UKC

George Osborne behaving like some 18th Century Governor General of Scotland probably helped a little bit............. But the latest polls are again moving strongly towards a Yes vote.

In reply to alastairmac:

Hmmm, strongly? again?

The last poll I've seen from 18th of February is here: http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-...

From the notes:

Looking specifically at the intervention by the “three Chancellors” announcing they would not be willing to enter a currency union, the effects have simply been to harden the stance of supporters on both sides of the independence debate. Only 4% of “No” voters and 3% of “Yes” voters suggested it would make them at all more likely to consider the alternative option, though the reaction of solidifying support was stronger on the “Yes” side, due probably to a visceral reaction amongst nationalists against any suggestion of being threatened by English politicians. - See more at: http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-...

More polls here:

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-c...

In reply to alastairmac:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence-referendum

No concerted change yet that I can see.

In reply to climbwhenready:
The latest Survation poll is up six points on two weeks ago. Check it out in The Guardian on line this evening. By my reckoning that is the eighth official poll consecutively to show a move towards a Yes vote.

In reply to alastairmac:


I'm convinced already.

In reply to alastairmac:
I wish someone would commission an independent report by people who have no bias either way.

In reply to alastairmac:

Would this be the poll that explicitly said it shouldn't be compared to previous ones?

In reply to alastairmac:

"The first minister told MSPs: "Most people in Scotland would feel that George Osborne insulted the intelligence of the Scottish people … The indications we have so far is that the joint enterprise between George Osborne and Ed Balls has backfired on the two Unionist parties in spectacular fashion."

Most people = 38% now?

He has an unusual grasp of maths.

In reply to alastairmac:

and this:

"The implication, in fact the certainty, is that if you argue – as the UK government is now doing – that they are continuing state, that they keep all of the assets of the UK then it follows, as night follows day, that the end up with the liabilities."

He seems to be referring to the pound as some kind of "asset", however you either use it or you don't. I'm not sure it's something you can divide up?

In reply to Morgan Woods:

They are Nationalists, logic doesn't come into it.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Presumably the BoE's balance sheet could be divided between Scotland and the UK.
Although it seems as if it's better for the YES campaign to conflate such a division with a currency union.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I guess this is one subject on which he can claim considerable expertise.

I'm completely ambivalent about independence and used to have a sneaking admiration for Salmond's political adroitness, debating skills and his cheeky chappie persona. However, his increasing misrepresentation of the facts (eg the legal advice about EU membership) and his dismissal of anyone who disagrees with him, however expert, as misinformed is less attractive and is beginning to give an impression of desperation.

In reply to Morgan Woods:


AS in an arse. He insults my intelligence more than GO, whom I cannot stand for what he and DC have done to welfare. At least GO presented facts and decisions. As just presents a fantastical wishlist based of feck all in the way of facts. A deceitful and loathsome person.

In reply to Morgan Woods:



Of course the UK is the continuing state. The referendum is on Scotland leaving the UK. Dissolving the UK would require UK wide referendum wouldn't it? Assuming I have got the right end of the stick, without the context etc

In reply to nw:


You're quite right. In the same way as if you had a gangrenous leg removed you would still be you.

In reply to alastairmac:

Which part of the currency union issue do you not understand?

The Eurozone has demonstrated that currency union without political union does not work, a useful lesson to the rest of the world... if indeed it were needed. The Eurozone country governments have got the difficult task of selling political union to their population to save the Euro. Meanwhile Scottish nationalist want to end political union but enter a currency union with the rUK.... wtf!?!

It's like a person in a marriage leaving but expecting to keep the current account and the other person to underwrite their new mortgage...... you think they'd be embarrassed to ask but no.... they start screaming bully when the other gives the only sensible response.

The SNP must know the rUK would be mad to enter a currency union after what's happened with the Euro.... it does make me wonder if this is a ploy to whip up feelings against the Auld Enemy. The daft thing is they do have perfectly reasonable alternatives.... just carry on using the pound while they see what happens to the Euro... not quite full independence (well neither is the Euro), but Rome wasn't built in a day.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Or indeed a perfactly healthy leg, capable of standing on it's own two feet...

In reply to mav:

That metaphor doesn't quite work, does it? If you chop off a healthy leg the body survives but the healthy leg isn't very healthy anymore.

Hmm, maybe not such a bad metaphor after all...

In reply to Papillon:
The daft thing is they do have perfectly reasonable alternatives.... just carry on using the pound while they see what happens to the Euro...

hows that then? given that the governor of the bank of england has set out strict conditions for keeping the pound which effectively negate independence?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It doesnt work because a leg cannot stand on it's own two feet

In reply to pebbles:



Using the pound isn't the same as having a currency union. Why is that so hard to understand?

In reply to Papillon:
The best option for would be to keep the £, and stay in the UK. That would be the best UK option too. But I will vote no. For yes, it's all confused.
Currency union - best option for Scotland, but not for rUK, especially as SNP intend to pursue a fiscal policy of deliberately undercutting rUK.
Sterlingisation - keep the £, a la Panama and the Isle of Man. Main drawback is that EU membership requires you to have central bank.
Separate currency - possible, a la HKD, pegged to £. Main drawback is cost of setting up, especially when you intend to default on debt and in process leave all currency reserves in BoE.
Euro - AS's favoured option back in 2009, when he regarded £ as millstone round Scotland's neck and keeping us out of the 'arc of prosperity'. Main drawback - as the UK and Scots economy is growing, we don't meet the convergance criteria for joining.

In reply to pebbles:
Currency union is not the same as keeping the pound. An independent Scotland *can* keep using the pound, it's just the BoE won't be bailing out an independent Scotland's banks, or vetoing Scotland's spending / taxation plans. The reverse is also true i.e. the to-be-formed Scottish Central Bank won't be bailing out UK banks and interfering in UK tax / spend plans.

In reply to pebbles:


That was was a 'currency union'. There is nothing the governor could do to stop Scotland pegging Scottish pounds to Sterling, or just using Sterling (for example Ecuador use the US dollar).

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/the-scottish-independence-debate-ju...

In reply to Dave Garnett:


My thoughts. He started the fight and can't yet be seen to back down. Nothing good will come of this. Scotland will not become independent and we will have stirred up animosity amongst those whom we already supposedly want freedom form.

The big question will be what will AS do after the vote goes NO?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong: "The big question will be what will AS do after the vote goes NO?"

He'll blame someone else.

In reply to Papillon:

Ecuador is actually a very good model for Scotland.

Small oil exporting country which uses a foreign currency and has a egotistical, ex economist leader who can't take criticism very well

In reply to Father Noel Furlong: I posted this on the other identical thread which seems to have lost momentum to this one...

Anyone else think that AS really wants a "No" win but very close so that devomax can be brought back to the table?

I'm reading more and more commentary that he's privately petrified of a YES win. I'm sure that's probably bollox, but he certainly doesn't seem to be prepared to have got this far. Swimming naked as the tide goes out as they say.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

>> I'm reading more and more commentary that he's privately petrified of a YES win.

As a matter of genuine interest where were you picking that up?

In reply to Slugain Howff:

commentary on various news stories across the MSM. Just a point of view i'm reading more and more of. As I said, i'm not convinced.

In reply to nw:

Dissolving the union wouldn't necessarily require any referendum: all it would require is an Act of Parliament. Which is exactly what will be required for Scotland to become independent. The politicians seem content for people to have the impression that a yes vote will automatically trigger secession, which will be granted by Cameron after negotiation with Salmond. There is no constitutional way that can happen. An act of parliament will take time and will be voted on by MPs (and Lords)from all parties and all parts of the UK. Which is why I don't for one minute believe in the 2016 target for achieving independence, but that's a different matter.

In reply to Slugain Howff:



I'm not sure. I think he wants to be the one making history.

But I think its pretty clear most wanted devo-Max.. but there's no backing out now.

I do think he's panicking about the currency. It just seems the wrong time to have a vote when people don't know what they are voting for..

'Do you want independence, we'll sort out the details later'.. but those details are hardly dotting the i's and crossing the t's they are pretty fundamental decisions which could have enormous implications on the success of an independent Scotland.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


One thing he was rattled about a while ago was our legal system ultimately being overseen by the UK Supreme court. Scotland has it's own legal system and on that count he has it right IMO. Maybe ultimately he just wants to address the balance and ensure it's in Scotland favour.......

I'll probably vote Yes......but that's because i want to be as far away from Gove and his ideology as possible.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Vote Yes by all means, but because of Gove? Isn't he a Scot? He will probably come back to haunt you when the Tories lose the nxt election

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I know.....hangs head in shame...... ;-(

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
An independent Scotland will retain Michael Gove and Danny Alexander!

https://tinyurl.com/m853s82

And better still, "Education Minister Michael Gove has been dubbed ‘too scary’ for children under 12 years of age by the British Board of Film Classification.":

https://tinyurl.com/p4dd8jq

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


In terms of criminal law the UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in Scotland unless a 'devolution issue' or ECHR point is raised. There is no appeal from the High Court of Justiciary to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is though an appeal court for civil law.

In the event of independence devolution issues would disappear but the ECHR points would simply transfer to the European Court of Human Rights and so in that sense Scots law would still be overseen.

The recent issue in the Supreme Court, which was guided by two exceptionally experienced Scottish judges was compatibility of our law (on the issue of police questioning) with ECHR. Whether or not you agree with the determination, and in light of practice in other systems and ECHR it would be hard not to, the chilling thing about the whole episode was Kenny MacAskill's line that;

'They (judges) should remember that he who pays the piper calls the tune'

Do we really want a government whose justice secretary sees fit to suggest that judges should do what politicians wish whether or not what they wish is lawful?

