UKC

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/29/independent-scotland-cede-s...

Intersting. Particularly this point

"Losing control over its currency exchange rates would likely mean that Scotland's public spending, wage levels and employment would be the first to suffer if there were any economic shocks.

In turn, parliaments and voters in the rest of the UK would also have to agree to backing up Scotland financially by bailing it out during a crisis – that, he said, would be a political decision beyond his authority as governor of the Bank of England."

How would that work? The usual time line for economic shocks goes something like Day 1 9am...everything is ok.Day 1 9.05am..FCK EVERYTHING IS NOT OK

How long to get a referendum together with the rUK public on shall we help out?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It doesn't make sense if Salmon really thinks Scotland will be economically superior as an independent nation.

Equally a recovered England with a strong pound will make Scotland an expensive destination for foreign tourists - surely Scotland's only growth industry.

With parity there is no incentive for English businesses to choose Scotland over England. They would be better going it alone and avoiding the pitfalls of the RoI.

In reply to Philip:


You might at least try to get his name right.


You forgot the whisky.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

So let's see.

(1) Scotland in UK = Scotland gets to vote for the government that, via the Bank of England and other mechanisms, controls Scotland's currency.

(2) Scotland not in UK = Scotland doesn't get to vote for the government that, via the Bank of England and other mechanisms, controls Scotland's currency.

Tell me again--which of (1) and (2) is it that we're calling "Scottish independence"?

In reply to

>will make Scotland an expensive destination for foreign tourists - surely Scotland's only growth industry.

And that is why we want independence. Scotland is not a theme park for tourists, it is a country in which people live and work.

In reply to tony:




Owned by foreigners ( like most things these days )

In reply to Tim Chappell:

You forgot to add:

1. Doesn't get democratic representation

2. Does get democratic representation

The pound 'issue' will be governed by economics, not politics in the event of a Yes vote.

In reply to Craig Mc:

Indeed, but when events start to control and effect your economy...useful to be able to pull some levers yourself no?

In reply to Craig Mc: How do Scots currently get less democratic representative than the English or Welsh?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Sure, but who said a currency union was going to be any more than an intermediate solution which suits both parties? When it's not in either's interests it'll go.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

English get representation, welsh and northern Irish don't. But you know that.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The question for the BoE guy is, if Scotland is not allowed to use the pound what happens to Scotland's share of the pound denominated national debt. Salmond will tell him that Scotland won't take on a national debt denominated in a foreign currency. At that point sharing the currency rather than getting paid off in Scottish pounds might seem like a good idea.

In reply to Philip:

They would be better going it alone and avoiding the pitfalls of the RoI.

Seems a very confused post to me, I'm not sure what side you are coming from and perhaps you should check out various lists/measures that are done which indicate that the "RoI" despite all the banking troubles etc is still one of the richest countries in the world and on all studies I have seen a fair way ahead of the UK. Take London out of the equation and the difference is even more startling.

In reply to Craig Mc: So nobody apart from the English are represented in Parliament?

In reply to Craig Mc:





That's just really puzzling. Scotland in the UK sends MPs to Westminster, same as Somerset, Swansea, and Strabane. What can you possibly mean by saying that Scotland in the UK "doesn't get democratic representation"?

Your response to Sir Chasm's question does not shed light on this puzzle.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

really?

i think the point being made was.... no matter what parties the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish vote for they usually end up with a UK government they didn't vote for because their votes are outnumbered.

in the last general election Scotland voted in 1 Tory MP... and yet we have a Tory led government.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

England has the largest population by a factor of 10, so as a voting block they get represented.

Other home nations may get the government their majorities voted for or not - depending on whether they backed the same party as the majority of the largest voting home nation ( England) voted for.

Scotland hasn't had a majority Tory vote for quite some time.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Scotland is a country, Tim. Countries govern their own affairs, regardless of short term economic fixes which will probably suit both parties.

In reply to rallymania:



The same could be said for the English as the Welsh and Scots vote for policies that only affect the English.

In reply to Craig Mc:


Plenty of countries have been in long-term cooperative relationships with other countries, to the advantage of both. Canada is, arguably, more than one country, even if you leave Quebec (and the First Nations) out of it. E.g. when Newfoundland voted to become part of Canada in 1949, that was the merger of two countries with different histories to the advantage of both. According to you, did the Newfies do something intrinsically wrong by choosing not to "govern their own affairs"?

In reply to Craig Mc:




By your logic, anyone who lives under a Conservative government and didn't vote Conservative "has no democratic representation".

But that's nonsense. It just suggests you don't actually know what democratic representation is.

In reply to Ridge:
valid point and I've said on numerous occasions that England should have had it's own assembly / parliament when the other home nations got theirs... not doing that was wrong!

I'm surprised more people didn't complain too, to be honest

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Different places, different times etc. lots of other countries manage fine after a split.

In reply to Craig Mc:


What the case of Newfoundland establishes is this: it's nonsense to claim that it's some kind of law of nature that "countries govern their own affairs".

Parallel interesting factoid: round about 1910 NZ and Australia very nearly voted to become a single country. (Thank God they didn't; just imagine the rugby and cricket teams.) Neither of them was governed by your doctrine that countries simply must govern their own affairs. Quite right too.
In any case all modern countries have a lot of "affairs" that they can and do only "govern" in collaboration with other countries. Independence/ self-determination is a matter of degree.

And that brings us back to my original point--that Scotland will have more fiscal self-determination if it votes No than if it votes Yes.

In reply to rallymania: I didn't get the government I voted for either. Boo hoo, boo hoo.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

If currency union was an end point and not a short to intermediate step on a fiscal journey I might agree with you.

Lots of people on the Yes side believe currency union is not going to be in Scotland's interests too.

It's a step, I believe, like the Aussies and Irish using the pound. Even without a currency union Scotland will do fine, but there will be enough change to deal with initially so it makes sense to do it this way.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I imagine:
- The RUK keeps it's current debt and creditors, so that the creditors are not burdened with the additional risk of lending to a new Scotland, and remain willing to lend to the RUK at low rates.
- Scotland pays it's share of the national debt (in GBP). To do so, it issues bonds in Scottish pounds (SCP?). RUK buys most or all of those bonds, using the money Scotland is paying.

Now, the RUK is taking a bit of a risk. Scotland could inflate their pound in order to reduce the value of the bonds. I guess that is what you were referring to? But Scotland currently has a deficit, and almost certainly will continue to run a deficit for some years after independence. They can't re-structure that fast, and will also have some extra costs during the transition, as they'll have to set up their own bodies to take over from HMRC, MOD etc. They will need debt to fund that deficit, and if they are seen to be inflating away their existing debt, they will have to pay a lot for new debt. Indeed, as that first group of bonds matures, they will have to issue new bonds to pay off the old. The rate they get on these new bonds will depend on ho the market views the performance of the old ones.

If those initial bonds are on a relativity short term (say 5-10 years), then I think the RUK could reasonably agree to having them denominated in SCP. It is IMO a much better idea than entering into a currency union without a fiscal union.

In reply to Craig Mc:



One slight issue with your description or I have been voting in general elections completely wrong.

I vote for an MP to represent a constituency not a country (i.e England). At least one constituency in Scotland is getting full representation as they returned a conservative MP to Westminster. Could probably argue that all the areas in Scotland and England and Wales etc that returned Lib Dem MPs have full representation at Westminster Government level also!

In reply to Craig Mc:



"A fiscal journey". Where to, I wonder, given that the reason the SNP favour keeping the £ is the horrors that would await any attempt to set up a currency of their own.

"A fiscal journey". All this Messianic talk. But you don't have to embark on it, you know.

In reply to Alan M:

You and I are individuals. England and Scotland are countries. I'm talking about majority votes per home nation. Some folk on here don't differentiate between the personal and the national.

I suppose it comes down to where one believes scotland is a county or not.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Aye Tim, it sure will be one heck of a ride during post-Yes vote negotiations. Give me the positive case for remaining in the union and I'll ponder it - but not now. I'm off out for a bit.

In reply to Craig Mc:


See above. Scotland is a country (and not a county). But that doesn't mean it HAS to be independent!

The various states of Germany before Bismarck, or of Italy before Garibaldi--they were countries too. They chose to become parts of greater unions. As Scotland did in 1605/ 1707, and as Newfoundland did in 1949.

I think every one of these decisions was a good one.

In reply to Craig Mc:



If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It.

In reply to Craig Mc:


Countries that just happen to make up a bigger country (UK of GB)


Nothing to do with whether I think Scotland or England is a country or not

I vote in the UK general election to elect an MP to represent a British constituency the fact that it falls within England is irrelevant I am casting a vote to return an MP to the British Government. My Scottish family in my mind are also returning an MP to represent a British constituency not Scotland as a whole etc. In my mind an MP returned to Westminster should not be voted for on nationalist grounds! There is no us and them there should only be us and that includes you in Scotland, Me in England and My best mate who is Welsh etc.

I am actually slightly in favour of Scottish Independence (My family is Scottish and the majority still live there). I just don't agree about the non representation stuff at Westminster level as I see us as a whole and not an US and Them. Its why in the current setup I have no real issues with a Scottish constituent MP getting involved in English affairs as until England has its own representation (English parliament or English votes for English issues etc) It is governed by the UK government as part of Britain so any British MP should be allowed to state their opinion.

In reply to Gav M:



Interesting. So how do you propose to turn the tourism industry into haggis mining or whatever, you know, real jobs? How long after independence would this occur.

I hear the same talk down in Cornwall, where the nutty nats there seem to think that the can eliminate tourism, (which accounts for 15-25% of the county's income, depending on who you believe,) and replace it with the long lost traditional industries, like mining and fishing.

There is also a hate campaign against tourists, though only English ones it would appear, and the nutty nats political party, Mebyon "Sons of Cornwall" Kernow, has even discussed putting extra "Cornwall only" taxes on tourism.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Maybe not the best turn of phrase given the state of the UK's finances...

Anyway, it's precisely this that the argument is about. Many prospective 'Yes' voters have looked at the evidence and concluded that the current situation is 'broke'.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
The UK's finances are improving in difficult times. And at least with the UK's finances, we know what the currency will be in ten years' time. With the hypothetical independent Scotland, we don't have a clue. (Amber beads, possibly.)

But it wasn't just finances I was thinking about when I used the word "broke". Up and down the UK there are a million little emotional and family and friendship and business links between Scots and English people. With all our proud differences, we share a history, we share an outlook, we share an island. This arrangement has endured, with popular consent and a clear democratic mandate, for over 300 years. This is what I really care about, not the finances. I like it. And I want it to continue. The SNP want to break it up.

And I'm not sure the SNP have any clear idea just how bad things could get if they continue stoking up provocations and grievances between Scotland and England. In recent history our two nations have been friends, not enemies. I don't want that friendship poisoned.

And I see what happened between Britain and Ireland less than 100 years ago, and it makes my blood run cold.

In reply to Craig Mc:




Or a Tory government for 16 years.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



+1


steady on Tim!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I don't mean that I think we're heading towards civil war. But I do wonder--if you start a process of telling people that they can't go on living together because they're too different from each other, where does that process take you?

How and where does the ending of a friendship, a collaboration between two countries, bottom out?

How do we know it won't leave Scots and English a lot more ill-disposed to each other than they currently are, even when they're at their worst and most bigoted on either side?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Maybe it's because my wife is French, I don't know - maybe I would have thought that way anyway. But I don't regard my family as any less my family just because some of them don't have the same passport as I do. If I had any members of my family living in England, the same would be true of them in the event of Independence.


