland votes for independence. The political and social values and preferences there are much more to my liking and being in the UK is a significant barrier to acting on those values and preferences. e.g. I don't think an independent Scotland would be involved in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn't suck up to US Presidents regardless of how right wing and stupid they are, would't be involved with the disgusting global network of rendition and torture... etc. http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/
teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)

> If the rest of the UK want to support UKIP for example so be it. I don't and see no good reason Scotland should be subject to policies or parties that Scotland has so clearly rejected on multiple occassions.

Do you really think UKIP would ever be any more than vociferous fringe party for the UK regardless of whether Scottish voters are influencing the UK election or not? Fear of that happening is as misplaced as those who think that the Yes campaign is driven by lunatic nationalists. A rightward shift by the tories is feasible but straying too far from the centre ground will lose them too many votes.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

I don't know but I do know that I don't want Scotland to be subject to the tories as we clearly rejected them.
Al Evans on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> See there you go again Martin. The YES campaign has been talking about multiple ways to improve things. You may not agree with them or think they are silly, but they are all valid points of view.

I don't just think they are silly, I think they are sad and profoundly misguided, and before anybody else talks drivel, I live in Spain purely for the weather, and in any case am moving back to the UK soon, it's where I pay my taxes and where my passport comes from, I would want it no other way than to live and belong to the UNITED KINGDOM.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to Al Evans: Then get your skates on Al and move to Scotland. That way you can have a vote.
ericinbristol - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Yes - there would be no more Tory rule in Scotland. And any attempt to try "New Labour" (with its Tory friendly market ideology) would have received short shrift too.
teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> I don't know but I do know that I don't want Scotland to be subject to the tories as we clearly rejected them.

Fair point.
In reply to Craig Mc: Not sure I understand the question Craig, but here goes. The precise shape of independence is completely up in the air too, and subject to negotiation after the vote, while the benefits are far from spelled out to everyone's satisfaction. Compared to that load of vagueness devomax seems no less unsure.

We do already look after our 'own' affairs. Inasmuch as we get to vote. By that i mean some things get decided at UK level, some at Scottish, and some at local council. Oh, and some at European level. I can't see any point getting rid of one of those layers, there are plenty of things it makes perfect sense to decide on a UK-wide level. If you personally have no sense of ownership over decisions taken collectively as GB then I guess that might explain why you're a Scottish Nationalist. I do, so I'm not.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Question:

Are you using the term "Scottish Nationalist" for someone who believes in an independent Scotland or is there some other meaning?

It doesn't make perfect sense. Rightly or wrongly the vast majority of people in Scotland are not in favour of the bed room tax. but we have it. That is the opposite of perfect sense.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Thanks for the reply Dan. The precise shape of independence will be, quite rightly, negotiated after the event of a yes vote. The difference between the Yes and No camps is the white paper the SNP are publishing in November. I don't know the content of this but I expect it will spell out a lot of where the main protagonists in the Yes camp see the negotiations starting from.

The No campaign have no desire to spell out precisely what remaining in the Union will entail for the people living in Scotland.

By the way I'm not, and never have been, a Scottish Nationalist with capitals. I've voted for them in the past because it appears to me to be the best way of getting what I see as the best settlement for the people here. I'm a bit more of a Green myself with a red tinge.
Eric9Points - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com) The very existence of the term "cybernats" is offensive to me.....it's a term used as a derogatry handle, by "cyber bully's", to try and prevent passionate Nationalists supporters from talking out...belittle them, make there voice seem worthless, silence them

I take then that you've never read the offensive nonsense posted on The Scotsman's comment pages year after year by some independence supporters?

If you had you wouldn't be so quick to defend them. Sad and unpleasant people in need of counselling.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fidman on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Here is my take on this.

Whislt the rest of the world is moving together SNP are proposing to create a state on sentimentality. 300 years of union have not diminished the Scottish national identity and we do not need independence to maintain it.

The SNP policy is built on income from oil and exports, mainly whiskey. From a peak of 3.2 million barrels we are now producing 800,000, this will only reduce.

As far as whiskey is concerned, although popular we benefit from the lack of trade barriers from being part of the European Union. Our main markets are England, Europe, USE and Asia, all of whom produce their own spirits. They cannot over tax scotch because our big brothers would cry foul. If we are independent why should the first UK budget not increase tax on whiskey? They would not be interested in protecting the interests of an industry in a "foreign" country.

Here is another question, how much does Scotland gain from having UK armed forces in Scotland? If you want to find out ask someone who lives in Moray. If the air bases went from Moray the economy of that area would collapse, even the current Tory government shied away from closing Lossiemouth.

And another thing. I have heard the statistics about how much we pay and how much we gain and the SNP figures do not make sense. There were statistics publishes a couple of weeks ago. On average in the UK 18% of homes have no wage earners. In Scotland there are only four areas where the average is below the UK average, Orkney, Shetland, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. These areas contain less than 10% of the population. This means that in 90% of the country we are above the UK average. Glasgow, which has 10% of out population, has 30%. How can we afford this.

El presidente elect announced today that "HE" would renationalise Royal Mail. Note the "HE", not the government, but good old Alex. The main argument against privatisation is that the cost of mail in rural areas would increase. Scotland is full of rural areas and we would not have the subsidy from the populated areas south of the border.

We need to wake up and smell the roses, vote with the head not the braveheart. And besides if we were independent where would the fun be in beating England.


teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)

> The No campaign have no desire to spell out precisely what remaining in the Union will entail for the people living in Scotland.

Surely the essence of the No campaign would be that remaining in the Union after a no vote at referendum would be largely the same as being in the Union now. ie. No changes to spell out.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to teflonpete:

Aye Pete, you'd think so. But Messrs Alexander, Darling, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie are all dangling promises of jam tomorrow in a coldly calculated attempt of muddying the waters.
Eric9Points - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)
> [...]
>
> Aye right Dan, Douglas Alexander (AKA staff seargant Fear) won't spell out what the benefits of devo max will be before the referendum.

I noticed on the news this morning that there's going to be a conference between the three main pro UK parties on what direction Scotland and it's Government should be taking if it decides to remain in the UK.

The next few months are exactly the right time to have this sort of discussion and obtain commitments from all the main as to what they would be willing to review regarding devolved powers. Not only will the right commitments strengthen the pro UK case but in the event of a pro UK result people in Scotland are likely to vote for the party that has made the most attractive offer.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: I think the Rev could possibly be a cybernat http://wingsoverscotland.com/
Eric9Points - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Fidman:
> (In reply to ERH) Here is my take on this.
>

> The SNP policy is built on income from oil and exports, mainly whiskey.

As whiskEy is Irish there is an obvious flaw in that policy ;-).

Otherwise I agree with your post.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Craig Mc)
> [...]
> Not only will the right commitments strengthen the pro UK case but in the event of a pro UK result people in Scotland are likely to vote for the party that has made the most attractive offer.

There were a lot of attractive offers made during the run up to the 1979 vote. How many came to fruition?

Despite this I'd still welcome a cohesive attempt at spelling out what the post-referendum options are. I await with interest.
rossh - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

Absolutely correct on that. The Nats are the ones that are proposing that Scottish people make the biggest decision and arguably biggest gamble of their lives so they should be the ones coming up with all the answers. At any rate as we've seen on pretty much every issue so far, currency and defence for example, their plans can change depending on which way the wind blows so you might as well take their answers with a pinch of salt anyway. Whichever way you look at it voting yes is one hell of a gamble based on what the Nats have come up with so far.
Eric9Points - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) I think the Rev could possibly be a cybernat http://wingsoverscotland.com/

What a curious website.

"Petty and ill informed" flashed through my head as I read some of the posts, remarkable.
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Fidman:

> The SNP policy is built on income from oil and exports, mainly whiskey. From a peak of 3.2 million barrels we are now producing 800,000, this will only reduce.

Let's take a country like Denmark, for example. It does have an oil & gas industry, but it's not a very big one. I'd be surprised if their exports of beer are any more valuable than Scotland's exports of whisky. And yet they manage to be reasonably prosperous?

This isn't an argument for Independence, but it does seem to me to indicate that the case for independence doesn't have to be built on either oil or whisky. I'd imagine quite a few countries would like to have Scotland's "problem" of a declining oil & gas industry, never mind its renewable energy potential.
silhouette - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
It'll be interesting to see how the debate develops if, as I suspect, UKIP has a spectacluar showing in next year's Euro elections and if the Tories are high in the polls next summer.
teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Fidman)
>

> never mind its renewable energy potential.

Think yours is the first post on this thread to mention that. I don't read the Scottish newspapers but is renewable energy potential something that the pro independence campaigners promote as being an industry which could be grown at a faster rate by an independent Scotland?
Richard Baynes - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> I don't know but I do know that I don't want Scotland to be subject to the tories as we clearly rejected them.

That's an interesting collective we. Is it the we that includes most of the population of Wales, the north of England, even some London boroughs? Or a we that leaves all those people out of it? Does it include me (never having voted anything but Labour in my life)?
I sympathise with the agenda that old SNP hands tell me was the original idea: get independence then get rid of the SNP and go back to being left-wing Labour ... I'd love to live in a socialist republic, but I can't help feeling the independence idea now is a bit like saying we'll join in a game and then when we start to struggle or don't like the rules, give up and we even try to take our ball home(the oil...)
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

Em, no. It's the population of Scotland. I would have thought that would be obvious.

You illustrate the irony of Labour. They don't want many of the things the Tories are doing, neither do I, but they are desperate to defend the system that allows the Tories to implement their policies in Scotland.
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

It's been in the news a fair bit recently (e.g. a new tidal energy scheme for the Pentland Firth - the largest tidal array in Europe - which has the potential to provide power for 40% of the homes in the Highlands):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24100811
Earlier this year there was also the issue of the interconnector which is needed to develop the renewables potential of the Wester Isles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22893191

> but is renewable energy potential something that the pro independence campaigners promote as being an industry which could be grown at a faster rate by an independent Scotland?

Salmond has certainly talked up the renewable potential of Scotland, but I can't say I've noticed that this case has been made that strongly.
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Perhaps that's because renewable energy in Scotland (as elsewhere) is 'subsidised' by the energy bill paying public of the whole UK? How would separation affect the continuing development of our renewable potential up here? Unknown. To be decided as part of the breakup negotiation perhaps, but if I was Alex Salmond I might not be making a big noise about it as a central plank of independence either.
Dr.S at work - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

>
> It doesn't make perfect sense. Rightly or wrongly the vast majority of people in Scotland are not in favour of the bed room tax. but we have it. That is the opposite of perfect sense.

Erm, not just in Scotland....
http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/majority-of-public-believe-bedroom-tax-should-be-aban...

I think there are a lot of policies kicking about at the moment that nobody has voted for....
In reply to Saor Alba: Yeah, damn those Labourites. They who brought in the system that already prevents the Tories from carrying out a great many of their worst policies north of the border. That was sarcasm, not irony ;-)
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

You could be right!
In reply to Dr.S at work: There's a whole government kicking about that nobody has actually voted for. Thanks to the Lib Dems. Who when last i looked had quite a Westminster power base in Scotland. Perhaps not for much longer, but for now at least it's almost as if voters in the Highlands are imposing some pretty nasty stuff on poor beleaguered southerners while remaining insulated from some of their worst effects themselves, thanks to devolution. I've not heard much complaint about that power imbalance.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Yes. So what is your solution? Do nothing? The subjects I mentioned about are way too important to leave to the incompetence of Westminster. And I mean that, the Scottish Parliament is a vastly superior system and populated by people who are way more able than the baffoons like Danny Alexander, my own MP. They may not be so good a presentation but they know their communities and the people who live there.

I think Westminster has had its chance and much of what they have done for the last 15 years has not found favour with me. No, I don't mean the Tories were great before that. They were shit also.

lynx3555 - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Fidman: Oil and Gas is an important industry to Scotland but other equally important industries include textile production, chemicals, distilling, agriculture, Renewable energy, Engineering, retail business, processed food, brewing and fishing.
I'm disappointed that you're putting down Scotland, to justify your "No" vote, Scotland is well capable of looking after it's self, don't under estimate it.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

Exactly and we are doing so currently. We aren't being looked after by some big caring structure taking pity on us for our ineptitude.
teflonpete - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to lynx3555)
>
> Exactly and we are doing so currently. We aren't being looked after by some big caring structure taking pity on us for our ineptitude.

Who's saying anything about ineptitude, apart from you and your opinion of Westminster?
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

I am referring to the belief that some hold that Scotland doesn't pay its way (beyond normal deficits) or that the country is set up in a way that leaves it in a state of constant subsidy.

Ref Margaret Curran, Labour MP, Tuesday night, BBC2 Scotland
nw - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)
> And I mean that, the Scottish Parliament is a vastly superior system and populated by people who are way more able than the baffoons like Danny Alexander, my own MP.

See, this is what I have a problem with. I can see a strong argument for independence in that the government of an independendent Scotland will be closer to its electorate and therfore more easily held accountable, which is obviously a good thing. But when you look around the world and see that fairly uniformly, political classes tend to be self serving and duplicitous, why would you think that the Scottish elite will behave any differently? Because of their noble ancestry? DNA? What? It smacks of naive romanticism to me.
nw - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc:
> (In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com)
>
> Thanks for the reply Dan. The precise shape of independence will be, quite rightly, negotiated after the event of a yes vote.
>
>
No! Surely we have a right to know what we are voting for before being asked to choose? This is bonkers.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

I didn't say they would be any better but one thing is for sure, the parliamentary system is much better and it's not restrictured by the old boys network and sense of entitlement.

Surely you can see that the tone and methods of politics is different?
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

What sort of things do you expect to know about? The income tax in ten years? How many ships will be built? Will free personal care still exist? All these things are the subject of domestic policy.
nw - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Well ok, but you did describe them as 'way more able'. The tone of some of the Yes/No debate itself is less than edifying.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

Agreed but it is really hard to get to the positive as there are so many red hearring put out. Take this thread. I would say about 50% of my posts have been correcting misinformation.