Add to that the health secretary's assertion that a challenge to the government's policy in the court is 'undemocratic' (I must say I support the policy though) and there are serious questions about the present government's attitude towards law.

In reply to IainRUK:





Agreed, this is my biggest problem with Yes. I can see theoretical advantages to independence but like Tim Chappell (I think) said on here recently, not like this. A giant leap into the unknown, overseen and negotiated by a bunch of people who couldn't/wouldn't get it together to do any serious homework on the most fundamental issues that people will have to live with for years to come?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


Something that caught me out was Rogers comment from the "Bad day for SNP," thread (that also stopped the thread!)

"It concerns me that whoever is in charge we will be living in a state with a single chamber of parliament, a single police force (head appointed by the government, with our principle safeguard for a fair trial removed, and our prosecution centralised and open to political pressure.

I fear that while we squabble over the independence of countries our personal liberties are becoming more fragile."

I don't understand the comment about the fair trial, but the rest is actually quite scary.

In reply to nw:

But this is the big lie underpinning the current debate: that a yes vote will trigger automatic devolution on terms negotiated by Cameron and Salmond. That is constitutionally impossible. The referendum is an opportunity to express an opinion on the question "do you think Scotland should be an independent county" - nothing more. it doesn't commit, or even allow the UK government to accept Salmond's terms. It would send a strong signal to the UK government who would then be expected (not committed)to allow a Bill to be introduced to Parliament and to allocate sufficient parliamentary time for it. There will be plenty of time to iron out details and, if we can't reach acceptable terms, reject it through the usual democratic process (out MPs representing us).

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic about the democratic process...

In reply to tommyb:

I see what you are saying but...if there was a Yes vote the UK govt realistically would have to accept it. If they didn't then I really would be worried about what might happen.
So the government will draught a bill, and this will have to be based on something. Negotiations between Scottish and rUK leadership presumably? Am I missing something?
Ironing out details would be one thing, but the Yes/SNP folk don't even want to set out concrete goals or aspirations, which I can't understand.

In reply to nw: "Ironing out details would be one thing, but the Yes/SNP folk don't even want to set out concrete goals or aspirations, which I can't understand."

Because if you set out concrete goals (a currency union, for example), they're open to challenge. If you make airy fairy wishlists you can say any old bollocks.

In reply to jonnie3430:

The fair trial bit refers to the bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament that includes the provision to remove the necessity of corroboration in a criminal case. That is conviction on a single source of evidence. It is true that other countries do not necessarily have such a requirement but they do tend to have other safeguards, rights to trial by jury, rules on the quality of evidence and so forth.
Whilst the intention of the Scottish Government is laudable, to improve conviction rates in rape and other sexual crimes and domestic abuse, their method of going about it, by completely removing the safeguard without replacement is dubious.
The only judge who supports it is the one they employed to investigate the issue, whilst the government often quote the support of procurator fiscals and the police I have yet to meet any (although there must be some) who support this move.
The worry is that a measure introduced in haste to meet a real need will have appalling knock on effects in the lower courts and is clearly open to abuse by malicious witnesses, over enthusiastic police officers, and more alarmingly, goverment.

In reply to nw:

Yes, I can understand it too. My problem is that the SNP have produced a "manifesto" for independence and the referendum has now gone, in most peoples eyes, from being on the general principle of independence to a vote to accept or reject their manifesto. I would like to vote yes as I am broadly in favour of the general principle, but I certainly don't wish my vote to imply that I accept any particular view on the form it would take. What can I do?

I think most of the drafting of bills is done in committee stages in Parliament and I expect this is where much of the negotiation would take place. Salmond himself would be reduced to making noises on the sidelines although SNP MPs would be able to speak for him.

In reply to tommyb:

Vote NO.

In reply to graeme jackson:

well, I could do that, but I actually do "think Scotland should be an independent country", so it would be a lie.

In reply to tommyb:

Go for the least worst option according to your beliefs.

Whichever option you choose it would be better than not voting.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Well, if my current plan comes off, I may have left the country by then so won't have the option.

In reply to tommyb:



I understand that. I'd have just thought (and its not panic-mongering) they'd want to minimize instability. Someone said already Lloyds have shifted their residency to London? I think it was them.

BUt just to minimize those short term issues have like a set black and white road map of what the process will be and what the preferred options are.. take the euro.. that sort of thing.

I realize its a long term option, but for many the next 3-5 years are the most crucial and won't want to just wait and see. I'd have thought it would provide support for independence if it was clear a road map was in place.

In reply to tommyb:

Good luck with that, but it's a pity to lose someone who has actually thought about it!

In reply to IainRUK:

Exactly.

In reply to nw:

The trouble is, the road-map and "preferred options" would be the SNP's views, not the settled will of the Scottish people. The problem with mapping out the future at this point is that any debate that takes place before the referendum will be tainted by political posturing, scare-mongering (on both sides) and downright lying in an attempt to sway the vote. It is very unlikely that this will result in a clear view of the future. I think the debate after a "yes" vote would be very different, and I hope somewhat wider.

I would personally like to see a second referendum, after the independence Bill where we can decide on whether to accept or reject it. I've no idea how likely this is.

And yes, I accept that it would extend the period of uncertainty which could have negative results for the economy, although I'm sure many businesses will see it as much as a opportunity as a danger. For the record, Loyds/TSB have not stated why they opted to locate in England. They were asked by the Scottish Tories if it was anything to do with the referendum but didn't comment either way. Of course, that's not how it is being reported in the pro-union press.

In reply to tommyb:
yeah I wondered about a second referendum.. I can't see that happening but it looks a good idea. That would make it more likely to be a yes first time around but I can't see the SNP wanting to risk the decision getting overturned.

Re Lloyds, I've not seen much at all, just a mention on here.

In reply to tommyb:

Chance of a 2nd referendum to endorse final settlement of the split? Zero. If they did manage to secure a Yes do you think the SNP and allies would risk losing it all? If we gave them a mandate to start planning the separation then we'd just have to live with all the implications, good and bad. My money's on more bad than good.

In reply to tommyb: A second referendum would be a bit odd, like telling your husband you want a divorce but only if you get enough money.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

yeah tbf the more I think about it the more unlikely it is. Which is why a clear road map from the off would be better. I know its a big picture question but for the average family they wont care about that as much as the immediate future.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


Especially as it would only be reasonable to have a UK wide referendum since the final settlement would have to be acceptable to everyone...

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Well, if the vote is "yes", then the ball will be firmly in Westminster's court to decide what to do next. They are the only body that has the constitutional powers to dissolve the Union. If they want us to have another referendum, then there isn't much the Scottish Government can do about it.

It would be nice if David Cameron were to tell us what he proposes to do in the event of a "yes" vote. If nothing else, it would remove some of the uncertainty which is apparently damaging our economy, and destroy the illusion that we would be at the mercy of Salmond - which of course is precisely why it'll never happen.

In reply to tommyb:



I think that's a gamble.. if Cameron said 'X will happen'.. like he did with the currency union he'd be bullying. Imagine if he said 'OK if you vote yes Scotland becomes independent, it must take X million worth of debt and pay the UK back at X rate / year for X years, it can use the GBP and have no say, you can take X % of the military etc'..

People would go crazy.

In reply to IainRUK:

I didn't really mean he should tell us what we can or can't have. More that he could set out a road-map of how his Government would take things forward towards independence. eg, when would a bill be introduced, would there be a second referendum, or a public consultation (I think it's a legal requirement for all new legislation to have one these days). But as I said before, anything he says now is likely to be tainted by political posturing and fear-mongering. He's not likely to say anything that could allay peoples fears, is he.

In reply to tommyb:

Surely the onus is on those who want to change the status quo?

In reply to nw:

It may be so morally, but the constitution and the Scotland Act don't give them any powers to do so. Only an Act of Parliament (UK) can dissolve the union, and it is the UK government that makes decisions on parliamentary business.

In reply to tommyb:

Out of interest what is the closest example of this happening?

I don't think the break up of the USSR was comparable really.

In reply to IainRUK:


Robbie Williams and Take That?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What is logical can be very subjective though, Bruce.

With Scottish politics being more towards the left than that in England, it seems to me, if I didn't feel that a government in another country to which my country had ties wasn't reflecting my political beliefs, I'd vote for independence too.

That's not to say that I don't think the SNP aren't nationalistic, or that nationalism can't be a bad thing. More that, if the gulf is wide enough between the two political spheres in Scotland and England, it seems logical to me why that would nudge people towards voting for independence, and therefore voting for the SNP.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

They reformed though?

In reply to IainRUK:

I never knew that

In reply to tommyb:




But that's happened, and has been happening. the (so-called, I hate the grandiose name) Edinburgh agreement includes a commitment to respect the result. So it has happened. And it's still happening, because they've been coming out with papers and statements all the time. George Osborne saying that rUK wouldn't have currency union is exactly that, ad is the UK govt confirming it will honour all debt in the event of a default.

If its' yes, it's yes, and we negotiate a settlement. Or rather, the SNP govt negotiate a settlement with the UK govt, whilst simultaneously negotiating with the UN, NATO, the EU etc. It will take far longer than the 15 months the SNP have allowed, and lawyers will make a lot of money. The outcome will bear little resemblance to the White Paper, and almost certainly be partially decided by the international courts, and the final settlement will happen long after Scotland becomes independent. There's little Salmond or Cameron can do to stop that - they will probably both leave office before it's over. I just wish that the SNP in particular would stop pretending otherwise, and admit that the outcome of a yes vote is and will remain an unknown.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

best moment of my life..

