UKC

Just watched Janet Street Porters walk across the Border country and up and through Scotland to try to find out what the Scottish Independence vote was really about.

"What right does this southern loudmouth have to come to Scotland and to trample her way into our referendum debate? " she asks

And her conclusion:-
" About the Scots disliking the English? I was completely wrong on that one. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27764295

I'm not a big fan, but at least she did more listening than talking, and it made a change from the usual discussion programmes.

Anyone else catch it?

In reply to Jim C:

I am actually quite surprised that this "they hate the English" line is still rolled out so often.

The other thing that surprises me is that the BBC often spends a lot of time worrying how England perceives Scotland. There are no shortage of self-assured London broadcasters giving opinions on this. It would be much more interesting and diverse to hear how someone from Penzance or Penrith views things. Or shudder the thought, someone from the general public not all ready connected with the BBC.

In reply to Saor Alba:


A few miles out of Penzance, but as a Welshman living in Cornwall with a Scots-Irish wife and Cornish kids, I can honestly say that the whole Scottish-English thing, with particular reference to the Independence referendum, interests me less than I can possibly say.

Martin

Glad to have cleared that one up. Obviously, whichever way the people of Scotland vote, other people will get all the money. It's just a question of whether they're 'our' people, 'their' people, or a completely different bunch of Dave's mates. The Scottish people as a whole will lose either way.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Having been born in England and lived in Scotland for the last 13 years I'm not sure why it surprises you, it doesn't me. Scotland's no different from any other neighbouring country in the world, USA/Canada, India/Pakistan, Peru/Bolivia, South Korea/North Korea, Ireland/NI, Columbia/Venezuela...everyone hates their neighbours it's just human nature, you've gotta hate someone so it may as well be someone close.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Maybe if you posted less often.... ?

Just a thought.

In reply to Sharp:


I'm English and quite like the Scots (apart from my last manager, he was/is a tosser). Not mad keen on the Frogs though.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Sorry to say that when I lived in Scotland I certainly saw anti-English sentiment expressed in the context of independence.

Can't say I saw it every day, but it was certainly there. Clearly this isn't the reasoning behind any rational person who is in favour of independence, but the problem is that a lot of voters are not rational (witness the rise of UKIP and Britain First in England if you need proof!)

In reply to Only a hill:

Seconded, in present tense.

In reply to rlines:

ditto.

In reply to Sharp:

I presume you hate a whole lot people then Ben, but saying it's human nature is poor justification. And it's not fair to speak for the rest of us. I don't hate Scottish people, Welsh people or French people and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

In reply to graeme jackson:

agreed, although if anyone reacts, its excused as 'just banter'

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I'm to go out on a limb and suggest that he means if a country hates anyone it tends to be their neighbour, not that everyone in the country hates their neighbour. But don't let me stop you getting your knickers twisted.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Countries don't hate, people do.

In reply to Doug:

Indeed. it would have been useful in the interests of balance for ms. street-porter to have asked some English folk living in the central belt what their perceptions of the scots attitude towards them was.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


No kidding? You mean if a newspaper headline says "UK goes to the polls tomorrow" it isn't actually the physical country toddling to the polling station? I am stunned.

In reply to Doug:

ha yes, like the sh*t in my office who keeps asking leading questions on whether I'm hapopy about the ABE bit in his ABE worldcup prediction leauge. He's waiting for me to say something, but I wont give him the satisfaction.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That makes sense though. You're making the same fundamental mistake that Ben is. So you're not making sense.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


No, you're still failing to understand a simple point. Animosity between countries tends (not always) to be between neighbours.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You seem to be repeating the same fundamental error. And you're not explaining what that statement means. Feel free to enlighten me.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I don't think I can, you haven't explained the fundamental error and I don't understand your lack of comprehension.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You're talking about countries, not people. So if you said 'England hates Scotland', what does that mean? All the people, the majority, a tiny minority hate the Scottish.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Ah, I see your problem. When Ben said "USA/Canada, India/Pakistan, Peru/Bolivia, South Korea/North Korea, Ireland/NI, Columbia/Venezuela", he clearly meant the people, only a fool would think he meant the physical ground or the entirety of a population.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I think pretty much everyone except you, apparently, would understand that to mean there was noticeable degree of antipathy between the two countries' populations. It's not a precise statement about proportions and degree but its not meant to be. Much as Sir Chasm's example about voting means the population of a country votes on a particular day, without specifying what proportion who for and so on.

In reply to Only a hill:



As most of us know, Alex is a reasonable fella, and I feel I am too. BUT, I must echo his sentiment, having lived in Scotland for 16 years, having brought my children up here, and living as I do right next to the Bannockburn monument, I am afraid there IS an awful lot of anti-English feelings in this debate.

You can be as romantic as you like about 'new beginnings' and the rest of it, but I far more regularly experience the negative side of it than the positive I am afraid.

In my local, which couldn't be more Nationalist, I often feel like I suppose maybe other minorities elsewhere feel as the drink goes down - 'Och, we don't mean you of course, YOU'RE alright....it's the other b*****s taking our jobs, telling us what to do, stealing our oil'.

I love where I live. I love Scotland. I like my friends. But to paint it as all sweetness and light, tolerant and forward thinking is simply pie-in-the-skye (sic).

If, God forbid, we do go it alone, it will be one almighty, expensive mess.....and then we won't have anyone else to blame but ourselves.

In reply to MG:


It is almost entirely one-way, from the Scots to the English.

In fact, quite a few Scots resent the fact that not only do the English NOT loathe Scotland, they are really not that interested in the possibility of independence.

I know very few English people who dislike the Scots, certainly not with the sort of visceral, atavistic loathing that characterises many Scot Nats - the "Anyone but England" syndrome at football matches and the like.

It is true the amount of antagonism from England to Scotland has increased (from a very low base), recently, but that is very largely a reaction to the stridency of the independence campaign, with its "we want a divorce, and we want the settlement to be exactly as we say" tone. But then most people behave badly in divorces, as long buried deep resentments come to the fore.

In reply to Jim C:

The Scots, Irish and Welsh all hate the English far more than 'we' hate them.
Now, why on earth would that be?

<sarcasm alert>

In reply to Kimono:




We? I definitely don't hate the Dominican Republic.

In reply to maisie:


then why comment on this topic ?!

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Because Saor Alba was asking what someone from that area thought.
Rather nice of them to answer really.

In reply to Kimono:

The Scots, Irish and Welsh all hate the English far more than 'we' hate them.

The Celts only hate the English.
Whereas, the English hate everyone else on the planet equally. Therefore, all that hatred is spread out evenly and thus less noticeable...

In reply to Jim C: I wonder if Ms Rowling will feel the "hate"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10891530/JK-Ro...

In reply to Simon4:

That is not my experience Simon. I lived in various parts of England for years. I saw plenty of anti-Scottish feeling, anti-Welsh, anti- everybody actually. Always disguised as banter.

In reply to JohnnyW:


Having lived in Scotland for 17yrs (London born), and being engaged with the independence debate, I have seen NO evidence whatsoever of anti-English views. I have heard talk of it on Facebook, but on challenging the assumption, the evidence wasn't forthcoming. I have seen plenty of anti-London, anti-establishment, anti-Westminster and anti-political class views. Many will choose to interpret these as anti-English. They are not. I think if the option was on the table to include the North of England too, the vast majority would be quite happy with that. That's not to say in my 17yrs in Scotland I ahven't encountered anti-Englishness. I have. Mostly in the context of football. I've also had some frank anti-English anti-tourist abuse in pubs in the NW, which it transpired came from Northern Irish folk now living in Scotland.

As Depeche Mode so poignantly sang:

People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
So we're different colours
And we're different creeds
And different people have different needs
It's obvious you hate me
Though I've done nothing wrong
I never even met you
So what could I have done
I can't understand
What makes a man
Hate another man
Help me understand
People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

In reply to Simon4:


The lack of interest is symptomatic of the passive contempt people have for those a little removed from their normal circle. I'd say that disinterest *is* anti-Scottish. Interest would suggest caring, if not for one's own pocket, just possibly for one's kin North of the border.

In reply to Kimono:


I've spent much of the last 20 years over in Dublin and as an Englishman am often greeted with the phrase "So you're an English c*nt are you?" or some reference to "800 years".

But to paraphrase Reginald D Hunter, what they actually mean is "Hello there my English friend. The history between our countries is complex and at times has been bloody. Nevertheless, I am pleased to meet you."

The situation is nuanced though. Even in the roughest of places in Dublin, I'd happily wear an England rugby top, but not an England football strip.

In reply to Jim C:

I really hope Scotland get independence, I support it whole heartedly and I'm English.
However I believe it should be in fact FULL independence, NOT keeping sterling that will need some contact with the BOE, NOT using our Armed forces while they build their Defence force, NOT getting hand-outs from Westminster when they f*ck up.
I actually really respect Scotland for what they're trying however I believe Salmond is after a shrouded independence with ties to London, and Westminster is keeping the UK in the dark about what they are really proposing, I live in the NE so the implications of independence are affecting people all round me on both sides of the border.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm not saying anybody would expect it to mean the ground. Again, you're not saying what you mean by the people. All the people?