I look to relations between (for example) the Scandinavian countries and don't see any reason why relations needn't be absolutely normal - maybe even better than they are at present. I have no party-political affiliations, but I don't see anything anti-English about the SNP's policies. They seem to me to be anti-British, rather than anti-English.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I think that is probably true Doug, but given the English do not differentiate well between Britain and England, and that England constitutes the bulk of Britain, anti-British can easily be taken askance by the English.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Unfortunately, it is broke and getting more so because the trend to centralise everything of value and all power and influence in London and the South East is accelerating. That leaves Scotland and much of England dependent on 'handouts' which pushes their politics towards the left and distorts the whole economy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm not sure you can say its incresaing when significant devolution has occured in the last decade?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I have to say--and this isn't a dig at you particularly; I don't know you--that there are people who will think that this is what's happening, no matter what the evidence. I've come across people who were saying exactly this, in late-night whisky sessions in bothies, about 30 years ago.

To be honest, I think it's a bit of a myth. By which I don't mean there's no truth in it. Sometimes there has been, sometimes there hasn't. At the moment I think there is a bit of economic centralising going on. (Though not political--not when the government's a coalition, and not just when we're about to vote on complete separation.) At other times the opposite has been true.

What I mean by calling it a myth is that people go on believing this independently of the evidence for it. It's like "All Scotsmen have red hair and say 'Och aye'". Or "All English rugby fans are arrogant". People believe these things with their guts, not with their heads.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I think there's a danger that if Independence happens (and I still tend to think it won't), people may see it as an end in itself. There's a lot of de-centralisation needs to happen here, irrespective of the result of the referendum. Otherwise it could be a case of substituting one over-centralised authority for another. (Lesley Riddoch's Blossom has a lot of very thought-provoking arguments in favour of radical change to local government in Scotland.)

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Decentralisation? Devil in details, I think. You know what Attlee said to Bevan: "Communism would never work in Britain, Nye." "Oh, why's that, Clem?" "Too many committees."

I'm not sure I think structure is the point; I'd rather have a just and competent govt/ administration that was badly over-centralised, than an unjust and incompetent govt/ administration that was nicely decentralised.

After all, Trotskyism is all about decentralisation and rule by local committees--the original soviets. Which is what Attlee had in mind.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It might be more meaningful to point to the rest of western Europe in the present day, where local government is de-centralised to a far greater extent, and where involvement in local democracy (as evidenced by turnout in local elections) is far higher.

Here's a table from Blossom:

Nation - No of councils/municipalities - Median population of each
France - 36,781 - 380
Spain - 8,112 - 564
Italy - 8,100 - 2,343
Norway - 431 - 4,439
Germany - 12,0123 - 6,844
Belgium - 589 - 11,265
Sweden - 290 - 15,039
Scotland - 32 - 115,000

It's only been that way since 1996; prior to that there were 65 local councils. Prior to 1975 there were >400; prior to 1930 there were 871 Parish councils.

Maybe gives you pause for thought?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

It certainly gives me pause for thought. My grandfather was thrice Mayor of Tottington

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I think you are right in the sense that internally Scotland is very centralised and becoming more so (e.g. the effective order from the Scottish government that councils can't raise council tax, AS overiding local planning decisions ). Overall though the UK is less centralised than previously, I would say, most obviously due to the Welsh and Scottish devolution but also as a result of fewer central pays deals and so on. I can't really see where independence comes into this - if anything recent trends suggest Scotland would become less localised as a result.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I'm doing a translation of Aeschylus' Oresteia, which I've nearly finished. Quite coincidentally, I've just translated this bit, from the Eumenides, lines 976-987. It sort of resonates, to me at any rate.

The Furies/ Eumenides ("Kindly goddesses") pray for the Athens of 458 BC, a city racked by political turmoil, in these words:


My prayers ward off the storms of civil strife;
never, here, may the greedy undertow
of party hate drown their public life in woe;
never their dust soak dark with their citizens’ life.
Nor let them trade in revenge as in their sweet right,
rejoice when they fell their opponents, because they can,
unconcerned if, to bring down their foe, they bring down their land;
instead let them trade in the favours of friendship’s delight,
in the oneness of all men that’s healing for each one man.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


The fact is that in the UK the banks and central bank, the parliament and the main spending ministries, the supreme court and the main media organisations are all in London. If you need access to money from banks, government contracts or public attention the people you need to influence are in London. This sucks in other industries. Then it sucks in major transport infrastructure like airports and railways so there is even more reason to locate in London.

The whole thing is incestuous. MPs and senior civil servants have houses in London so they are personally financially tied to the London property market. Living in London they are sympathetic to funding transport and services for London no matter what part of the country they nominally represent. They most likely have family members and friends involved in the financial services industry or have worked in it themselves so there's privileged access to government for that industry.

In the end anyone wanting to get ahead in the UK who isn't in London is putting themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. The situation in the US and Germany where the main industries and government functions are spread across multiple cities is much healthier.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I liked this take on Carney's visit, "Is this how an aloof and disinterested state behaves when it is convinced it has nothing to fear or nothing to plan for because it has the result in the bag? Or are these the practical and on-going steps of a government and its institutions preparing for ground-breaking change, no matter how hard they try to resist it?"

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Apart from the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish parliaments.

And the BOS and RBS. Both of which of course were bailed out by the British tax payer not just the Scottish tax payer.

But don't let actual facts get in the way of your own so called facts.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Does Scotland not have Parish councils? Good God, next you will tell me you do not have bishops to show you the way!
youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8&

In reply to Graeme Alderson:




Ah, he probably gets his facts from a media institution largely based in Salford quays.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The SNP are based in Salford?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Does it not stand for Salford Naturist Party?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:




Come on. What kind of budget and power do the Northern Irish and Welsh parliaments have? The Scottish parliament has a bit more but it's still pretty limited.

BOS was basically taken over by Halifax. RBS took over Nat West. They might have Scotland in the name but that doesn't mean the 'centre of gravity' of the organisations is in Scotland. You could actually read the failure of BoS, RBS and Northern Rock as partly due to the near impossibility of doing anything ambitious in the UK outside of London (although being run by complete dicks didn't help). Either way now they are pretty much lame ducks the finance industry is even more London centric.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


However, would I want to live in London, just to have more money? Not me, I could transfer within the company I work for, but am happy to let those who want to, go to the 'bright lights ' of London , and I will stay in Scotland. There are some I know who have gone, but most came back.

Money is not everything, the way I see it the more ' like minded' people go there, the more they will just make each other miserable.

In reply to Jim C:


This is an interesting point and one which, as an emigrant from London, is close to my heart. I heard an (unattributed) statistic yesterday which claimed that 80% of new jobs created in the past year were in London. From which I assume they meant the South East.

From a Yorkshire perspective, it makes me wonder whether the massive effort, constant stress and huge personal risk I've put into building a successful business to earn less than a junior merchant banker earns after a couple of years in the job was really worthwhile. The answer is always "yes" but you can't help wondering.

From a Scottish point of view (and I do have one) I question whether a fiscal divorce from England really makes economic sense when London will be Scotland's main trading partner and employment provider. The SNP is sensible enough to half realise this, at least where the currency is concerned, yet persist in the more emotional drive to devolve. So the "yes" campaign is absolutely correct in seeking to maintain the currency status quo, but will only be able to do so on terms which are acceptable to its currency partners who will demand fiscal supervision. A dilemma indeed.

I'm baffled why Scottish nationalists want to keep the pound. Do they want independence or not? Do they think Greece feels independent of Germany right now? A pound-sharing Scotland would be even more tightly controlled, in an attempt to prevent the Eurozone's problems repeating themselves. Having your own interest rates and currency, which you can print and devalue in times of stress, is powerful economic tool. Why would Scottish nationalists want to hand all that power to the Bank of England?

I suppose it might be because deep down they know that the economies and peoples of the British nations are so interdependent and inter-twined by centuries of shared history, trade and migration that true independence (with all that implies) is unthinkable. But I'm not sure.

In reply to thomm:


I'm not sure who decides how much money gets printed but hasn't the UK Government already handed over the power to set interest rates to the Bank of England?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Yep, but to think that the BoE is completely autonomous from the UK government would be niaive. Mark Carney and George Osbourne will have a close relationship.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Which is indirectly controlled by the UK government as it can e.g. set targets appoint the chairman and so on. I think Thomm's point was why would Scotland want a bank with targets set by a foreign government. This hasn't worked too well in Europe of late, which is heading in the other direction to that proposed by the SNP and trying to become more united not less as a result.

In reply to thomm:

It does seem ironic, given that they make their currency look as different as possible to ours already.

Apart from the Euro, the other option would be a Scottish currency pegged to the value of sterling. Would that work? A bit like Namibia abandoning the South African rand but pegging the new Namibian dollar to the same value.

In reply to thomm:


Don't underestimate the sheer narcissism of Scottish politics. At present three Scottish banks can print their own notes with the word "Scotland" or "Clydesdale" on them. They could carry on doing that if Scotland had a full currency union with rUK; they could carry on doing that if Scotland had its own currency; they couldn't carry on if Scotland merely used Sterling without being part of a currency union; and they certainly couldn't carry on doing it if Scotland adopted the Euro.

In reply to silhouette:

You seriously think that's why the SNP's policy on currency has changed? Because of a deeply-held desire to allow Scotland to continue to print "Scotland" (or, er, "Clydesdale") on its banknotes??

In reply to Tim Chappell:



This is factually wrong. Also, the "vote" produced a result against what Scotland voted for. So having this vote made zero difference to what the UK Government is.


Again, factually wrong - the whole point of this is a partnership. Not simply letting another control your economic policy which is the current set up which is not a partnership.


Neither as both are not on the cards.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Yes! Which why having no control over your economy (the current situation) has to change.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Hopefully this will shed light on the puzzle. Economic powers are reserved to Westminster. The Westminster Government is made up of the Tories and Lib Dems. Scotland is a country not a region like the areas you mentioned above. Scotland did not vote for the government which controls its economy which is the clear distinction between Somerset and Scotland.

One is a country, one is a region.

In reply to Alan M:

The country/region argument is pretty simple. The Act of Union was signed by two countries. Not two regions.

Regions like Yorkshire or Banffshire are equal in terms of status in this and most people accept that.

It depends on the individual - if one person gets the government but from a party which doesn't represent their constituency then most people accept that as part of the system. It happens all the time in Scotland, UK and elsewhere.

However, given that Scotland is a country and not a region that no longer applies and questions are raised as to why a country should have no say over it's economic policy. Nothing wrong with asking the question.

Tim betrays his confusion over region vs country and this leads him to make comparisons with a region and a country. These don't hold.

In reply to thomm:

I think you have hit a few spots there. My assumption is given the history of conservative (small c) politics in the UK, big change is scary, then breaking it down into smaller steps works. Devolution, independence mk1, independence mk2 and so on.

In reply to BnB:

I heard that statistic too. It's an argument that the UK doesn't even work for the 80% of the English population living outside of London.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:




Correct, British banks bailed out by British taxpayers - Ground breaking news! Imagine that.

In reply to elsewhere:

Agreed. The the BBC has some interesting figures recently for arts expenditure in England.

£4.70 approximately per person in English areas outside London.
£74 approximately per person in London = massive subsidy.

No wonder it's creating all these jobs when there are subsidies like this and others have less to play with. Poor Sheffield got a doing on the BBC news at the start of the week. I bet it would do a lot better given a level playing field.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Thats a ridiculous argument, once England was composed of three kingdoms, Wessex, Mercia and I think the other was East Anglia, finally they all saw sense and became England, including Yorkshire etc. Eventually Great Britain saw sense and Scotland and Wales were included in the union, Scottish independence is going backward for hundreds of years.