In reply to mav:

Thats what I find amazing. The currency issue alone can't be resolved that quickly.

In reply to IainRUK:

Good question. I can't really think of a good parallel. I've had a couple of beers though so I'll try again tomorrow when the brain's a bit sharper

In reply to mav:

yup. I can agree with most of that. Especially the last sentence.

In reply to tommyb:

The bit I think is most certain is 'lawyers will make a lot of money"!

In reply to tommyb:

Peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia? There wasn't such a disparity in size but the Czech's were I think traditionally seen as the better off, more powerful partners.

In reply to IainRUK:

The closest example would have been Quebec/Canada, and may yet be Catalonia/Spain. Of those that did happen - I've a vague feeling that at one point Sweden and Norway were one?

In reply to mav:

Iceland/Denmark? probably not a very good parallel as it was a very short union

In reply to nw:

I do think those are different..

Two democratic governments splitting?

How was hong kong? Was it an independent state like that?

In reply to tommyb:

Faroe Denmark? But are they officially seperate? Or a Scotland/UK situation

In reply to IainRUK:

AFAIK Honk Kong was always part of China until we turned up.

In reply to nw:

No of course.. I was being dumb.. we just gave it back.

In reply to mav:

Aye well a borderer would vote to stay with the english tories,frightened are you ?
Oooh what would we do without the English ? We're all doomed !
Scaremongering pish !

In reply to nw:


Yes,but the traitors in power didn't ask what the actual people wanted, it's funny how the NATO mob were so in favour of that seperation in the former Communist Czechoslovakia, but don't want to see us getting our freedom from the english aristocrat tories regime.

In reply to Timmd:


And if you lived in a bit of a country where some valuable minerals had been discovered, oil in this case, but it could have been gold, bauxite, whatever, would you get together with other locals and try to create a break-away state with a small, extremely rich population, or would you consider that the riches of the country were to be shared with all, that human solidarity was above individual selfishness? That minerals aren't forever and in the long term sticking together was a safer option to give another way of looking at the question?

In reply to IainRUK:


It was on a lease, 99 years IIRC, and the lease ran out. One of the few moments I've been proud of the British government, they acted correctly without a quibble.

In reply to Redacted:


Were Brosn, Kinnock, Wilson, Bevan etc etc English aristocrats?

In reply to Redacted:


Sorry, are you saying that the actual people wanted to remain in one state? Or that they wanted the Red Army to stay there?
I was lucky enough to go on a school exhange trip there in 1992 I think it was. Just as it was all changing. The Iron Curtain was still up on the border, and it was still Czechoslovakia but the Russians were pulling out. Everyone seemed pretty happy about it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


or indeed Major, Thatcher, Heath, Healy, Castle , Attlee, Callaghan, MacDonald etc etc.

Of the 21 British prime ministers since 1900, 6 were Scottish, 2 Welsh, 12 English and 1 Canadian,.

8 represented non English constituencies.

In reply to rogerwebb:

And all of that is utterly irrelevant. Either you want self-determination or you don't.

As a country, Scotland often gets a government it hasn't voted for. In 53% of general elections by my calculations.

Whether the PM is Scottish or from the moon is irrelevant. I'm not into ethnic based politics.

In reply to Saor Alba:


What is this Scotland that you quote? If we take the latest stats from the last Scottish election, your comment could be re-written as "25% of Scots didn't get the government they voted for!"

Are they really speaking for Scotland? Or are they just 25% of the voting population...

In reply to jonnie3430:

It's the country that entered into a union of two countries. Are who speaking for Scotland?

In reply to Saor Alba:



Yes, but that country is made up of people. Of those that are of voting age, only 25% of them voted for the SNP at the last election. To say that they speak for the country is misleading. They voted for the politicians, but their opinion is not the same as the majority, the 75% that didn't vote or voted for someone else.

In reply to jonnie3430:

You have completely misunderstood what I said. I said, in 53% of general elections Scotland has got a government it didn't vote for. (I mean since 2nd world war).

I didn't say anyone spoke for anyone else. You have either read the wrong post or misunderstood me.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Nah, I think you don't understand me. You wrote "Scotland has got a government it didn't vote for," I was disputing your use of Scotland; it suggests there was unanimous support for the opposition. If we take the statistics from the last Scottish election we can see that at the moment, in Scotland, 75% of the population has got a government it didn't vote for.

In reply to jonnie3430:

No it doesn't suggest that. That is your presumption.

In your stats it's even worse. Feck knows why you want to continue with that.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Can you not see that when you write "Scotland," the assumption is that the whole country supports whatever it is you are talking about? In actual fact you mean the majority of voters, which is about 25% of the voting population at the moment. The difference is the opinion of 75%, or 3 million people.


Sorry, what is even worse? Facts are thin on the ground at the moment, but I can state that 25% of the Scottish voting population voted for the SNP and allowed them to hold an independence referendum. 75% of the Scottish population currently have a government they didn't vote for, and 75% also have an independence referendum that they didn't vote for. Do you disagree with these facts?

In reply to Saor Alba:

So about half the time it did have what it wanted? Sounds about right to me.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Sorry I can't help you if you don't what I mean when I say "Scotland".

I am simply saying that in 53% of those occasions Scotland didn't get the government it voted for. The opposition could have been split in many ways. I am not talking about the opposition.

I do not mean voters either. I would have said that it I did. I mean the MPs returned. Therefore the rest of your post is nothing to do with what I said.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Really? Can you name any other democratic countries which don't get the government they vote for?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Is this a bad thing? You seem to think that it is. Why is it worse that the current state of affairs, where 75% of Scots haven't got the government they voted for in their own parliament?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Yes. When more than half of the elections return a government that a country did not vote for then there is a problem.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I imagine there are quite a few where nearly 50% of the country didn't vote for them. All it takes it being close. It has happened in american quite a few times.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Ok well name them please. I can't think of a single country that does not get the government it votes for more than half the time.

America gets the government it votes for every time. Certain parts of America don't but they are not countries.

In reply to Saor Alba:
Sorry they are states. Are there any other countries that are owned by a larger one?

Oh yeah, and as for a country that has who they didn't vote for, Britain as a whole?

In reply to Saor Alba:


So at the moment in Scotland, when 75% of the population didn't vote for the SNP or an independence referendum there is a problem? What do you propose we do about it?

In reply to JoshOvki:

Scotland is a country as defined by the Act of Union. I can't think of a single country that does not get the government it votes for.

Can you name one?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Proportional representation. What do you propose?

In reply to Saor Alba:


You're the political expert. How do we get rid of the SNP and stop the referendum using proportional representation?

In reply to Saor Alba:

So it is a country owned by a bigger one?

Any country that has had a coalition government.

In reply to jonnie3430:

No I am not. What do you propose.

We don't do that. I don't want that.

In reply to JoshOvki:

In France elections have been very close between left and right for decades so at any one time one could, using this rather strange logic, say that half the population have been living in a country they didn't vote for all this time, give or take 2 to 5%, or sometimes less.

In fact this sort of argument is fallacious spin but some say it so often they probably come to actually believing it.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Dunno, you are the one that said it was a problem. I'd probably go for compulsory voting, though it'll never happen as it would destroy all the parties and none of the politicians would ever get in again.


It's not about you, it's about Scotland, where 75% of the population has a government that it didn't vote for.

In reply to JoshOvki:

It's true that given Britain's first past the post electoral system there is probably always a government that the majority didn't vote for... since the war this is the case, I think, and probably long before too. What can be done I wonder, independence for Britain?

In reply to JoshOvki:

What you on about owning? If a country has a coalition government by the system it chooses to elect it's government then that is fine and entirely under it's own control.

Please name at least one country that doesn't get the government it votes for using its chosen system.

In reply to jonnie3430:

It's fairly simple for me. Transfer all powers from Westminster to Holyrood. Use proportional representation.

You appear see a problem in the current system used in Scotland but have no solution or want to change it.

In reply to Saor Alba:

But that's the present situation for the existing Scottish government and yet it is still numerically true that the present one did not obtain a majority of the votes of Scottish electors.

So your objections at the level of Britain still holds for Scotland despite Scotland's using the system you call for.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yes, but only 25% have voted for that.


You agreed that there was a problem and as I said, compulsory voting would be my wish to change it.

In reply to jonnie3430:

What are you on about? That's the system we use. Change if you want but you don't seem to want to. Please confirm - do you want to change the electoral system within Scotland and if so to what?

The point I am making, continually, is that the electoral system in Scotland, regardless of what it is, is often irrelevant as the Union forces Scotland to go with the government that is decided mainly by another country (England) and Wales and NI to a lesser extent.

Compulsory voting would make no difference to that.

In reply to Saor Alba:


The point I am making is that it is even more irrelevant in Scotland itself, so your point highlights a problem, but the biggest site of the problem is with the current Scottish government, which you ironically support.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Eh? I support proportional representation and independence. Under that situation Scotland gets the government it votes for every time. You don't support that. You support a system that allows a government to be elected which doesn't represent the country *regardless* of which system is used or whichever way people vote.

You are trying to dance around this fact.

You might support the Union which is fine but this is one of the major disadvantages of it to Scotland (democracy). You might be happy with that. I am not.

In reply to Saor Alba:

When, if ever, has a majority of the Scottish electorate voted for the SNP? I certainly never have. Yet there they are in power. Does that disenfranchise me? Of course it doesn't, it's called democracy.