In reply to contrariousjim:


That frankly is projection of the most ludicrous kind, determination to find a particular view irrespective of what actual experience shows.

How can you attribute a view, and a fairly strongly antagonistic view at that, to people from their failure to express a view? It is as ridiculous as EU apologists claiming that UKIP did not win the EU parliament elections because the turnout was low, so the non-voters can be claimed for pro-EU parties. They are non-voters, no assumptions can be made by anyone about their views.

Apathy or indifference may be regrettable, does not constitute active hostility.

In reply to MG:

Assuming you're in the majority are you?

We were talking about hate, not antipathy. No reason to change the argument is there?

It doesn't have to be totally precise. Some idea of proportion would be useful wouldn't it. Or it's a pointless statement.

Saying the UK goes to the poles tomorrow, means that people are free to vote tomorrow, the statement is simply that. It contains useful information, that is probably well understood by most. Just saying England hates Scotland doesn't. What do you interpret that statement to mean?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Do you get really bothered by people referring to "road tax" too?

In reply to MG:

You're still finding it hard to explain the statement.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


To inveterate pendants, maybe

In reply to Jim C:

England?

?

Is that the car park between here and France?

In reply to MG:

Okay, end of discussion. England hates Scotland, Scotland hates England, etc, etc.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What is it with you which makes you post in a personal way when most other people don't?

I'm not the first to notice.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Going back to Sir Chasm's first statement, for all your pedantry and faux confusion, you seem to have missed the word "if".

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I'm finding it hard to understands why you seem intent on a semantic argument whilst ignoring the actual topic being debated.

In reply to Simon4:


I take it you are being deliberately confrontational with this comment. Otherwise you really don't have a clue.
I was brought up in an area with a large number of English incomers sometimes to the extent that I felt that I was a minority in my own country. The number of times I've received the usual Welshie, sheep-shagger, hick abuse is just too many to mention.

In reply to Doug:

Some of the 'banter' I even heard quite close Scottish mates saying (in Scotland) would have been classified as racist if against a person with different skin colour, although it wasn't personally directed against me much.

For the most part Scots are treated much better down south than southerners are treated in Scotland IMO. I think many Scots would feel pretty put out if they got the same back when in England.

In reply to Only a hill:
But IS it really anti-English or is it really Anti Westminste elite rule?
The further outside of Westminster you get the more antipahy they seem to attact, and not just from the Scots.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


But that was the very point of my thread, JSP having walked 'all' over Scotland trying to answer that very question (not always on camera) said that she concluded that was NOT the case.

" About the Scots disliking the English? I was completely wrong on that one. "

In reply to Sir Chasm:
JK-Rowling-donates-1-million-to-Scotlands-Better-Together-campaign

Well if they give her million to Gordon Brown to fight for better together, they might as well piss it all away down the pub.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


not many do!
Though, as i suspect you are aware, no soy dominicano

In reply to Jim C:

The worst I've seen of the Scots hating the English is during the world cup in Aberdeen years ago, the "Anybody but England" attitude but they seemed to be a minority and I never had any trouble when I worked on the rigs.

I've had friends who been refused service in Wales because they are English.

The worse I've experienced is in Australia, where pommie baiting is the national sport, but I think thats mostly banter, however repetitive it becomes.

I guess it goes on everywhere.

In reply to Simon4:


That's quite a claim. What's it based on, apart from your imagination?

In reply to jasonC abroad:

World cup sweep stake at work completed - HSE manager AKA tight fisted English hating weegie ...guess which team he drew .... England - those who doubt the existance of an omnipotent being just got proved wrong. Cant wait - he hates the English but loves money more - he'll tie himself in knots

In reply to Jim C:

Ok - an example. While working at the Clachaig I heard several examples along these lines:

"All English barmen in this place these days. English tw*ts - when we're a free country again we'll send them back down South. Independence can't come soon enough."

Said in a decidedly non-banterous tone of voice. Can't say it happened every week, but it was enough to be notable. I also remember one chap refusing to understand what I was saying, then speaking back at me in an exaggerated posh English accent. His mate seemed to think it was hilarious.

(In case people accuse me of doing something to put these people's backs up, ask anyone — I'm easy going and laid back, and always do my job with a smile.)

In reply to Only a hill:

I don't doubt you've had experiences along those lines. However, with music I end up playing folk music in alot of different pubs in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, as well as in pubs and gatherings in small towns, and in the countryside from Girvan to North Uist so have gotten to meet a wide range of punters from all walks. Climbing also gets me to alot of different places, and in the past so has work. Furthermore, I'm an anxious sort of guy, and have always been aware of my Englishness when playing Scottish and Irish music, but the fear has never matched the reality. I've just never encountered it despite putting myself in lots of places I might. Also, the majority of the folk musicians I've met are pro independence, but not anti-english. As I said, I have experienced it in the context of football, mostly in uni, but this was not a uniquely Scottish source.. ..more everyone else vs England. Elsewhere, the football anti-Englishness seems to be a very similar crowd to the groups that have very polarised views in more sectarian lines of football teams. When working in Skye I did experience some local politics that could be construed as anti-English, involving, as it did, resentment at a lack of affordable housing forcing young people to move away from the place they grew up in, while at the same time watching quite a few English people retiring there. So that was very directed, and a very specific problem, but I doubt those folk would have been anti-English full stop. So I wonder whether there might be a reason for your experiences, perhaps a particular group of people you might encounter, or something about the location, and who goes there?

In reply to Only a hill:




Apparently it's just banter, which apparently makes it all right.

In reply to Simon4:

It isn't failure to express a view though.. ..quite the opposite. In the context of the potential break-up of the union, disinterest is very much a view on the value of the union and the Scots as a facet of that; like the priest and levite who walked passed the jewish traveller beaten up on the road. It doesn't represent a crystallised articulated view, but it does represent a view.

In reply to contrariousjim: So you haven't experienced anti-englishness but some people have experienced it. From this it's not unreasonable to deduce that it does exist.

In reply to contrariousjim:

I usually avoid wearing colours when I go to see small folk bands as it's well known to attract the worst types of vocal, aggressive, racist bigots.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is it a question of its existence of a question of its prevalence and relevance to the factors influencing the drive for independence. I accept it is likely to exist, just as sectarianism and racism exists in all societies. I think its prevalence is low, and all but irrelevant in the drivers for independence.

In reply to contrariousjim: Fair enough, upthread you said
"Having lived in Scotland for 17yrs (London born), and being engaged with the independence debate, I have seen NO evidence whatsoever of anti-English views", it seemed to suggest you thought it didn't happen.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes, which was a direct response to the opposing experience that someone had witnessed "in this debate" context. It was that context I meant to infer the opposite nature of my experience. As I also went on to say: "I have also experienced anti-Englishness"....

In reply to contrariousjim: Excellent, we're all agreed that there is an anti-english element in Scotland. But that there's none in the independence debate. Sorted.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I refer you to my previous statements, and not to your interpretation thereof.

In reply to Timmd:

Why are you so frightened by personal conversations? Isn't that what a forum is for? Don't be so afraid to say what you think, there's nothing wrong with it, really.

In reply to Jim C:
ANYWAY!
No one is going to win this , you lot treat our lot worst , when we are on your patch, argument.

My thread was about:-
Do the Scots want Independence because they don't like the English ?

JSP concluded NOT , and there WAS more to wanting to be an Independent nation than just a petty dislike of Southerners. ( from where my own family hails some years back )

I do hope she is right, as , if Scotland does vote Yes, I would wish it was for something with a bit more substance.

I would also hope that there would/will be some consensus on matters that would still be mutually beneficial to cooperate on, and not let it spiral into a tit for tat battle to come out on top, as both sides will lose that one.

Going by the way this thread has gone, I do worry about that.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm not frightened by person conversations. If a topic is about something in the world, the personal doesn't seem very relevant.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Because I live near Penzance and somebody asked for the opinion of, erm, somebody from Penzance. Which happens to be that I'm not that fussed as either way, the people of Scotland will get done over by whoever's subsequently in charge. The idea that a Scottish government wouldn't turn its own citizens upside down and shake them till all the money fell out is, well, quite endearing.

Plus, I really enjoy the sound of my own voice and now that I know that people read this stuff, I'm going to join in with further neutral opinions. Judging by your discomforture, they effect a bigger response.

Martin

In reply to Jim C:

English, grew up in Scotland from age 4 to 25, 41 now. Yes, they were indeed quite bitter and twisted back then. Still work offshore Aberdeen and the "anti" stuff massively improved and not really an issue any more. These days it is mostly harmless banter and hardly even much of that as long as the footie is not on!

I get the feeling that it is not really much of a factor in the pro independence camp these days

Moving to Edinburgh soon so we'll see!