I was at the BBC Gaelic debate on Wednesday - Alasdair Morrison (Better Together) stated very clearly that he wanted rid of nuclear weapons but "all" NATO countries have them. Em no. He is either thick or trying to mislead people. That then caused 10 minutes of arguing. They really want to move the debate from people thinking about the future to answering unanswerable questions.

Take poor old Al Evans on this thread. Rarely is there is much crap typed out but again it needs to be corrected.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to nw:
> (In reply to Craig Mc)
> [...]
> No! Surely we have a right to know what we are voting for before being asked to choose? This is bonkers.

I mentioned the SNP white paper further up thread. Look at that once it's published. Hopefully it will lay out a lot of the detail we will be voting for.

My point which you've quoted was that the settlement will have to be negotiated by both sides. If you can accurately predict the outcome of this you must be Dr Who.

MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc:
> (In reply to nw)
> [...]
>
> I mentioned the SNP white paper further up thread. Look at that once it's published. Hopefully it will lay out a lot of the detail we will be voting for.
>


That would be nice but I suspect we will be dissapointed. Currently the main party advocating change is unforthcoming about what sort of change it would like to see and is unable to answer basic questions about the effects on things like pensions, national debt, currency, EU membership and so on. All sorts of questions are being raised by neutral bodies that the SNP has clearly just never given any thought to. As one example

http://icas.org.uk/News/ScotlandsPensionsFutureNewsrelease/

It is a very odd position. You would think that after decades of campaigning it would have given serious thought to these questions and have serious answers. Basic due dilligence is missing
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Surely you can see that the tone and methods of politics is different?

I prefer some aspects of the parliamentary system. However, it was designed to prevent one party from getting an overall majority without any checks and balances on its power - it has failed spectacularly in this respect.

Holyrood is more modern and less ceremonial than Westminster, but as for the tone, I don't see much difference to be honest!
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I think the two types of MSP are a big advantage in the Scottish system. It seems a fairly pragmatic way of squaring the circle of wanting local MPs and proportional representation. Although I do wonder what list MSPs do with no direct constituents letters to respond to!
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - 212.219.255.65 whois?
In reply to MG:

Aye you may be right about being disappointed. The trick is to read it first and then comment.

Your point about decades of campaigning and not giving certain issues serious thought is a bit disingenious. How can anyone decades ago give serious thought to things that are happening now or are maybe going to happen?
nw - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc: Fair enough,none of us can see into the future, but as it stands what is to stop the independence camp at least setting out what they would be after in an ideal world, what it is they will be aiming for in terms of debt, assets, shared responsinilites etc etc?
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Craig Mc: Well, sticking with pensions, as party whose main policy is independence, I would expect them to have a thought through policy on the matter. As in, on independence the effects on pensions will be x due to y regulations, we will do z to mitigate this. Of course such a policy may change over time.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

...I am still waiting for an apology......

ANdy
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson: For what?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Richard Baynes - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
> Em, no. It's the population of Scotland.

Em, well ... except for the ones that voted Tory. And that constituency down in the borders which still elected a Tory MP. If you start splitting the UK vote up into slices, and saying "we" did this that and that, where do you draw the line? The fact is, the game's going against us at the moment, so surely instead of running off and setting up our own game, letting down the rest of our side, we should be trying to win.
What seems so obvious from your perspective ... "it's the population of Scotland" ... isn't so obvious really when you think about it, is it?
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

yhm
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

Have you looked at stuff like the Common Weal? I find it to be quite an attractive notion.

http://scottishcommonweal.org/
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Richard Baynes:

You draw the line where the consensus of people lie. If a consensus, through the vote, lies with Scottish independence then that's the way we go. If Dumfries then wants to go its own way so be it.

So, yes, the population of Scotland is a fairly well understood concept and pretty obvious as it is for any other country. I'm certainly not confused about it.
MG - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Andrew Mallinson: So I do. See my post at 11.13 and the link. You will see you have misinterpreted what I meant.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Irrelevant given your original insinuating post to me was at 10.39...I cannot see into the future....

...waiting....

ANdy
Richard Baynes - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
> You draw the line where the consensus of people lies.

I'm not sure this ^ makes any sense at all, and if it does it would sort of suggest finding the area where people agree with you and then defining that as a separate entity.
Of course I understand that you're talking about the population of Scotland, and was being slightly disingenuous in suggesting I didn't, but it's that slightly presumptuous "we" that niggles, maybe because the population of Scotland is so unhomogeneous and has so many different divisions and aspects, or maybe because in electoral terms at a general election it is not a separate entity. The current Tory group at Holyrood - I think they make up about 10% of MSPs - would suggest that we, the population of Scotland, have not entirely rejected the Conservatives.

Al Evans on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Do you have something against me personally, or is it just my objection to Scottish Independence, because your responses to my posts verge on the vitriolic.
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

I'd take a look at some of your own language on this thread before you start complaining about other people's.

No-one has any problem with you objecting to the idea of Scottish Independence (though it'd be good if you could get some basic facts right, like not referring to it as Devolution), but when you say things like "a Yes vote would take Scotland back to the middle ages", you really ought to expect the odd bit of stick in return.
Al Evans on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Sorry, none of that was personal though, the replies were. Actually I have nothing against Scots (in fact I'm very pro Scots), just as I have nothing against Lancastrians, I just think we should all get on together in an obvious united country.
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - host86-161-11-116.range86-161.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Al Evans: Al, Scotland is a country. Lancaster is a county. That R is an important detail.
Douglas Griffin - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

No, what you said wasn't personal - but can you not see that making remarks like the one I just quoted (or the others quoted by Slugain Howff higher up the thread) might put people's back up? Do you really think you are going to change anyone's mind with language like that? If anything, it's likely to make waverers go the other way.

Incidentally, you do realise that we have counties in Scotland too? Just checking. Maybe you're having a bloody good laugh at making me waste my time typing this (again), but assuming you're not - if you're going to compare like with like, then compare Yorkshire or Lancashire with Lanarkshire or Inverness-shire, not with Scotland as a whole. And before you say "Yes, but Yorkshire's population is 4m and the whole of Scotland is only 5m": Big deal - India's population is 20 times that of England's; does that make England any less of a country?
ccmm on 20 Sep 2013 - host86-161-11-116.range86-161.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Craig Mc: meant Lancashire obviously.
Andrew Mallinson - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

...matter now closed.

ANdy
nw - on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to nw)
>
> Have you looked at stuff like the Common Weal? I find it to be quite an attractive notion.
>
> http://scottishcommonweal.org/

Thanks for that - I've only skimmed it cos it's beer o'clock but I'll look at it properly over the weekend. Looks thoughtful and positive.
Cuthbert on 20 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

I have nothing personally against you or anyone else. I think you talk utter nonsense on this subject though and have almost zero understanding on it. This poor level of understanding then manifests in some bizarre and nonsensical posts which everyone can read. You did ask.
Jim Fraser - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Fidman)
>
> I'm disappointed that you're putting down Scotland, to justify your "No" vote, ...

Disappointed but no doubt not surprised after the last several centuries!
Jim Fraser - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> Earlier this year there was also the issue of the interconnector which is needed to develop the renewables potential of the Wester Isles.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22893191

This is a perfect example of what can change if we were running things ourselves. Matters like this are mired in layer after layer of muky legislative soup that exists to support a market in electricity in a particular model. It does not serve either industry generally or the domestic consumer and prevents progress towards a more effective model.

Having said that, too many Holyrood politicians, particularly those who still imagine there is a Labour Party, have swallowed the privatisation pill.
Al Evans on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Aaaaargh, I give up, if you cannot see the sense of a united nation, then I can't make you, and I don't want to, I'll leave it with I wish, obviously hopelessly that you would see sense.
NeilMac - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

I was up at the Rally on Calton Hill earlier. Evangelical zealots preaching tedious guff to the converted.

I'll make a decision when I have enough information to do so and not because "Mary Doll" told me how to vote!

Sláinte.
Jim Fraser - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> ... if you cannot see the sense of a united nation, then I can't make you, and I don't want to, I'll leave it with I wish, obviously hopelessly that you would see sense.

Al, it is quite obvious to home nation folk and continental neighbours alike that the English are awfully fond of unity when they can be the big cheese but not so keen on it when they are an equal partner with lots of folk who speak funny.
Cuthbert on 21 Sep 2013
JuIn reply to NeilMac:

Total rubbish. I was there too. I heard nothing but positive speeches. Who are you referring to?

I liked the "Gordon Brown out Thatchered Thatcher" from Amer Anwar. Never a truer word spoken.
off-duty - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
> [...]
>
> This is a perfect example of what can change if we were running things ourselves. Matters like this are mired in layer after layer of muky legislative soup that exists to support a market in electricity in a particular model. It does not serve either industry generally or the domestic consumer and prevents progress towards a more effective model.
>
> Having said that, too many Holyrood politicians, particularly those who still imagine there is a Labour Party, have swallowed the privatisation pill.

I think that's quite a good example of part of the problem I see - you might agree with the pro-independence movement, but they might not agree with you.
Al Evans on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> JuIn reply to NeilMac:
>
> Total rubbish. I was there too. I heard nothing but positive speeches. Who are you referring to?
>
> I liked the "Gordon Brown out Thatchered Thatcher" from Amer Anwar. Never a truer word spoken.

That may be something we can agree on at last :-)
Eric9Points - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to NeilMac:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> I was up at the Rally on Calton Hill earlier. Evangelical zealots preaching tedious guff to the converted.
>
> I'll make a decision when I have enough information to do so and not because "Mary Doll" told me how to vote!
>

I see only 8000 turned up to listen to Mary Doll and co. Given that the weather wasn't at all bad today I'm surprised that's the best they can do.

Anyway, what information are you looking for?
Lamb - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: There was actually close to 30,000 today.
Cuthbert on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb:

Exactly.

1 in 6 children in Glasgow live in poverty, 30%+ of households are jobless, we have nuclear weapons on our shores that very few people want, children detained in Dungavel, crap infrastructure and so on.

Labour have failed. They have failed for decades. They haven't failed because they are Labour, they have failed because they are trying to exact change through a system that is unable to deliver change regardless of political colour. Westminster has failed.

It is for these reasons and many others that it has to be a yes vote.
off-duty - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Lamb)
>
> Exactly.
>
> 1 in 6 children in Glasgow live in poverty, 30%+ of households are jobless, we have nuclear weapons on our shores that very few people want, children detained in Dungavel, crap infrastructure and so on.
>
> Labour have failed. They have failed for decades. They haven't failed because they are Labour, they have failed because they are trying to exact change through a system that is unable to deliver change regardless of political colour. Westminster has failed.
>
> It is for these reasons and many others that it has to be a yes vote.

So can we expect an independent Scotland to focus all its resources from the rest of Scotland to Glasgow to "sort out" unemployment there? I'm not entirely convinced the residents of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee will be particularly keen on that.
I would have hoped that the 10+ years devolved NHS within Scotland could have tackled the largest cause of unemployment in Glasgow - which is apparently ill-health and disablity.
And as for Dungavel - what exactly will be the border controls in an independent Scotland? Presumably they will be the same as the rest of the EU and thus England?
Cuthbert on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:

No we can't expect that which is why I didn't say that. I was using that as an example of the need for change.

Of course you could extrapolate your view to Dundee etc but you are on your own there.

The border controls, at most, will be similar to those which the UK itself is negotiating with the Republic of Ireland right now - a free travel area within the borders of those states.

You can't tackle ill health, disability and so on without the powers or policies to deal with it, and in particular the money.

This isn't some wee childish debate on the internet. It's not some self centred I'm-alright-jack view as expressed above. In UK, today, we are detaining children, there are many children living in poverty, we do have nuclear weapons. Staying with the UK is not going to change that.
off-duty - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> No we can't expect that which is why I didn't say that. I was using that as an example of the need for change.
>
> Of course you could extrapolate your view to Dundee etc but you are on your own there.
>
> The border controls, at most, will be similar to those which the UK itself is negotiating with the Republic of Ireland right now - a free travel area within the borders of those states.
>
> You can't tackle ill health, disability and so on without the powers or policies to deal with it, and in particular the money.
>
> This isn't some wee childish debate on the internet. It's not some self centred I'm-alright-jack view as expressed above. In UK, today, we are detaining children, there are many children living in poverty, we do have nuclear weapons. Staying with the UK is not going to change that.

A "need for change" - or certainly a desire for improvement is reasonable. A blind hope that independence will provide a cure for everything isn't.
Suggesting that whichever government is elected to an independent Scotland will have a cure for unemployment in Glasgow and a policy that you agree with for immigration is a misrepresentation.
Cuthbert on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:

It's not a blind hope. Scotland is already a rich country.

You are imagining a lot of things. Unless I type it out, I don't mean it.

But either way, whether in the UK or out, the shocking situation regarding child poverty is one reason in itelf to change. I think that change means independence you may not which is fine but I would point to the fact that this has been around for a long time.
999thAndy on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> Al, it is quite obvious to home nation folk and continental neighbours alike that the English are awfully fond of unity when they can be the big cheese but not so keen on it when they are an equal partner with lots of folk who speak funny.

Could you give us an example of this please?
off-duty - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> It's not a blind hope. Scotland is already a rich country.
>
> You are imagining a lot of things. Unless I type it out, I don't mean it.
>
> But either way, whether in the UK or out, the shocking situation regarding child poverty is one reason in itelf to change. I think that change means independence you may not which is fine but I would point to the fact that this has been around for a long time.

I'm confused here - you complain about children being detained in an immigration centre - but "don't mean" that independence will sort it out?
You complain about poverty and unemployment in Glasgow but "don't mean" that independence will sort it out?
I agree real child poverty is terrible. It's an issue across the UK. It has dropped by 10% in Scotland over the last year. (Joseph Rowntree figures). I am not sure exactly how an independent Scotland can tackle child poverty in Glasgow any better than a devolved parliament or even a national government. There appears to be an assumption that whatever government is elected after independence will be able to just "fix it".