In reply to Al Evans:

No it's not. Have you heard of the Act of Union? If not I suggest you read up on it.

Places of equal status such as Roxburghshire and Yorkshire are regions.

Scotland and England as countries have been well established for centuries and it was their nation status that allowed them to sign agree to a union.

You need to check your history on multiple subjects and this will increase your understanding.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


And no idea about the UK other than the debt is rising, the gap between rich and poor is already one of the biggest in the western world and widening and so on.


Nonsense. History will not be changed by Scotland being independent. The island will still be shared, friendships will still be there.

So if you care about that you can rest easy as none of this will change. I am not a friend with a guy in Reading because of the Act of Union, I just like him. I not friends with a girl in Weymouth because certain powers are reserved to Westminster. I just like her. A very, very weak argument there Tim.

It hasn't endured by popular consent. This is the first ever vote in 307 years. Only if there is a no vote can you claim popular consent.

What provications - you are just making stuff up now.



Stop making up gibberish then about people wanting to break things up, poison and so on. The break up of the UK is a by product of independence, not the aim.


And yes grievances - I don't want to pay for a railway line in England which is called "for all of Britain" despite it never serving anything other than a few part of England. Instead I would rather spend the money on the A9 but as part of the UK I am forced to send my taxes south.

I suggest you look at this for inspiration: youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0&

It's not a spoof. It's from the campaign that you are a member of.

In reply to Saor Alba: What about the general elections, stuff like " Free by 93" and that?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

You'd hope they'd just drop it. I'm still waiting on facts from the YES campaign, and I don't mean historical facts about north sea oil or Norway. We'd be better off with Devo-Max than Independence. Independence would seem a rather Pyrrhic victory

In reply to Saor Alba:

Relax; no thread on Scottish Independence would be complete without the obligatory appearance from Al Evans likening Scotland to an English county.

There's no point engaging with him on that topic - his mind is clearly made up. I actually wonder what it would take to get him to admit that he's wrong on that point.

In reply to PeterM:

Devo Max is off the ballot thanks to Westminster. They'll be scrabbling around now offering Jam Tomorrow after Carney refused to piss on the Yes fire.

Ladbrokes are offering 1/100 odds of a currency union in the event of a Yes vote and 50/1 against.

In reply to Squarf:

What about it?

In reply to PeterM:

But you yourself, through supporting the Union, cut yourself off from devo max. It was the Unionist side that blocked it.

In reply to Craig Mc:


Are you sure about that? I thought the Scottish govt put forward what they wanted on the ballot and they decided to leave Devo Max off?

>after Carney refused to piss on the Yes fire.

I can't see how he didn't. He explicitly says it "requires some ceding of national sovereignty"."
i.e. the Bank of England would really be in control of our currency..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-accept-currency-union...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25930075

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think the referendum is for the rest of the UK to approve any monetary deal set up with Scotland. My feeling is that this is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to what Scotland wants as part of the severance deal and how it could adversely affect the rest of the UK.

It is all well and good for Scotland to decide to become independent, but if the severance deal ends up negatively impacting on the rest of the UK, I can see an inedible political bun fight brewing that will make the anti-immigration and the anti-EU brigade look like small fry.

In reply to PeterM:


Even if you accept that point, it seems to me that there would still be a net gain in terms of Scotland's national sovereignty in the event of Independence.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I am amn't engaging him. I am just noting places of equal status such as Kirkcubrightshire and Yorkshire.

Instead of spouting rubbish from a foreign country, Evans should return to his native region and campaign to have an equal deal on arts expenditure with London. Instead he supports independence in a reverse feedback loop.

In reply to PeterM:

He didn't piss on the yes fire. He said that it requires some ceding of national sovereignty. This is true of any partnership arrangement such as that the UK is party to with the UK.

The key issue is currently Scotland has no sovereignty to cede and with independence can decide with whom and to what extent partnerships are entered into.

So it's not a "loss" of powers as we don't have them to lose.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Very true. However, Scotland does stand to loose influence and bargaining power. This potential deal with the Bank of England is just one such deal. Scotland want to use the pound and services of the Bank of England. Whether they will get it on the terms they want or that are advantageous to Scotland is another matter. Should Scotland not get the terms it is seeking, is there a viable Plan B?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Within the last few weeks The Treasury has already come out and said it will take on all the UKs national debt post a Yes vote. This was done to remove doubt that would otherwise have negatively affected the UKs financial standing. It would then be up to an independent Scotland to chose if it takes on an equitable proportion of these debts or not, if not, the UK would simply absorb them. The thinking being that higher interest rates imposed by the markets would if The Treasury had not removed this doubt would have been far high and the extra cost would have dwarfed taking on Scotland's share of the national debt. So the question for the BofE guy has already been answered.

In reply to Saor Alba:
Carney was being extremely diplomatic. I think you know damn well what he was saying but it simply doesn't chime with your hopes.

The universally accepted technocratic interpretation of his observation was that he considered this to be a Germany/Greece conundrum and that neither the BofE nort the English electorate would be willing to enter into any union that did not give London control of fiscal levers. That means tax and interest rates, which doesn't leave much for Holyrood.

I am very sympathetic to Scots who feel remote from Westminster. I spend a fifth of each year in Scotland and love the whole country and the feeling of being a million miles from London. Heck, I feel remote from London in my normal home of Yorkshire. I reckon there's a good chance I would support independence in your shoes. But the currency strategy is a significant weakness of the campaign.

In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:


I think the UK Treasury would demand a decent settlement from Scotland on its share of the debt, and would be in a very good bargaining position to get it (in return for Agreeing that the Bank of England will act as the lender of last resort to Scottish based banks)

The Bank of England issued around £200 billion of guarantees on behalf of Scottish based banks during the 2008 crisis (NB the GDP of Scotland is around £70 Billion per annum) - That's some bargaining power.

For me that's what it really boils down to: Are people in Scotland prepared to give up a degree of control over their fiscal destiny in order to be independent? (Do they care/ understand that this will be the case?)

In reply to ByEek:

I don't know but it's good to be discussing the mechanics of this as opposed to be trying to close down the concept.

In reply to BnB:

I just listened to what he said. I'm pretty happy about what he said. You are getting annoyed about something no one said.

I don't think there is one, exact, precedent to call on to show the way forward. In all likeliness the situation will be a new novel one.

I agree though, the currency strategy is not the strongest point of the campaign. Most countries just vote in principle on independence and work out the details later. I can't remember if it's Lithuania or Latvia that has the highest growth in the EU but they certainly didn't spend so much time obsessing about one issue which is unresolvable until the vote takes place.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Agreed. However, I am still placing my bet on a second Scotland and UK wide referendum on any severance deal made post 'Yes' vote regardless of what any PM may have said in the past.

In reply to blurty:

I am sorry bui you have got it completely wrong. I mean this sentence: For me that's what it really boils down to: Are people in Scotland prepared to give up a degree of control over their fiscal destiny in order to be independent? (Do they care/ understand that this will be the case?)

What control can be given up? All economic powers are reserved to Westminster. None, over currency etc are with Holyrood. You can't give up powers you don't have.

The "loss of powers" issue is a non-starter. Once independent both Scotland and rUK would have to agree to some formalised power sharing (with currency union) and in this situation Scotland would be in a considerably more powerful position than it is now. The loss of powers would be at Westminster who would have to share some.

In reply to blurty:

The choice is for an Independent Scotland, and either way I don't think it's a huge issue for the UK. However if an Independent Scotland did to chose to walk away from an equitable portion of the debt the markets wouldn't be happy and their credit rating would be low.

In reply to ByEek:

What odds are you getting?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In the event of a 'yes' vote, then ceding sovereignty w.r.t taxes and interest rates etc to the BoE will be good practice for when, eventually, Scotland re-join the EU and apply to join the euro, when they'll have to do it all again with the ECB.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Well, call it a metaphorical bet. Owing to Yorkshire tendencies, my pockets appear to suddenly have been sown shut.

I still think it is on the cards and interesting that the supposedly independent Governor of the BofE has been the first high profile figure to moot the idea in public.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Well, at the moment people in Scotland vote for a parliament that sets policy, that is control.

Post Independence Westminster will dictate policy to Scotland (though the setting of the key parameters)

Westminster will have the whip hand

(Now I expect you might say 'so what, no change from the current situation!')

You may be right

In reply to blurty:

It has no control over economic matters though so can't do in this case. Your statement doesn't hold any water.

How, presently, do you see Holyrood having control over "fiscal destiny" as you call it?

In reply to Saor Alba:

But currently Westminster / BoE does consider Scotland when considering economic policy (although I doubt you will concede that)as it is part of the UK. If it isn't, they will only consider the rUK (which no doubt you will say is no different to now)

But it could be a lot different to now

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

No I agree but I think that consideration pays little attention to need and requirement and a lot to control and income.

I don't think it's working anywhere like as well as it could.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In the event that Scotland becomes independent and can neither retain the pound nor join the Euro, then it will need a new currency. The Scottish pound is rather English in tone, and so I propose that a new currency should be called the 'Shoulder'.



There would be 100 Chips to one Shoulder.

In reply to Saor Alba:


You are correct in that you will have financial control over your own affairs. However Blurty does still have a point in that your options as an independent country may well be severely limited by external factors beyond your control.

If Alex Salmond is to be believed, Scotland will retain the pound and the services and security it offers and will be welcomed into the EU with open arms. The reality is likely to be far from this in practical terms.

You no doubt read much about EU interference in UK matters despite the fact that the UK has much influence in the EU. Such external meddling will surely be much worse for a young, small state like Scotland?

In reply to ByEek:

Yes but nothing like as severely as currently. I don't think Blurty quite understand that Holyrood has no economic powers.

Disagree with not being allowed in the EU. We are already in it. All laws are compliant and have the most strategic waters in the world. In fact I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest Scotland wouldn't get in. Even "Better Together" have said this. The question is get in, or stay in.

See this nation of "small" - Scotland would be a medium size EU state. Not a small one.

You often hear this ting "small island" - the island is one of the biggest on the planet.

Oh, I often thing the UK uses it's influence not for the benefit of Scotland. That only comes if the interests happen to coincide. Fishing being a good example.

Simply put, I think the UK isn't serving Scotland that well and it could be a lot better to take control of the powers that Westminster currently has and exercise them from Scotland.

In reply to ByEek:


But an independent Scotland wouldn't have control over its own affairs. It wouldn't have control over interest rates and exchange rates, and levels of taxation and borrowing would have to be agreed and negotiated with the BoE. I don't see how that can be said to having financial control. It might be more than is the case now, but it still leaves the Scottish economy dependent on the BoE.

In reply to tony: It wouldn't have control over its fishing either, but let's not get hung up on details.

In reply to tony:

It would have control in that it can make its own decisions. The fact that the choices on offer may be more limiting than at present, is up for debate.

In reply to Saor Alba:

It's quite clear that the European Commission have openly said that Scotland will have to apply for membership.

In reply to ByEek:

Decisions made with one hand tied behind its back. And the Scottish Government already makes a lot of independent spending decisions in the devolved areas of health and social care, education and the police.

In reply to neilh:

Is it?????? When did they say that? From memory they said that only a member state can ask for advice on that and the UK refuses to.......

In reply to Removed UserJeremy Ashcroft:


The UK has committed to guarantee Scotland's debt with the clear quid pro quo that Scotland will refund the cost of servicing and repaying their portion of the debt. Theoretically Scotland could, I suppose, choose not to do so but even the wettest of UK governments would presumably make clear that this would not be in their interest.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And how does that work when much of the 'debt' has been bought up by the Bank of England using printed money under the QE programme and the UK government is paying 'interest' to the Bank of England which turns its 'profit' back to the government. Is Scotland supposed to pay interest to the UK without having a share in the 'profit' from the central bank?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Has the Treasury agreed to guarantee that part of the UK debt which might be attributed to Scotland post-independence (in other words, carried over from per-independence) but not new debt taken on by Scotland after independence? Or have they agreed to guarantee post-independence debt as well? Being lazy I admit, I haven't actually looked for myself.)