In reply to maisie:

No discomforture ? just surprised you read past the opening post on a subject that "interests me less than I can possibly say"!

With regard to JSP, I wonder whether anyone was going to admit to disliking the English to her face especially in front of a camera ?

In reply to Timmd:

The general is made up of multiple particulars, millions of individual attitudes and opinions come together to give a result - nothing just pops up from some kind of collective intellect, such a being does not exist.

Coming back on the subject the post was:


From someone who hates the English so much that he has chosen the pseudo "Saor Alba" which means "Free Scotland" (you could have looked it up too), every time he posts he wants to remind us that, for him, Scotland is not free, is oppressed. If it is oppressed it is oppressed by someone, as I just said there is no such thing as an abstract collective act, there are always multiple individual opinions behind it, and so who does he think Scotland is oppressed by? It's not the Yanks or the Russians or the Spanish, is it? Who do you think it is who he thinks are oppressing him?

So when he has the cheek to post what he did above despite what his very pseudo tells us about his own opinions the answer to his question is obvious and there is no harm in saying it.

In reply to maisie:
..., the people of Scotland will get done over by whoever's subsequently in charge. The idea that a Scottish government wouldn't turn its own citizens upside down and shake them till all the money fell out is, well, quite endearing.

Well said, the Scottish and English ruling classes carved up the union to the benefit of the ruling classes( surprise surprise) the Scottish ruling classes were bribed with money which England did not have as it was in huge debt, so not only did the common man in Scotland have to accept a union that they have no say on., they had to watch the nobles getting lots of money the so called "Equivalent" and to add insult to injury the Scots nobility got further ennobled, as part of the bribe. The common Scotsman got nothing ,except as a consequence , they had to take on ENGLAND'S huge national dept .

The ordinary Scot who had not benefited in any way from the Union, had seen their nation sold from under them to bail out the Scottish nobility, had also now been forced to take on a huge English debt and deficit The ordinary Scot's taxes were to go up to help pay that off .

In 1697 the English National Dept was then nearly £14,500,000
(Scotland's debt was less than £200,000 - under 2% of the English debt. )
Scottish taxes were to be raised to pay that off.

However, worse still by 1714 the now 'British' national debt had risen above £36,000,000. More debt, more taxes for the ordinary Scots, whilst after 7 years the Scots nobility had got even richer, as they got a further instalment of the 'bribe' to cover the increases gained from the rise in Scottish customs and excise.

Now in 2014 , the Scots ,if they vote yes to separate, will again be taking on a portion of the 'British' National debt ,( this time to be released from the union. )

Britain's current record national debt, ( I just Googled) just surpassed £1 trillion, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.
The Scot's share is estimated to be approx 8% of that amount. ( and get 8% of the assets presumably)

Don't you just love how history almost mirrors itself over the centuries?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The British state institutions? I wouldn't agree with that point of view, but I can see why someone might hold it.

Can you see the difference between that and "the English"?

In reply to wynaptomos:


An interesting comment... don't you realise that it is as much their country as it is yours, you all live in Britain, or the UK if you prefer?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

OK Bruce.

Here's my tale . . . . . .

I'm a Scot, living in my English house with my English wife and my English kids.

I'll go to work tomorrow in my English workplace where around 30% of the workforce are Scottish. There is bits of banter around scots/ English stuff on a daily basis.

There will soon be someone appearing in court because they subjected me to a serious amount of racist ( anti Scottish ) abuse.

Is it because he doesn't like the Scottish ?

No . . . . . . It's because he's a sad wee man.

There are dicks on both sides of the divide.

For my part. . . . I don't get a vote ( rightly so as I don't live there ) but I fully support the right of Scots to have a say on their countries future.

I think that the result will be a No .. . . But if it's a Yes . . . . Then the best of Scottish luck to them !

In reply to Jim Hamilton


Well that was a total waste of money making that programme to find the answer to her question. ( I wonder why the Producers did not spot that flaw?)

I do find myself in the position of a lot of people interviewed who said , They will listen to all the discussions right up until they go into the booth, and then make the decision. ( somehow) meantime I have enjoyed reading up on Scottish history a bit more than before, but still no expert)

It looks like the already decided will not make the difference here, there will be a significant number of people counting on the 'answer' coming to them IN the polling booth, which makes it rather more interesting than the normal vote, as such the pre vote polls may not be very useful/ accurate.

People tend not to be sentimental when voting for a political party, or a career politician, this is different, it is not about -here today, gone tomorrow - politicians or political parties, even my kids are taking an interest.

In reply to Jim C:


Not really because Scotland has also benefited from being part of the most dynamic and democratic country in the world... whatever we may feel about it from inside looking at it objectively from the outside the whole country has made enormous progress both in terms of Parliamentary democracy and colossal economic advantages of the industrial revolution when compared to other countries in the world. You tend to only look at the negative sides and totally ignore the world context over the centuries.

One positive side, at least you have decided what side you're on, "Yes" it is to be, if you'd have stayed on the fence much longer you'd have developed a permanent mark across your backside

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


No, I really can't, don't forget I've been reading Donald's posts for years. It's gallant to defend a friend but your argument is not convincing.

In reply to coinneach:


Quite agree there, which is one reason I'm in favour of maintaining the union.


That's one thing I can't understand, how can you take this so calmly? Your country's future is at stake and you don't even have a vote!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I never said I was decided, I just quoted some facts and figures out of a Scottish history book, I put no slant on what was already there., if you care to read it.

I have said I will not decide decide until the last argument has been aired, and I am in the booth . Why would you, there is no need to.

I would encourage all voters to take all the time available to them, don't just say Yes or No just yet?

You however, have decided long ago what way I will vote, it will however, be news to me.

In reply to Jim C:

As you actively campaign for "yes" it's hard to see why you would vote "no", unless it's all just a game for you, which is not the impression you give.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's not about defending a friend - I don't know Donald any better than you do. I've offered no argument, either; I've merely said that the British state and "the English" are not the same thing. Pretty self-evident, I'd have thought - evidently not to you though. Perhaps you could put forward an argument for why you think they are?

In reply to Bruce


It's estimated the Scots Diaspora in the rest of the UK is an astonishing 800.000!
Even if it's half that it's a disgrace, they have no vote!

In reply to dek:

It's odd that one the one hand the SNP is being criticised (by Alistair Darling) for the 'blood and soil' elements of its policies, and on the other for not enfranchising people on the basis of their nationality.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

The Nats are hypersensitive to 'Any' criticism, they will probably Ban that as well!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You have not been paying attention, I am , and have been, happy to say that a lot of what some including Salmond says is tosh, ( as is a lot of what the BT say is too, and the press. I think there are some real worries , particularly about the affordability of renewables, I have also said I don't particularly like Salmond , but it is not about him .

I am not out to actively do anything to persuade anyone to vote either way. In fact I am happy to say now Vote no if you wish, but not because of scare stories, or threats, it should ,and could be be a positive no.

I have constantly challenged the view on here that you have to knock Scotland in this debate, or rubbish the Scots ability to run their own affairs. ( should they wish to) and I have always said there is some ridiculous claims on both sides, you misjudge me if you think I am fooled or persuaded by either.

I believe Scots could run our own affairs and make a success of it, but we may choose not to. And that could well be what happens. Time will tell.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Because I don't live in Scotland just like you and Al.

In reply to dek:


What else have they banned?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
So Scotland, an active part of the British state which has supplied many politicians, ministers, prime minister is oppressing itself? No, the objection is of being ruled from "Westmister", by a state that is dominated, for obvious reasons, by the English that seems to rile him... How many times as he told people that don't actually live in Scotland that they are "ignorant", or that they can't understand the question? And that's quite apart from the choice of pseudo.

In reply to Jim C:


Is that so? Not the impression you give...

In reply to coinneach:


Good to see the issue is taken seriously, for what it is - racism. Quite right.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Well legally, everyone's nationality is British I suppose. I don't actually see how the referendum could be done on any other way than current residence. It can only be a snapshot of the people who are living in Scotland at that moment - otherwise how else could it possibly be done? Is someone who was born in Scotland then moved abroad as a baby and has never been back more Scottish than me who has no Scottish relatives but lived there for four years? And if yes, what about for someone like those on this thread who have lived there 20+ years? It would be so complicated I can imagine it never would have happened without the simple clear idea of those people in Scotland now vote.

In reply to TobyA: It's a sorry state of affairs if people are reduced to whining that the "right" people aren't allowed a vote - whichever side they're on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Do you remember George Robertson? Former UK Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General during the time we were bombing Serbia? A Scot and a pillar of the British establishment - he's now Baron Robertson of Port Ellen. Here's what he had to say in a speech on Scottish Independence last October:

There’s no linguistic differentiation, no great cultural... discrimination that might argue for it, like it does in some other countries, you know, in Flanders in Belgium they say "Why can’t we become an independent state?", or Catalonia and Spain, where a million and a quarter people marched in the streets. They say they want to become an independent state, but they’ve got language, and culture, and all these sort of things. We don’t have any of that.