It just comes across as if you imagine that every problem that Scotland has, is both caused solely because of being part of the UK and will be solved as an inevitable consequence of independence.

Jim Fraser - on 21 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to Jim Fraser)
> [...]
>
> Could you give us an example of this please?

I struggle to understand why anyone would need direction in this matter. Whether you are trolling or not, here goes.

The United Kingdom and the European Union are the clear examples. Broadly, the same dim-wits who rush to tell the Scots that we couldn't make it on our own, in some panic-stricken rant to protect union on these islands, are arranging a referendum over EU membership.

In between telling us that political union is a god-given wonder and telling us that political union is the work of the devil, they must have barely enough time in the day to brush their teeth, far less run the country properly.
Jim Fraser - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

I looked at some economic reports earlier and I think that my ambivalence is tipping toward independence.

The reports are about Slovakia. Some years ago, I had what I consider to be the great privilege of working on a project involving a Slovakian engineering company. Wonderful wonderful engineers. At the time, Slovakia appeared to lag behind Cesko economically and in it's position in international trade. If you wanted a translation of something then it would probably be in Russian.

Things have changed a bit since then. Slovakia has narrowed the gap between it and its former partner and both are catching up with us.

So there is the deciding factor. If Scotland remains part of the UK, it will be overtaken economically by Slovakia. I do like the Slovaks, but I'm not having that.
off-duty - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> I looked at some economic reports earlier and I think that my ambivalence is tipping toward independence.
>
> The reports are about Slovakia. Some years ago, I had what I consider to be the great privilege of working on a project involving a Slovakian engineering company. Wonderful wonderful engineers. At the time, Slovakia appeared to lag behind Cesko economically and in it's position in international trade. If you wanted a translation of something then it would probably be in Russian.
>
> Things have changed a bit since then. Slovakia has narrowed the gap between it and its former partner and both are catching up with us.
>
> So there is the deciding factor. If Scotland remains part of the UK, it will be overtaken economically by Slovakia. I do like the Slovaks, but I'm not having that.

Because the post independence elected Holyrood MSP's
a)Will follow your plans for economic prosperity
b)Are a calibre above the Westminster MP's
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I can see where you confusion arises from - you are using a climbing website as a definitive source of information and in isolation from other reading and understanding.

There may appear to be that assumption to you, but you have made an error on that also. I know no one who believes this or has every stated it.

People just think that the UK has done quite badly on this and policy and financial decisions made and taken by people closer to the issue are likely to lead to better solutions. No one is saying it will be utopia overnight.

I think you illustrate one of the big misunderstands of the independence movement - that those in favour of it think it will fix everything overnight.
off-duty - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> I can see where you confusion arises from - you are using a climbing website as a definitive source of information and in isolation from other reading and understanding.
>
> There may appear to be that assumption to you, but you have made an error on that also. I know no one who believes this or has every stated it.
>
> People just think that the UK has done quite badly on this and policy and financial decisions made and taken by people closer to the issue are likely to lead to better solutions. No one is saying it will be utopia overnight.
>
> I think you illustrate one of the big misunderstands of the independence movement - that those in favour of it think it will fix everything overnight.

I can see where your confusion arises from. You imagine that when you write one thing in a post people should actually realise that you either don't actually mean it, or mean something different.

Still I'm sure there is a stronger case for independence than "people think the UK has done quite badly" and "people closer to the issue are likely to lead to better solutions"
r0x0r.wolfo - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> [...]
> Still I'm sure there is a stronger case for independence than "people think the UK has done quite badly" and "people closer to the issue are likely to lead to better solutions"

Nail, head. This is the argument for independence. I suppose the people in the scottish parliment are not close enough.
Dr.S at work - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> I struggle to understand why anyone would need direction in this matter. Whether you are trolling or not, here goes.
>
> The United Kingdom and the European Union are the clear examples. Broadly, the same dim-wits who rush to tell the Scots that we couldn't make it on our own, in some panic-stricken rant to protect union on these islands, are arranging a referendum over EU membership.
>
I agree, but the SNP's arguments and UKIP's often sound to stem from the same basic concept. Now I have a lot more time for the SNP as a party due to there more left leaning policies, but dismissing one party making this argument as swivel eyed loonies and not the other seems odd.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo: no it's not actually.
999thAndy on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> I struggle to understand why anyone would need direction in this matter. Whether you are trolling or not, here goes.
>
> The United Kingdom and the European Union are the clear examples. Broadly, the same dim-wits who rush to tell the Scots that we couldn't make it on our own, in some panic-stricken rant to protect union on these islands, are arranging a referendum over EU membership.
>
I am English, pro Europe and pro union. When the swivel eyed loons get a referendum on Europe they will lose.

I haven't ever said that Scotland couldn't make it on her own, just that the union has been good for both sides for a long time

Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

It hasn't. It has been good for landowners, the upper middles class, the city and the SE of England.

It has not been good for the working class in Scotland, the infrastructure and self-confidence of the country but that has changed much with the SP.
lynx3555 - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy: I don't really agree that the Union has been good for both Scotland and England....maybe it was good for some Scots, particularly those doing business with England or England's Colonies. The Scots were exported to England's Colonies, both to manage them and colonise them, at times the methods used to do this were barbaric and the people cleared from the land were slaves until they worked there freedom.
The number of Scots killed in colonial and the First World War were very disproportionate to the rest of the UK...the First World War being a dramatic example of that.....
"The total number of Scots lost in the First World War has been estimated between 75,000 and 100,000. About 26% of the Scots fighting force perished compared to the 11% average loss for the British forces."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/hopes-for-scots-first-world-war-memorial-on-french-batt...

Historically, the average Scot would disagree with your suggestion that they have benefitted from the Union.

Eric9Points - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) There was actually close to 30,000 today.

According to the police there were 8300. What's your source of information?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-salmond-makes-rallying-call-...

Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

Also, if you think about the incompetence of the UK Government, wasting £4 billion on the Nimrod programme then scrapping it. It would cost £3 billion to dual the A9. Westminster is a system unable to deliver progress.
Eric9Points - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> I struggle to understand why anyone would need direction in this matter. Whether you are trolling or not, here goes.
>
> The United Kingdom and the European Union are the clear examples. Broadly, the same dim-wits who rush to tell the Scots that we couldn't make it on our own, in some panic-stricken rant to protect union on these islands, are arranging a referendum over EU membership.
>

I'm sorry Jim but that's the biggest load of nonsense I've read for a while. You're just parroting the one of SNP's straw man arguments. It's hardly surprising that when the SNP put forward questionable assertions on how well Scotland would do after independence others will counter them with inconvenient facts and observations.

If you're going to accuse the pro UK people of spreading doom and gloom then at least balance your post by pointing out that the anti UK people are at times living in cloud cuckoo land.
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

You can't have facts about the future. Only forecasts and opinions.

I don't think he is accusing anyone of doom and gloom. Merely pointing out his opinion.

Labour have failed, over a long time, that is clear. Labour supports the system that allowed Thatcher to cause a lot of harm. Gordon Brown out thatchered Thatcher and Darling is to the right of him.

Labour have utterly failed to deliver.

Mind you, out of all the people they could have chosen, the Labour-Tory partnership is lead by a man heavily involved in the Iraq War and financial disaster. That is very telling.
Eric9Points - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

I'll refer you to NeilMac's post from yesterday.

"I was up at the Rally on Calton Hill earlier. Evangelical zealots preaching tedious guff to the converted. "

I'm not going to get involved in mud slinging over domestic politics.
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes and that is the problem. The debate is too tough for the unionists.

It really doesn't matter that the UK has a seat "at the top table". It matters if children live in poverty.

It really doesn't matter that the UK is building two aircraft carries - it matters that the population has poor housing in many areas.

The indicators the Labours use are from an imperial age.
MG - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Allba: I am increasingly convinced you are a Unionist and Al Evans a Nat. Neither of you could really think you convincing anyone with the tone you adopt, could you? Surely you are both trying to double bluff
Douglas Griffin - on 22 Sep 2013
Doug on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: did you read Catherine Bennett's piece in today's Observer ?
Douglas Griffin - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Doug:

Yes - and it's referred to in that article!

Funnily enough:
https://twitter.com/dgriffinphoto/status/381811105032437765
Doug on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I used to like the Observer, & looked forward to buying a copy when in the UK but with articles like that, & their general 'coverage' of Scotland they do seem to have gone downhill of late.
wintertree - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:


> Westminster is a system unable to deliver progress.

That'll explain why Edinburghs tram system is such a dismal money put then. Oh, no hang on a minute, it won't. Your lot are just as bad.
Douglas Griffin - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Doug:

Yep, abysmal.

The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday is appalling too. There's another scare story in it today around the Scotland/England North Sea boundary, but if you read the article it's only talking the potential for the Fulmar oilfield to also be designated as belonging to the rUK. The Fulmar oilfield is relatively very small, and the article itself admits that even with this new more southerly boundary "the vast majority" of oil and gas would remain in Scottish waters. (Anyway, most of the significant developments, both present and future, are far to the north and west - mostly West of Shetland, in fact.)
Still, they got their headline.
lynx3555 - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I was surprised to learn that Donald Dewar and Blair altered the boundaries twice!!! Scotland has a very good case to take to the international court if Britain expects us to accept the boarder.

This bit by Craig Murray makes interesting reading and he's very much qualified to comment on the matter.

"According to existing Westminster legislation, English waters stretch at their North Easterly point to 56 degrees 36 minutes north – that is over 100 miles North of the border at Berwick, and North of Dundee.

In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

The pre-1999 border was already very favourable to England. In 1994, while I was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I had already queried whether it was too favourable to England. I little anticipated that five years later Blair would push it seventy miles North!!"
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/

Douglas Griffin - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

He may have a point, but I'd be suspicious of the impartiality of anyone using language like "traitor".
FesteringSore - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Och, let the wee skirt wearing caber tossers go their own way.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
Eric9Points - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)

> It really doesn't matter that the UK has a seat "at the top table". It matters if children live in poverty.
>
> It really doesn't matter that the UK is building two aircraft carries - it matters that the population has poor housing in many areas.
>

More false dichotomies and begging the question from the anti UK camp. Why can't you try and debate honestly?

Anyway, for reasons I'll not go into I'm afraid I know quite a lot about childcare policy in Scotland.

You know what? Never once have I heard the opinion voiced that Scotland could care better for it's children if were in to leave the UK. Yes, they would like certain powers to be devolved to Holyrood to allow Scotland to address the different problems it has to the rest of the UK but that's as far as it goes and it's something that can be addressed by Devo max.


parkovski - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

In 1707 the SNP's fore-bearers sold the Scottish nation into the union. It is, therefore, only right that a newly independent Scotland should buy it's way out; discuss.
Jim Braid - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: Devo max is not an option in the referendum. The SNP offered a second question (Devo max) but none of the other political parties would support it. It's either independence or not. If Scotland does not vote for independence then I can see no likelihood of Westminster granting further powers. Vote no, get nothing.
Eric9Points - on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Braid:

I see every likelihood.

As I said earlier, politicians from the Pro UK parties are already discussing this sort of thing.

I'd expect more discussion of what could be up for grabs developing over the next year.

There's a very good reason why no one except the SNP wanted a third question (well a number actually). Devo max would have split the Pro UK vote and given the anti UK camp a victory it shouldn't have had.

The mainstream pro UK parties know that there's a strong desire to revise the range of powers that Holyrood has. Not just at a public opinion level but at a functional level within Government too. If they fail to address I'm sure they know full well that the anti UK movement will just come back with a vengeance.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/01/16/scotland-and-kellner-conundrum/
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

We can Eric.

What happened to Labour? They should be grasping this opportunity to build a more equal society. What happened to the principles that founded the party. They have been abandoned by the current party leadership and that of the last 10 years. The result is a failure to change things and the reality a timid conformity to a system which doesn't work.

You would have heard many thousands of people yesterday in your home city if you had been there.
Cuthbert on 22 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Oh and "Anti-UK"? Given that the UK parties start crying on a daily basis and complain when someone uses "anti-Scotland".

Funny how hypocrisy comes so easy. You might think that this was indicative of the Better Together campaign.
Jim Fraser - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> ... Never once have I heard the opinion voiced that Scotland could care better for it's children if were in to leave the UK. ...


The evidence from our neighbours, with whom we share a number of social and political trends, is that the most northern European countries tend to pay attention to this matter and make laws to back it up.

However, there is, sadly, in spite of the wealth and power that resides in Europe, little doubt that on the basis of child and family law, a majority European states might be judged not fit to rule themselves. The work of the Council of Europe is not done yet.




Slugain Howff - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to NeilMac)
> [...]
>
> I see only 8000 turned up to listen to Mary Doll and co. Given that the weather wasn't at all bad today I'm surprised that's the best they can do.
>

20,000 plus is probably an underestimate



999thAndy on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
>
> It [union] hasn't [been good for the UK}. It has been good for landowners, the upper middles class, the city and the SE of England.
>


I can't think offhand of a system anywhere whereby the upper echelons in society haven't done better than the working man. That's pretty much the definition of being upper or middle class. I'd be very surprised if that would all change on an unstoppable tide of bonhomie should you break the union.

I'm also intrigued by the phrase in your reply - "[union has been good for] the SE of England" I'd like to know how the residents of Tower Hamlets have benefitted more from union than those of the Gorbals. Or were you just being a bit lazy?
nw - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: Glad that you feel qualified to speak for 'the average Scot' over the course of history. That's quite a few people you know. As you bring up the thousands who rushed to serve in WW1, how do you think they felt about the Union?
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy: Surely it's uncontroversial to say that if Scotland had never become part of the UK it would be a much better place now? So it must follow that Scotland will become a better place when it becomes independent.
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

I was making a general statement. You are quite right to point out Tower Hamlets and the many other areas of the rUK which are deprived. The system has failed them too. It's spent too much time on easy things. It's spent too much money on nuclear weapons and so on.