In reply to Saor Alba:

The commission has repeatedly said this. To assume that you will automatically be allowed in is wrong. Every time the commission says this, the SNP goes up in arms over it.

Granted you will probably be allowed in, but probably after a couple of years of independence.

In reply to neilh:


Of course they said that because they don't want the inconvenience of the UK breaking up or to send a message to other regions.

If there is a yes vote and the UK is going to break up the balance of convenience for the EU will be to keep everything the same as far as possible. The Spanish that are all worried about their own regions breaking off will start to consider that they won't be doing any fishing in Scottish waters and that if one of their regions was to leave Spain life would be much easier if it stayed in the EU. In the end it will become a tussle about making Scotland join the Euro and Schengen.

In reply to tony:


The former, is my understanding.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


They've not said as far as I know. I might be treated just the same as debt owned by any other creditor or the Scottish might insist on some pro rata transfer of the income.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Thanks. So a newly-independent Scotland wouldn't necessarily enjoy the same credit rating as the UK, and it might have to pay more for borrowing?

But then, any borrowing would have to be agreed with the BoE ... It's all a bit complicated.

In reply to neilh:

I don't think they have repeatedly said this actually.

In reply to neilh:


So 2018? Do you think the UK will still be in the EU by then?

In reply to Saor Alba:

EU figures including European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council president Herman Van Rompuy have suggested Scotland would have to rejoin as a new state. That has been their line all the way through.

A Holyrood committee questioned four legal figures on the Scottish government's EU proposals.Three of the four argued that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership as a separate state.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Better had be. I am pro EU.

In reply to tony:


I believe so.

In reply to neilh:

Right that is slightly different from what you said above where you said they had repeatedly said Scotland would have to rejoin. Slightly different from the definite case you were presenting.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Also rather different to your "I don't think there is a shred of evidence to suggest Scotland wouldn't get in". It would get in, eventually, but it would be messy is my guess.

In reply to tony:


Or it might have to pay less.... Creditors might think an independent Scotland was a better bet than the remainder of the UK.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I do love an optimist.

In reply to ByEek: FFS people just dont get it, Scotlands assets (Oil) and exports (whisky) are currently propping up the pound and the UKs debt. rUK must enter into a currency union with scotland if they want to avoid the total collapse of the pound and insolvency of the crippling £1.5million debt. The UK governhment has stated recently it is taking on the debt in the event scotland votes Yes, this is to reassure the financial markets. Scotland is in the driving seat here. The white papaer explains all of this, Scotland will happily pay its share of the debt in return for its share of the UKs assets. carney focused on currency union, very calmly and pragmatically. This goes against the UK govt and better togethers claims that they will dictate who joins the pound or not, this is lies and misinformation.

The sooner rUK start accepting this and start rationally planning ahead with this the better for all nations.

In reply to Erik B:


Are you really high just now? Or did you forget the ironic 'smiley'?...or..

In reply to Erik B:



Oil tax revenue as %age of the UK total is about 1.5%. You think loss of this will result in "total collapse" of the pound for a future rUK?

In reply to Erik B:


Excellent, some much needed humour. Have you been contributing to the whisky revenues at lunch?

In reply to PeterM: do you actually think your funny?

"The trading surplus of oil and gas, whisky and manufacturing provide stability for the UK balance of payments. This maintains the worth of the currency in international markets. rUK requires Scotland’s membership of sterling to protect the currency."

In reply to Erik B:



Do you have a source for that? There hasn't been and O+G trade surplus for some time.

In reply to Erik B:

Not nearly as funny as you...

In reply to blurty: scottish based banks? Natwest?! Halifax?!

how much did the US Federal reserve fork out to bail out Barclays?

In reply to Saor Alba:
The case I am saying is that you will have to reapply. I have no doubt you would get in. But its going to be messy. To present it otherwise is simply rubbish. There is the same issue in places like Catalonia. The commission is saying the same thing...you will have to rejoin/reapply or whatever.

For the SNP to say it is going to be a smooth seamless transfer - no questions asked-- is just spen.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It's interesting that in common with the whole referendum debate those opposing independence on this thread list a series of scare stories and reasons why not to vote yes. There is a deafening silence when it comes to positive reasons to vote no. In contrast the yes campaign seems to be about the kind of country we want to build in Scotland. A very different country to a South East dominated and Tory led UK. I think we need to accept that through negotiation a series of practical issues and quite complex problems will need to be resolved following a yes vote. And the Carney contribution simply focused attention on quite how testing those negotiations may be. But when you are dealing with such a major structural change such complexities are to be expected. They don't represent reasons not to try to formalise the inevitable movement towards more self determination in Scotland.

In reply to MG:


Is taken from this blog:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/carney-visit-adds-to-good-week-for-yes...

Not entirely independent. Bit like Scotland would be with the BoE setting interest rates and exchange rates.

In reply to Erik B:



From the pro independence white paper?

ONS site is down but as far as I can tell UK exports are about £300bn pa. Whisky exports are about £4bn and oil and gas (from Scotland to ex UK) about £13bn as far as I can tell. I think the idea that the loss of these from the RofUK numbers would collapse sterling is a classic scare story.

In reply to alastairmac:


I think the fact that, according to every opinion poll, the majority of Scots (albeit for a number of reasons personal, political, economic or otherwise) plan to abstain or vote no provides a rather positive rebuttal, and exposes the arrogance of the yes campaign. For your assumptively inclusive "we", you could substitute "a vocal minority".

Bringing the Tories into this makes no sense to me. Though I admit it is good politics. The UK has been led by Labour for 13 of the last 16 years. It seems you are simply rousing moderate socialist Scots against the "arrogant" English, when in reality the UK has been ruled by "socialist" Scots for most of the last 20 years!!

In reply to Postmanpat: i estimate scottish international exports inc oil and gas (inc services) at £60billion

In reply to BnB:


Many people in Scotland have longer memories. The imprint of Thatcher is pressed deep into the national psyche.

Oh, and the idea that the Scots who have been in power have been close to being socialists is a bit of stretch.

In reply to Erik B:

The entire GDP of Scotland is £60 - 70 Billion.

In reply to blurty: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Q/pno/1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-25013272

In reply to Erik B: You know that the government doesn't actually get the revenue from oil and whisky, don't you?

In reply to Erik B:


And what are total UK international exports?

In reply to Erik B:

In 2012 Scottish exports were estimated at £98bn of which £60bn were to the RoUK.
(Source:FT from Govt of Scotland). Of the total about £24b were oil and gas.

I don't think anybody has reliably calculated the Scotland/RoUK trade balance (or even the Scotland/ Rest of World trade balance but ex oil and gas I'd be surprised if Scotland had a surplus with either.

So you are left with a number which, whilst positive for Scotland's economy is not a major negative to the RoUK's. Worth noting also that oil revenues are notoriously volatile.

In reply to tony:



And it therefore makes good politics to remind them, as I noted. Do you think it is any different in Yorkshire? But the economic success of my region consists in exploiting London's power and influence, not deriding it.


Did you miss the inverted commas around the word "socialist"?

In reply to tony:


Funnily enough the document that highlights Scotland's exports doesn't seem to highlight its imports.

However, a 1998 document shows Scotland running an £8bn deficit with the RoUK and a £4bn surplus with the RoW (both inc oil and gas) making a £4bn deficit overall. Scotland accounted for 7% of UK imports and 10% of exports so I guess 3% of the trade deficit. Hardly a game changer if those numbers are still indicative.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



They're state owned industries? Cool.

In reply to Postmanpat: it seems the export of oil and gas fgures for scotland havent included from the north sea itself. Remarkable.

So international exports of oil and gas from scotland inc north sea/scottish waters is £34.7 billion, international exports of oil and gas services is an additional £8billion - £42.7billion

Other international exports are worth £26 billion so my original estimate was close but too low, £68billion is value of international exports.


See page 41 of doc found at link below for the north sea issue

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Economy/state-economy/latestSofE

In reply to neilh:

It's not rubbish. It's an opinion which is no more or less valuable t han your "spen".

I think it will be no more hassle, in fact a lot less, than any state joining the EU.

Of course there is the rUK exit to manage also as the member state will have broken up.

Now if you want mess then think about the rUK rejoining and the cesspit of right wing politics that will come out there.

In reply to alastairmac:
Well said. You raise an interesting point - that the No campaign can't talk about independence other than saying it wont work. Better Together, the campaign that Tim is in, doesn't want to legitimise the concept by talking about how it might work.

The no campaign is unable to talk about independence. It's too scary.
Issues such as why child poverty is so bad in Scotland, why we should go to war against our wishes, send all tax south and so on are all brushed under the carpet in a barrage of questions, many of which are legitimate but many of which are unanswerable.

Their only tactic is to blast out scare stories and this is becoming less and less effective.

There is no community based No cam public campaign. I've looked all over for it. no street stalls, no leafleting, no meetings - nothing. It's a construct of powerful people who want to retain power.

The shift in UKC itself is interesting to note over the years.

In reply to Erik B:




I think your reading that wrong. "onshore Scotland" is normal goods and services, not onshore oils and gas, so International exports are 20.9(onshore goods and services) + 13.8 (oil and gas)=34.7

I think the numbs are the same as the ones I used but take subtract £8bn or so for intra Scottish services as explained.

Anyway, its still the net c/a numbers that count.The most recent estimate I can find is by a Sandy Stewart which shows a £10bn deficit.

Scotland - SNAP 2008-09 experimental
• GDP(E) – market prices - £billion
– Exports to rest of UK £ 33.7 bn
– Exports to rest of world £ 20.4 bn –
Imports from rest of UK £ 45.8 bn
– Imports from rest of world £ 18.4 bn –
Net trade - £ 10.1 bn
>

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


If Scotland becomes independent will it result in you and Donald (aka "free Scotland" aka "the laird of somewhere or other") learning to read? Al hasn't done this, he has referred to ancient kingdoms, "countries" in today's language, which joined together to form England and Scotland and then Britain. A similar process has taken place throughout Europe, in Italy with Garibaldi, Germany with Bismarck and also in your wife's country of origin France, but in this case over a longer period. In all these countries there are nationalists who claim that their bit of the world should be, are, "countries" but it is a subjective opinion and doesn't really add much to the argument in real terms.

PS. BTW, your example of France as being a decentralized country just basing on the number of "communes" only shows how statistics can be used to prove anything. It's true there are many communes in France, the excessive number of political entities and levels of government in France are very much in debate at this very moment, but it doesn't prevent France being a very centralized country, everything really does happen in Paris, is decided in Paris.

This comes from the centralized monarchy under the "ancient regime" and the centralized bureaucracy favoured first by the Jacobins after the Revolution and by Napoleon afterwards and maintained more or less ever since. Regional assemblies have nut really changed much even today. Britain is comparatively less centralized than France. A bad example IMO.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

My reading is fine, thanks. Al's made the comparison with Yorkshire (it's always Yorkshire, for some reason) more times than I can remember.


It's not really that subjective. Or are you disputing that Scotland is a country?? Even arch-Unionists generally concede that point.

As for your other point, my French father-in-law is always amazed at how centralised 'local' government is in Scotland, compared to France. As you say - your opinion.

In reply to Postmanpat: yes you are right, re onshore exports. Apologies

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

On this thread he referred to Mercia etc as being kingdoms, then said they all joined together along with Yorkshire to form Great Britain, he didn't refer to Yorkshire as being a "country".