I'm really not that all interested in discussing what you think Donald thinks, but I suspect that he's got far more against attitudes like this, whether they come from a Scot or an English person, than he has against those expressed by Billy Bragg (for example), i.e. someone who is English, and who supports Scottish Independence.

In reply to TobyA:

The legal notion about someone having a particular or special interest exists I think, it could be applied for the referendum. The wording comes up in the rules about British nationality and fiscality IIRC. It could be as simple as a "non-resident Scot" signing a declaration that he or she has such a special interest, perhaps a list of such accepted motives could be provided by HM government... It wouldn't have been hard but clearly no one wanted to do this on either side for reasons which I am not aware of.

In reply to TobyA:


I agree with all of this and the rest of your post - indeed I've argued those very points (e.g. with off-duty and with Bruce Hooker) at some length on UKC...

What I meant was that on the one side the SNP is being attacked (by those opposed to Independence) for its "blood and soil" philosophy (i.e. that its nationalism is "ethnic" rather than "civic", while on the other it's also being attacked (again, usually by those opposed to Independence) for not thinking that people's place of birth, heritage, etc., ought to count for something.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


And yet....

PS. I don't understand what you mean in quoting this obscure Baron's remarks... do you think they are valid or the opposite?

PPS. Don't you think that some people consider themselves to be Scottish even though they live outside Scotland? And also that many are abroad for career reasons and probably plan to return "home" when they retire? It is my situation if you replace Scottish by English, even if the intention may never be realised.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Possibly because the idea of allowing people to self-certify their eligibility to vote is a barking idea that would mean any marginal result would be open to question or legal challenge.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


This is obviously because a decision was made right from the start by the SNP to avoid any overtly "ethnic" references in the claim for fear of being branded with the same brush as traditional Nationalists... something which flies in the face of much grass-roots reality as this and many other threads demonstrates!

For example read the immediate knee jerk reaction to Ms Rowling's donation to the yes campaign:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27793967

Edinburgh-based charity, Dignity Project, tweeted: "What a #bitch after we gave her shelter in our city when she was a single mum."

In reply to elsewhere:


No more "barking" than denying the franchise to hundreds of thousands of people, which could equally well brought up in the case of a marginal vote, just as franchising children could for that matter. Lets hope their is a clear result as the gerrymandering meter is already in the danger zone

The SNP is not a 'blood and soil' nationalist party and Alistair Darling says that term was used in an interview question but not his answer.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/alistair-darling-interview-sal...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The opposite, of course. And George Robertson, obscure?? Maybe from where you're standing - he is a fairly high-profile figure in the Independence debate here in Scotland.

Did you not hear about his recent remarks in the US that Scottish Independence would be "catalcysmic(!)" for the world? It was front-page news.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: The Mr Wood has explained that the Dignity Project's twitter account was hacked. As, apparently was his facebook account with the same message. Luckily that was the only time they were hacked.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Odd - you seem to be more interested in people's place of birth, heritage, etc., than the "nationalists" are.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The only way to include expat Scots is to make it a 'blood and soil' electorate which is repugnant.

Any disenfranchisement however unwelcome is self-imposed by choice of residency. Anybody feeling strongly enough could have (and can?) come to live in Scotland to get on the electoral roll. If you prefer to live outside a constituency that's where you vote not where you would prefer to vote.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce, do you understand that the vote is open to anyone of any nationality, if they are resident in Scotland? It may astound you to find out that 16% of residents in Scotland were not born here (2011 census). A large proportion of that will have been born in England. If you choose to make your life here, wherever you are from originally, you should have a say. If you choose to live elsewhere, you don't get a say. It's really simple.

If I think about the balance of place of birth for my close friends, way more than half are English. The majority of them choose to live in Scotland. The fact is, I had to think about it, as they are just people like you and me. The referendum is not about where you were born.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



That is eye-wateringly stupid and nasty. I don't think it's the dominant tone of the Yes campaign, fortunately. But there is certainly no shortage of idiots out there who think and talk like that. There was a woman in the middle of Dundee a few weeks back campaigning for the Yes side for the Greens, and telling everyone how great it was going to be to get a Yes "and send all the English back where they belong". A lot of people's motives for wanting to vote Yes do not really stand up to examination.

Someone was talking about Pom-bashing in Australia. I'm in Australia right now, and I've never encountered it. I watched the Third Lions Test in an Australian mate's living room in Sydney, and drank his beer and ate his peanuts and tried not to cheer too loud while his team went down. Was he unpleasant, even under this extreme provocation? No. He was charm itself.

I actually love Australian positivity. They're so much less cynical and sour than the British. When they talk about 'whingeing Poms', that's what they mean.

In reply to Scomuir:



Correct, and the biggest reasons for not opening the vote to non-Scotland-residents are (1) because that would be too close to a racial criterion and (2) because the vote should be restricted to those who will have to live with independence, if it happens.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


... and live with it if it doesn't happen either.

There will always be idiots on both sides who will manipulate the situation to suit their own twisted views. There will also be those who are predisposed to seeing the worst in a situation with no evidence (you just have to look further up this thread).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Irony obviously isn't part of their world.

This sort of things seems to be getting more prevalent. See this case too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27795389

Nationalism really is a poisonous creed.

In reply to MG:


I blame Westminster.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The Dignity
Project says that its Twitter account has been 'hacked'. More likely one of the staff expressing their own personal and regrettable opinion.

Whatever the truth, the charity is distancing itself from the view expressed.

In reply to Scomuir:


Yes, I am aware of that, for all my shortcomings I am still able to read, provided there are not to many long words.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

OK how is this:-
I think that everyone should vote NO.
(because Bruce does not like the idea of a yes vote)

I am now out there as blatantly as trying to 'influence the vote', and with a reasoned argument like that, why would they not.

In reply to TobyA:

Agreed, and my boss has vowed that he feels so strongly that he does not want to live in an Indepenant Scotland (irrespective of what political pary gets into power down the line) he says that he will takes steps to move out of Scotland as soon as a yes vote was annonced.

He is perfectly entitled to do so, but he says is pretty confident that it will never come to pass, and he may well be correct based on the polls.

I'm sure he is not alone, there are strong views on both sides, of both the argument(and the border)

That does not mean that young mothers , or any others should be attached for being associated with someone who proposes an alternative view to them.
Such breaches should be met with sackings on both sides, if both sides are proven to indulge in such disgrasful behaviour, the penalties should be even handed and equal.

The shocking, secret truth about the Independence debate:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/the-shocking-secret-truth-...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There are few that post on here , that have a vote, that would be persuaded by anything I would post either way. I don't think the better together camp are at all worried about anything I would post.

I personally think Gordon Brown is a liability to BT , but then I think on balance Salmond is a liability to the yes camp particularly amongst the female voter. I think 100% renewables is bonkers and unaffordable, and I said so on here, yet that is one of the SNP's big ideas, but that has been ignored.
I am not a big fan of the EU, but do I think that Scotland will ever be pushed out, nope, but I do think they could well have to lose some existing benefits in the horse trading. Currency union may or may not happen, but my gut feel is that it would end up being a negotiating point should there be a yes vote.

Banking, as has been discussed ,there is not really such a thing as a 'Scottish ' bank, and anyway there is nothing to stop people using any bank they want , say , for example, a Spanish bank who are regulated just the same as all the others, and the majority of deposits are protected.

I am descended from an obviously a English family, ( I'm not keen on bagpipes both myself and my wife have more family in England and abroad ,than in Scotland , and many friends in England .

At work ,I work in Scotland, but there is little to distinguish between the people in the various offices, we are a shared resource, and teams for projects are made up from people from Sussex, Birmingham, Selby, Gateshead, Cumbria, Shanghai, Chennai, Atlanta, Germany Poland , etc. etc. there has been little discussion about the possibility of independence, certainly no one has ever said it would harm our business or tried to push anyone to vote one way or another. I have never tried to persuade anyone to vote one way of another.Either way it will be business as usual the day after the vote.

The only person at work ever to ask my how I would vote or assume how I will vote) was the chap in Atlanta who was really keen to urge me to vote yes, and was disappointed to hear that it was not an obvious thing to do for every Scot.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




Scotland?

?

Isn't that the biggest county in England?

In reply to Only a hill:



Agreed. I don't think anyone said there isn't anti-English sentiment. The opposite is true also with the No vote campaign bring an equal number of idiots and in addition, unlike the Yes campaign, a number of sectarian and racist versions of their vision (Orange Order, Britain First etc)

In reply to Only a hill:

ant-english can be anti-anyone.. that was a north walean thing, you often saw anti-english mistaken for anti-anyone… even outside of the valley… coast people v mountains.. north v south.. english v welsh…

I remember asking my brothers missus's Dad if he was local.. 'God no, I'm from pen y groes'.. it was literally 4 miles away from where we stood….