The difference is that in Scotland a significant number of people want to look at these issues in a new way.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

I don't think he was saying that. I am not saying you do this, but many people on this site interpret everything in a literal sense.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Thanks. That is a good post.
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Lamb)
> [...]
>
> According to the police there were 8300. What's your source of information?
>
> http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-salmond-makes-rallying-call-...

As the Sunday Herald discussed yesterday, see "Thousands march to show game's not over" within the Editorial section, there is some controversy surrounding the Police Scotland and City Council estimate of 8300. This obviously allows Unionists to have a wry snip at the turnout when compared to the numbers that would turnout say for rallies in Catalonia.
So as the Sunday Herald editorial discusses, there is complete disbelief verging on contempt for the police figure - which is a gross under-estimate, the same dispute occurred at last year's rally.
As the piece goes on to discuss, there can be no debate however on the numbers which have turned out for marches and rallies demanding a no vote - zero. So perhaps the anti-independence should test their own strength and organise their own rallies and see what sort of level of support they have in the same way?
The fact that not one anti-independence rally has been organised is no accident. If they were confident that their support would eclipse that of the Yes campaign then they would surely have organised such a rally by now? That they haven't indicates private doubts within the nae sayers.
So regardless of Saturday's attendance, it is nevertheless a powerful statement of support and intent.
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb: Aye, the no side should have a rally. They could have chants and everything.
"What do we want?"
"The status quo"
"When do we want it?"
"Well, er, it's here now"
Toby S - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Curran and Lamont's comments at the Labour Conference irked me slightly at the weekend.

According to Johann Lamont, nationalism is a virus and Margaret Curran claims that independence would be the 'death of British Labour'. So Margaret is basically too busy worrying about her job and Lamont can't do anything other than throw petty insults around. Although I suppose JoLa has form in this regard.

What the hell has happened to Labour?
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Toby S:

It may well be the death of British Labour. It may well be the death of the SNP too. But does that, really, matter?

The point of independence is social change for the better. Not the maintenance of a political party that Curran in particular seems to desire so much.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Toby S - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Toby S)
>
> It may well be the death of British Labour. It may well be the death of the SNP too. But does that, really, matter?

Aye, in my ham-fisted way, that was my point. It struck me that Margaret Curran is spectacularly missing the point and was too busy bleating about the danger of losing her job.
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Toby S: As Elaine C Smith said on Saturday, Labour used to stand up for the values of your average Scottish working family. Not any more, in fact not for a long time. Labour for the working people is a by gone thing, and they have an obscene cheek to claim that they stand up for the working people of this country. Regardless of your political stance, the SNP are more 'labour' than the Labour party have ever been.
But as has been said, this is about much more than a political party, it's a complete social change allowing this country to get back to its real roots of taking care of its own people, rather than a Westminster system which criminalises the unfortunate with no hope in their lives.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb:

There were quite a few Labour banners there on Saturday I thought which was good.
estivoautumnal - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb:

I can understand why the Yes group would want to 'bump' up their numbers but why would the police underestimate the numbers? What benefit will it bring them?

Also, given their experience with crowds don't you think the police are quite good at estimating numbers?

One in around 700 of the population turned up for this march.
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal: It's because the polis are Unionist lackeys who realise they'll be out of a job when Scotland's independent.
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to estivoautumnal: Who knows? Vested interests within Police Scotland? Maybe I am being too cynical. Possibly as I said, just a gross underestimate, but everyone who was there will tell you that there was much more than 8000 people. The rally filled Calton hill which has a capacity of 20,000. The front of the march was on Calton hill, while the back of the march was still up at the mound - telling me that is possible with 8000 people? Don't think so. Before the march started, the Royal Mile was packed from up at Camera Obscura all the way down to the North Bridge, again not possible with 8000 people.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Lamb:

Correct. I was there and there were way more than 8000 there. Rockness was about 35,000 at its height and my impression was about 18-20k.. Maybe they weren't all on the hill at the same time though.

Either way, 1 in 700 of the population is pretty good.
tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
> Either way, 1 in 700 of the population is pretty good.

Or to put it another way, twice as many as were along the road at Easter Road to see Hibs take on the might of St Mirren.
lynx3555 - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to nw: history qualifies that statement...Newly arrived Angles, from their newly formed kingdom in Northumbria, faught a campaign for expantion that could very well have led to the lands now called Scotland being called England. Edinburgh had been taken and the Angles dismantled the Kingdom of Goddodin....next they headed North to Dun Nechtain......
"The Picts took part in one of the most decisive battles in Scottish history - the Battle of Dun Nechtain (Dunnichen). If the Picts had lost, Scotland might never have existed. For the Angles of Northumbria it was simply a disaster - ending their domination of Scotland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dun_Nechtain
The people of Scotland have for centuries had to fight of invaders, and the Union, of the territories now called Scotland, was a long and bloody campaign.
We survived that Natzi Edward "long shanks" attempt to wipe us out...Henry the Eighth wasn't a big fan of the Scots, neither was Elizabeth....
After the act of Union Scotland continued to resist and a lot of the fears concerning Lonon rule were being realised.
"There was a series of disturbances across the country in the 1720s in response to some of the effects of union. In 1724 there was an outbreak of fence-smashing by levellers objecting to enclosures replacing runrig systems, which not only increased agricultural efficiency but also led to unemployment and poverty amongst day-labourers who could not afford to become tenant farmers.

In 1725 after the attempted re-introduction of Malt Tax into Scotland, there was unrest in Glasgow and Edinburgh, with the Shawfield riots in Glasgow being notable for the resulting demolition of the mansion house of the local MP, who had voted for the tax. Later in 1736, the Porteous riots in Edinburgh, when a mob lynched and murdered a captain of the city guard, served to caution the government in London that it had to manage Scotland more efficiently.

Military road-building and the establishment of forts by General Wade helped to consolidate the authority of the London government over the Highlands."

The Scottish Labour movement, around the time of the First World War, was very much for Independence...The Scots were seen as being potentially rebeleous when they returned from the war, battle hardened just like both catholic and Protestant Irish troops...



lynx3555 - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to parkovski:
> (In reply to ERH)
>
> In 1707 the SNP's fore-bearers sold the Scottish nation into the union. It is, therefore, only right that a newly independent Scotland should buy it's way out; discuss.

"During the treaty negotiations, the English gave assurances for Scottish peers, as well as English parliamentary assistance for the Scottish economy, in relation to taxation. England also offered Scotland the Equivalent, a sum of money which matched the losses of the Darien scheme and was designed to compensate the Scots for their share in English debt which would be taken on by Scotland after union. Eventually the treaty was agreed by commissioners for union from both countries and it was signed and sealed on 22 July 1706. It would now be subject to ratification by both parliaments, in Scotland and England."

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/TheTreatyofUnionTheCourse(H)_tcm4-569917.doc


Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

I was aware that another event of significance was taking place ;-)
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
Has anybody answered the question from the Yes point of view on:

1. Which curreny is going to be used?Is it the £- if so has this been agreed with the BofE etc?
2. If not the £. Then its the Euro. Has the EU agreed to this?

Its a pretty basic issue.
Toby S - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Tell me you're not a Hibs fan?
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh: If the currency isn't covered in the forthcoming white paper it will be a simple matter to sort out when Scotland is independent.
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh: It would be the £ as it is a fully trade able currency and would be within the rest of the UK's interests for Scotland to use it. However, I am sure that using the £ would only be used within the short term during a transition period, after which it would be within Scotland's best interests to use its own currency.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to ERH)
> Has anybody answered the question from the Yes point of view on:
>
> 1. Which curreny is going to be used?Is it the £- if so has this been agreed with the BofE etc?

On the second part of your question the answer is no as the UK Governemt refuses to entertain discussions prior to the outcome. No answers will be forthcoming on this for this reason.

> 2. If not the £. Then its the Euro. Has the EU agreed to this?
>
> Its a pretty basic issue.

Any country wanting to use the Euro needs to meet the convergence criteria and only the UK, as member state, can discuss this formally with the EU and they will no do so.

My reckoning is £ and then either Scottish currency or Euro.

PeterM - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Toby S:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> Curran and Lamont's comments at the Labour Conference irked me slightly at the weekend.
>
> According to Johann Lamont, nationalism is a virus

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Albert Einstein

Others thought so too, it would appear...

tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to ERH)
> Has anybody answered the question from the Yes point of view on:
>
> 1. Which curreny is going to be used?Is it the £- if so has this been agreed with the BofE etc?
> 2. If not the £. Then its the Euro. Has the EU agreed to this?

The current proposal is to use the £, within a Sterling Zone. According to the report of the Fiscal Commission Working Group, this would give the Bank of England acting as Central Bank and having responsibility for day-to-day management of monetary policy and interest rates. It would also involve an overarching joint 'fiscal sustainability agreement’ to govern level of borrowing and debt within the Sterling Zone.
off-duty - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to ERH)
> Has anybody answered the question from the Yes point of view on:
>
> 1. Which curreny is going to be used?Is it the £- if so has this been agreed with the BofE etc?
> 2. If not the £. Then its the Euro. Has the EU agreed to this?
>
> Its a pretty basic issue.

I don't think you need to concern yourself with petty issues like this.
Independence is all about "social change" since the current systems don't appear to be delivering what "people" want, and independence apparently "will".
999thAndy on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Does that mean that the BoE would be the lender of last resort to an independent Scotland?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:
> (In reply to Toby S)
> [...]
>
> "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
>
> Albert Einstein
>
> Others thought so too, it would appear...

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Does that mean that the BoE would be the lender of last resort to an independent Scotland?

I think so.
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:

Did you notice that Lamont described nationalism a being like a virus while standing at a podium emblazoned with the words "One Nation Labour"?
Jim C - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> So, are you keen to see Scotland out on their own, or is it a bad idea for them to leave the fold?
>
IF they had given a Devo Max offer option, there there would have been a guarantee for something more that we have, without going the whole hog.

Now all the parties are 'hinting' at more powers if we say no, but do you trust a politician? Particularly as at least one Tory MP has said that as soon as the Scots vote no, they should cut the Barnett formula and give them less money.

We are now in a position, with no Devo Max option, that if we now vote no we are caught by the short and curlys, we have no negoitiating position, and they party in power can do what they like with us.

(There was even a Tory that said a no vote would be a manadate for the Tories in Scotland (with one MP !!!) no wonder they are going to frighten some people into voting yes.

As far as all the scare stories go, personally, they are so ridiculous, that they tend to push me towards a yes, but as yet undecided.

neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:
Brilliant comment.
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

So no nationalism for Scotland then if its a Yes vote. It's pseudo nationalism,with the B of E still controlling the money in reality.

Salmond is conning every Yes voter then
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
Do you not think its a basic question for the SNP to answer?
nw - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555: That cherry picked list of largely largely irrelevant examples doesn't tell you anything one way or another about the feelings of most ordinary people over time.I can't really be arsed to pick it all to pieces because there is so much wrong headedness about it but...
1)In the dark and early middle ages conflict between different ethnic groups occurred as the struggled with each other for dominance of different parts of Britain, and indeed Europe. Angles, Saxons, Celts, Norse, Franks. So what?
2)Pict does not equate to Scottish, or Angle to English.
3)Long Shanks was alive 500 odd years before nationalism or socialism, so in no sense can he have been a 'Natzi'.
4) Riots and unrest occurred all over the UK in the eighteenth century in response to taxes, social upheaval and so on. The London government is frequently unpopular in many places, including London. It does not necessarily follow that these people were anti Union.
5) After the First World War the govenment was worried about unrest amongst returning servicemen amongst from ALL countries,as they had been selling the line that they would be returning to a land fit for heroes.
6)Scottish Labour was pro home rule, not independence, as far as I have ever read.

Don't abuse history to support your politcal views, they should stnad on their own. And yes I do realise that all political groups do this, but your post was a particularly glaring example and set off my rant reflex.
Lamb - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Well pointed out. I find it quite incredulous that the idea of nationalism in the sense of a referendum on Scotland's future is being pedalled as a divisive virus. Meanwhile a Tory-Lib Dem government penalises the poor for being unfortunate. Possess a skewed sense of ultranationalism, wanting out of Europe, anti immigration billboards, dictating what Muslim women should be permitted to wear, this all to appease the growing numbers of UKIP voters within the nation of England.
It is ridiculous and I believe the Scottish nation will see through it all. Scottish nationalism is about reuniting the fragmented societies within this country. Societies which have been forced further and further apart as a result of years of Westminster governments which have failed to deal with the inequality which besieges this country. So do not tell me, that this'nationalism' is a divisive virus which alienates parts of society. That nationalism you are meaning is called the 'United Kingdom'.
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to ERH)
> [...]

>
> As far as all the scare stories go, personally, they are so ridiculous, that they tend to push me towards a yes, but as yet undecided.

What do you need to know before you decide?
Doug on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Any country wanting to use the Euro needs to meet the convergence criteria and only the UK, as member state, can discuss this formally with the EU and they will no do so.
>
Not sure that's correct both Montenegro and Kosovo use the Euro, maybe with the approval of the EU. But I doubt either meet the convergence criteria. There's also several other countries such as Andorra, Monaco, the Vatican etc using the Euro.

If its OK for Montenegro, I suspect there's little problem for Scotland

Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
>
> The evidence from our neighbours, with whom we share a number of social and political trends, is that the most northern European countries tend to pay attention to this matter and make laws to back it up.
>

Sorry but I'm a bit nonplussed by your post.

There's a raft of legislation in place to ensure that children are looked after properly and have good outcomes and there's a new bill going before the Scottish Parliament in the near future.
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Doug:

There's a difference between "using" and "joining".

See the video I linked to on this thread a few days ago.

Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

No. The SNP is a political party. As are Labour. If it is for the SNP to answer definitively I want definitive answers from Labour too. Policy of all parties changes.

However, since the SNP is the biggest part of Yes Scotland I am sure they will give the answer a go.