As for your father in law, he may be referring to the fact that for much paperwork, of which France requires extraordinary quantities, you go to your local "mairie", or "prefecture" rather than do it by post as in Britain but I don't think this can be likened to political centralism - IIRC driving licenses, or log books?, all go through Swansea (not Westminster!) but this is just a reflection of a rationalisation of bureaucracy that hasn't yet happened in France, here (in France) you go and queue locally rather than put it in the post, but as I said this isn't anything to do with decision making. To give an example of real centralization, in France the National Education defines centrally, in Paris, all programs and has done for over a century, a national program is new in Britain, isn't it? If your father in law thinks France is not centralized enough then he must be about the only Frenchman who does


What do you mean by country? At present it isn't an independent country, no, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was an independent country until a few centuries ago but then chose to merge with England, and Wales I suppose, to form Britain (or whatever the exact name was at the time). Since, in the most common sense of the word "country" it has been a component of the existing greater unit which I would say deserves fully the term "country". If you look up the definition of "country" you'll find that the term is considered to be ambiguous as is the term "nation".

Whatever, to say Scotland is a country as you nationalists do, doesn't have any meaning in political terms, it is just a bit of spin to present the situation as being somehow special, independence somehow natural. Corsican or Basque nationalists speak of their bits of the world in similar terms but it doesn't advance their cause an inch in a political sense. What does matter is what the majority of people concerned desire, and that's something we should know shortly for Scotland, after the vote.

In reply to Erik B:

Moving on. I'd like to see the following things in Scotland which haven't or have happened through the UK. Random list alert.

Tunnel under the Cobbler for the A83
Electrification of rail lines to Perth, then Aberdeen then Inverness
Dualled A9 - this is happening anyway
No influence at all by people appointed to the House of Lords. In fact just cut off their subsidy entirely.
Proportional representation
Removal of trident
Consideration to a tunnel or causeway between Coll and Tiree
An oil fund being set up on a similar basis to the Norwegian one.
A82 upgraded - big time!
Islay having some kind of spirits fund given the amount it produces
Land reform preventing purchase of large areas of land by people who don't live here. Also, legislation that requires land purchases over a certain size to have a community and ecology plan
Etc

In reply to Erik B:

No problem, it's oddly labelled.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Crazy stuff.

I can't see the point of much of this. Independence is clearly needed because the No campaign have, through their wilful behaviour and public statements, shown so little respect for the people of Scotland and display such ignorance. Why would anyone choose a path for their country that is preferred by such disreputable fools. However, Eck's vision of independence is rubbish. The Queen, the Pound: hell, these are the sort of things we need rid of.

- There are several countries nearby who have become independent in the last 150 years and though two of them have had financial problems on the similar scale to the UK recently, these have been successful countries who have often made huge contributions on the international scene and include the richest country in the world (barring banking mini-states and similar anomalies).

- Scotland has greater natural resources than most of the countries mentioned above.

- All the key business resources for economic power and success routinely measured by the major international financial institution are present and highly developed in Scotland: education, commercial law, physical and electronic infrastructure, industry, services and agriculture.

- Stop talking about rUK (rest of the UK). No Scotland equals only one kingdom left so no united kingdom, only England and couple of conquered satellites (sorry guys but that's how it is).

In reply to Saor Alba:


Pigs flying?
Team spirit?
Maturity?
Democracy (you understand the point of the house of lords?)

Personally, I'd like to see campervans banned everywhere outside of dual carriageways. You know, Scotland for the locals, not for the tourists? I mean what do we get from a tourist in a campervan other than blocked roads? Better if they stayed in B&B's.

I also find it amusing that people think that they will escape from South East centric politics in an independent Scotland when the majority still live in the Central belt. Highlands will be doing what Edinburghers and Weegies want anyway.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Good luck with your campaign. How would campervans get to the west coat under your master plan?

Yes I understand the point of the house of Lords thank you. I want it elected though and there is zero chance of that happening so time to break way.

Your post was definitely the most mature so far. Well done.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


As I am No at the moment, how have I shown little respect to myself? You still fighting the English?


Annnd Scotland as part of the UK hasn't?


Where do you find that out?


Highly developed? What was sour alba talking about child poverty for then?


Makes me think you don't like the English?

In reply to Saor Alba:


well, why would it? In essence they are arguing for the status quo, or an evolution of it - like the tax raising powers the Scottish Govt will get in a couple of years (not that the SNP have exercised the existing powers in this area - leaving those levers of power well alone!).

As the group arguing against change its very hard to not sound negative, they do have a section on their website (the +ve case) which sets out what it sees as the benefits of Union - not very well I think, but it is there.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Good luck with yours, about as many facts in both! (Starting to think we should meet for a climb one of these days; chat at the belay, think about it on the pitch, respond on the next belay, then go for a pint...)

In reply to jonnie3430:

Could be fun but I am not drinking bucky! I haven't done as much climbing in the last few years so you would probably destroy me!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It might demonstrate some foresight but they haven't done so far.

They don't just "sound" negative - their entire campaign is not about information more just trying to make it sound as scary as possible whilst making everything as uncertain as they can.

I asked a unionist a few months ago if they could show me one thing, something I can see, touch, take a picture of etc, that they could say Scotland would definitely not have were it not for the union. After their usual outburst they still couldn't answer it.

(I don't mean stuff like trident or Balmoral - I mean things that the general population can see)

All this stuff about shared history, values etc and other vague stuff is all very nice but irrelevant. People are nice or nasty because of a political system.

In reply to Saor Alba:


They wouldn't, I was just trying to suggest that your dreams of Scottish independence don't match with mine, nor the other 6 million out there (I'm sure that you'll find some that agree...A82 though? Like midges, keeps people away!)

P.S. on the climbing side, it's all about the feet!

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Fine effort . 7-10 Must work on your punctuation a bit or the meaning gets a bit confused. Or maybe it is just confused?

In reply to Saor Alba:


A part of the member state may decide to become independent. The remainder would carry on as before. The newly independent Scotland won't be a member of any organisation automatically.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Can you point me to some definitive legal advice on this or precedent? The remainder would become a new state. The old one goes out of existence.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


For one who's evidently determined to nit-pick over what Al did or didn't say on this particular occasion, you're reading an awful lot into what I said. I never claimed that my father-in-law thinks France isn't centralised enough; I said that he was surprised by the amount of centralisation in Scotland.


Just the normal everyday dictionary definition.


This may come as a shock to you - but I already knew that and, again, I never claimed that it is an "independent country"; merely that it is a country.


No doubt all that makes sense in your world... but in the real one, even people who are dead against Independence can still see that Scotland is a country.

In reply to Saor Alba:



I'm not surprised that he could not give an answer - its a crazy question!

A Scotland that was not in the union could have anything that it has in the union - including Trident and Balmoral - it might cost more, it might work differently, but it could have them. Whether it <would> have them is a differnt case, and depends on what the scottish electorate and politicians decide to go for.

Similarily all of the aspirations of the SNP white paper that are not just being seperated from the UK, could be achieved within the UK - eg getting rid of Trident, alleviation of child poverty etc etc.

I know that you have in effect given up on UK reform and just want out, but leaving the UK does not in any way guarantee the sort of outcomes you appear to want.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I know and no one says it does guarantee anything. More and more people though are coming round to the view that Scotland could do a lot better by having the powers of in independent country.

The UK has had every chance to do more.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Sorry, but I remember this one coming up at the time. I responded with an answer, so whereas you may have disagreed with the answer, one was still there. FACTS, that's what we're after. Not lies.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Obvious answers are RBS and HBOS. OS maps, GB Olympic team and various unions are others.

In reply to Saor Alba:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news

"Joining the EU is usually done under a process - sometimes lengthy - detailed in Article 49 of the union's key treaty.

Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

Granted, not advice I paid a lawyer for but it seems clear enough - an independent Scotland has to join the EU, the rUK stays in (assuming a YES vote)

In reply to Saor Alba:


Well, the SNP kind of do, by publishing a white paper and saying that this is what will happen in the event of separation. They repeatedly say "x will be better, Y will be better" and they have no basis really for knowing those things.....

(Of course the unionist rejoinder "no it won't, no it won't" is equally flawed)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Carney said "Any change can be made to work", of course he has cautiously worded his statement....and now the Brit nats are twisting his words and insisting that it's some kind of victory for them.
When Australia became independent they continued to use pound Stirling for some time before they transferred over to there own currency.
Sadly after the Scots gave 300 years of hard service with in the UK's armed forces, and our massive contribution to the UK in so many other ways (list is way to long to write right now), as soon as we exercise our right to return to our former independent state, the spiteful Britnats try there damnedest to punish and undermine Scotland.
You Britnats have really "spat the dummy out" haven't you's
Well you'll just cut off your noses to spite your faces.....if you think all the Scots will buy your pish propaganda and lies then I suggest you Britnats go home to think again.
Sooner or later you Britnats will need to change your attitude toward our very possible victory, although I doubt that, you's ooze poison from every oraface....any decent human being would be pleased for Scotlands historic return to self rule and congratulate us on our success.....but decency and fair play isn't something the Britnats are known for ,is it.

In reply to lynx3555: Do you want some salt with that?

In reply to Saor Alba:



A growing economy. What if independence had taken place in 2008, without currency union with sterling, with or without membership of the Euro? An independent Scotland would have collapsed far harder than under the union.

The coalition, whilst pretty useless on broader policy, is internationally (including the IMF) regarded as having handled the economy rather well in extremely difficult circumstances. Even the slightly overdone emphasis on early and immediate austerity, which the coalition now acknowledges could have been leavened, had the very positive impact on business that something was being done to fix the economy. With the highly desirable effect that job losses were not as severe as feared. And growth is now better than in virtually any other comparable state.

As someone else has noted, the better together campaign, in arguing for the status quo, can't easily point to how things will improve. On the other hand, the yes campaign reminds me of the recent French election, in which many promises of a better world were made by Hollande and co until the blinds were decisively drawn from in front of people's eyes.

I have great sympathy for the independence movement, and I would quite possibly vote yes in your shoes, but the tone of the yes campaign is enough to make anyone wary. Be careful what you wish for.

In reply to lynx3555:

Carney was simply stating the technical facts re. Scotland keeping the pound post independence, not wanting to get drawn into the politics that accompanies the facts.

I don't think you've done the nationalist cause much good with your bile filled rant. Are you working for Alastair Darling on the QT?

In reply to lynx3555:



9-10. Loving your work ( well done on the punctuation )

In reply to Saor Alba:

On a completely different note, I am curious as to why Scotland are in such a hurry to leave the UK but join the EU. EU rules and regulations aren't exactly light on the ground and if the UK were to leave the EU, and should Scotland get into trouble again, they would be dancing to the beat of a German drum rather than a UK one. I don't get it.

In reply to ByEek:


Jim Fraser and Lynx might offer a clue.........

In reply to tony:


lest we forget, the SNP were directly responsible for Thatcher winning her vote of no confidence in 1979. Not the best track record eh?

In reply to graeme jackson:

I'd forgotten that part of the story. My vague recollection had put it down to simple maths when the numbers went wrong, but you're right, it was the SNP who put the motion of no confidence. Turkeys voting for Christmas, as Jim Callaghan put it.

In reply to lynx3555:




"Britnats"? Sheesh. Can you see that what you are doing here is inventing a term of hatred and exclusion, and then using that word as if it was an argument in itself?

"Britnat" is just as bad as "Jock". In fact, judging by the tone with which you and others seem to use it, it seems to be little better than various racial epithets that we all know. (And since you use "Britnat" as the opposite of "Scot", and quote that line about "sending them homewards to think again", it apparently is a racial epithet: it pretty well means "English".)