In reply to Douglas Griffin:




Not likely to last 5 minutes in Port Ellen after that.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Exactly. There is also the small matter of Islay massively sending all that tax away whilst having a few low paid jobs. It's like many things. A brief visit to Islay in nice weather would suggest the place is doing very well. A few extra visits would reveal it's more complicated than that and life is quite tough for many.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I see Pat Kelly, once president of the STUC has come out for a Yes vote.

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/former-stuc-president-and-leading-labour-fi...

This just doesn't fit the BT narrative.

In reply to Jim C:

I think yes will favor those who don't like the English, birth or location washing through to become flag waving with more swearing allegiance at unfriendly request becoming a possibility, basically ruining a lot of lives.

In reply to howifeel:

I don't think the situation on the ground backs up your assertion.

In reply to Jim C:

Scotland is already a country in its right however, so to need independence is to assert some kind of problem big style, okay as a blag maybe but with a whole newish parliament and leading political party living it then I feel concerned lives will be ruined.
Cross the border, it already exists and a decent country, globally recognised as Scotland where both Scottish people and non natives, lives and breathes, already. Why turn a decent country into a new identity crisis in the name of money. Economic equality coming before national wealth is a better route I think, that and my personal feeling of Britishness, British with regional and national love and pride.
Do you get equality with national pride? National equality perhaps, ability to call oneself Scottish, as is already the case.

In reply to howifeel:

I never bought the identity argument.. you heard it in Wales but I think Wales and Scotland have a stronger sense of identity than the english..

The other day I was asked 'Are you Scottish or British?' as I have an accent, which in the US = Ireland or Scotland… Wales doesn't exist..

In reply to Jim C:

Chilled out are the Welsh, got a vibrant homeland language, not spoken by all but certainly it makes for genuine historical roots that can assist with feeling patriotic and proud.

In reply to howifeel:

To deal with the following practical issues:

* being able to decide whether nuclear weapons should be based in Scotland or not
* Having the government you vote for in charge of economic policy etc
* investing in infrastructure
* taking a different direction with regards to social, education and foreign policy
* etc

None of these has nothing to do with national pride. Like I said, I think you would find that the many groups and Yes meetings are not talking about pride or any of the perceived issues you raise.

There is no identity problem.

In reply to IainRUK:

A Welsh guy I know was arrested in California for a traffic offence. When he gave his address the cops thought he was from Mars

In reply to Saor Alba:

Similar happened to a friend with a Manx passport in Chile, which took a while, and atlases, to straighten out... She's now given up and has UK passport.

In reply to IainRUK:

Something I found in the states. We were openly told a number of times that as we were from Scotland, we were essentially ranked as second in the list of most welcome and celebrated visitors to the country. Had we been from Ireland, we would have occupied the top spot! Quite amusing (but disturbing at the same time).

In reply to Scomuir:

Strange. I'm English and I was told we were ranked as the most welcome and celebrated visitors to the States. I found the same thing in Eastern Europe and in parts of Turkey.

In reply to Shani:

As someone born in England with a Welsh Dad & having spent most of my life in Scotland & working for a organisation with Scottish in its name so I get variously introduced as Scots, English or British. Its clear that I get a more friendly reception when travelling/working elsewhere in Europe when thought to be Scottish

In reply to Doug:

And that makes me slightly sad as I like the English sense of humour, decency and way of doing things often.

In reply to Doug:

Given the importance and value of non-verbal communication, I'm not surprised at our differing experiences.

In reply to Shani:

I was very specific in my choice of words. I always said we were "from Scotland", as we are. I didn't say we were Scottish (I am, but my partner isn't).

Reginald D Hunter on how the 'friendliness' of an introduction may be more nuanced than we think:

youtube.com/watch?v=PnUKEL3xINA&

In reply to Shani:

Love him

In reply to Saor Alba:

I voted for devolution but there is no need to misinterpret my fears in such a practical fashion.

In reply to howifeel:

I am just laying out some of my reasons for a Yes vote. By all means lay out your own.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I did, you didn't notice.

In reply to Jim C:

Morrisons has stopped playing English football anthems in their Scottish supermarkets after angry complaints from customers.

Scottish football fans complained after the songs were blasted out through shop speakers in the run up to this summer’s World Cup.

The tunes included Frank Skinner and David Baddiel’s hit "Three Lions", "Vindaloo" by actor Keith Allen, and the official England song for the 1990 World Cup, New Order’s "World in Motion".

Outraged shopper Christopher Vale, 25, told the Daily Record: “I couldn’t believe it. I thought I’d taken a wrong turn and ended up in the middle of England. It’s just rubbing in the fact that England are playing in Brazil and Scotland didn’t qualify.”

Yup, because they expect to see Scotland in the world cup.

In reply to winhill:


He won't have to worry about that for much longer.

In reply to Jim C:

If Scotland votes to leave then it will affect the rest of the UK economy. We are being denied a vote on the break up of the union but we are certainly entitled to an opinion, especially as the plan seams to be to force us into a currency union with a separate economy against our wishes.

In reply to Rebecca V.:

The UK Government is denying you a vote. They could organise it any time they like.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Are the SNP in favour of a UK wide vote on Scottish independence then? Once again it's "Westminster" that's denying the English, Welsh and N Irish and Scots who don't reside in Scotland the chance of having their say then - the b*stards!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think the rUK could only vote on such matters as the currency, should it be shared management.. which would almost certainly be a resounding no.

In reply to IainRUK:

Is the RUK your family or something?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, they're not - just like every other major political party - unless you know any different?


What possible remit would the Scottish Government hold outside of Scotland, even if they wanted to enfranchise the rest of the UK?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


If the Scottish Parliament wanted a nation wide vote then they could easily vote for this desire to be presented to the national government but you know as well as I do they wouldn't do this with the present majority... it's not even obvious that it would be a good idea anyway, there are few precedents for a country committing voluntary hari-kiri.

You also know very well I was reacting (with irony) to Free Scotland's silly reply to Rebecca.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So, were there any parties calling for a UK-wide vote?

In reply to Saor Alba:

They could, they wanted to but the SNP would not agree to that in the negotiations and it was conceded. However if they did give us a vote and we voted for unity and Scotland did not we would out vote Scotland by numbers. But then what? Would Scotland accept that?

In reply to Rebecca V.:



Whatever the ins and outs of Scottish independence, it is clear from the events of the last 20 years that the English have no appetite for effective government, no appetite for pushing decision-making down to lowest effective level and are lovingly wedded to the anachronistic power-hungry Westminster mess that serves the financial sector, the defence industry and London while leaving large parts of England economically wasted.

You're a basket case waiting to fall apart. It's all of your own making. Many of us don't want to be dragged down with you.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Events of the last 20 years?
So you mean mostly the Labour government? So thats a government which did well in Scotland and had a high number of Scottish members.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Fine, so why the insistence that you will be sharing a currency with us?
Seriously, if you want independence then you can have it, but we don't want dragging into your economics. I have seen what happens when two separate economic systems share a currency and I don't want to be in the euro zone and I don't want to be in some kind of sterling zone.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




Ah, OK. So it IS because they don't like the English, then

In reply to Jim C:

The vote will be No, so everyone can carry on as usual.
The English are Wankers and the Torys are Cunnts!

In reply to Jim Fraser:



That's strange.. very odd.. I think the English have seen what has happened in Scotland.. smaller democracies get side tracked.. you get the same shit, different area, you need more money for new buildings.. Governments are hugely inefficient.. Scotland have only strengthened that view..

More politicians.. more money needed.. more money wasted.. the smaller the Government the better for me.

In reply to Lusk:


Oooh, gosh, look, the Voice Of Reasoned Argument And Civilised Debate has arrived.

Now about not liking the English...

In reply to dissonance:


One of the commendable things that Labour did was dig deep into the myre that is the British constitution and promote, and indeed deliver, devolution and a number of other modernising ideas. That government, with a high number of Scottish members, as you say, did their best to make this a modern country constitutionally, but the English do not seem to be interested.

In reply to Rebecca V.:



The pound is quite a volatile currency and highly dependent upon the behaviour of gamblers. The Euro, or a currency pegged to the Euro, might be more stable.

However, the redeeming feature of the Pound is that it is used in the only other country with which we have a land border.

The pound is out there. It can be used. Nobody can stop that without undermining the entire viability of the currency. Not many people are talking about a currency UNION apart from those NO campaigner who say it won't happen. Yes, well if nobody needs it and nobody asks for it then it won't happen.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




You're just flat out lying now, Salmond says he favours a currency union. But then again, he is only one person.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Considering devolution isnt exactly a modern idea would you care to elaborate on these other ideas.


So in your case we can answer the opening question with "yes" and add in a serious superiority complex.
You do realise that those Scottish members didnt even have the integrity to refuse to vote on English specific issues, so if thats your idea of modernising I think I would do without.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Don't you dare accuse me of lying, I am doing no such thing.
I am just repeating what your yes campaigners are saying. What the yes manifesto has printed in it. Those who say it wont happen are just responding to the arrogant statements by the yes campaign who are trying to dictate what will happen if you win without bothering to consult the rest of us.