This idea that you somehow are being cheated in elections if you didn't vote for the winning side is nonsense.

Is it a deliberate SNP tactic to keep on coming out with the same old nonsense again and again until people start believing it? Or does it just happen by accident?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Never as far as I know. The only solution to your problem is proportional representation. There is no chance of it happening as part of the UK so you are stuck with, by your own doing.

Yes it is nonsense that I am cheated in elections - but I didn't say I was. In fact I didn't say anyone was cheated. You are arguing against yourself there.

What I said was that the Union often, more than half of the occasions produces a government Scotland didn't vote for *regardless* of the system used.

None of this is nonsense - it's all fact. You might be happy with these democratic weaknesses as you have the Union but they are there and they are the price you pay for the Union.

In reply to Saor Alba:


But you're wrong, 75% of Scots didn't vote for this government or an independence referendum.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Apart from the fact that Scotland didn't vote for anything, as I have pointed out several times (you either don't understand or are deliberately misusing the phrase, given the history of SNP supporters, I suspect the latter,) but the people in Scotland voted and the majority of the vote, 25% in the last election, is a minority and as such should not be referred to as Scotland.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Correct. The only solution to this is independence and proportional representation.

You are stopping yourself though as you are directly supporting a system you are against and which is used to produce a result you don't agree with. Until you stop supporting things you don't like they will continue to happen. The problem is facing you in the mirror.

Problem - SNP government in Scotland
Solution - proportional representation
Will this happen as part of the UK - no.

Problem - Scotland often gets a government it doesn't vote for
Solution - Don't let other countries influence which government you choose = Independence

Problem - you don't like the SNP
Solution - bring in a system which is more fair and represents the electorate.
Your position - continue to support a system which doesn't produce representative governments and which doesn't represent the electorate.

You actions - continue to support a system which addresses neither of these problems but at the same argue with others who want to change the system and deal with the issues you have raised.

The solution faces you in the mirror.

In reply to Saor Alba:


>Problem - Scotland often gets a government it doesn't vote for

Have you even read Jonnie's last post?

Is it a deliberate SNP tactic to keep on coming out with the same old nonsense again and again until people start believing it? Or does it just happen by accident?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Please try and get this. I am referring to the UK government which decides when we go to war, how much to spend on nuclear weapons, which powers to devolve and so on. It's that I am referring to. Not the Scottish elections!

Please try and avail yourself of the facts instead of attributing false points to someone and then shouting them down.

53%!

In reply to Saor Alba:

Why is PR more likely in an Indy Scotland?

In reply to nw:

1) the power to decide would reside in Scotland
2) in general, the political scene at Holyrood is more progressive than that at Westminster
3) the system used to elect MSPs is already more representative and therefore produces a more diverse set of MSPs
4) in general, there is great cross party support for it in Scotland
5) the lib dems are dead and neither Labour or Tories want it so no chance as part of the UK.

In reply to Saor Alba:


>

It is relevant, when you are responding to an assertion that the UK is governed by an ' English aristocratic Tory regime',


I am glad to hear that you are not into ethnic based politics, neither am I nor are many of the other contributors, but that cannot be said of all.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Are you sure about that statistic?

Since 1945 there have been 18 general elections, Labour have won 9, the conservatives 8 and a coalition in 1.

In 11 of those 18 elections the government was formed by the party that won most seats in Scotland. (counting national liberals as conservative which seems reasonable as they merged)

In reply to rogerwebb:


Is it not ?
How many Tory Mp's are there in Scotland ?

In reply to Redacted:


Looks like a coalition to me!

In any event the assertion is unreasonable as it takes a snapshot of one temporary government.

Would it, for instance, have been reasonable to have asserted that the UK was being run by a working class Scottish regime under Gordon Brown?


Neither assertion is, edifying or helpful in a reasoned debate.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I can't find that text anywhere on this site. I certainly don't believe it but there is without doubt an establishment who have the most to lose from independence.

I don't see the relevance of whether a Scot or martian is PM. It's irrelevant. There are plenty of bad politicians in Scotland such as Brown.

I'll try and get hold of those data for you. I used a spreadsheet to challenge Martin's view that it was "rare" for a party to form a government where they didn't win the most seats in Scotland. Your own stats show that 7 elections produce a result that was not in line with Scotland (61% from mental calculations).

I can't think of a single other country in the world that does not get the government it votes for under its election system in 39% of occasions.

Can you?

In reply to Redacted:



Jings! I'm rubbish at maths , I will probably need to take my socks off, I'm bound to run out of fingers.....

Oh wait, my nose will do just fine.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Comes from 'Redacted' 03.20 this morning


That is actually my point, progressive prime ministers and ministers have come from all parts of the UK, so have the others.




Yes, Wales, hence devolution.

The major problems came about in the last 8 elections when 5 times there was a gross disparity between the Scottish vote and government. That's why I and presumably you voted for devolution.

In reply to rogerwebb:
Good point re Wales. The union (yes I know!) doesn't work for them either. But they need to decide for themselves.

I can't see any democratic advantage at all, anywhere, for Scotland in the Union and I can't see any things we have which other countries don't which cancel out the disadvantages.

You don't need a Union to be progressive. In fact, I think the union has actively hampered progression and is nothing but a chain round the neck in this aspect.

Correct on devolution but I think the principle follows though on everything. I can't see any reason, or advantage to have your economic policy run by a ying-yang shuffle from Tories to Labour every ten years and particularly when they are moving further to right all the time (Labour isn't left or centre, it;s centre right. The Labour movement is left but utterly different from the Labour Party. )

In reply to Saor Alba:


There are an infinite number of solutions. One of which is what you propose, though it seems to me that you are continuing the ennui that we have been suffering from.


One person one vote, how can I do any more?! I make sure I vote every time, I have never had a government or MP in that I have voted for, but I will continue to vote. Supporting a no vote is not going to stop things I don't like, it is just the lesser of two evils.



Solution - bin scottish parliament.


I wish!



As I'm British and Scottish I realise that the other 60+ million in the country have an opinion. Seeing the current parties as a bunch of numpties means that I am unlikely to ever get the government I want and am not surprised so many opt out. Re: Scotland, see discussion about you labelling 25% of the countries population as Scotland.



Get rid of scottish parliament and take things on at a national level.


?? If half the electorate don't vote, I fail to see how your option is any way better than mine which is compulsory voting?


My actions - Keep the status quo. Politicians have and always will be a majority of slimy characters keen for your vote once every four years and looking out for themselves the rest of the time. The fewer politicians out there the better, hence the reason that I'd sack the scottish parliament and definitely not encourage any wider spread of national institutions that would have to come to Scotland with independence.


Less politicians and compulsory voting. The silent, non-voting majority will vote for a quiet, normal life. Posturing from those voted in by a minority just wastes money.

Now that you have a broad brush view of my political opinion, can you tell me why 75% of Scots have to put up with a government and independence referendum they didn't vote for?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Yes I can answer that fairly easily. When the parliament was set up, the electoral system decided upon, by unionists, was the one which produced the recent electoral result. Look in the mirror.

Good luck with your attempts to get rid of the Scottishs parliament. You are swimming against the tide.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Sorry, I don't understand what you are talking about? Which parliament? Who cares who set it up? What would have been the result if it had been your way? That's probably the best way to explain what you mean.


The majority doesn't vote for any of the major parties or the SNP. I'm with them.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Except for the other 55 million of your current fellow citizens. Us Southern and Western Britishers of a social democrat leaning are very happy that many of our Northern British brothers and sisters are progressive leaning. Without you the balance would move rightward!

In reply to alastairmac:

Oh give them independence, all of it. Then sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's not yours to give.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Silly thing to say.

In reply to stroppygob:

Glad you agree.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Oh tut.

Ok, seeing as you seem to be needing a little spoon feeding; your point was daft. I was not claiming that independence was mine to give, rather that those who wish for it should have their wish granted. Then we could enjoy schadenfreude at what I believe would follow.

In reply to stroppygob:


Glad we cleared that up - the first bit at least - but the rest of it doesn't make sense. Those who wish for it will only have their wish granted if they're in the majority.

Either way, what you want to happen, or what you think the consequences of a Yes vote will be, are neither here nor there.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Damn, and there's me thinking that if I posted my desires on a discussion forum they'd automatically come true, I was hoping they'd be gifted me for Xmas. What a nasty little man you are to disabuse me of this notion.


Shall we just call you "Captain Obvious" and be done with it?

In reply to stroppygob:

You want Scotland to vote for Independence, not because you think it'd be good for Scotland, but because you think it'd be disastrous, and you would then take pleasure in that.

That much - and what it says about you - is certainly obvious.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I want those who wish for an independent Scotland to get what they wish for. It may be that what they get works out fine and dandy, and they all live together in a land of rainbows and unicorns, and a glorious socialist state where the rich pay for everything and no one is poor, and King Salmond rules with a benign munificence.

If, however, as I predict, it does not work out and Scotland becomes a poor, third-rate, EU teat reliant, miserable place, one which anyone with a bit of nous would leave asap, then who is to blame for that? Not I.

In reply to stroppygob:
But would your pound not then go far in Scotland, and you can then come up an buy up the place, or just have cheap climbing holidays?

( that said most of it is already owned by foreigners anyway )

In reply to stroppygob:

There's no need to repeat - it's clear. You think that Independence for Scotland would be fairly disastrous for the people who live here, and yet you hope that it happens. You'd actually take pleasure in people's misfortune if it did.

Quite why you want this is anyone's guess.