Given that some things about the future and independence are uncertain, as they are with the Union also, the response that this will be a measure of the maturity of the debate. Anyone expecting certainty on everything needs to learn a bit about this subject.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes and legislation is good but money is also handy at times too. Given that Labour would like to spend billions on nuclear weapons, united with the Tories, it tells you something about their priorities.

Personally I would scrap the replacement for Trident and spend the savings on people. Labour wont do that.
silhouette - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Doug)
>
> There's a difference between "using" and "joining".
>
> See the video I linked to on this thread a few days ago.

I think Doug's very useful point is that, for the first few years of independence, Scotland may use the Euro (or Sterling for that matter) without having access to that currency's lender of last resort and without having representation on that currency's board. Some may consider that a temporary risk worth taking given that both of these are stable currencies, some may disagree; both are legitimate points of view.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: regarding number on Saturdays march...

I am an undecided voter (although formally very opposed) and was at the march (I was sharing transport with my brother who wanted to go...) I would be surprised if the numbers I saw were as low as 8000. The police prevented marchers going onto the hill as there were too many. the length of the march was over a mile. I have heard reports of a revised police estimate of closer to 20,000 but am unable to find such a figure my self. you'd think someone would be able to estimate number more accuratly. I'm skeptical of both police and organiser numbers on the day, especially when the number quoted came out so quickly...
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to silhouette: Wouldn't the lack of a lender of last resort leave Scotland rather exposed?
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

What's your feeling David of the way the discussion is panning out and how is this affecting your decision?
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Thats fine but its a huge downside to not have these answers in place for the Yes voters.Economic certainty is a big plus for the voters. You cannot just say " Oh we will give it a go, and with a bit of braveheart we will sort it out". Thats just the heart ruling the head, and politics usually fails dismally when this happens.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: The lack of clear information coming from the no camp pushes me towards the yes camp. If it can be shown that scotland would not be significantly worse off (yes, I would accept slightly worse) under independance, and that the result would be to allow majority scottish opinion to rule scotland, then I will vote yes. The economic debate is important but is begining to sound like marginal gains/losses. The key word there is marginal. If the economics are sustainable, the rest will fall into place over time.



Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

> Economic certainty is a big plus for the voters

They're going to be disappointed then, irrespective of the outcome of the Referendum.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

Yes I agree but I am presuming that the "white paper" will go some way to dealing with this.

Regardless of view on this, it appears to me that quite a lot of people are expecting hard facts about the future which no one can give.

For example the EU, will we get in? Of course I would say but I think we will have to apply and am fine about that.

I read also today that in Islay (tax take to UK Government £800 million plus) 19 people are in danger of benefit cuts from the bedroom tax. There is nowhere else for these people to go. This wouldn't have happened in an indpendent Scotland and Labour are supporting it by supporting the structure that implements it.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

Well put, thanks.
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: "I read also today that in Islay (tax take to UK Government £800 million plus) 19 people are in danger of benefit cuts from the bedroom tax. There is nowhere else for these people to go. This wouldn't have happened in an indpendent Scotland"

It might not have happened. There again, if Scotland had been independent for the last 300 years it might be in a financial pickle and have to make even more draconian cuts in welfare spending, it might not have a welfare system as we know it. Stating, as if you know, what an independent Scotland would or wouldn't have done is silly.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

It might have happned but factually, it HAS happened under the Union with Labours support. Personally, I think the tone and priorities of Scottish politics is different to that of Westminster. Less right wing.

neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

IMHO its fairy tale politics if this fundamental issue has not been thought through by now.

Benefit cuts to 18 people in Islay, compared with the economic consequences of cutting the currency issue right for the Scottish economy, is immaterial in the overall scheme of things.

Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Yes, I know it's happened. But you can't state it wouldn't have happened if Scotland was independent. Because you don't know how, or in what direction, Scotland would have developed if there hadn't been a union. All you can do is make a commitment for the future.
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I was making the point in respect of currency.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

It has been thought out. I am not saying that Islay and the currency are related. I was just pointing out some facts.

There are no winners if the demand for facts is met with dismissal when some facts turn up. They may be inconvenient, but they are facts.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

Out of interest, how do you think the pound would do in the situation where Scotland doesn't use it? Continue to devalue but at a much faster rate due to being based on a much smaller and volatile asset base?
rallymania - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to wintertree:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
>
> [...]
>
> That'll explain why Edinburghs tram system is such a dismal money put then. Oh, no hang on a minute, it won't. Your lot are just as bad.

are based here?
the reason i ask is
both the trams, and the parliment building, were fecked up by... a major national UK political party, not the SNP.
do a bit of digging and you'll find the SNP wanted to scrap the trams project when they were first voted in, but because they didn't have a majority the first time round, they were blocked.

the new forth crossing... you should maybe look into that as a better example of what can be achieved up here :-)

there's lies, damn lies... but even worse that statistics, there's politics :-)

the thing that too many folk in England are saying that this is an anti English campaign and therefore xenophobic, but it's not. we wish you the very best of luck in England... truely. but this is about us standing on our own two feet. do we not deserve the right to try?

we need proper debate about this and yet most of what comes from the No campaign is fear and doubt... (mobile phone roaming charges being a classic example lol)
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

And that is all anyone can do. I would like a commitment to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. The UK isn't going to commit to that so it's independence all the way.

Likewise you can't state what England would have done without the Union.
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> Likewise you can't state what England would have done without the Union.

No, I can't. So I haven't made any such statements, they come from you.
tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to wintertree)
> [...]
>
> are based here?
> the reason i ask is
> both the trams, and the parliment building, were fecked up by...

Scots. Donald keep saying it's not about political parties.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Correct, it's about which system of government we have. In the case of the Parliament it was managed by the UK Government. In the case of the trams it was the council that fecked up.

There are multiple projects in other parts of the UK that have gone vastly over budget.
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

You do not want the £ to devalue. As other posters have said, you are going to be linked to the £. Your independence would be killed at birth if that happened.There is no way you are going to try and go in the Euro unless you want to lose the referendum.If its to succeed than you will need a strong £. So be careful what you wish for.

tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Correct, it's about which system of government we have. In the case of the Parliament it was managed by the UK Government.

From June 1999, the management was the responsibility of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, a body of the Scottish Parliament, headed by David Steel. From that point to completion, costs increased by about £300 million.

> In the case of the trams it was the council that fecked up.

That would be Edinburgh City Council, which is Scottish.
rallymania - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

m74 extension was also built by scots... as was the forth road bridge motorway filter road, both of which were finished early and as far as i'm aware on or under budget...

you are pointing out negatives ;-) shall i add some more? NHS it systems upgrade, new air traffic control system for SE england... neither of them were fecked up by scotland... so what is your point? :-)
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to neilh:

The pound is devaluing all the time. I merely asked what you thought would happen to it if an independent Scotland didn't use it.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

You know what I mean Tony. The project, structure, design and so on was set up by the UK Government.

Mind you, I have a fair few crap projects. Can you take them off my hands please and put your name to them regardless of outcome?

tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> m74 extension was also built by scots... as was the forth road bridge motorway filter road, both of which were finished early and as far as i'm aware on or under budget...
>
> you are pointing out negatives ;-) shall i add some more? NHS it systems upgrade, new air traffic control system for SE england... neither of them were fecked up by scotland... so what is your point? :-)

My point is quite simply that Scots are capable of stuffing up big capital projects.
tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> You know what I mean Tony. The project, structure, design and so on was set up by the UK Government.
>
No, I don't know what you mean. The project was managed by a body of the Scottish Parliament. The structure and design were changed many times after SPCB took charge - 2000 changes from September 2000 to January 2004.
rallymania - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

damn you've got us sussed... scots are people too :-)

Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

OK well let me explain. The project was set up by the UK Government. The enquiry had many criticisms of the set up which ran into the overspend as it was not properly thought through. However had taken it on would have had similar issues. The structural changes didn't help.

Bit like you say, Scots can muck up with the best. The UK has no shortage of these disasters.
tony on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> Bit like you say, Scots can muck up with the best. The UK has no shortage of these disasters.

That's very true. I read a review of this book recently:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Blunders-Governments-Anthony-King/dp/1780742665/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&q...

It looks hugely entertaining, if more than a little cringe-making.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Thanks for the recommendation.

I think this thread has now served it's purpose and look forward to the next, sort of :-)
Postmanpat on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
>
> Bit like you say, Scots can muck up with the best.

Ah, the good old Darien project. Looks like we've come full circle..... :-)

blurty - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> m74 extension was also built by scots... as was the forth road bridge motorway filter road, both of which were finished early and as far as i'm aware on or under budget...


The M74 was PFI, the consequences of cost over-runs and late delivery are so horrendous that these projects are hardly ever late, and by definition can't go over budget, so not a fair comparison

I'd have to say that the Scottish Futures Trust set up by the Scottish Parliament has done a pretty good job of procuring/ running Scottish large scale building projects.

(I can't say the same for Transport Scotland unfortunately)
neilh - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

The £ fluctuates in value like any other currency. Its devalued recently, but it has now started to increase in value.

If Scotland did not use it, I am not sure it would have any material alteration to trends.

The currency speculation appears to be on the Scottish Economy, not the UK.
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Saor Alba) The economic debate is important but is begining to sound like marginal gains/losses. The key word there is marginal. If the economics are sustainable, the rest will fall into place over time.

I'd refer you to the interview with Gavin McCrone I linked to earlier. Nominally there might not be much difference economically nominally while the oil continued to flow, a bit less perhaps because of increased borrowing costs etc. However Scotland's income would be subject to greater fluctuations than were it to remain in the UK.

Once the oil runs out then things become a lot more uncertain. Scotland would have to work very hard and be very fortunate over the next couple of decades in order to be well placed to move into an oil free economy.

So are the economics sustainable? Very questionable.

What do you think Scotland will gain by leaving the UK?
Jim Fraser - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to rallymania:
> (In reply to wintertree)
>
> ... ... the thing that too many folk in England are saying that this is an anti English campaign and therefore xenophobic, but it's not. we wish you the very best of luck in England... truely. ...


Yes. Best of luck England.

You've learned a lot about yourselves since 1999 and that's one of the finest side-effects of the creation of the devolved parliaments. You are starting to remember who you are. I can almost imagine that in 20 years time we will be discussing what great neighbours we have.
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Once the oil runs out then things become a lot more uncertain. Scotland would have to work very hard and be very fortunate over the next couple of decades in order to be well placed to move into an oil free economy.
> So are the economics sustainable? Very questionable.

This is one of the things I don't get. Do you think Scotland is worse off as a result of having these hydrocarbon reserves around its shores? There's an argument to be made there, perhaps - that having oil and gas is cushioning us from the need to have a "real" economy - but unless that's what you're saying, I can't see how we'd simply be in a similar position to most other nations once the oil & gas is gone (and better placed than many, in view of the renewable potential that we have). And as for when the oil & gas will be gone - that's very difficult to predict, as experience has shown.
Jim Fraser - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
>
>
> Once the oil runs out then things become a lot more uncertain. Scotland would have to work very hard and be very fortunate ...


Only Scotland?

Hang on. It's not the oil that running out. It's the gas that's running out. The gas that runs all those power stations around London and the Midlands. Thirty more such stations approved last year. No fracking, no lights.
MG - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser: There's stacks of gas in Russia. It's not running out. The question is who gets the tax from its production and how capable their economy is at coping if the tax reduces as local sources are depleted. Scotland would be more exposed than the UK.
lynx3555 - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Talking with to a Shell drilling engineer one day I learned that the Brent Field (which I've worked in on and off for 20 years) still has 75% of the oil in the seams, it's just the lack of pressure, and the need for a cost effective means of injecting chemicals at high pressure into the seams to squeeze another 30% out, similar to fracking.
Lots of the older platforms, like the one I'm on just now, are now past the time that they were first expected to be de-commissioned by. Lots of them are getting 15 and 20 year life extensions, some are just producing 15000/25000 bpd but when you multiply that by £100 then it's a lot of cash...in addition to oil, the gas can be worth at least a million a day.
But even with out the oil Scotland would be a reasonably wealthy and successful country.....it bugs me when you heare people doubting Scotland's ability to prosper as an independent country! Scotland generates 9.9% of the UK total tax take but gets only 9.3% of the UK total spending”. We are subsidising the south!!
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:

Come come Jim, it wont affect the rest of the UK.

They have a back up plan. I think it's called "magic".
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> There's stacks of gas in Russia. It's not running out.

It's not, but demand is increasing elsewhere too.

> Scotland would be more exposed than the UK.

Well, obviously, what with <10% of the population of the rUK, its own indigenous reserves, 3 pipelines bringing large amounts of gas direct from Norway, and all that renewable potential.

MG - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I agree renewables are a big plus. I don't think those pipes carry tax receipts though.
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

> I don't think those pipes carry tax receipts though.

No, just like the pipelines bringing Norwegian and Russian gas to England don't. So I'm still struggling to see why Scotland would be more exposed to the effects of gas shortages than the rUK would be.
ads.ukclimbing.com
MG - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: That's not what I said. I said exposed to reduced taxes from gas production than the more diverse UK or rUK economies
Douglas Griffin - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Fair enough, then I'd refer you to what I said to Eric earlier this evening - I struggle to see how we'd be worse off for having had that revenue in the first place.
MG - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Long term no problem but it might be very long term to build alternative industry and revenue streams. Seems unnecessarily high risk to me.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: Some gains are very attractive. no nuclear weapons for me would be the biggest. but the advantages of a government defined by scottish votes is surely a good thing. Disadvantages would obviously be potentially more uncertainty in the short and long term, less of an international standing, smaller military (maybe not a bad thing)...

but also, say scotland would be better off economically without the rest of the UK (as some are claiming) is it fair for Scotland to abandon the UK? We would certainly be abandoning the UK to a more right wing government.
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Fair enough, then I'd refer you to what I said to Eric earlier this evening - I struggle to see how we'd be worse off for having had that revenue in the first place.

Indeed.
I think (as a non voting brit) that focusing on the mess of potage is a bit of a daft thing - the question to really think about is will Scotland be a better run country without the UK rather than within it.