In reply to Rebecca V.:
But, the ordinary Scottish people were denied a vote on the union in the first place , it was a cosy deal struck to save the Scottish elite, no one else got a vote.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Yes dear, I think you'll find that will be how the majority of voters think!!!

Outside of your Academia dream world you live in, welcome to the riff raff....

In reply to Rebecca V.:


I think , Rebecca, perhaps because a government minister ( thought to be a Tory) has already told a newspaper that ' of course there will be a currency union'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-ke...

The script is pretty much written. CU will be traded for keeping or delaying Trident's removal from Scotland.

Your problem is that you see 'us' as you.

There is NO you, or 'us' there is only politicians, and what it politically expedient for them.

Your view , and that of others will count for nothing if it conflicts withe that of the political elite.
( but they will be pleased that you have been taken in that you think your view does count)

In reply to Jim C: The script is written? Like all the parties saying a currency union won't happen?

In reply to Jim C:


Neither did the ordinary English people, or Welsh - comparing now to then is pretty daft.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


True of the one region tested, but elected mayors have appeared in a few places after local referenda and this does represent more devolution in England, just not on a regional model.
And no use if you are outside a few cities.

In reply to Jim C:




So not bothering to vote then Jim?

In reply to Lusk:



4,420 posts and we have the answer!!! At last. Congratulation, you're prize is a trip for two to Holyrood Palace and a fluffy toy.....

In reply to Lusk:

Probably.
I have no issues with the English ( I have English roots and family connections)
I agree with your second proposition wholeheartedly .

It has always been my assertion that Scotland could go it alone if they wanted, but may well choose not to do so.
I watched the House of Lords debate on the subject the other day, and, they ARE worried.
(It was of course a debate about what problems it would cause for the rUK . )

They seemed to be genuinely taking a yes vote as a serious possibility , so just maybe they know something we and the pollsters don't .

The most telling thing for me was when the last speaker summing up , revealed that they had:- ' been told to be positive'

I wonder who told them that, and why did they think that the House of Lords would need to be directed in what to say.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Indeed, just what I said, don't trust an unholy alliance of politicians not to break ranks when they are the ones in government .

I wonder at your trust in politicians word( from any side)

I say, let them put it in writing cast iron promise , make it irreversible that in the event of a yes vote that there will be no CU, and I might take it seriously.
They have not, it is just politicians words and political promises .

I don't care if there is CU or not, that is not the same as not believing that politicians are not just in a negotiation at the moment, and the tough talk is part of that.

Like the pre boxing match play acting. It fools no one .
( or maybe, in this case it fools some )

Ed ball's word is his bond, I really don't think so.

In reply to Jim C: Yes, yes, you don't believe any politician. Except, of course, the unnamed politician who said there will be a currency union.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The vote is the only thing we do have a say in Dr s. After that, all the promises will be compromised. It is how it always is . I always expect the worst of politicians, and they never fail to exceed my expectations.

I have worked really hard at this. I have dedicated possibly hundreds of hours listening to all the debated on you tube, ( ok a lot of it was on a swing seat sitting in the sun watched HOL debates ,( boring) read newspaper articles ( very pro union) ; read up on my Scottish history( about time) ; watched academic debates on EU law( tedious) and of course read and replied to posts on UKC . And all I get on here is that I am going to vote yes, and that I have made my mind up already!

To those that say that, I say ....think about it why would I bother .

I will listen, and read every argument on either side right up to the day of the vote, and I will vote. I might even be swayed by someone on UKC

In reply to Dr.S at work:


You can call me daft if you like, I am just stating that this vote is more democratic , all people English , Scottish, Welsh, Indian, French or whatever, will all get a say in it , if they live in Scotland and are eligible and register to vote.

I know some that live here for a short time that have come from elsewhere who say that they feel uncomfortable about having the vote ,where others born here do not, as they are resident elsewhere at the moment.

The rules were agreed ,nothing to do with me or you, it was a deal done between politicians ( as usual)

In reply to dissonance:

Yes it is. It drags the UK into at least the 19th century which is a major advance.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


If you read back a few weeks Sir C you will see I said that I believed that CU would be a negotiating tool . That at the time was not based on any corroboration, in fact I stated that belief against all the protestations of all parties. Do I believe that the minister in question believes that it will negotiated? Well of course I do, don't you ?

I have been on too many negotiating courses as part of my work , not to see a tactic , and I see them on both sides. I personally don't care if there is CU or not, I just conclude that there WILL be a negotiation if there is a yes vote.

But Until , and unless all parties sign a legally bound declaration that there will not be, I will be convinced that it will be used as a negotiating tool . ( why don't they do that,)
if they do I will be proven wrong.

BT are treading a fine line ( as are the Yes camp)
The BT must try and 'almost ' rule it out, but still leave the door open a tiny bit so that IF that fails, and they need plan 'B' , they can do a political u turn and use CU as a invaluable negotiation position.

It is entertaining watching both camps refuse to admit that they BOTH have a plan B .

In reply to Jim C:


Who votes for them?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Nor anyone in the world for that matter.

In reply to Jim C: We don't need to go back weeks, just up there ^ you said "CU will be traded for keeping or delaying Trident's removal from Scotland". Still, it's entertaining watching you desperately pretend to sit on the fence.

In reply to Jim C:


But supported by the SNP and all their supporters on UKC.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



You are quite fond of these racial generalisations, aren't you? Obviously they don't indicate full-blown racism, but they are, I'd say, a mildly worrying symptom. I'd worry about myself if I kept hearing myself making negative generalisations about an entire nation like this.

In reply to Lusk:




Just because your views are stupid and nasty, it doesn't mean most Scots' are.

I venture to suggest that my world is realer than yours is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

[The decision not to extend the vote to all of the UK was...]


and the Conservatives, and Labour, and the Liberal Democrats, and...

In reply to Dr.S at work:



That's a very strange business.

Doesn't that mean that people are queueing up to ask to be governed by a single-minded nutter instead of a representative body? I don't get it.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:



Not according to Rebecca, see her post higher up the thread.

In reply to Rebecca V. and Bruce Hooker:


Do you have any evidence for that?

I can see an argument for enfranchising people born in Scotland but now living elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but I can see the point. I can also see that the terms of any post-independence settlement between iScotland and the rUK might need to be ratified by both parties, perhaps by further referenda. But the idea that the whole UK should vote on whether Scotland should be independent is, frankly, bonkers.

In reply to Douglas Griffin (but not really): We know who is eligible to vote and we know the question. Get over it.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

In a divorce, is it bonkers for both sides to have a say in whether the divorce goes ahead on a given set of terms?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Obviously not. That's what I meant by the terms of the settlement having to be agreed by all parties. But to pursue your analogy, if one partner in a marriage wants out, it's ultimately their decision - would you not agree?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I had a google but couldn't find an account of how the discussion went when this was decided, there were various references to Salmond refusing to let all of Britain or Scots living outside Scotland having the right to vote, there are people taking legal action over this BTW, but I couldn't find any blow by blow account of how it went at the time and I can't remember myself either. I did find this article though, but again it is only opinion:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/29/british-scotland-indep...

It's clear that allowing a more general vote would reduce the chances of a result in favour of the break up though, I'm surprised you won't concede this.

It's not just about conditions afterwards it's the basic break up which affects all parts of the union, from the security point of view having only sea to defend and no land borders has proven historically to be an enormous advantage over the centuries, to give one obvious but rarely mentioned example. After 70 years of peace this doesn't seem to worry many people I know.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'm not sure it's the case. On more than one occasion over the course of the last couple of years I've seen polls suggesting that support for Scottish Independence was running higher in England than in Scotland...


And because of this, you seriously think that the rest of the UK should be able to veto Scottish independence??

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


These people haven't - 31% yes, 52% no (there are loads of other polls on the same site too, including a historical one of Scottish opinion, it's a bit slow at times, take out the space after//):

http: //whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls


National security is a pretty major issue, until recently it was the big issue, building defensible frontiers for England, France and elsewhere sent thousands to their death for centuries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, yes, yes - I didn't say that the issue of national security was immaterial. I asked you whether you thought it was sufficient grounds for the rest of the UK to veto Scotland's independence?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Ground campaign update:

Inverness High Street today.

Yes Stall from 11 to 1430 - many people (I guess about 300) coming and asking for info and stickers.

BT campaign - 2 guys stood in a doorway and very quiet. I think they are paid activities brought in from elsewhere (the Labour Party has moved in opposite my work and see them there quite often).

In reply to Saor Alba:

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all..

Of the people I know on FB the no voters are much quieter.. there's almost a shame about it, like they want to vote yes but think its better for them to vote no.. and also I've seen a few saying they are unpatriotic or bowing to westminster and all that rubbish..

But I think no voters will generally keep it quiet.