In reply to stroppygob:


Why do you think that Scotland would become "a poor, third-rate, EU teat reliant, miserable place"?

What is it about the Scots, as opposed to say the English or the Germans which makes them incapable of successfully managing their own affairs?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The English don't, the UK does.

I don't think it's anything inherent in the Scots themselves, just the size of the place, the infrastructure, and the global markets I think would make this unnecessary splitting off fail.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

There's an old Chinese saying; "be careful of what you wish for".

I'm not wishing for Scotland to gain independence, others are.

I have no vote and no influence in the matter, so whatever the eventuality, I will not be to blame.

If I take joy in a pratfall, and you do not like that, so be it, your view of my sense of humour is of no importance to me.

In reply to Jim C:

It's an interesting bit of speculation. Scotland goes independent, wealth flees the coutry, as does manufacturing. Rampant socialism under Wee Ek, {as I beleive he's known,) runs the place down further. Buy up property up there on the cheap, hope the UK gets reunited so as to sell it off at a profit.

In reply to stroppygob:


And yet you've said that you want it to happen.

The well-intentioned (if mildly insulting) point of view that Scotland should stay because that it'd be economically unviable on its own - that's one thing. But wanting Scotland to leave the Union so you could see the lives of its inhabitants - whether they voted for Independence or not - ruined, just so you can experience a bit of "schadenfreude"?? Bit of a piece of work, really, aren't you?

In reply to stroppygob:


Actually , I had you down as a rogue landlord Stroppy, so no need to hope for the UK to reunite , you just cream off money from poorly maintained property in the slum that Scotland has become in your scenario.

In reply to Jim C:

Don't worry, in the socialist kingdom of Scotland foreign ownership of property will be banned.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Sorry PP, I forgot about that .
There are just SO many negatives, that I just can't keep up.
( Although a few less bad landlords of any nationality would be welcomed)

In reply to Jim C:



The watchtowers along the border to keep you in should be more of a worry for you…..

In reply to jonnie3430:


You can't just assume that all the people who didn't vote are against the SNP. SNP supporters also get sick or lazy or don't like the local candidate.

You can't even assume that all the people that voted for another party aren't happy with an SNP government. It might be down to an issue with a particular candidate or a tactical vote based on previous results in the constituency.

In reply to stroppygob:


The SNP's intentions are to eliminate an entire layer of government (i.e. Westminster). That seems like a fairly sound idea from a capitalist perspective. Their actions in government in Scotland have been to rationalise many public services (e.g. the police and fire service) to reduce costs. The SNP have actually run the country with a balanced budget because they aren't allowed to borrow. As is well known the Scots are fairly tight with money: as soon as fiscally conservative politics is no longer associated with the Tories, Scotland's politics will rebalance.

As for wealth fleeing the country, maybe there will be short term effects if there is uncertainty about the currency. In the end the SNP's idea of setting business taxes a little lower than the rest of the UK will attract wealth. But the most important effect will be that removing political and financial power from London will increase public and private sector investment in Scotland. London based politicians and bankers like to spend their money within an hours travel of London.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That is it Tom. Unionism is often based upon a core belief that independence will be a disaster in every way and there are simply no advantages in managing your own affairs.

Once people adopt this mindset it is very easy to simply point out faults and criticise. I don't think unionists could win a debate where they had to argue for yes. The vision isn't there.

In the No campaign, as on these forums, the No camp nevers mentions things like how to get rid of nuclear weapons, child poverty, food banks, low self confidence in young people and so on. It isn't on their agenda and they have become proxies for the establishment simply rolling out the same stuff that Danny Alexander does or Gordon Brown. The crucial difference is though that Alexander and Brown will still have their perks, the rest will still pay for them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



He didn't make either of those assumptions. That 75% didn't vote for the SNP is a factual statement.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes he has said that several times. What is the issue? He doesn't want PR and has suggested no changes to the electoral system other than compulsory voting. What is the issue if you don't want to change it?

In reply to Saor Alba:


The issue is that 25% of the population voted for an independence referendum and you are expecting the remaining 75% to accept it? Funny democracy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That hasn't been seen in the Scottish parliament building, the Edinburgh trams and it remains to be seen how the new Forth crossing will cost!

In reply to Saor Alba:


A bit rich considering the yes campaigners can't win one either!

In reply to Saor Alba:


I was correcting tom and explaining that no such assumptions had been made. You do have problems understanding what's clearly written down for you.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Yes it is but since it you have no desire to change it then you are stuck with this issue.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Getting rid of nuclear weapons yet hiding under the nuclear umbrella of our allies is hypocritical. You want to do this for the money saving? Or is there some other reason? Why not take some responsibility?

Child poverty figures seem to be based on children living in a household that earns less than average wage (please correct if wrong.) By my reckoning that is 50%. We will never be able to get all children in households where the average wage is above 50%.

Food banks are used for temporary cases of dependence when employment has unexpectedly ended, or admin issues have affected welfare payments. There is still job seekers allowance and council housing for those in need.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I have a desire to change it, but regard it as UK voter apathy, not just Scots. I'd rather change it from a UK perspective. But that is unlikely, as has been pointed out, the majority of Scots care enough about independence that they didn't vote at all. You think that an independent Scotland will compete with Norway et al. when half the population can't be bothered to vote?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Ok good luck and yes.

In reply to jonnie3430:


The Parliament Building and the Trams are down to Labour. The SNP manifesto actually wanted to cancel the trams.

The Forth crossing may be expensive but with the old bridge coming to the end of its design life there isn't much choice. The economic costs of not having sufficient bridge capacity would be much worse. Transport infrastructure spending to reduce travel time to the Inverness, Aberdeen and the Highlands is essential for economic development. As well as the bridge the A9 should be getting upgraded to a dual carriageway.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, but they are Scottish politicians, the same you say are good with money.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Do you have any response to my 12:17 post, or are you ignoring debate again?

In reply to jonnie3430:
I didn't see your post. Don't expect to reply to everything.



It's not hiding. Being hypocritcal is being a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and then renewing your nuclear arseanal. Either way, I want rid of them asap. There is no other reason other than I think they are without use (apart from a status symbol and way to get on UN Security Council (I hope the UK loses this)).


I don't know the exact definition. Either way, I think the UK is going the wrong direction and placing less important things higher on the agenda.


Yes that is the statement of fact. Another statement of fact is that their use is increasing and is not by accident. The UK is a failure on this.
I find your statement so far from reality though that I now understand why you support a system which you don't like but do nothing about. "There is still council housing..." Whit??????????

In reply to rogerwebb:

Yes indeed it would be reasonable but what is not reasonable is that we have 1 Tory MP and our country is governed by them.whereas we voted for Gordon Brown and got what we voted for.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Why would you want that then?


Excellent debate.



It's a statement of fact, but is far from reality? See above.

In reply to Redacted:


But 35% of the scottish vote went to lib dems or tories. 42% went to Labour. 20% went to SNP. You would rather have a labour government? After the previous 8 years of corporation smoozing, illegal war and ridiculous borrowing?


Really? You may want to check that.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Yeah mean't the Blair mob before that.


The tories have 1 MP,Libdems 10 is it ? out of what 52 ?41 against and 11 for but we get the ConDems ?

It's nuts !

1 Tory MP !


Now your talking my language but putting aside what i want for a moment,do you think a country should be ruled by a coalition that only makes up a fifth of the elected MP's ?

And why should the Tories be any part of a Government governing Scotland when they have only 1 MP out of 52 ?

It's madness.

In reply to Redacted:

Still a third of the vote and it's not labour.

Douglas Griffin - on 09:11 Sun
In reply to stroppygob:
And yet you've said that you want it to happen.

The well-intentioned (if mildly insulting) point of view that Scotland should stay because that it'd be economically unviable on its own - that's one thing. But wanting Scotland to leave the Union so you could see the lives of its inhabitants - whether they voted for Independence or not - ruined, just so you can experience a bit of "schadenfreude"?? Bit of a piece of work, really, aren't you?


In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Parasites tend to work this way Douglas.

In reply to Redacted:


That they only have 1 MP considering they got 16% of the votes?
Yeah it is appalling when you consider just 3% more got the SNP 6 seats.

In reply to Redacted:

That's why we have devolution

In reply to dissonance:
If you want to change the system then that is another matter but as things presently stand what i said applies,what you said doesn't.

In reply to dissonance:



And I know at least 1 Tory that voted for the SNP trying to keep labour out.

In reply to jonnie3430:


The fact that some people don't care enough to vote and that some are not in age to vote doesn't mean that current Scottish government or current referendum is undemocratic.

What is your point ? Do you want to pass a law to force everybody to vote as soon as you are born ?

The fact is that a majority of voters voted for SNP and a majority supports the call for a referendum, you just gonna have to suck it up I am afraid.

In reply to RomTheBear:



No they didn't.

In reply to MG:

SNP got 44% of the vote

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


And more than 50%^ of the seats.

In reply to MG:


Ok they got most of the votes. Now what ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Err no!
They may have got the most votes. Is that what you mean?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Admit you were wrong perhaps? Rather than just coming out with a new statement.

In reply to Jim C:


Ok, any tips on where to buy?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Yes, I believe the "YES" supporters should get what they wish for.


Oh I suppose so. But there again, it's only one possible scenario out of many. The degree to which Scotland stands or falls, should the "YES" vote prevail, will be in their own hands, to a large degree.

As I say, be careful what you wish for.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I think it is more accurate to say that such a huge proportion of Scottish voters are so unhappy with the usual suspects that they ended up having to vote for the SNP. That does not mean that devolution and independence are not prime issues for those voters. Quite possibly the reverse.