I think this is a virtualy impossible question to answer - there are good basic arguments on both sides. so in the end i suspect it will come down to sentiment/the quality of the presentation on both sides there really ar eno hard facts worth a damn.
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> You've learned a lot about yourselves since 1999 and that's one of the finest side-effects of the creation of the devolved parliaments. You are starting to remember who you are. I can almost imagine that in 20 years time we will be discussing what great neighbours we have.

away.
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) Some gains are very attractive. no nuclear weapons for me would be the biggest. but the advantages of a government defined by scottish votes is surely a good thing.

maybe - but that assumes that scotland is more homogenous than the UK as whole - I've no idea if thats true.

> but also, say scotland would be better off economically without the rest of the UK (as some are claiming) is it fair for Scotland to abandon the UK? We would certainly be abandoning the UK to a more right wing government.

Thats an interesting point - I suspect a fair proportion of my hostility to Scottish independance is that it is changing my country (the UK) and I do not get to have a say.

I'm not sure about the economic arguments in either direction but the loss of the Scottish voice in the UK would be a great shame. There is a certain element of the independence argument along the lines of "the UK is not working for me/us, so rather than trying to change it we will just sod off and leave you to it".

andrewmcleod - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> but also, say scotland would be better off economically without the rest of the UK (as some are claiming) is it fair for Scotland to abandon the UK? We would certainly be abandoning the UK to a more right wing government.

Yes, please don't leave us Welsh with those buggers in Westminster! :P
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:

You make some good points there. I think emotion is a big part of the NO argument. Particularly for people from England.

For example it's fairly easy for a person from Scotland to feel Scottish, Scottish and British or one or the other. The realities of this are fairly clear.

However I often wonder if people from England, understandably, find it hard to disengage Britain from England or vice versa.

The notion of self determination is sometimes seen as an attack on the UK or England when it's nothing of the sort. I understand why someone might feel that though. England wont be any less English.

Humans are amazing creatures and I suspect much of the no argument is based on self doubt.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:
> "the UK is not working for me/us, so rather than trying to change it we will just sod off and leave you to it".

I am aware of an element of the left wing that think exactly that. 'we've tried, we've been patient, but we now see that the rest of the UK, mainly England, is edging ever further right and it's time to throw in the towel and walk away'.

Equally there are socialist movements opposed to Scottish independence because it marks an end to a socialist UK.
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) Some gains are very attractive. no nuclear weapons for me would be the biggest.

Fair enough David but my take on this is that if Scotland left the UK then I would have no more say in whether the rest of the UK retained nuclear weapons. As it is, I can campaign directly to my government for their removal and as part of the UK I have a voice at the big table when it comes to discussions on disarmament. Now, I'm under no illusions about how small my voice is and how difficult it is to effect change but I have a voice all the same. If I were a citizen of a neighbour of the UK I would have no voice and no influence on the UK Government at all. Voting to leave the UK will not and never will reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

> but the advantages of a government defined by scottish votes is surely a good thing.

I think a devolved government inside the UK is a good thing, the best of both worlds. We have a fair degree of autonomy over how the Northern part of the UK, Scotland is run, health, education, we brought in land reform and banned hunting with dogs, we don't have tuition fees etc, while still remaining part of the world's 5th largest economy (maybe 6th now but you get my point. So we have a big voice when it comes to negotiating things like fish quotas or European legislation but are left to ourselves to get on with the Scottish stuff.

> Disadvantages would obviously be potentially more uncertainty in the short and long term, less of an international standing, smaller military (maybe not a bad thing)...
>
> but also, say scotland would be better off economically without the rest of the UK (as some are claiming) is it fair for Scotland to abandon the UK? We would certainly be abandoning the UK to a more right wing government.

Very noble sentiments! I can see you're not one of those nationalists who would be a die hard unionist if they thought Scotland would be financially worse off out of the UK.

You may be right about the political make up of the UK if Scotland were to leave and I do think we are currently a balance to the Tory heartlands. One wonders, for example, if there had been no Scottish MPs in the House of Commons the other week whether or not the Government would have persuaded Parliament to take military action against Syria? On the other hand, bear in mind that 50 years ago Scotland was as Tory as the South of England is now. In the hundred year time frame that I give myself to weigh up the pros and cons of leaving the UK, things might change.
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Dr.S at work)
>
> You make some good points there. I think emotion is a big part of the NO argument. Particularly for people from England.
>
and I think its a big part of the YES argument - nothing wrong with that but if we were all vulcans we would probably conclude "ermmmmm"



> However I often wonder if people from England, understandably, find it hard to disengage Britain from England or vice versa.
>

maybe - I'm not in a good position to comment being from a (old) scottish family so the difference has always been apparent.

> The notion of self determination is sometimes seen as an attack on the UK or England when it's nothing of the sort. I understand why someone might feel that though. England wont be any less English.

The notion of self determination is not an attack on anything - part of the UK leaving clearly will have an effect on the UK. one that i feel will be negative for the UK. Its part of what is great about the UK that it will allow a part to leave if thats what the people living there want.

If your primary sense of identity is British, then having a bit leave does make you feel sad.



Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> This is one of the things I don't get. Do you think Scotland is worse off as a result of having these hydrocarbon reserves around its shores?

Not at all Doug! It's just that it's been saving our bacon for a while. I unreliably remember that 51% of the wages paid in Scotland go to the public sector. It's an unhealthy balance which Alex Salmond has said needs addressed (though I don't see this government doing a lot about it). While we do generate more tax per capita than the whole of the UK on average we also consume more tax per capita than the whole of the UK on average.

Check out these two articles, in fact the whole web site is worth reading:

http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/04/scottish-tax-and-spend.html

http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/07/has-scotland-already-spent-its-...
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> On the other hand, bear in mind that 50 years ago Scotland was as Tory as the South of England is now. In the hundred year time frame that I give myself to weigh up the pros and cons of leaving the UK, things might change.

It'd be a tough break-up. Maybe we could stay friends. maybe politics south of the border will change, but for now, UKIP has to be one of the biggest risks to the UK there is.

skog - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> Voting to leave the UK will not and never will reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

You might be right - but it would increase the cost per head of keeping them, by almost a tenth, wouldn't it?

That might not bother people, but it might make them think a little harder about whether they were worth keeping.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes but your campaign has failed. Both the Tories and Labours are pro nuclear weapons. The Lib dems are to a point too so you would have to go into your campaign knowing that they don't intend to change.

So you have a simple choice. Keep plugging away at a system that has stated on the record that it is pro nuclear weapons and intend to spend billions on them, or use another system that intends to remove them.

A numbers game is pointless.

From memory the Syria vote was not affected by the Scottish MPs.
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)

>
> If your primary sense of identity is British, then having a bit leave does make you feel sad.

I think this is the point that many Nationalists don't understand. I saw some figures which compared people's sense of identity, whether they felt Scottish, British or Scottish and British with whether or not they were in favour of leaving the UK. It's no suprise to find that those who felt exclusively Scottish were mainly in favour of leaving the UK while those that felt British were mainly in favour of staying in the UK .

I think that must be why we see the question "why would the English want to keep us in the UK?" ("because they just want our money") asked by so many natonalists. They genuinely don't understand.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: I seem to recall that Scottish MP's were more in favour of the Syrian intervention.
Sir Chasm - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> It'd be a tough break-up. Maybe we could stay friends. maybe politics south of the border will change, but for now, UKIP has to be one of the biggest risks to the UK there is.

Aye, all those ukip MPs feel like a real threat.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: fair enough they have no mp's yet, but they got a quarter of the council votes and apear to have growing support.
ads.ukclimbing.com
lynx3555 - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: This little piece by John Jappy further suggests Scotland is well capable of looking after it's self even with out oil......."Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007. Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38. Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch)."
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financia...
Eric9Points - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> It'd be a tough break-up. Maybe we could stay friends. maybe politics south of the border will change, but for now, UKIP has to be one of the biggest risks to the UK there is.

It's ironic isn't it, that the best party politics argument for leaving the UK is a party that is supposed to put the interests of the UK first when in fact it's little more than the Little England party. I think they're a reaction to the ConDem Government which hard of thinking tories forget is a coalition and think that their own party has deserted them. I don't see them lasting myself. The more moderate factions will be absorbed back into the Tory party and the rest will flirt with the EDL.
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

You may be right. The Lib Dems would have fallen into line pretty easily. I see most of them did from Scotland (Lib Dems I mean).
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to David Barratt)
>
> You may be right. The Lib Dems would have fallen into line pretty easily. I see most of them did from Scotland (Lib Dems I mean).

so, hawk like scotland held back by the english, welsh and NI doves ;-)
Cuthbert on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:

No, I was referring to that vote. That's all
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
oh do cheer up, I used an emoticon and everything.
David Barratt - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
> oh do cheer up, I used an emoticon and everything.

If only Thatcher had used one.
Dr.S at work - on 23 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

D:<

would appear appropriate?

or

}:-)

perhaps?
Jim Fraser - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
In reply to ERH:

Let's get one thing straight guys. Take Scotland out of this union and you do not have Scotland over there and the United Kingdom over there. Because the ToDo List is a really big one when these things happen, for practical reasons, a lot of things might look like that is happening but the potential for other outcomes is considerable.

What is the United Kingdom? So far, in 1707, 1801 and 1927, it has taken three different forms as the constitutional relationships change amongst these islands. One might suggest that a fourth evolution is natural. However, the United Kingdom of Great Britain came about through the union of Scotland and England (dragging Wales along).

If neither Scotland nor the greater part of Ireland are in the union then what is it?

In spite of the so-called Loyalists in NI referring to England as "The Mainland", is this the moment when they will realise that they are not British? Or the moment they think the rest of us are destroying the concept, and therefore their identity? Messy.

Wales looks west and east and wonders what it did to deserve this?
999thAndy on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Dr.S at work)
>
> You make some good points there. I think emotion is a big part of the NO argument. Particularly for people from England.
>
> For example it's fairly easy for a person from Scotland to feel Scottish, Scottish and British or one or the other. The realities of this are fairly clear.
>
> However I often wonder if people from England, understandably, find it hard to disengage Britain from England or vice versa.
>
>[...]

Just as an exercise I edited your response to this

"You make some good points there. I think emotion is a big part of the YES argument. Particularly for people from Scotland.

For example it's fairly easy for a person from England to feel English, English and British or one or the other. The realities of this are fairly clear.

However I often wonder if people from Scotland, understandably, find it hard to disengage Britain from England or vice versa."

And it makes *exactly* the same amount of sense.
Cuthbert on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

Your words, not mine.
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

A vaguely relevant and very interesting post on Euroscepticism and perceived identity:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/36458
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Further, going on from my earlier post about the divisiveness that this campaign could bring to Scotland, Devo Max would be the ideal way of bringing most of Scotland back together again. Many pro indepenence argumnents could equally be arguments for Devo Max. Those that make them as an argument for separation now would presumably be satisfied if the powers they argue for were granted to Holyrood after a No vote.

"Margaret Curran's doubts over Scottish devolution":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10329316/Margaret-Currans-doubts-over-Scottish-devol...

Cuthbert on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I think she epitomises for me the fall of Labour. Self interested and views itself as more important that it's purpose.

Thankfully I think Curran is an asset to yes. Hypocrisy comes so easily to her. There she was saying how great the SP was when she was an MSP and now apparently there is lots still do prove.

Labour is now a right of centre corporate movement.
graeme jackson - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> Hypocrisy comes so easily to her. There she was saying how great the SP was when she was an MSP and now apparently there is lots still do prove.
>

One thing does not preclude the other
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to PeterM:

> A cynical and exploitative move if ever there was one. 'We' don't consider them mature enough to make decisions about alcohol or tobacco. They can't get married without parents permission, and legally they are considered children, yet we're changing the law to allow them to vote. The govt really are patronising pricks.

Sounds like HM opposition are too - Milliband has just been saying that a Labour Government would lower the voting age in UK General Elections to 16.
MG - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to PeterM)
>
> [...]
>
> Sounds like HM opposition are too - Milliband has just been saying that a Labour Government would lower the voting age in UK General Elections to 16.

Independence aside, do you honestly think that is a good move?


Bjartur i Sumarhus on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to MG: I wouldn't mind seeing the Australian system of compulsory voting regardless of some of the arguments about the "right" to vote or not.

some of the turn outs in the UK are woeful...it may be an urban myth but I'm sure I heard the Xfactor winners get more votes than some winning parties in general elections (probably BS...but you get the drift)

I have read above that Scotland do not vote for conservatives...maybe they don't. But how many actually vote at all in general elections?
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

I honestly don't know - I can see arguments for and against.

However, didn't Labour in Scotland oppose the reduction in the voting age for the Independence Referendum? What has changed?
tony on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:
>
> I have read above that Scotland do not vote for conservatives...maybe they don't. But how many actually vote at all in general elections?

Turnout in the 2010 UK General Election was 63.8%, and in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election it was 50.4%.

In the 2010 election, Labour got 42%, SNP 19.9%, Lib Dems 18.9%, Tories 16.7%, and no-one else got over 1%. The Tories have one MP in Scotland, and have only had one for quite a while.

It's a bit harder to give such figures for the Scottish election because of the constituency and list systems, but in the constituencies in 2011, SNP got 45.4%, Labour 31.7%, Tories 13.9% and Lib Dems 7.9%
ads.ukclimbing.com
David Barratt - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: Peoples opinions on whether under 16's should votes often seems defined by what they would vote for rather than whether they should have the right to vote. It's no coincidnece that the Yes campaign support under 16's getting the vote while the No campaign opposed it. These opinions were formed when it was percieved that under 16's would vote for independance. This assumption has since been questioned, I wonder if the No camp now support the under 16's?!

I think if they are interested enough to vote, they should be allowed. theose who don't care don't and shouldn't vote. They just dilute the votes of people who do care.
MG - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

> I think if they are interested enough to vote, they should be allowed.