And... it's your *opponents* who (charming image) "ooze poison"?

Your post is a perfect example of everything that worries me about the tone of the independence debate.

If people with your attitudes ever get anywhere near power in Scotland, then God help Scotland.

In reply to 999thAndy:


All well and good. But in practical terms a massive hassle for all concerned. Lots of EU citizens living in Scotland, lots of Scottish citizens living in the EU and carrying EU passports. Lots of companies doing business, lots of state organisations co-operating. Scotland does not want to leave the EU and the EU does not want to lose territory so in the end everyone knows Scotland will get back in. By far the easiest and cheapest solution all round is to have a meeting of EU heads of state and sign off a brief document that keeps the status quo in place.

The EU might use the leverage of potentially not letting Scotland back in to annoy the English by pulling Scotland into the Euro and Schengen. But that might be a good thing anyway.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>[...]

"everyone knows", right, well then, you'd think that H V-R would have said so. After all he should know ...

In reply to MG:

GB Olympics is an event not an object and the slight flaw in your post was that almost none of it took place in Scotland.

Most countries have maps and banks and I think we can safely say that Scotland would also.

Maybe I didn't word it properly. What I mean is present me an object (the question orginally referred to Fort William) which you can say Scotland would not have had were it not for the Union. My question was in response to someone going on about untold riches and so on and I merely asked where in Fort William these riches were. He was utterly unable to answer this question so I expanded it to Inverness. Again no answer.

So relative to other wester countries, where is this huge wealth?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That might make sense for the EU as a whole, but it's the individual countries that would have to agree not the amorphous unified entity. I don't know if Spain cares more about what's best for the EU as a whole or what best discourages the Catalan independence movement. If relations are sour, you wonder whether the rUK would care more about what's best for the EU or what gives them the most leverage in their other discussions over debt, nukes, currency and so on. If you need everyone to sign off to make it happen, you give a point of leverage to everyone who has something they want from you.

As for the Euro, isn't the reason they want to keep the pound basically to avoid change and therefore make it sound like a smaller step? I would have thought if the idea that they might be forced to switch to the Euro to stay in the EU were floated, a few waverers would decide it wasn't for them?

In reply to Dr.S at work:



I don't think the kind of, or do say that at all actually. It's a prospectus. If you read everything in a prospectus as someone saying it's guaranteed then it will always fall down.

As far as a stab at the questions, I think it's pretty good.

What would you do that could give certainty and crucially, can you give certainty for some of the NO vote issues e.g. beyond an opinion, can you guarantee the UK will be in the EU in 10 years time - No.

The idea of guarantees is a red herring.

In reply to BnB:

A growing economy is not unique to the UK so no on that one. Indeed the recovery is very much confined to the SE of England.

Of course it's an opinion, but I don't think an independent Scotland would have ever got to the mess the UK was in in 2008. The facts here show that the UK did.

I don't actually think there is a campaign even with Better Together. I have not actually seen a single person, leaflet, meeting, event or know even one person involved in it.

Where is this campaign? It's run from London as they can't get anyone to do anything at community level for them.

Check out this video from Better Together. It's recent and real: youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0&

In reply to ByEek:


Self determination. Fairly simple.

Who will the UK be dancing to when it gets into trouble again as all countries do?

In reply to Saor Alba:


I'm involved in it. So you do.


No, it's run from 5 Blythswood Square, Glasgow, G2 4AD.

In reply to Saor Alba: It doesn't matter how you phrase it, it's a silly question. You're asking what would have happened without 300 years of union, and nobody knows. But, looking around, there wouldn't be a free at the point of delivery health service. Is that enough of an object?

In reply to Saor Alba:

>


Are you winning the battle of the links ?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

What a laugh Tim. "Britnat" is a response to "Cybernat". It always amazes me how sensitive the unionist camp is to its own insults.

For decades now, people in favour of independence have been referred to as nazis, fascists, anti-english, right wing and so on. The sheer nastiness of the abuse Salmond gets in just ignored by the Unionists but the slightest hassle they get brings out the tears.

I would remind you that you really all are in it together. Your campaign, BT, is strongly supported by the Orange Order, the far right, UKIP and so on. These guys are shoulder to shoulder with Better Together.

The term "Scottish Nationist" is interesting. Does it mean someone in favour of independence? If so then someone in favour of an independent UK is a British Nationalist.

Or are you defining it as something else?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I won outright with that one. Nothing can trump it.

In reply to Saor Alba:


What hubris. I haven't time to search for the text of his old speeches, but I remember prior to the crash Salmond was talking up the chances of an independent Scotland becoming like Ireland and Iceland.

Scots played their part in the crash just like the English, Irish, Americans, Japanese, ... just remind me again, where does Fred Goodwin hail from?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

When will the campaign start? I have seen not one thing, ever, and believe me I have kept an eye out.

What do you do in a practical sense for them?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No I am not asking that. To be clear, this guy said the Union had brought "untold" riches. We were in Fort William at the time. I asked where in Fort William I could see these untold riches. No answer. I expanded to Inverness- no answer.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Good point. Yuu mean "Arc of Prosperity". I counter with "End to boom and bust". The difference is in the latter it ended in thousands of jobs being lost and the Tories getting in.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That does sound like a fair summary of breaking up the uk

In reply to Saor Alba: To be clear, you said "What I mean is present me an object (the question orginally referred to Fort William) which you can say Scotland would not have had were it not for the Union.". To which I could say Raigmore and the Belford as concrete examples of an NHS Scotland wouldn't have without having been in the union (answering a silly, unanswerable question).

In reply to Craig Mc:

Neither has the north of England

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No again, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest Scotland would not have an NHS or equivalent under independence. In fact removing the subsidies to HS2 etc and Trident would leave more money for things like hospitals.

So again, where are these riches? Was the person wrong to claim that the UK has resulted in riches for the population?

In reply to Saor Alba:

>[...] I counter with "End to boom and bust". [...]

But I never claimed that the UK didn't make mistakes or that an independant England would have miraculously avoided the crash that hit every other EU state.

I just think your statement that "I don't think an independent Scotland would have ever got to the mess the UK was in in 2008" indicates wishful thinking.

In reply to brockers:

Yes but the north of England is not a country. Just because you are happy to put up with it doesn't mean others should.

I remember the Scottish Tories being described as a desert plant which comes out now and again when some water arrives - rarely.

In reply to brockers:

Scotland has never had an SNP majority vote but has an SNP government. Apparently that's just fine though.

In reply to Saor Alba: I'm sorry, he's your imaginary bloke in some imaginary conversation. A figment, like imagining Scotland wouldn't have been troubled in the turbulence of 2008.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Convenient get out. No he's a real person running a real business in Fort William.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I was always of the opinion that the UK government bailed out UK banks, unlike the Irish and Greek banks which were bailed out by the EU bank which was mainly paid for by Germany.

In reply to Saor Alba:
Where is your evidence to say that an independent Scotland *would have* created it's own NHS if the act of union had never been passed?

Where is your evidence that an independent Scotland *would not have* bought an expensive nuclear missile system if the act of union had never been passed?

In reply to 999thAndy:

I have no evidence. Where is yours to say it wouldn't?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yes, but It's bollocks. The Conservatives consistently polled over 30% of the votes for many decades until 1979 (except 1974). As late as 1992 they polled 25%.

Here's a link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Scotland

In reply to Saor Alba:


Once again demonstrating what a silly question you asked.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It was in reference to recent times meaning the last 20 years. Iain MacWhirter wrote it.

Indeed so far out of touch were the poor Tories that when the Scottish Parliament was created they were against it but it was the only thing that saved them. If it wasn't for the SP the Tories would be deader than a dodo. They were saved from themselves by the SP.

In reply to Saor Alba:


>
When has it come out in the past 20 years?

In reply to lynx3555:





Australia and Ireland pegged their currency to the pound for a number of years. There is nothing to stop an independent Scotland from doing this without having to negotiate any currency union. This would seem to be the logical way to go while an independent Scotland got up and running. Of course this would limit the financial independence of the new nation but Scots would be free to choose an alternative at an time.

What has become clear over the last few years is that if a nation wants full control over it's tax, borrowing and spending, then it must have its own currency.

In reply to Saor Alba:

The question is not answerable, so we're (finally) agreed on something, that's a start.

However the question does shine a light onto the nature of this debate. The question of whether or not Scotland will fare better or worse under independence is not answerable before the event. Therefore the yessers appeal to emotion - hope and the noers appeal to emotion - caution.

The opposition always get the easy ride, since they don't have to deliver on any of their promises, hence the yes campaign can appear relentlessly positive and deride the status quo. Everything can always be the fault of "the Westminster government" as if Scots don't get a vote.

The unionist position points out the pitfalls, such as loss of EU membership, ceding taxation and spending controls to a foreign govt. etc and they are belittled as running a negative campaign.

In all my readings of your posts you have failed to make me think that Scotland will be better off voting yes, I now think that you believe this to be the case so strongly you refuse to see that you could be making the biggest mistake in 300 years. Your comments earlier about avoiding the crash and UK being forced to leave the EU if Scotland do were typical of this mindset.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not much really. It seems they come out now and again with some stupid stuff like Ian Lang yesterday and Jackson Carlaw a week or so ago but beyond that they seem to restrict themselves to in fighting and the occasional scandal. No body pays much attention to the Scottish Tories.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Exactly. If I were a Scottish Conservative I'd be campaigning aggressively for the "Yes" team as the only hope to shrug off the Thatcher legacy in Scotland. If I were an English Tory I'd be doing the same for the same reason.

It shows how principled the Conservatives are that they don't do this

In reply to 999thAndy:

The question is unanswerable as what he said "untold riches" is not true. That is why he or anyone else is unable to give any examples.

Your take is almost the polar opposite of what most commentators close to the issue i.e. in Scotland, say about the Yes campaing.

The mostly say it's too dry, not based on emotion. There is certainly no emotion in the White Paper.

With the greatest of respect, it's fairly clear that you haven't really followed this closely (how could you not living in Scotland) and that isn't a problem.

The Better Together campaign is mostly scaremongering. Today, as one example, they are on about the Open University being broken up despite it working internationally. Doh!

Ok I've failed to convince you. Fine.

Now, please give me your plan with exact detail and guarantees as demanded by the No campaign on every issue.

Can the Unionists live up to their own rhetoric??????

In reply to Saor Alba:

If the yes campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on? Your reply is in exactly the format I'd have anticipated. No facts, just call the better together campaign scaremongering then ask for plans from them. Classic opposition tactics.

Here's the thing the "plan" for the better together is to remain as we are. One nation, sharing risk, currency, defence, EU membership etc etc.

The yes plan is? Leave the EU, and rejoin at some point in the future, have the BoE dictate tax and spending in order to keep the pound, chaos while we sort out defence, health, transport etc, etc, oh but everything else will be rosy because we can stop paying for trident, cross rail and HS2.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Eh, I was answering your points. What information were you requesting? You haven't even used a question mark.

The yes plan is to stay in the EU. You might not agree with that but I would have at least thought you knew about it.

Fundamentally you haven't bother to look at what is being proposed and find yourself fighting against your own propositions.

Sorry maybe you didn't understand me. My question mention exact fine detail on all issues. For example, what, exactly, will happen should the UK vote to leave the EU but the Scottish vote is to stay in? Exact details please backed up by evidence.

Instead of shooting down your own false propositions, can you provide clear, concise information with evidence please on this one issue?