Typically, long-established liberal federalist policy is dead in the water until England gets itself sorted out. Scottish Labour is a sucking-up device to help Labour in London. The Conservatives were never going to be a major devolution policy influence (although they do a better job of being a real Scottish party than Labour do).

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Of the 4 million registered voters, only 1 million, or 25%, voted for the SNP. If there is a huge proportion in that who only voted for the SNP because they were unhappy with the usual suspects then the UK can breathe easy.

In reply to RomTheBear:


?? There were 4 million registered voters, of which 1 million voted for SNP. The population of Scotland is larger than that.

My point was that he was saying that 53% of the time Scotland doesn't get the government it voted for and that this was a problem for him. I was pointing out that 75% of Scots didn't vote for this government and was asking if he had the same problem.

In reply to Redacted:

Of course it does. There seems to be desire to ignore that the tories do exist north of the border, in not inconsiderable numbers. They just arent represented.

I am just curious as to why this is?

In reply to alastairmac:

Interesting that George Osborne says he can't take the risk of having to bail out Scotland if there is a currency union.

But about 10 minutes after a coup in Ukraine he's already got the UK cheque book out and offering to put money into a bail out.

We also find out that the UK government sold everyone's hospital records, (including post code and date of birth to make sure there was enough to identify individuals even with the name redacted) to the insurance industry a few years ago. So the latest climb down on GP records is basically locking the door after selling the horse.

It's hard to believe the government of an Independent Scotland could be any less competent than this lot.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



You think pledging support via the IMF and the EU is the same as being in a currency union with your neighbour? Hmmm, right.



I imagine the government of iScotland would be perfect in every way.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's hard to believe the government of an Independent Scotland could be any less competent than this lot.

History has shown that throughout the world and ages the scope for incompetence of governments knows no bounds

Not to say that a Scottish government would necessarily be incompetent just that your remark is, alas, not proved.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What would an independent Scotland do about the Ukraine? What kind of figure would they cut on the international stage?

I should think they'd have about as much clout there as Andorra. No disrespect to Andorra

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Cutting a figure on the international stage is an expensive game that small countries don't have to play. I'd hope Scotland would put education and transport infrastructure well ahead of bailing out Ukraine and spend its cash at home.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Is your plan for iScotland that it's neither an EU nor IMF member? Just going to live in glorious isolation?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


like in the Uni's.. oh no you didn't.

Education is far from a priority. I've yet to hear from an academic who is in support. Most I know who are proud Scots realize that Salmonds no fees policy is a millstone around their necks. It can only work if they put in the billions missing from the system.

In reply to alastairmac:

I see the Lib Dem supporting P&J is saying there is a "massive" slump in support for Yes. This is from a survey of 500 people where 350 of them supported no.

Meanwhile, the PCS Union voted to take a neutral stance on independence (very sensible I think). 5,000 plus people voted to back independence and not a single one voted to back the No campaign.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

WHo knows? It's the future. No facts exist.

What should the UK do? How is this clout being used and how will it be used in the future if it's a No vote? Answers please with facts and 100% certainty.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No. But there's a difference between being a member and thinking you have to be a cheerleader for intervention and offering money before even being asked.

Don't you think there's a contradiction between all the 'we can't afford this...' rhetoric of the Tories and their eagerness to throw money at anything that reflects on 'status' as a world power.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



The Ukraine is struggling to make democracy work against the clout of Russia and you make our support a bad thing?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




It's an EU and IMF proposal to prop up Ukraine, if necessary.
But you carry on trying to make independence all about the Tories, it deflects from Salmond's floundering.

In reply to Saor Alba:



I thought you didn't care about the UK and that independence was a Scottish thing and that you had no bad feelings towards the rest of the UK. Looks to me like you dislike the rest of the UK quite a bit with those comments and the comment about you hoping that the UK loses its place on the Security Council. Is it racism all along?

P.S. Can I point out the irony in asking for "facts and 100% accuracy," when your party haven't provided any so far, yet they were the ones that brought up the subject? It makes your case pointless.

In reply to IainRUK:



The system worked for decades. In Europe there are fees in many countries but a fraction of those in England. Government being willing to make value judgments on what courses it funds and how much it funds individual courses and guiding the Universities to stop spending so much on administration would work just as well as increasing the amount of money available.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


To be honest--given the place in the world that the UK has made its own, and used mostly for the good--I think that's pathetic. It's an abnegation of international responsibility.

But I do agree with you that this is what follows pretty inevitably from Scottish separatism.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Whilst I agree there was considerable waste, I do not think that is the case anymore. your Uni's are struggling. Standards are falling. You just are not investing in the next generation.

You've done that thing where you say 'England' when you mean the UK.. but that's OK.

I think we'll see others following> fees of 1000-2000 euros are not uncommon. We've gone the US route because of longterm lack of funding. Scotlands Uni's are struggling. Your view that they will find the money just is not happening.

The system did not work for decades.. it's been decades of reduced funding, under funding and ever increasing student numbers...

In reply to IainRUK:


Don't forget the ever increasing levels of management and salaries of said managers!

In reply to IainRUK:

And remember: the SNP have NO PLAN for university funding. Read their 'White paper' if you want to see what I mean. Their plan is to hope that something turns up, basically. Much as I like Mr Micawber, I doubt this will do.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I know you thought that. It is this level of ignorance and paranoia that we are trying to leave behind.

I ask about Ukraine and in your head that equals racism. You are paranoid.

In reply to stroppygob:


Well, on the asumption that the oil will still be in Aberdeen, the house prices will hold up there.

But assuming the financial services all flee the country (following LLoyds/TSB) there should be some nice (not slum mind ) properties up in Edinburgh that the prices should crash nicely on.

(But of course there are the poorer parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh if you want to go low end, probably end up selling for a song

And of course my own much loved 1903 property, where I live at the moment.

I was going to hold on to it for the children, but as my 3 grown up kids are sure to flee the country in search of secure employment, I might have to sell it to you to make ends meet and rent it back, and hopefully get some benefits to help pay your exhorbitant rent)

In reply to Saor Alba:


So you do have bad feelings towards the rest of the UK? Hardly paranoia then is it! The best way to settle the ignorance and paranoia is to leave the UK then?


Nothing to do with Ukraine, but thinly disguised jabs at the UK suggest that you are actually anti-english, combined with lack of reason for your stance on independence suggests you are simply racist.

In reply to jonnie3430:

No!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not at all. I think the Westminster system is awful though and Scotland has, and will have, a better system.

Please try to separate opinions about a political system from those about people.

Your jibe about racism just reinforces your paranoia.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Paranoia about what? About the anti english vibe in Scotland? That isn't paranoia. The comment "I support whoever is playing the english," isn't even a joke. Most do it, some to the extent that they take pride in the number of foreign football shirts they have bought to show their support of the english opposition team.

You may not dislike the english, but I would be impressed by your nativity if you didn't agree that there is anti english feeling in Scotland.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Nativity? Naivety!! Jings, not jingle bells.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Paranoia about me disliking the UK or English people despite you have no evidence on this or it being true. That is paranoia.

If you are going to fire out insults and accusations and suggest people are racist, it makes sense to have something to back yourself up. IN your case it's an empty vessel echoing to the word "paranoia".

Again, the problem faces you in the mirror.

In reply to Saor Alba: Has Salmond revealed plan C? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10657721/Scottish-independe...
Which letter of the alphabet will have been reached by September?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Pfft. This isn't a court of law where we need to provide evidence. Your comment on the UK being taken off the Security council if Scotland left is odd though. Why would you want the UK off the security council if Scotland was independent?


Do you agree that there is some anti english feeling in scotland? They are racists, regardless of how simply they pass it off as a joke. It's hardly paranoia to regard a hollow argument for the benefits of an independent Scotland as a more serious extension of the anti english feeling.


I thought the problem you had me facing in the mirror was being part of the UK and independence would sort it? Are you now saying paranoia of scottish racism is solved by independence. That's quite a step. How does that work?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


It was his only option. A new currency was too expensive and too prohibitive.

It makes it much harder now though, it kills any argument for Scotland becoming a financial power house dead.

I think they'll keep the pound and negotiate to join the Euro but will have very little bargaining power. Obviously without their own currency it will be hard but I think the Euro wants to grow and Scotland joining will facilitate the rUK joining. I don't think we'll do any major switch just increasingly use both currencies which happens in Europe in the border regions, for example Denmark/Germany.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



There will only be small businesses left! Everyone will be based in the UK. It might be a good idea to buy up land in Carlisle and Northumberland though as they may become popular for offices!

In reply to IainRUK: I'm not sure it's that straightforward, doesn't the EU require countries joining the euro to have their own currency and central bank? Neither of which criteria would be satisfied.

In reply to jonnie3430:

See my many other comments re UN security council (no I can't be bothered to find them for you).

Yes as I do think there is anti-anyone in any place.

I know you thought that. I am saying what I am saying, nothing else. Have an argument with your mirror and minor parties like the Tories.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Without their own currency and no central bank, you have to think the financial industry in Scotland will flood south. They will lose all their leverage as they won't be able to borrow at anywhere near the levels they currently do with no backstop of the BoE.

I'm sure there will be many north of the border that will not think that's such a bad thing, but it will definitely impact tax revenues and jobs.

On the plus side, any Scots with pensions controlled by AAM or Scottish Widows etc. should pragmatically be pleased to see them go south as it should add some more protection to their nest eggs.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Tut, tut! You promised you weren't going to call people "ignorant" again... can't resist it, can you?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




That's why I'm amazed some people I know on FB are supporting the yes camp. Some I know are accountants. I know Lloyds haven't explained yet but it must have been a factor.