I think some evidence of being independent rather than simply relying on parents for food, housing etc. would be ideal to be allowed to vote. So either a separate address, or full-time employment. This would apply to some 16 year olds but not that many. Clearly assesing it would be impractical in practice, so I would prefer to stay with 18 as pragmatic measure.
Toccata on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: As there are some well informed people replyin gto this thread, I wonder if anyone could help me refute (or otherwise) my concerns.

The oft quoted 'Scotland gets 9.3% spending but 9.7% tax revenues' rather forgets the significant contribution of borrowing to expenditure. For example in 2012 UK expenditure was £694bn meaning £64.5bn was spent in Scotland. Yet the tax take for the same period was £550bn, meaning £53.3bn was raised in Scotland. Pretty big shortfall.

Secondly, is there any poll data looking at voting intentions stratified by earnings? A great concern I have about independence is whether those paying the highest taxes would stay. This concern is currently based only on anecdote through conversations with people I know living in Scotland. Surprisingly even the most pro-independent of these has made provision already to be able to pay tax in Scotland or rUK depending on the tax policies of the Scottish government. I'm curious to see whether anyone has considered a tax exodus with proper analysis.

Genuinely interested in (serious) comments.
Douglas Griffin - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:

Re. the first point, this recent post (on an admittedly partisan website) may be of interest:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/
Eric9Points - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:

Have a look at the links I posted in my reply to Douglas Griffin last night. Scotland gets back roughly what it's paid in. I haven't added it all up myself.

I don't believe you can be precise with the numbers, one year Scotland puts in more than it gets out, the next it's the other way around. No idea about the tax thing but it's an interesting point. Even without Scotland leaving the UK it already has powers to varying income tax and perhaps if there were a radical change in the way Scotland was funded after it decided to remain in the UK there may be some change in personal taxation. I guess you could imagine a situation like Switzerland where if you're rich enough you can negotiate with the different Cantons over the amount of tax you pay and then stay in the Canton that offers you the best deal.

Dr.S at work - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:


> Wales looks west and east and wonders what it did to deserve this?

Perhaps Wales will look North and wonder what it has done to deserve this??

More seriously what is the Welsh view on Scotland leaving? Whilst, like Scotland, Wales could function perfectly well as an independent nation, its geography makes it harder I think with the North very much plugged into Englands N.West and the South a bit more plugged into the M4 corridor?
ERH - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I seriously doubt that Wales could maintain it's current standard of living if it went it on it's own. It's just too small a player, and would get bullied by it's neighbours.

Plus, they'd never be allowed- what would we call the first in line to the throne??

That said, What's Prince Philip going to do when Edinburgh isn't part of the UK? does he get to be King? Would be a good moment to be Scottish then...
Heike - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
Great! Can't wait and I think I am going to vote Yes. Had a long hard think about it and after being in the no camp for a long time, I am going to go for Yes!

No matter whether it's yes or no, I think it is great that we do have the chance to vote and for all the people who say they are 'fed up' about hearing about it, well this is democracy in action. Isn't it nice to live in a country where the citizens have a right to say what they mean rather than being gunned down, etc.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to Dr.S at work)
> That said, What's Prince Philip going to do when Edinburgh isn't part of the UK?

The critical post independence questions about the monarchy and the royal estates in Scotland have not been addressed by the SNP. What is their policy on bolting Salisbury Crags?

Cuthbert on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Heike:

Well said. We are living through a time of unparalleled debate and creativity and will look back on this fondly in years to come.
off-duty - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to Heike:
> (In reply to ERH)
> Isn't it nice to live in a country where the citizens have a right to say what they mean rather than being gunned down, etc.

Like France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece etc..?
Heike - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:
Exactly! I just don't see why people say : "Oh I am fed up with this". If you don't like it, well switch off (like half of the population). For those who care, let's have a healthy debate, election, whatever else is going on...
lynx3555 - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty: I think Heike was suggesting none democratic countries, or brutal kingdoms like Saudi, Quatar, Bahrain, Egypt....etc
Heike - on 24 Sep 2013
In reply to lynx3555:

Somebody understood me...
andymac - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Heike:

So someone isn't allowed to start a thread on a a discussion forum about being fed up with something?

In this case ; Eck and his independence .

Sorry ,but you are wrong.

Strange how its the Nats on here who seem to be saying similar,about this particular thread.Or is really it really the dissenting voices ,or nonconformists on the thread that are the issue?

Have you heard the one about opinions and arseholes?
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to andymac:

Are you sure you're on the right thread?

Obviously, people can start threads about anything they like. All I did (on the other thread) was point out that if someone is fed up hearing about something, then it's a bit odd to start a new thread on that very subject.

I don't think there's much evidence on this thread that people have a problem with "dissenting voices", although there have been complaints about the tone used at times. You don't seem to be too keen on them yourself though?

Re. "Eck and his independence." Can you see past your personal dislike of Salmond? If you can, and are still against Independence, fine - but whether or not you like him is irrelevant. It's not about Salmond or any other individual, or even any political party. The Greens are in favour of Independence, some people who vote Labour/Lib Dem are in favour of Independence. (Maybe even some people who vote Conservative?) There's no doubt at all that some people who vote SNP in Holyrood Elections aren't in favour of Independence. The vote next September isn't a popularity contest, it isn't a Hollyrood Election, it's not SNP v the rest. It's about the constitutional future of Scotland, and its consequences could outlast any politician alive today.

You and some of the others on the other thread seem to think it's strange that we're having a vote at all. Yet on that same thread you talk about "democracy". Well, I'd refer you to the results of the last Holyrood Election - the SNP said that if they got elected, they'd organise a referendum on Scottish Independence during the second half of their term. That is exactly what they have done - that's democracy.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin: I think the thing that confuses people about whether its a vote for independence, or a vote for SNP/Salmond is all the promises that he gives if you vote yes.

That gives the impression of a policy promise from a manifesto. Whereas, if there is an election immediately after the vote (if yes), then maybe some of these promises might not happen if another political party gets in power?
MG - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

> Re. "Eck and his independence." Can you see past your personal dislike of Salmond? If you can, and are still against Independence, fine - but whether or not you like him is irrelevant.


Irrelevant except when it's not. Scan up thread and there are many examples of claims such as "labour has failed" to support a Yes vote. Most people's horizons don't really extend beyond about ten (or even five) years, so the effect of the vote on politics immediately afterwards is one factor to consider.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

The same is exactly true about a no vote and there is form on this. All sorts of things were promissed in 1979 and they didn't happen.

To ensure progress, as in 1997, only YES will suffice.

Of course, you are quite correct that some of these things might not happen if a party didn't get into power and this is where the confusion lies.

The electorate is quite immature and wants answers on things that for a government to decide. That said, parties can give a view. The SNP and Greens are doing that but the Lid Dems, Tories and Labours refuse to even entertain what they would do in power in an independent Scotland.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Labour has failed over many decades. Today, 1 in 6 children in Glasgow live in poverty. IF after 300 years that is the outcome then it's time to try something new.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Well said Doug. I do wonder if Andy and others like him have even begun to understand this vote.

It's easy, playground style, to just say it's all about Alex Salmond. IF this were true, which it isn't, then the NO campaign would be all about Cameron. I wouldn't put too much money on Mull being pro Cameron.
nw - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: But can you demonstrate that one follows from the other (Child povery in Glasgow/Union)? What about the 4 in 10 children in poverty in London? Edinburgh's fault?
999thAndy on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:
He can't. Though I fully expect him to say how child poverty in Scotland would be eradicated if only they were independent.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to nw:

No not at all Edinburgh's fault. It's more, in my view the types of policies pursued and where you spend your money.

For example, I would cut military spending and spend it on infrastructure, homes, education etc.

Also, the widening gap between those well of and those less well off is very much a result of the UK economic approach.

Did you read that Common Weal link I sent you?
off-duty - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Labour has failed over many decades. Today, 1 in 6 children in Glasgow live in poverty. IF after 300 years that is the outcome then it's time to try something new.

And the 10% improvement on this figure over the last year is as a result of what exactly?
One thing is for certain, your personal opinion that independence will "fix" child poverty in Glasgow has no evidence to support it.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I'd argue benefits, the economy, money available for capital and housing investment all of which are reserved powers.

That isn't my opinion and you are quoting somebody else there.
Eric9Points - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
> [...]
>
>
> Irrelevant except when it's not. Scan up thread and there are many examples of claims such as "labour has failed"

Quite, "this isn't a general election" followed shortly after by by hysterical finger pointing at the Labour Party. Utterly bizarre and not worth gracing with a reply.

"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us"

Eric9Points - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to nw)
>
>
> For example, I would cut military spending and spend it on infrastructure, homes, education etc.
>

I didn't realise that you were planning to stand as Supreme Leader.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes, I wasn't talking about policy. I was referring to the decades of failure that is the track record of Labour.

There really is no point in complaining about Thatcher or any other Tories when you support the system that allowed them to implement their policies. You support them.
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

It's not a general election though - it's potentially far more important than that.
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Yes, I wasn't talking about policy. I was referring to the decades of failure that is the track record of Labour.

Don't you think that within a few years of a 'Yes' vote, Scottish Labour would be in with a very decent chance of being in government in Holyrood?
MG - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> Yes, I wasn't talking about policy. I was referring to the decades of failure that is the track record of Labour.


Yep, nothing but failure. After all who wants the NHS, state pensions, social housing, Scottish devolution, legal aid and so on.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Yes a very good chance I would have thought. Why they are supporting the Tories is this is beyond me. I think it's more about saving their own bacon.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Em, that is precisely the argument I am using. No one in favour of independence wants to get rid of these things, you should be supporting it if you want to strengthen them.

tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> Yes, I wasn't talking about policy. I was referring to the decades of failure that is the track record of Labour.

Aye, Scottish devolution, look where that's got us ...
MG - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: No, you were saying Labour had a track record of failure. Now you are saying you like what they have done and want to keep it. Make you mind up.
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Why they are supporting the Tories is this is beyond me.

Because were Scotland to go, Labour would have a far harder time winning a UK General Election? Or it always could be out of principle. Or maybe a bit of both.
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

> Aye, Scottish devolution, look where that's got us ...

Land Reform Act (2003)...
tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Sorry, you misunderstand. Donald's point is that Labour has a track record of failure. My point is that part of that track record was the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Is that a success or a failure?
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Yes I am saying that. The existence of a system is not evidence of success. The output from any system is the measure. I hope you are clear on that.

For example, many disagree with the way the NHS is being treated outside Scotland and want to retain it as it is.
David Barratt - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
>
> For example, I would cut military spending and spend it on infrastructure, homes, education etc.

Cut the forth biggest military budget in the world to fund homes and education?!? How audacious! So what you're saying is that rather than buy a missile and blow up someones home, we could build a home and educate people?

No, let's build less homes, dilute our education system and buy more bombs! that will make the world a better place.

(hope you can tell I'm being sarcastic)
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

It's a success if the population of the country consider it to have made their lives better. Simply establishing it isn't a success in itself.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

I know, I know. I am being so stupid. I really do feel great when I hear of the UK at the UN Security Council. I really do feel that is worthwhile and we are so much safer than the population of Denmark because we have nuclear weapons.

Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

No, I was agreeing with you; I'd obviously regard Devolution as having been a good thing and I was giving you another example of what I'd regard as one of Labour's successes in Scotland.
Sir Chasm - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt: You mean "build fewer homes" - let's have less dilution (whatever that means) of the education system though.
tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> It's a success if the population of the country consider it to have made their lives better. Simply establishing it isn't a success in itself.

So which of these options would you prefer?
- to have the Scottish Parliament and have the power to pass, as Douglas points out, ground-breaking legislation such as the Land Reform (Scotland) Act
- not to have the Scottish Parliament
tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> No, I was agreeing with you; I'd obviously regard Devolution as having been a good thing and I was giving you another example of what I'd regard as one of Labour's successes in Scotland.

Ah, sorry, my misreading.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Em, the former. I've been arguing for that my entire adult life.

Here is my question for you.

Which would you prefer in 2018:
1- An independent Scotland with a Labour Government
2- A UK with A Tory government

I'm not allowing you a UK with a Labour Government right now so we can see which out of the two you'd like.
MG - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Yes I am saying that.

Which one? That they have failed, or you like what they have done? (Or do you like that they have failed?)
tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Em, the former. I've been arguing for that my entire adult life.

So you're happy that a Labour Government enabled the establishment of the Scottish Parliament? Is that part of their track record of failure?
>
> Here is my question for you.
>
> Which would you prefer in 2018:
> 1- An independent Scotland with a Labour Government
> 2- A UK with A Tory government
>
I think you'll find there are considerably more options available in the real world.

Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

I am saying in their broad social purpose they have failed. That doesn't mean that stuff like land reform, supported by more than just Labour, is a failure.

However, it is not actually the actions of Labour that been the failure, it is that they are trying to enact their policies through a system which is unable to deliver them.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Could you answer though?

There is a real chance that the Tories will get a majority at the next UK election. In that scenario would you look back and wonder if independence might have been the way forward?
tony on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Could you answer though?
>
So you're happy that a Labour Government enabled the establishment of the Scottish Parliament? Is that part of their track record of failure?

> There is a real chance that the Tories will get a majority at the next UK election. In that scenario would you look back and wonder if independence might have been the way forward?

There's also a real chance that Labour will win the next election. I'll be happy with that.

Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to tony:

Yes of course I am happy they established it. Not everything is bad. But on their broad social purpose they have failed. Also, whilst they established it there was pressure to do so from the SNP vote.

Could you answer my question please as I answered yours.

There is a real chance that Labour might win. But leaving that aside, which would you prefer - Tories in power or independent Scotland with Labour in power?
David Barratt - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to David Barratt) You mean "build fewer homes" - let's have less dilution (whatever that means) of the education system though.

See, It's happening already. I'm 24 and crap at grammer. If we had spent less on the 'defence' budget when I was growing up, I might have been able to more eloquently argue a point on UKC. But look at me, I'm a mess of a human being.