In reply to Saor Alba: "The yes plan is to stay in the EU."
But, and I accept it isn't definite, the indications from the EU are that by becoming independent Scotland would not be an EU member and would have to reapply. So it isn't a case of staying in, no matter how many times you mendaciously repeat it.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Goodness me, talk about failing to address the point. Having suffered less than most European nations, the UK is now enjoying better growth than virtually all of them. The fact that growth is emerging first in the south is evidence of the initial stages of London-led economic growth. Do you honestly believe that all those businesses in Edinburgh are waiting for independence before they bother making a profit?


And as for the arrogance of that statement, one voiced by Salmond as well, words fail me. So the canny Scots would have been unique in anticipating a crisis which surprised and crippled the entire western world? What utter twaddle.

If you would stick to reality, I'd have a lot more time for your arguments. But your economic assumptions are naive at best.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You are confused. I didn't say that was my plan. Do you and the UK Government say the same things all the time?

I am fairly comfortable with reapplying. The really uncomfortable bit will what happens in the rUK as the right wing will be much stronger then. Should be an interesting thing to watch, from the outside.

In reply to Saor Alba:


With Scotland independent or not?

If independent, Scotland (if it has been accepted as and voted to be a member) will remain one, the rUK won't. Since membership of Schengen is compulsory for new members, border controls will be needed between rUK and Scotland.

If not, then the UK will no longer be member.

Evidence? Decisions such as that are decided by the democratic principles that will be present whatever the vote this year. Note that support for EU membership in Scotland is comparable to the rest of the UK

In reply to Saor Alba:



I'm not part of the UK government, whereas you are part of the yes campaign. So at least part of the yes campaign accepts it won't be a case of "staying in".

In reply to MG:

There are multiple scenarios, all of which are uncertain but ultimately this means that the Unionist camp can't provide any on this issue. No matter how much they demand certainty from Yes it isn't possible for anyone.

If the Tories get their referendum and Scotland is still part of the UK it might be forced to leave if England votes to leave, despite what Scotland votes for due to numbers.

If they don't get their referendum and there is a no vote then proceed as normal.

If there is a Scottish Yes vote we leave and either stay in or have to reapply. Meanwhile, rUK fights it out to decide whether to stay and it is this exercise that would be very interesting to watch as the English right wing would be much more powerful.

Schengen might then come into play but I reckon a classic EU fudge more likely given the value of Scotland to the EU meaning it doesn't happen. But if it does come into play then there would have to be a border such as the French-Swiss one if the rUK wasn't in the EU.

Another scenario is the rUK is a new state, which it would be, and has to reapply and adopt schengen. Now that, would be interesting to watch!

Most likely scenario is a common travel area as the UK is currently doing with ROI.

Support is comparable (for the EU) but in that comparison you see there is effectively no anti-EU agenda in Scottish politics like there is in England so I am pretty relaxed about that.

Indeed UKIP have lost their deposit in every single Scottish election they have fought. So whilst there is a comparison, the evidence is that support for the EU is much higher in Scotland.

I am more confident of my £10 now.

In reply to Saor Alba:

The result of a yes vote, will be that Scotland leaves the EU then re-applies see earlier quote "joining the EU is usually done under a process - sometimes lengthy - detailed in Article 49 of the union's key treaty.

Mr van Rompuy said: "If a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state because that territory becomes a new independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

"In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory."

So the result of a yes vote would Scotland leaves the EU, with a plan no doubt to rejoin. I thought we had covered that earlier

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-cou...

just read this,..

then plotted populatio size v gdp and gdp pp

almost 0 r squared.. attrocious journalism.. both sides as bad as each other for the bullshit right now, but also peoples willingness to accept anything that supports their view is incredible.. should just do the vote now as so few will be swayed either way

In reply to Saor Alba:

I agree with pretty much all that, although it goes beyond your initial question, which I answered. The ROI/UK travel type area wouldn't work if Scotland was in Schengen (ROI isn't)

My £10 is safe I reckon.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Yes we had and I refer you to my reply above.

In reply to MG:

Aye I know but I reckon a fudge, maybe even toffee, would win the day and an new way found. It can't be the Third Way as Blair used that. The Tenth Way?

PS I am choosing Torridon MRT. Which is yours?

In reply to Saor Alba:



Not sure. Maybe Borders. Quite interesting what the bookies think

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...

In reply to MG:

Make sure its not one of those 'Scottish' banknotes......

In reply to Saor Alba:

And my initial question was this:If the YES campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on?

Fundamentally you have read my post and decided that my question is a bit too tricky to answer directly, so you decided the best thing to do was to launch an attack without replying to the question.

Sorry maybe you didn't understand me. But instead of muddying the waters with another question I'll ask the same one again.If the YES campaign is not based on emotion, what is it based on? Exact details please backed up by evidence.

Instead of putting up more straw men, can you provide clear, concise information with evidence please on this one issue?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Out of interest are you expecting an independent Scotland to stay part of the British Commonwealth? Otherwise the 2014 Commonwealth games will prove an ironic testimony to it's leaving.

In reply to 999thAndy:


I thought health was already devolved. I haven't noticed any chaos. Actually it seems to be managed better up here than in England.

The SNP have done a surprisingly competent job of managing the devolved public services. They have even shown a willingness to cut costs, probably to a greater extent than the Tories down south. The Tories tend to shout about efficiency and slashing costs and actually do very little where the SNP has been quiet but actually cut stuff e.g. Scottish Enterprise and re-organising the police into Police Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Why do you keep propagating this idea when no EU figure talking about prospective Scottish independence has suggested it? (while all the major figures have suggested Scotland will have to apply for membership and the Spanish chap that it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion)

You have the cheek to attack the No campaigners for scaremongering while happily indulging in it yourself.

In reply to Al Evans:


Considering the Yes campaign wants to keep the Queen as head of state, I think it's fair to assume that Scotland would retain membership of the Commonwealth.

In reply to BnB:

The last canny Scottish financial wizard lauded by the press was " Fred Goodwin". Look what happened there....oh dear it all went wrong

In reply to Saor Alba:


You think vitriolic anti-English rhetoric is "a laugh"? I don't. I think it's dangerous and stupid.

Here's another one for you. Do you personally know anyone who isn't a politician who will lose his/ her job in the event of a No vote?

Because I know scores of people who will lose their jobs in the event of a Yes vote. It's called the research sector, and it's the mainstay of Dundee's economy. No RCUK funds, no research; no research, no jobs. That's the bottom line for this town.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I think you'll find Salmond has unilaterally decreed research council funding will be shared. No potential problems or complications so stop worrying. The fact Scotland currently gets 13% of research funding for 8% of GDP contribution is not important.

In reply to MG:

Oh well, if Salmond's unilaterally decreed it, that's fine then.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I never meant that Scots would not be capable of managing Scotland, please accept my apologies if that's the impression you got. What I meant was, the yes vote will definitely mean lots of upheaval with little economic benefit.

In reply to MG:

Here's what it says on the Scottish Government website. (The fact that public money is being shamelessly used by the SNP to promote their party-political ends is another outrage, incidentally.)


"We will seek to continue the current common research area arrangements and funding through the existing research councils."

Translated: we will ask the rUK to let us go on using RCUK. But why should the rUK agree to that, when Scottish citizens and Scottish universities are part of a foreign country?

"And while the UK will remain an important research partner, Scotland can also build on the significant successes achieved in working across European boundaries by hosting international research centres who are increasingly attracted to Scotland by the quality of our research base."

Translated: We'll thrash around hoping something will turn up.

"The current Scottish Government supports the European Commission in its ambition for “a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth” with researchers, research institutions and businesses moving, competing and co-operating across borders more intensively."

Translated: waffle waffle waffle waffle has the question gone away yet?

"Levels of public investment in university research will be sufficient to enable our researchers and universities to remain internationally competitive with current levels of public investment in university research, through the Scottish Funding Council and Research Councils, at least maintained as part of wider and longer term plans to enhance levels of investment in research and development in Scotland from the private sector and other sources."

Translation: for "will be" read "we hope they will be". This is pure aspiration.

"The present Scottish Government also intends to use the powers of independence to address one of the biggest threats to research in Scotland as a result of the policies of the current Westminster Government. We plan to reintroduce the post-study work visa, which was abolished by Westminster in April 2012. This visa will encourage more talented people from around the world to further their education in Scotland, providing income for Scotland’s institutions and contributing to a growing economy."

Translation: Let's change the subject and do some distractionology, with a side-order of "Westminster is evil and racist" to help things along.

Utterly feeble. I was expecting them to have something a bit meatier than this to say, but no. I can see even more clearly now why Scotland's leading researchers are all extremely worried.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Another edit required Tim.

"The current Scottish Government supports the European Commission in its ambition for “a reinforced European research area partnership for excellence and growth” with researchers, research institutions and businesses moving, competing and co-operating across borders more intensively." However an independent Scotland will have to leave the EU so you'd best start looking elsewhere for funding in the short/medium term, just until we've re-joined.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Try looking round some Universities in Eire - they seem to be rolling in cash, certainly in the electronics/computer science departments. IMEC in Belgium does really well too out of milking EU money. The Scottish government is a lot more interested in Research, high technology and education in general than the English one because it's not stuffed with landowning Oxbridge PPE graduates. As a small nation without an anti-Europe chip on its shoulder Scotland would probably do better out of EU level research programs as well.

The UK gives EPSRC the research council for Physical Science and Engineering about £700M per year but it can find £600M to spend on Syria. An independent Scotland, like Ireland and Belgium, would realise it couldn't afford expensive big power games to buy influence in the middle east but it needed a strong research base to seed local industry if it was going to pay its way after the oil ran out.

The other thing you see in Ireland is money coming out of the financial sector in Dublin and going into local high tech companies which spin out of Universities and the Irish offices of multinationals. In the UK the London based financial sector has got very little interest in high-tech and no interest at all in high tech north of Cambridge.

In reply to Al Evans:

Yes.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I know a bit about universities in RoI. I have friends and colleagues who work there. Rolling in cash? Er, no. Not at all. Worse off than UK departments, mostly.

As for the idea that an independent Scotland could pull a rabbit out of the hat by going virtually pacifist, that's a joke. Even if they chose to free-ride on others' military efforts, as they no doubt might, there would be one very big new expense they'd be facing: namely, they'd need a Secret Service of their own. GCHQ is not run on spam sandwiches and free paperclips, you know.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I don't think that. Can you provide some evidence of this please from the Yes Camapaign?


Yes. Many in the public sector with the further cuts coming in 2015 onwards. I would say I know about 25 people in this situation.


I take it all back. I was out at lunch there and met some BT activists. Three people about 60 years old standing in the centre of Inverness giving out a leaflet which I now have.

According to this leaflet credit cards will cost more under independence. No evidence for this.

Car loans will cost more - no evidence supplied.

Apparently families will also lose "everything" - no evidence supplied.

Nothing other than negative scaremongering.

In reply to 999thAndy:

This is interesting: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/64...

"· Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence

· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens

· For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission

· Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence"

In reply to Saor Alba:


And what do you think it is that funds jobs in the public sector? I'll tell you: taxation revenues from enterprise and innovation and research.

No research grants, no research; no research, no jobs.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Correct and since we are getting a lot less of that funding (which all goes to London and comes back in a block grant) many people will lose there jobs. As part of the UK.

Could you provide some evidence of "vitriolic anti-English rhetoric"? Who is doing this and where?

In reply to Saor Alba:
Oh why do I get sucked into this. I wish I could ignore these threads...

>> You think vitriolic anti-English rhetoric is "a laugh"? I don't. I think it's dangerous and stupid.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?id=146349

[I don't know if you think it's a laugh, but I would say "vitriolic anti-English" sums up your persona on here pretty well]

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I would not describe myself as "leading", but I am nevertheless extremely worried. I'm just crossing my fingers that the bookies have got the odds right.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Portillo said last night on 'This Week' that the Government will not go to Scotland to debate , but will just send the likes of Hague to Scotland to 'scare the Scots' .