In reply to Saor Alba:

And you'd be just as quick to tell us about it, I'm sure, if it was the Yes campaign getting little response.

You do know what a 'selection effect' is, I take it?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


It couldn't and shouldn't happen.. it would justify why Scotland should be independent, but likewise it also explains why the shared £ is a no goer.. because the rUK (effectively England) will dominate..

Even if we went federal UK we'd need more states, not 4 'countries'.. because it would still be dominated by england, ultimately London,.. you could see 15-20 federal states working but it would be a huge huge cost to re-organise thee UK in that style..

In reply to IainRUK:

Yep, I agree - federal would effectively mean no change unless English regions had their own assemblies and as noted, there doesn't seem to be any particular appetite for that.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes I do. Phone canvassing from Ardersier I did last week was

74 numbers called - most out
14 for yes
8 for no
5 undecided

Random selection of telephone numbers.

Door canvassing in Merkinch on Monday night.

About 80 houses visited (by me personally I mean)

About a third out or didn't answer (Many thought we were the police)
I would say about 60% for yes. 40% for no.

Again random sample and same result repeated by others out on the night.

Tonight there is a debate in Inverness.

Better Together refused to take part. Mike Robb (Labour candidate I think) refused to represent Better Together. Funny that.

Better Together opened a shop in Inverness about three weeks ago. I go past it every day - utterly dead or closed as it's mainly staffed by paid MSP helpers. Yes Scotland shop busy and often runs out of materials.

In reply to Saor Alba:

So you visited about 50 houses where you got an answer, and 30 houses gave you a Yes response, 20 a No response.

And were you visibly a representative of Yes Scotland? If so, there's another selection effect for you.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

No I visited about 80 houses, as I said above.

Why do you think the Better Campaign can't get any community volunteers?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


It's an important factor. Ask your wife what the reaction would be in France if a large part of the country - Brittany or Aquitaine for example - tried to break away, the British government seems to be very laid back on the subject compared to other old established European countries.

The present French constitution's first article starts off:

"La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. "

In reply to Saor Alba:


I didn't deny that. I said you visited about 50 houses where you got an answer.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I've already acknowledged that. I was asking you whether you think it ought to permit the rest of the UK to effectively veto a vote on Scottish Independence.

The French constitution is neither here nor there, really.

In reply to IainRUK:


If you want to be Switzerland but I don't think anybody does.



At least it would be organised. That would be an improvement.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



At least they have a constitution.

And, topically, they manage to reinvent themselves at intervals.


(When do you think we can expect the sixth republic Bruce?)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I was not quite sure about the Swiss, so did not stretch it that far.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Like the President of the US?

They vote for a representative body as well, but also for a Mayor with executive powers, and at least in the case of London and maybe Bristol, some political oomph.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



The daft thing is the structure is already, or was already, in place with county councils - just need to give them power again and consolidate some smaller regions.

I think one problem with Two Jag's push in the north wast of England was that people did not feel that there was any benefit, and whilst from the Noorth East of england, felt a stronger identity for other things, Newcastle etc.

Scotlands great advantage as a devolved and potential independant state is its easy self identification, any devolution in england needs to find strong patterns to work around - the ancient counties give a starting point for this.

Ditch the house of lords, and use it as one of a number of seats for a second UK wide chamber from county councillers, AM's and MSP's to review UK wide legislation.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

They have a written constitution, but it can be changed so I don't see how it's any better. They now have an unelected "Constitutional Council" which can block laws it feels go against the constitution, undoing laws presented by a democratically elected government, all in all I prefer a Parliamentary system, but without the present house of lords, perhaps people elected on a more local basis as suggested.

As for a 6th republic, it's hard to say how that would help in the decades old crisis, even if many would like to reduce the power of the President the political parties, left and right, are in such a mess that they've got other cats to whip, to use a French saying.

On the subject of regional assemblies, the French have gone down this road over the last decades but it isn't an unmitigated success. They have just decided to cut the number of regions in half which is causing a squabble. A lot of people, including myself, feel they just introduce another expensive level of government. It was justified for Alsace Lorraine which have had a particular situation in France, and also possibly Bretagne and Corsica elsewhere there isn't much of a regional conscience IMO.

In reply to Jim C:

I can see where you are coming from with the French regions Bruce. Nord-Pas-de-Calais: wtf?

Both England and Scotland have some similar issues. Cornwall is top of the list.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


You miss the point. It is no secret that I I have been convinced for a long time that both sides have plan B's , and it makes sense that no negotiator would give away a key negotiating point, so CU will be on the table.
Personally, I want rid of Trident, and don't care about CU, so I would not want it traded myself. That does not sway me away from believing that , it will be negotiated.

Can you honestly say that you believe that , if there was a yes vote ( unlikely as that is) that the rUK Government would NOT use CU in a negotiation, and if they were offered a prize like Trident remaining for CU, that they would not take it?

In reply to IainRUK:

Not easy to tell in my office Iain, my boss for example tells everyone and anyone ( unprompted) that in the event of a Yes vote he will ,mday one , make plans to leave Scotland. ASAP (Another senior manager ( only if asked) is strongly and vocally pro independence.

Everyone else either never mention it, or if they do, they discuss sensibly the pros and cons equally, without coming down on one side or another.
Does that mean they are yes ,no or undecided, who knows, not me.

I am doubtful therefore of all polls, including SA's

Not sure, how you can tell which are quiet yes or no voters.
I could not call it in my office.
( if it is just your gut feeling then fair enough)

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

If we push the divorce analogy, the voters would in theory be the kids, the parents the SP and Westminster. One side ( SP) wants to split and set up separate home.

In my experience, if there is a dispute over the kids, a judge in such cases, ask the children where they would like to live, then make a ruling. But the kids are NOT usually asked if either parent should be allowed to split or not. That is a given, it is the parents decision on either side, they cannot be forced into staying in an unhappy marriage .

However, on the plus side, in my own experience, both parents CAN be happier apart, and can still remain friends. Their kids , who may not have wanted a split, can have an equal and happy relationship with both parents, no matter which one they chose to live with.
( of course we have all seen one sided bitterness ruin the future relationships for everyone)

In reply to Jim C:

Do you really think the marriage analogy is any help at all? I don't, arguing by analogy is usually the worst method, it's possible to twist it anyway you want.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You mean like saying "imagine how the French would react if Brittany tried to break away"?

In reply to Saor Alba: Interesting polling, quite a contrast to most polls http://tinyurl.com/omsj5yf
The results from schools/colleges is particularly interesting, perhaps the young are more outward looking and less keen for parochial divisions.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Clearly it shows the bias of the school system and how westminster is indoctrinating the young against the truth.

In reply to dissonance:


Despite the fact that Scotland has its own education system and Westminster has nothing to do with it.

In reply to tony:


thats how cunning westminster is.

In reply to tony:


OH absolutely. The power of evil Westminster knows no bounds. The NHS in Scotland is in mortal danger from it too.
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/only-yes-vote-can-protect-scotlands-health-...

In reply to Jim C:
For those of us with a vote, voting no means more of the same. And a frightening journey into a Serco state. Withdrawal from Europe and a new isolationism. Privatisation of our health and education systems. The continuing "fire sale" of national assets to foreign speculators. The demonisation of anybody requiring state support or benefits. Cementing our status as a base for nuclear weapons and a indiscriminate supporter of US warmongering. For many of us with a vote the choice is simple. Risks and uncertainty there may be, but we can work together to continue building a country that we can be proud of. I hope all my friends living in England get the opportunity to do the same. This referendum has nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with democratic self determination.

In reply to alastairmac:

Well said.

In reply to alastairmac:

Amen to that.

In reply to dissonance:


Perhaps they haven't been taught what "quisling" means.

In reply to Jim C:

I'm not sure what the issue is with Trident, surely they could be based in Barrow (where they were built), is it purely to do with the cost of moving the infrastructure from Faslane or is there another reason I'm not aware of?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


That's not an analogy.

In reply to dissonance:


Quite true, real devious b*stards the lot of them.

In reply to alastairmac:

How would they do that then, break away from N Ireland and Wales?

As for the rest of your post I'd agree with most of it but I don't understand why you want to leave 55 million or so people go this way. Wouldn't it be better to help your English friends fight the good fight too? The Tories are on the ropes at present, if Labour could be pushed in a better direction there's no reason why they couldn't be the next government. The influence of Britain as a whole in the EU would be positive instead of negative and there too the right isn't totally dominant, it's pretty balanced so a left government in Britain would be significant - even if Scotland got back into the EU how much influence does a country of 5 million have?

By staying in Britain and continuing the efforts of generations of progressive Scots you would be rendering better service to mankind, internationalism rather the inward looking selfishness.

In reply to cander:


The Parliamentary report says that Barrow would need a lot of dredging and other improvements to the sea approach. Currently the submarines can only leave at certain tides.
Its the Coulport facility which is the trickier one to move, since thats where the nukes get moved off and on.
Other options would be Plymouth but the population there would make people nervous.