Jobs and money will head south.

What I don't understand is those saying the Tories are bullying Scotland into remaining. Why would the Tories want Scotland to stay, they get the banking coming south and a higher chance of winning future elections.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Great debate!!!


So a proportion of Scots are anti-english. I wonder what proportion? What was it, 25% of Scots voters that voted for an independence referendum? I would assume that they are in that group, so what is the proportion of racist anti english supporters in the SNP? Who knows, but the fact that there is a group there makes it a bit worrying. Surely you must come across them in your dealings with the yes campaign?


You are a bit special, you know that? If you class the tories as a minor party, what does that make the SNP? At the last general election, the tories had 3% less vote than SNP.

In reply to IainRUK:


They are Unionists after all and whatever one thinks of them on many aspects of their policy they may still have some feeling for the best interests of Britain, politically, economically and in geo-political terms. Churchill was a tory remember, well some of the time anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well if the Scots leave there will be fewer people for the Tories to screw

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I totally agree, I think the fact they do want what's best is overlooked. If it was purely about power they'd encourage Scotland to go.

I just can't see how Scotland can expect to be successful using the Sterling with no control. Oil is declining and will be less important and independence with no control over sterling will impact on their financial sector. Something like 11 billion and 85,000 jobs (+ indirect).. its a huge sector.

In reply to IainRUK:

£27 billion is what I heard. Where is it?

In reply to IainRUK:

I happen to think the UK is the better option for all concerned, but regardless of that I'm not sure it's necessarily true that, as you wrote:


As somebody wrote the other day (think I read it in a paper rather than on here!), what must keep Cameron awake at night is the fear that he will go down in history as the man who let the union fall apart. As I say, I happen to think it *would* be better if the UK stayed as one, but I can't really imagine any circumstances where the UK government would gladly sit and watch scotland leave.

In reply to Saor Alba:

That might be indirect and direct.. which would be around the same as 10 billion direct, I've seen 9-11 billion on googling and government reports 'Scotland financial sector worth'.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scotlands-100-billion-of-exports-provi...

In reply to IainRUK:

Salmond bashing 'posh' people again. 'Fooling about on the playing fields of Eton', never misses a chance to criticise someone's background.

He does like to play the man rather than the ball doesn't he!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

from the report:"Scottish independence will benefit exporters"

"The Scottish Government aims to increase exports by 50%, which would create over 100,000 new jobs. An independent Scotland – with control over taxation, finance, business regulation and global promotion – would be well placed to fully support Scottish companies in the global market.

In comparison, the UK’s trading and investment wing failed to promote Scotland’s companies internationally. Business for Scotland found that not a single UK embassy in key export locations held an event for St Andrew’s day."

so increase exports by 50%, 100,000 new jobs.. how? Hold events for St Andrews day!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Saying "we'll join the Euro" before a YES vote is just leaving yourself open to the same tactic as Osborne already played from EU officials who would like a NO vote.

Using the pound informally to start with is a workable bridging step towards either a new currency or joining the Euro and takes the time pressure off.

The most likely thing is the negotiations after a YES vote result in a deal that involves joining the Euro or sharing the pound.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

why would we share the pound? why do you want it?

It means the rUK controls your monetary policy..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

why would you opt for a new currency? that would be idiotically isolating.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


You can look at it like that, but that would be trying to trick voters into believing you when you could just ask and find out the answer.


Just out of curiosity, what do you think will be the strongest negotiating factors? I'm curious to see what you think will make the UK and Europe want to do a deal at all? I'm genuinely interested, my first response to seeing that you still thought sharing the pound was an option was to bury my head in my arms and wonder what you didn't understand about the chancellors comments.

In reply to jonnie3430:

I cant think of many times where all parties have been so clear about an issue. There will be no shared currency.

Quite clearly they aren't open to negotiate and any that offered that would lose votes in an election. Its exposing the £ to big risk.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




But there isn't a plan now. Is Salmond going to stick to the line that a currency union will happen? Is sterlingisation actually Yes policy? Do you think going "it'll be braw" instead of having a coherent policy is honest?

In reply to IainRUK:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-frq7ypWqgaQ/T15vj22geJI/AAAAAAAAAeg/YuKp1mgJbl4/s...

In reply to jonnie3430:


That is a stunningly naive comment. You can't find out the other side's bottom line position in a negotiation just by asking. All you find out by asking is their opening bid.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Do you really believe Salmond's "they're bluffing" line? And you're calling other people naive?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I'm naive? Your post at 15:59 says "don't ask if we can join the euro, because we may not like people to know the answer. They didn't like the answer when we asked to share the pound." The response from Osborne was not a "tactic," it was an honest answer!

What are you on? You would rather people didn't know the truth? You'd rather people voted for independence, then couldn't get a shared pound, or join the euro, when you can ask beforehand?

On negotiations; what has Scotland got to negotiate with that is powerful enough to interest the UK or EU in a shared currency?

In reply to IainRUK:


I don't think we will. I think the most likely thing is the currency choice will be part of a larger deal with the UK or the EU.

However, I see that there is also a need to state a workable fall back or bridging option in the event of protracted negotiations which does not depend on any other country. Informally continuing to use sterling seems like a reasonable way of minimising disruption on the path to a long term solution.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Jeezo, this Jonnie really has issues. This debate should be conducted with a level of maturity but here he is calling people racists without any evidence and criticising systems he personally supports and has no alternative to. That really is paranoia.

To jonnie - rain your neck in and calm down. Please refrain from the personal and aggressive nature of your posts.

In reply to Sour Alba:


Why have you started using paranoia? Is it in the SNP guidance for yes campaigners, labelled "how to discredit when questioned?" On the question of mature debating; if you look back up the post, everywhere I have praised your debating, I have actually been sarcastic as you haven't debated anything. An interesting occasion was when you specifically asked for no campaign opinion on several issues. While un-decided, I responded only for you to say you didn't know the subject!
My query on your racism still stands, you can look up the point I was questioning and answer. At the time you told me to look through UKC for your opinion on the UK in the security council. That's the same as the Salmond referring every question to his independence document. If you want to explain something to someone, tell them about it.


Thanks for the advice. In return, I suggest you learn that a debate involves a two way flow of information, not one side asking, the other side replying, then the other side accusing them of some random point disconnected with the subject.
I also suggest that you learn both sides to an argument, it is important to see it from both sides as you may have missed something.
I also suggest that you re-read some of your posts with an open mind. As others have pointed out, they are easily read as ignorant, foolish and personal attacks. You then only have yourself to blame when you receive the same in return.
Finally, when someone is questioning you on something and you choose not to respond to their question, it can be seen as avoiding the subject, or simply rudeness. You should then understand a short response.

P.S. Does your ironimeter not even quiver when you accuse others of personal attacks when you write a post like that?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Not sure why so much debate around currency. Is that such a big issue ? After all many small countries manage very well with their own currency (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark...) or within Euro (Belgium, Netherlands...) We also have the example of Ireland who exited the pound rather smoothly.

Not sure why in the case of Scotland it would automatically be all mayhem...

In reply to jonnie3430:

Sorry until you refrain from calling people racists with no justification I can't be bothered reading your posts or replying to them.

I have not attacked anyone personally, accused them of being racist or otherwise.

You need to look in the mirror.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Wahey!! Thats it! Give in completely!

At 12:55 on Sunday you wrote "It's not hiding. Being hypocritcal is being a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and then renewing your nuclear arseanal. Either way, I want rid of them asap. There is no other reason other than I think they are without use (apart from a status symbol and way to get on UN Security Council (I hope the UK loses this))."

P.S. Best spelling of Arsenal I've seen yet!

I responded to ask what you meant, didn't get an answer, still haven't and posted, "I thought you didn't care about the UK and that independence was a Scottish thing and that you had no bad feelings towards the rest of the UK. Looks to me like you dislike the rest of the UK quite a bit with those comments and the comment about you hoping that the UK loses its place on the Security Council. Is it racism all along?"

You have the option to respond....


Yes dear. Each time you accuse someone of ignorance, it is a personal attack.


So much about mirrors? Is this on SNP policy document too?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well thats one for Salmond and co to answer. Since the choice he has chosen is not one which is available.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



But I cant help but think 11 billion of your economy may well shift when their banking system is left with no security. I know Lloyds haven't explained their thinking but it must have been a factor.

In reply to dissonance:


Well that's his first choice as I understand but I haven't heard him ruling out any other possibilities. Also he repeated several times that the pound is fully tradeable so Scotland may well simply decide to use the pound regardeless of whether any currency deal happens. That's exactly what Ireland did when they became independent before transitioning smoothly to their own currency, and later on, the euro.

In reply to IainRUK:


Don't you think that the fact that 40% of the bank is owned by the UK government has anything to do with it ?

In reply to Jim C:





That's sounds like a plan. Thanks Jim, you're a mate.

In reply to stroppygob:


Or , if I can't keep up with your rent ( after my employer also pulls out of Scotland)
maybe I will have to head back to the family stomping grounds in the Lakes ( which we left in 1790)
Moving to Scotland back then was bad news for them anyway, my poor old ancestor was murdered by Burke and Hare, and his 5 kids were orphaned, I mean how welcoming is that, it's a wonder we have stayed so long!

But I WILL miss the old country-
{sniff!}

In reply to Jim C:

Seeing as you've been so generous, I'll do you "mates rates'.

(Do you have a daughter btw?)