Snag is if you look back at what Hague said would happen if they gave Scotland Devolution, he has got form on being way off the mark with his scaremongering predictions.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/william-hague-lectures-scots-ind...

In reply to jonny taylor:

I don't and you will find no evidence of it.

Just because I post about independence means I am "anti-English" in your head? So if you post about the UK leaving the EU then you are anti-French?

Total drivel but it's further evidence of the No campaign tactics.

In reply to Jim C:

Stop your vitriolic anti-English rhetoric please Jim!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Hope you're not posting BT propaganda at work Tim.

Apologies if you're not at work, and if you're not why not head down to the BT do at the railway station today? They look like they need a hand.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lonely-hours/

In reply to Saor Alba:


I'm of English descent,( lakes) I'm entitled

(But please don't tell my English family members that I'm anti- English, or my wife's , we have been pretending to like them all our life)

In reply to Craig Mc:



I'll post what I like when I like, thank you very much. It's called freedom of speech. As Chris Whatley knows, some SNP members struggle with the concept.

But it isn't "Better Together propaganda" to object to the use of public money for party-political ends. It's a fundamental point about how democracy works. That you don't see it as such, apparently, is yet another thing to worry about.

In reply to Jim C:




No you're not. No more than being Jewish would entitle you to tell anti-Semitic jokes.

In reply to Saor Alba:



You said above, on this thread, that you thought the use of "Britnat" as a term of tribalist contempt was "a laugh". That's evidence.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I think you hold "westminster" all scotland's troubles, and are therefore anti-westminster. In many cases I think that is foolish. I also think you are anti-English in the sense that I think you equate "westminster" with england rather than with the united kingdom.



I am not a member of any campaign and do not have any tactics. I speak only for myself. I see you as feeling you are arguing on behalf of the "yes" campaign, although I don't know what your formal relationship is with them. To be honest I don't really care about persuading anybody else to change their view on the matter, I think the chances of that are pretty slim, although I would prefer things were discussed in a more objective manner than they are. I suspect there's little chance of that from either side, though.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Public money is being spent on the case for Scotland to remain in the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

Do you object to that too?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


And 'Cybernat'? A term that has been equally been bandied about. Not only by the gutter press but by the Better Together campaign themselves.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Ah, so in your head I type "Britnat" and you say this is vitriolic anti-English rhetoric despite no mention of England?

Is that really it?

Are you really an academic?

In reply to jonny taylor:

No I don't. I think Westminster is decades out of date and by far the worst parliament for Scotland but I don't recall blaming it for all Scotland's troubles. That is in your head only.

I speak only for myself. Why would it be assumed otherwise?

You are right, there is almost no objectivity and it's interesting to note that your please for this is accompanied by using evidence of someone's posting history for vitriolic anti-English rhetoric.

I rest my case.

In reply to Toby S:


When he's pished.... Is he a Cidernat or a Beernat?

In reply to dek:


I'll need to remember that one!

In reply to Toby S:



The SNP types on here keep doing two things:

(a) when called out for abusive and tribal behaviour, responding that "The other side do it too";
(b) when confronted with a solid and worrying argument, such as the complete lack of any substantial strategy on university funding post-break-up, ignoring the point and attacking the person who's making it.

I don't think much of either kind of response, to be honest. If we're to have a debate about the referendum, it needs to be better than this.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

No one has abused you or anyone else. You just keep firing of accusations and start crying when people pull you up.

Agreed, but since you keep firing of accusations without any evidence then until you change it can't change.

When will you start the Better Together charm offensive?

In reply to Tim Chappell:



You'll not find me doing either. 'BritNat' or British Nationalist is as insulting as 'Scottish Nationalist', in other words not at all. To expand slightly, there has been a concerted campaign to 'out' so-called 'cybernats' in an attempt by some sections of the media to paint of a picture of your average Yes supporter being a rabid, xenophobic, abusive numpty. That element does of course exist and they are utterly reprehensible. However they are conveniently ignoring sections of the 'CyberUnionist' support who act in exactly the same manner.


I won't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable on this but from links posted by others it doesn't look like you have too much to worry about in regards to funding.


Agreed.

In reply to Tim Chappell and Saor Alba:

I'm still waiting for a response to my suggestion that Scotland is not replete with far-sighted economists who would have gone against the grain of the entire financial universe in steering an independent Scotland clear of the financial crisis. Or that having a truly global supercity at the heart of a nation's economy is really SO bad.

Easier to move on to another topic. Like how much greener the grass will grow.

Granted, neither side is going to back down much. I'd vote yes, if the pro independence lobby were ready to accept the limitations of their capability and admit the naivity of some of their aspirations. Will EVERYTHING really be better? The world is full of swings and roundabouts (or roundaboots) not fairy dust. Some things may get better, others possibly worse. Does anyone really believe otherwise?

In reply to BnB:

I think you may be waiting some time then. Best to ask an economist and then report back. Not my area I am afraid.

I don't know where your thought that Yes are saying "everything will be great" comes from. I am certainly not saying that. IN fact most of this thread has been, as usual, refuting mad suggestions made by unionists. The debate can't move on until they move on or get left behind.

If you think everything will be better then say so. You seem to be the only one. If you think everything will be worse then also say so.

Once again here we are trying to steer you off a course that only you set for yourself.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Another passive aggressive reply, in which you seem to specialise. Duck the hard question and turn against the questioner. If you think this is the way to sway the crucial floating vote then good luck to you. I sincerely hope the Scottish people come to a consensus view because the alternatives are not wholesome to contemplate.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Why would an independent Scotland need to read half the world's e-mail and hack into Angry Birds? Little countries don't have as many enemies as big countries.

Anyway a Scottish MI6 would never work. They'd be too easy to spot with the kilts and accents. Although I guess we could get Sean Connery.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


It's never going to be better than this because the UK government's tactic is not to negotiate anything until after a YES vote. Therefore there is intentionally no certainty about anything.

The goal of refusing to negotiate anything until after the vote is to create fear so people will vote NO. The outcome of such a negative campaign with daily scare stories implying that Scots are manifestly incapable of running a successful country without handouts from the English is quite likely to be anger which persuades people to vote YES.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


He'd have to be dragged back from Spain, or wherever it is he prefers to Scotland.

In reply to tony:


Ah, that is his cover story Tony, its been a long insertion but now he's deep in!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Oh don't be so bloody silly. Paranoid nonsense. Who the hell is going to spend enormous resources negotiating something that may never happen? I doubt that Salmond is any more keen than Westminster to negotiate. It would make it apparent what a nightmare the whole process is going to be and that it might not work out for the Scots.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Edited that for you

In reply to BnB:


Wasn't a "canny Scot" Prime Minister at the time and another Chancellor of the Exchequer? Incidentally abroad Brown was credited with having a pretty good reaction to the crisis at the time, but from there to have seen it coming is something else... but then if Scotland had been independent they most certainly would have done this, stands to reason.

In reply to Toby S:


I'd find either insulting because I'm not a nationalist and have a pretty low opinion of such people given the suffering they impose on the world, on the other hand to a nationalist neither would be an insult it's true.

In reply to Saor Alba:


You consistently say this, how "Westminster" is so bad for Scotland and holds the country back... don't you even realise what you are typing?

Come to think about it why on earth would you spend so much time posting in favour of Scottish nationalism and independence if you weren't convinced that things would be better for you if Scotland became independent?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Someone that feels that the electorate have a right to know what the deal is on independence before they are asked to vote on it. With the outcome of the negotiations unknown the referendum is about emotion - fear vs optimism and/or anger.

It's amusing that Cameron wants to negotiate his deal with the EU before the UK referendum on leaving and the EU are about as interested in that negotiation as he is in negotiating with Scotland before the independence referendum.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Like Salmond who called the referendum?!


Completely different scale of negotiations. Is Cameron planning to claim European resource assets?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
One of many reasons I want my country to be independent.....I wish to remain a part of the EU and personally I would rather Scotland was represented on the EU flag with a nice little star all of our own....cut out the middle man and have our own representation when dealing with European politics.
"To gauge attitudes towards an independent Scotland’s relationship with the EU, respondents were asked, regardless of how they intend to vote in the 2014 referendum, whether an independent Scotland should or should not be a member of the EU. Six in ten Scots (61%) think that an independent Scotland should be a member of the EU compared with three in ten who think it shouldn’t (33%)."
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-w...
And as for those who accuse us So called cybernats of being racist, put your dummy's back in and stop your pish....I don't have a racist bone in my body and that also goes for the vast majority of the nationalist that I know. I am very open to European Union and the rest of the world come to think of it.
According to that poll it's the no voters in Scotland that carry the majority of the anti euro voters within there ranks......maybe that's because the BRITNATS are more inclined to be even more nationalistic that the Independence supporters.

In reply to lynx3555:

>I don't have a racist bone in my body


Of course you don't. As you've already told us, you just hate the English.

In reply to Postmanpat:


How is Salmond supposed to tell people what the deal is before the referendum when the other side refuse to negotiate until after a yes vote. It's a straightforward spoiling tactic by the UK government and it is disrespectful to the voters.

I actually think calling the referendum was a mistake. I'd have preferred for the Scottish Parliament to gradually accrue powers within the UK and to only go for an independence vote if something dramatic happened like the UK deciding to leave the EU. But once the referendum was called the die was cast and over the course of the campaign I've got more and more aggravated by the continual stream of 'you're all going to die if you leave' propaganda. The whole tone is so disrespectful I figure if that's the way the political establishment in London feel about Scotland it's time to tell them to **** off and see how we do without them.


He's trying to renegotiate a union the other side don't want to renegotiate with a threat of leaving. Same as Scotland.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
How do you come to the conclusion that I hate the English....you appear to have a bit of a complex about this...are you assuming that all Britnats are English settlers in Scotland?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Salmond has no mandate to negotiate so there can be no negotiation. He prefers it that way so he can make unprovable claims.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Accusations that the Scottish independence voters are being racist towards the English, are presently being exaggerated by the Britnats. They will use every method they can to discredit us and most of their methods are despicable.
Those that support the Better together brigade associate themselves with:
The use of fear as a weapon to terrify the Yes and undecided voters. Fear, that in reality comes from unfounded statements, that are then not given the same coverage by the media when the SNP counter claim the comment.
The use of derogatory terms and just general nastiness, to bash both the first minister of Scotland and his supporters.
They have a very unfair and apparently "rule breaking" support from the BBC, ITV and Sky news channels.
Who is Westminster kidding when they say that they are remaining neutral on the independence campaign, they must think we are daft....just like many Britnats I guess who use the "too daft to run our own country" type comments".
The list goes on and on......in reality it's pretty damned obvious that we can be a very successful independent country, but then that's not what the Britnats want any one to believe.
Really, are you surprised that I'm pissed right off with the Better together brigade? If you don't understand my frustration, then you must also think I'm a drafty, gullibly willing to buy the extensive underhanded bullshit that they spread.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6445-media-anti-english-...

Racism against the English is bad, any act of racism is bad regardless of who it is directed at...Racist slurs against the Scots by the English is also bad and is well documented.

My mum was half English and if she was alive today she would have described herself as a proud Brit, having first served as a corporal in the RAF, and then as a wife to my Scottish unionist Father who was also in the RAF.....that was them and that was a long time ago....I disagreed with them. Having the freedom to think for my self and having lived my adult life free of British institutions, I came to the decision that I wanted Scotland to be independent...this decision I made 32 years ago.