Sam_in_Leeds - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

I see it making about as much impact as the "AV Referendum" did.

I honestly can't see why anyone would want to vote for independence.

Also, why as a citizen of the other part of the Union, why don't I get a say?

Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:

> Also, why as a citizen of the other part of the Union, why don't I get a say?

You've answered your own question, although you meant "one of the other parts of the Union".

David Barratt - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
> (In reply to ERH)

>
> Why as a citizen of the other part of the Union, why don't I get a say?

The idea that those living outside of Scotland would get a vote in the independence referendum is absurd. How would self determination ever work if that was the case? surely you understand that?
earlsdonwhu - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: Do we really have to wait a year before the Scots stop scrounging off us and go and back to living in abject poverty on the periphery of Europe?

The sad thing is that we will still end up paying through EU subsidies for them as all of Scotland will probably qualify for Objective 1 status and with free movement of labour in the EU they will still migrate south.


Just being provocative like...... :)
That's me with my passport on the banned list then.
ERH - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:

True, but if Scotland wanted the UK to split, rather than them to cede (big legal difference) then all the UK would have to vote on it.

Becoming a "new" country means it would have to negotiate new deals with everywhere else, whereas splitting would mean it kept all the pre-existing treaties etc.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> That's me with my passport on the banned list then.

You know, I reckon you're seriously over-estimating the degree to which anyone here cares what you think.

999thAndy on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to David Barratt)
>
> Becoming a "new" country means it would have to negotiate new deals with everywhere else, whereas splitting would mean it kept all the pre-existing treaties etc.

Are you sure about that? If so could you post a link? Because I'm pretty sure the yes campaign believe that an independent Scotland would automatically be in the EU (& NATO &c)
andrewmcleod - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to 999thAndy:

Personally I would be very skeptical that a newly independent Scotland would be refused some form of accelerated entry, in any event. It would of course take a while to arrange, but then so would independence. The only thing I could see being an issue would be an independent Scottish currency other than the euro or pound - I imagine the EU could probably be persuaded to allow the pound to continue, but not the creation of a new currency.
Jim Braid - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:
> (In reply to ERH) .
>
> Secondly, is there any poll data looking at voting intentions stratified by earnings?
>
>

I haven't seen such a poll but you may be interested in the Wings over Scotland website which is for the most part a blog written by Stuart Campbell commenting on current Scottish politics. In particular he does a good line in demolishing the latest scare story coming from Better Together. He organised a crowd funded opinion poll amongst the followers of his blog and took suggestions from them on the questions he should ask. Here's the result

http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/

What may be of interest to you is that since the first poll he has raised enough cash to do a second and possibly more. He might be willing to consider your question though it's fair to say he's had plenty of suggestions on the blog - track back in July/August to get a feel for it.
Douglas Griffin - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> Personally I would be very skeptical that a newly independent Scotland would be refused some form of accelerated entry, in any event. It would of course take a while to arrange, but then so would independence.

The proposed date for independence to become effective (in the event of a 'Yes' vote) is March 2016, I think.
Dr.S at work - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Sam_in_Leeds)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The idea that those living outside of Scotland would get a vote in the independence referendum is absurd.

Given a successful yes vote - do you think the rUK population should be able to vote on any actual independence settlement?
David Barratt - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work: I don't doubt that negotiating would take place, but I think that would be up to UK parliament. What a complicated vote that would be, to give the remaining UK population a referendum on what is scotland's and what is not! So no, I don't think it would be feasible to give the rest of the UK any sort of vote on the matter. If the population of Scotland want independence, then it will happen, regardless of the opinion of anyone outside scotland.
Cuthbert on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work:

No as that should be up to the political representatives. That is what they are there for.

Dr.S at work - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to David Barratt:
> (In reply to Dr.S at work) I don't doubt that negotiating would take place, but I think that would be up to UK parliament.

I'm curious to know how any significant dispute in such a process (trident bases being a good spark point) would be resolved - as a you say a very complex process.
David Barratt - on 25 Sep 2013
In reply to Dr.S at work: I can see the removal of trident taking time and the scottish government being accommodating in allowing a bit of time. But there would be little negotiating. trident would go and it would be for the uk government to figure it out what do do with them. I'm not sure why it would be hard to move them. I've heard they need deep water to be based in but when they sail out of Faslane, they stay on the surface all the way out past the clyde. It's not something I know much about though.
off-duty - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Braid:
> (In reply to Toccata)
> [...]
>
> In particular he does a good line in demolishing the latest scare story coming from Better Together.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-no-future/

Hmm.
MG - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to off-duty: You understand it's the No campaign who indulge in scare stories don't you ?
Toccata on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Jim Braid:
> (In reply to Toccata)
> [...]
>
> I haven't seen such a poll but you may be interested in the Wings over Scotland website which is for the most part a blog written by Stuart Campbell commenting on current Scottish politics. In particular he does a good line in demolishing the latest scare story coming from Better Together. He organised a crowd funded opinion poll amongst the followers of his blog and took suggestions from them on the questions he should ask. Here's the result
>
> http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/
>
>

Interesting website, thanks for the link. Was interested on the data showing that the effect of the loss of Scottish labour MPs would have actually had very little effect on Westminster government ( http://www.wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/ ).

Most pro-independent commentators (all?) have populist left-of-centre views (esp welfare) but are based on (in my opinion) optimistic economic predictions. Is there a good link to someone taking the more realistic view of 'things are going to be tough for a few years but it'll be worth it'? I would also be very interested to read a pro-independence argument-analysis from someone who shares my centre-right politics. And no, centre-right does not have to mean pro-unionist.
MG - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:
I would also be very interested to read a pro-independence argument-analysis from someone who shares my centre-right politics. And no, centre-right does not have to mean pro-unionist.

Try this lot. Not quite pro-independence.

http://www.reformscotland.com/
Cuthbert on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:

There are people who hold those views. I am trying to think of some off the top of my head but can't. I'll have a think and if the light bulb flickers on I will report back.
Cuthbert on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

They need to update their website as it's way behind now and not much has been added to it which takes account of recent changes.
MG - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba: Maybe they are defunct. They were in the news a while back and had some interesting ideas.
Cuthbert on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to MG:

Yes they had some good ones I thought. I might be wrong but I thought I heard them in the news recently but maybe that was another org.
lynx3555 - on 26 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH: The recent Census results reveal that maybe a lot less people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish and British than just Scotish....so it looks like a lot of "No" voters aren't voting because they feel that they are British.

Almost two thirds of Scotland’s residents consider their nationality to be Scottish only.

The 2011 Census shows 62.4% of respondents feel they are Scottish only, while 8.4% think they are British only.

The results also show 18.3% consider themselves both Scottish and British, with 1.9% saying they are Scottish and another nationality.

Just 2.3% consider themselves English, 2% a combination of other UK nationalities, 4.4% another nationality and 0.3% other plus one UK nationality.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/240991-almost-two-thirds-of-scotlands-residents-are-scottish-only/
Paul035 - on 27 Sep 2013
Personally undecided in the debate, maybe erring slightly towards yes. I do think this has come round sooner than the SNP would have wanted. Salmond should have fought harder for devolution max, taken longer to get it if need be but planted the seeds. He should have gathered support from Welsh and NI assemblies to help push the cause. The worry is if the vote is no then Scotland's position is weaker and will have a harder fight to get anything from Westminster.

From devo max they could have started a campaign for independence. Obviously Salmond wants to be the one to deliver independence for Scotland and go down in history as such, But I hope he hasn't set us back by putting his own political ambitions ahead of the long term cause.

If it is a yes vote I think it might also have a massive rejuvenating effect on politics south of the border. The Tories will be so far ahead of labour they may well split up with the more right wing back benchers going off in pursuit of their anti-euro aims. Labour would also have to reinvent itself and go back to its roots rather than be so close to the conservatives in terms of policies.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Saor Alba:

Seen today's news? Now it's the turn of the UK Commons Defence Select Committee to cast as much doubt as possible in people's minds.

The Chairman (James Arbuthnot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arbuthnot ) was on BBC GMS earlier - trying to make out that the Trident base would be as much Scotland's problem as the rUK's and that Scotland would have to pay its share of any decommissioning costs. This is no doubt true, but of course if we don't vote to get rid of it we'll also have to pay our share to continue to maintain it - presumably indefinitely. So if it's about money, the answer is obvious - get rid.
No-one has given a satisfactory answer to the question: where would the rUK base its independent nuclear deterrent? Being a nuclear power seems to me to be central to the UK's self-image of its place in the world and I doubt the rUK would be any different. They have no doubt seen the polls and don't expect a 'Yes' vote, but until it's absolutely certain that they won't, the prospect of losing Faslane must terrify a lot of people in Whitehall.
Cuthbert on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Agreed. I don't listen to GMS due to the inane giggling that seems to have infected so much of BBC Scotland these days.

I did hear though on Aithris na Maidne that, according to a group of unionist MPs, Scotland might find it hard to get into NATO. They think NATO will give up on the strategic waters of the Atlantic, GIUK Gap and North Sea. Maybe they should get out a bit more!
Cuthbert on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Paul035:

I agree with a lot of that Paul. I think the role that Alec Salmond plays within the YEs campaign has a tendency to be over played. The appeal has spread beyond those interested in the SNP and its policies. Good post.
drmarten on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
>the prospect of losing Faslane must terrify a lot of people in Whitehall.

There are probably as many people in the Faslane area terrified of the closure of the naval base...

I am interested in the defence aspect of the independence debate and looking at what is happening at the moment I firmly believe defence would be better looked after by an independent Scotland. The Better Together people should never, ever be allowed to use defence as a reason for people to vote for them. Roysth was closed as a base and while Scotland gets the 'dirty' part of Trident (basing, arming, missile storage), Plymouth got the lucrative refit work - ahead of Rosyth where £100m had been spent on digging dry docks for the refits. I speak as someone who supports the UK nuclear deterrent - please don't pigeon hole me!

Surface vessels wise Scotland has nothing bigger than a minesweeper based here, the seas surrounding Scotland are empty of RN frigates (or larger ships) most days so they are not able to provide a defence capability for fisheries or oil unless potential enemies email them weeks in advance. We've no maritime patrol aircraft (excepting the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency) and in my recent memory RAF Macrahinish, RAF Kinloss, RAF Leuchars and RAF Prestwick have been closed or will close.

In short the UK has and is doing an apalling job with defence in Scotland. I'm a big believer in the maxim that the most important task of any government is to protect its citizens, having said that I'm still an undecided voter.
I'll add up my ticks nearer the time but for defence there is a tick under the Independence column.
Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
Cuthbert on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to drmarten:

Yes there probably are but I dont think anyone is proposing to close it, just remove Trident and associated activity. This in itself would generate employment.
drmarten on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Yes, it was a pretty unimpressive display of our defensive capabilities.
Toccata on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to ERH:

If Westminster commits to Trident's replacement this year, they will need a base. As the only established base is Scotland and as there are few (or no) suitable places in England or Wales, rUK will be reluctant to let Faslane go.

One of the reasons this is not being discussed is because it is highly likely to polarise opinion and strengthen the yes camp. However I strongly believe that in the event of a yes vote, Scotland will be forced to lease Faslane to rUK for the lifetime of Trident's replacement. I also know that there is an opinion within the armed forces that, in the interests of rUK national security, Faslane will not be part an independent Scotland, full stop.

And you see why Better Together don't want to discuss it...
Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Toccata:

> I also know that there is an opinion within the armed forces that, in the interests of rUK national security, Faslane will not be part an independent Scotland, full stop.

The idea of the rUK retaining ('ammexing' was the word used) Faslane in the event of Scottish Independence was publicly mooted in July of this year by 'anonymous' MoD sources, and almost immediately rubbished by the PM.
Eric9Points - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Saor Alba)
>
> Seen today's news? Now it's the turn of the UK Commons Defence Select Committee to cast as much doubt as possible in people's minds.
>

..Or to get to the truth? No..obviously evil Westminster are just spreading lies.

What did you think of the SNP bloke's justification for the sum of ~£2.5 Bn for a defence budget. Did it sound about right to you?

Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

I don't know, I only heard the interview with James Arbuthnot.
Dr.S at work - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

So just how will the mighty SDF take on the occasional Russian Carrier Battle group?

It seems to me that the type of thing missing (Nimrod/long range maritime patrol aircraft) here is more likely to be affordable by a larger state than a smaller one. The fact that the UK has not replaced Nimrod does not mean that Scotland would be able to do so.

and of course what this article does not state is:

How long the CBG was tracked by satellite
What the RN SSN was doing whilst sitting off the port bow.
Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> What did you think of the SNP bloke's justification for the sum of ~£2.5 Bn for a defence budget. Did it sound about right to you?

I guess it was Angus Robertson? He tweeted this link earlier today in support of what he said on BBC GMS:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/761/m29.htm
Eric9Points - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Thanks for the link I'll have a read at it.

I didn't have much idea about how much Scotland would have to spend on defence but it occurred to me that it should probably be around the same figure as Norway spends. Both countries have about the same population, are roughly the same size and have oil fields and fisheries to defend.

This year's Defence budget in Norway is £4.6 Bn.

Maybe I've missed something?
Douglas Griffin - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

Aye, everything costs about twice as much as it should in Norway. :-)
lynx3555 - on 27 Sep 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> [...]
>
> I guess it was Angus Robertson? He tweeted this link earlier today in support of what he said on BBC GMS:
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/761/m29.htm

Thanks for that....all though I was aware of a lot of the changes to the armed forces in Scotland, it's not until it's sumerised that you see how dramatic it actually is....not sure why it is or if it's at all relevant but I rarely see any fighter planes flying around the north west these days....personally I think it's a good thing.
Jim Fraser - on 28 Sep 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
>
> This year's Defence budget in Norway is £4.6 Bn.
>
> Maybe I've missed something?

Yes. Norway has no land border with a NATO ally and has a land border with Russia!

Denmark, in spite of Faroe and Greenland commitments, spends between 2 and 3 billion pounds.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.