In reply to RomTheBear:


It's not much of a plan, is it? Sticking with an option that's been ruled out. There are only two options now, start a Scottish currency or use another currency (euro, pound, dollar, whatever). But joining the euro isn't an immediate option (even if,for argument's sake, we take membership of the EU as given) and using someone else's currency leaves you at the mercy of that country's economic policy. But the real problem is the failure of the yes campaign to put a plan to the voters.

In reply to Saor Alba:


From you Donald that's quite amusing.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Why wouldn't it be a valid plan, it makes perfect sense to continue using the pound with our without having a currency union for say the first five years before a new currency is created or euro adopted. It worked for Ireland.

In reply to stroppygob:


I've got 3 daughters , but only 2 are single ( 22 and 27)

( no dowry , we are all going to be skint up here)

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well it would be without a currency union, do keep up. And that means that the cost of government borrowing would increase. Of course, as you point out, it worked in Ireland, was it a sixth of the population that emigrated in the 50s and 60s?
And, once again, an independent Scotland would have to have its own currency and a central bank prior to joining the euro.

In reply to Jim C:

No dowry? I'll take the house in lieu of a dowry, and marry the 27 year old.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Fixed that for you

In reply to Sir Chasm:


And now Ireland is a country with higher GDP per capita than the UK, so it seems that it worked quite good for them...


Not sure why this is a problem. Once again, example of Ireland, they kept the pound for a few years, they created their own currency tied to the pound, then finally switch to their own currency, then adopted the Euros.

90 years later they are doing rather well as a small country.

In reply to 999thAndy:


Well yes, to me it seems simply that the Uk government is trying to protect his assets in the unlikely event of independence.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

fixed that for you.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Are you seriously saying that HMG *commanded* them to return to London? (They don't have 51% of the shares).

Or could it be that they are moving to where there will definitely be a lender of last resort in the event of independence?

In reply to mav:
Which foreign country is going to provide central bank services to Scotland?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Do you know any Irish people? I do, or have done, in Paris and the numbers rise and fall according to the situation there. In the 70s there were loads in Paris as things were hard - often people in Dublin had two jobs to get by - then there was a bit of a boom and people went back, then the bubble burst and the Paris Irish population grew again. I'm not sure where we are just now as I don't go into Paris much and have little contact with ex-pats but to present life in Ireland over the last decades a smooth road to prosperity seems a little out of touch with reality.

In reply to 999thAndy:

SNP plans for a currency union would see the remainder of the Uk becoming a foreign country, and the Bank of England would act as central bank for both. Without that, Scotland would need its own central bank to be eligible for EU membership.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well I know quite a few Irish guys and so far they don't seem to complain , not sure this is relevant though.

Where did I present life in Ireland as a "smooth road to prosperity" ? Looks at the history books, their economic failures were due to economic nationalism and barriers to trade. As soon as they decided to open their economy in the 70s they started to grow and are now a highly successful country, with the best quality of life in the world according to some rankings.

After the creation of the Irish free state they went through 4 different currencies, but it had little influence on their failure and successes, the key was their economic policy.

My point is that currency is not so much of an issue, but the ability to set your own long term economic policy is very important.

In reply to mav:

Tory, Labour and Lib Dems plans do not include currency union. The SNP white paper doesn't mention creating a new central bank. So is it any wonder LloydsTSB have left?

In reply to 999thAndy:


I do think it's a big mistake from Salmond and co to not emphasise more the other currency options.
At the same time I am pretty sure that whatever currency Scotland uses in the event of Independence, once they are able to set a lower corporation tax than the rest of the UK you'll see them coming back very quickly...

In reply to 999thAndy:

On a point of detail, have they left? As far as I understand it they had to be registered somewhere and have chosen England and Wales instead of Scotland.

The biggest issue here is the continual flow south of HQs that has been happening for decades. BOS is the classic example which is run as an arm of Lloyds now. It was a good bank until the Halifax got hold of it.

In reply to RomTheBear:



"Vote independence, vote neoliberal"

Has a nice ring to it.........

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes, as I've been saying, there is no proposal from the yes campaign at the moment.


Really? Without a lender of last resort?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Successful yes but you seem to have forgotten about the whole economic crisis thing which hit Ireland a whole lot harder than most countries. They had an EU bailout, not something available to an independent Scotland without being a member of the Eurozone.


.....in 2005, since when GDP has shrunk and unemployment has rocketed.


......which was to lower their corporation tax to 12% I've (honestly) no idea what the Yes campaign are proposing here but is it some thing similar? It made sense for the Irish to do this, which was a less developed economy, to attract foreign investment I'm not sure it would be a good idea for a thriving economy which already has a fair share of industry (and significant corporation tax take) I'm not sure it would play well with any Eurozone application either.


In that case you don't want a currency union with UK anyway. On the one hand you are correct and it shouldn't matter, Scotland probably won't have any more nasty shocks in the short term so should be ok using any currency, the problem is this will affect their ability to lend (again, I've no idea, do the Yes team plan to run a defecit?) and it seems would prevent them joining the Euro.

The other issue is that instead of saying things might be tricky for a while AS has been a bit disingenuous in saying that everything will be rosy from the off whereas this will not be the case. If this is all about self determination then saying so shouldn't matter but it seems, for the majority of the electorate, national identity has less to do with it than whether or not people will see them self as being a few quid better off, which is a bit sad really.

In reply to 999thAndy:

No. But then, I'm not arguing for independence

In reply to Sir Chasm:



I am not sure I see your point. If they go for their currency surely they would have their own central bank ? Worst case scenario for Scotland would be to have no central bank and continue using the pound as a fully treadeable currency for a few years before adopting the euro or creating their own currency and own central bank, but on the long term, I don't see why they woudln't be able to create their own currency/ central bank or get the euro (Once again, exactly like Ireland did).

In reply to Saor Alba:
BOS is the classic example which is run as an arm of Lloyds now. It was a good bank until the Halifax got hold of it.

You could flip that round. Halifax was a good building society until it bought BoS. I'd argue they were both ok until Andy Hornby came along. Just as RBS was solvent when Fred was appointed CEO.

In reply to Tyler:

Ireland's success in attracting new businesses might have been helped by the no Corp Tax for 3 years for new businesses. This was scrapped about 3 years ago.

In reply to Tyler:






I can't agree more with all of what you've said, especially the last bit.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'll concede the point of detail - I'm sure they are still doing a roaring trade in Scotland, but if Scotland becomes independent they'll be paying taxes to the hmrc not holyrood.


^This^ just reads like the water muddying avoidance-o-matic has been put into overdrive.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Which is the exact same as right now. I am just clarifying if they have "left". They haven't but the Daily Mail says they have so it must be true.

In reply to Saor Alba:


What will an independent Scotland do to arrest this or do you see it as inevitable?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Are you new around here? What the hell kind of argument is that? You could at least have gone ad hominem or pointed out some spelling mistakes. Jeeze, young people today

In reply to Saor Alba:


But isn't the same as it would've been had they remained registered in Scotland.

In reply to RomTheBear:


SNP will not admit they have a plan B , as the opposition will concentrate on that. (but we all know they do)

Same as the No camp , NO, NO , NO they say to currency Union, but when one of the 3 parties finds themselves in that position they will have to weigh it up carefully, as they may be cutting off the UK's face just to spite Scotland, and for what, a political promise, which is worth nothing.

If I had ANY respect for any politicial party or politicians word , I would say No meant no, but I don't and so it won't.

Between Salmond pretending that everyhting is going to be all rosy and without any challenges and the No campaign's project fear trying to make us believe that Scotland will be total chaos on its own, these two campaigns are so full of shite that when I listen the NO campaign I want to vote YES, and when I listen to the YES campaign I want to vote NO.

In reply to Saor Alba:

As far as I understand it (and I only work for them), Lloyds banking group have split off the TSB which will be a standalone bank in it's own right and it's THAT new company which will be registered in England. Lloyds remains a registered company in Scotland.

p.s. halifax didn't buy BOS. We 'merged' then let Lloyds buy us a few years later. makes all the difference.

In reply to Jim C:




TBH If any party offered a shared currency I'd not vote for them again. I do not want a foreign country having a say like that. Either join the Euro, or keep the pound English. The Euro has dangers but offers huge benefits. Despite what has been made out in the British press its not done that badly and has stayed quite a strong currency.

I think Salmond is an incompetent fool, he scores points with cheap policies like no tuition fees yet isn't funding Universities. He's doing exactly as you say, cutting off his nose to spite his face, under investing in Scotlands future. the man is an egomaniac. He just wants to be the one who takes Scotland independent regardless of the cost to Scotland.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained and everything to be lost from offering to share the currency.

In reply to graeme jackson:
Yes that was my understanding too. So they haven't left then. Stand down the Daily Mail army.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, the point is that currently there is no credible proposal from the yes campaign as to what currency would be used post independence. Yes, there are options, I don't see anyone denying that, but what is being proposed?

In reply to IainRUK:



To quote you from higher up this thread:.
"You've done that thing where you say 'England' when you mean the UK.. but that's OK"

In reply to Tyler:

Don't how how serious this claim to the throne is but interesting

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/460698/House-of-Stuart-s-Duchess-of-Alba-c...

In reply to Tyler:

the pound is english.. check out who supports it. Its the bank of england.

In reply to IainRUK:
Of course it is, the GB in GBP stands for English. I doubt anyone would have thought less of you if you'd just said 'Oops, I slipped up' or even just ignored it but instead you went straight for out right denial of the facts. I admire your chutzpah. Have you been advising Alex Salmond?