The main issue though, with any alternative, is they reckon it would take 20 years or so to get it up and running.

In reply to dissonance:


Whereas at the moment they are stationed 50km from Scotland's largest city.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Analogy, n.
- comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
- a correspondence or partial similarity.

So what was it, exactly?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Yes, which is considered a safe(ish) distance as the primary risk is a conventional explosion creating a dirty bomb, as opposed to a full on nuclear so the number of people directly at risk is fairly low.
As opposed to the Plymouth dockyards where, as the name suggests, its right in the centre of the city and so even a conventional explosion would be problematic.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Milliband - oh dear.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

The key being the word "partial", I'd add "dubious" before. Likening the decisions about countries and populations and their interaction with those of a one to one human relationship, a marriage, and the bringing children in as if electors were in the same relationship to governments as children are to their parents is just a wee bit stretching the comparison, whereas comparing what goes on in Britain with what goes on in one of it's most similar countries is not.

Wouldn't you even admit there is a difference between analogy and comparison?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Not so long ago on a thread about Ukraine, Toby A asked you why it was that you supported self-determination for Crimea but not for Scotland.

You replied that each case should be judged on its own merits as they are quite different. I actually agree with that. I also think that comparisons, analogies, or whatever, between the French Republic and the United Kingdom are fairly meaningless since the two states' constitutions are so different.

Quite a few times over the years you've pointed out that Scotland wasn't colonised by England, that the Union of 1707 had been a "voluntary" one, and that the people of Scotland had had plenty of opportunities over the years to exercise their right to leave, but had never chosen to do so. It's strange therefore that you would evidently now deny them even the right to vote on the matter - especially when the last Scottish election resulted in a landslide victory for a party whose central commitment was to hold a referendum.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I don't think it is at all selfish. Scotland has always been a separate country with its own institutions and the progress towards self determination is both inevitable and positive. That is the democratic right of those of us that live, work and vote in Scotland. But I do understand your view. I would dearly like to see the rest of the UK develop away from the course it is currently set on. But the South East is a powerful influence and voters there are pulling the UK in a worrying direction. I am afraid that voters in Scotland cannot impose their own values and politics on the rest of the UK. Those that live and vote in other parts of Britain need to wake up to the shysters currently selling off their birthright. And do something about it. A vote for yes isn't about the end of a union, it is the start of a new partnership of equals. I hope.

In reply to Jim C:


That's it. Let's go.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28053031

That guy's a nutter. Let's get out of here.

In reply to cander:


No problem Barrow are welcome to them. We have done our bit for long enough, it is someone else's turn. ( there are some perks of some jobs too)

That is that one sorted, what next?

In reply to Jim Fraser:



That is exactly what my mate said when he heard him talk about this. The snag is he is a hard line , Better together , Tory voter, but he thinks that the likes of Gordon ( pensions are safe with me) Brown, Wee Willie Haig, and George ( cataclysmic) Robertson) Balls for brains , and now Milliband are not helping the BT cause, and he wants them locked in a soundproof vault until the vote us over.

On the other side Salmond is a bit of a liability, too particularly with women, but I think he at least knows it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Maybe so, Bruce , but sometimes coming at these things ( that have been done to death already ) in a different way can be useful, even if it because it does not quite work in the political reality.

I did not start the marriage analogy, I just blessed it with children, and what do you know , children sometimes cause problems

In reply to Dissonance

" Faslane was chosen at the height of the Cold War because of its position on the deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth of Clyde. This position provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, through the GIUK gap to the Norwegian Sea.Coulport is used to store the warheads and provides loading and unloading facilities."

( And Westminster agreed with that because it was a long way away from them

Plymouth was ruled out because it would put at risk too many people if there was an accident
( there are over 14,000 people in Helensburgh alone ) but that is apparently ok. )

In reply to Jim C:



Don't forget the cloud cover protection from satellite observation. Another advantage shared with the English SW.

In reply to alastairmac:


How is it "inevitable" and "positive"? do you have some quasi form of quasi marxist political theory that supports this view?

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Its always sunny in the English South West - its almost the opposite of the Scottish South West in this respect.

In reply to Jim C:





And 250,000 in Plymouth. The dirty bomb vs nuclear explosion point above was interesting.

But anyway, these Boats are hopefully pretty safe, its the potential use of the missiles which is more worrisome. There existence is a far greater issue than where they happen to be parked up.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It's fairly obvious that Scotland is on a path to lot more autonomy and possibly independence. That has been the direction of travel for some time.

There has also been a divergence in policy and outlook between Scotland and the UK political structures.

In reply to Saor Alba:
To say that it is currently on the path to this, and currently has some divergence of views with some other parts of the UK, does not make anything "inevitable" or, necessarily,"positive".

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I agree, there is a lot in a 'divorce' that would be best for everyone to share and pay for the upkeep of jointly ( dare I say ' the kids' ,using the analogy so disliked.)

Ideally someone should/ could list the 'genuine' advantages and genuine disadvantages, and people can make their minds up where their particular balance point is ( subjective I agree)

You can see right away why 'a list ' would never work, one man's Freedom fighter/Poison etc.

Even within the BT supporters,there are disputes of what are the 'advantages ' of a retained/ stronger , more devolved union, and what are not.

A friend of mine is a Scottish Tory, he is passionately for the Union.
(based on religious bigotry granted- but he is still a nice bloke)
He is desperately against MORE powers for Scotland within the Uk, and of course against an IS)? But he is also desperate to be Out of the EU. What might he see as an ' advantage of remaining in the Union?

He sees / perceives Cameron has messed up his chances of renegotiating a better deal within, and that might then help his cause to swing any EU referendum for the UK to vote to come out. But that might still fail.,

In the SI referendum to come, he absolutely believes Scotland will never get back into the EU, so , by that logic , he then has a backup option for him to be rid of the EU , but only if there is a yes vote for SI .
(but he would then have to be be out of the UK,he may not get both wishes.)

However, his second backup option is that , the UK Government apparently has, and possibly may seek to retain after a no vote, the right to unilaterally repeal the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2012 or any subsequent acts, A new IS government would want that removed,

My Scottish Tory friend, however, would like the UK government to do that now,( or at worst immediately after a no vote.) He accepts That failing that, all unionist parties would then of course have to go back on their respective political promises to deliver more ( if not somewhat varying) powers in return for a no vote, unlikely, as he accepts that is. )

But ,theoretically , there would be no binding deal for them to do so, as more powers is not going to be on the ballot paper. The Edinburgh agreement, he thinks, ,does not prevent this.
(He may be right, as I believe I also heard this suggested during the House of Lords debate on SI . )

So,anyway there is no consensus even, on either side,m on whether even offering more powers ,as an example, is an 'advantage' or not, or binding or not, so we would never get a definitive list of 'advantages/disadvantages' that both sided could agree on, so we will all have to make our own lists.

In reply to wynaptomos:


Get over it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



When you tell me that the Risk is low, I accept that, as this is where I live., and My FIL was in missile processing ( Polaris) and I trusted his judgement for his family and mine. But that does not make it better that We locals , have to forever, shoulder that small risk for myself and my family.

There is an option for the rUK, to just ditch them altogether, if there is a yes vote. That is a pressure , and a logic, they just don't want , as it will be seen to have merit both sides of the border. ( especially when somewhere is selected to take them, little risk or not)

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Your in fantasy world now, I don't deny them anything, I'm just giving my opinion on the matter, including the gerrymandering of the vote, and my opinion on Nationalism. Surely you can't have any problem with people giving their opinion - even if they were total foreigners, which is not my case, would you have any problem with them giving their opinion? You might not take it much into account but these days we can be in contact with the other side of the world, why not profit from it? After all you are posting on a site called UKC aren't you?

In reply to alastairmac:


Quite obviously it is!

It's all about oil, it built up as the oil production did - literally, compare the SNP vote with barrels per day - think about who the companies get on best with, a small country that can push around or a medium sized one? Nationalism always works hand in had with big business.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What makes you think I have?


What's your evidence for saying that?

In reply to Jim C:


Not sure I agree, by extension any big industrial/military plant has similar problems in terms of <some> risk for people living nearby - I'm about 15 miles from a Nuclear power station and I'd guess the risks we are talking about are of similar magnitude and probability.



That option is there whatever way the vote in Scotland goes. If you are telling me that people in Scotland are generally more anti-Nuclear than in rUK, then its possible the chance of the UK getting rid of nuclear weapons is less if Scotland leaves.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Steady decline since the late 1990s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/UK_Oil_Production.png

So if it's "all about oil", why hasn't the SNP vote declined with the decline in oil production?


I nearly missed this beauty. Were you aware that the head of BP has spoken out against Scottish Independence? As far as I know, not one single senior oil industry figure has come out in favour of Independence; they have either expressed no opinion, or have come out in favour of the Union.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:




but if there was no oil would the SNP vote be very much smaller ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I suspect it probably would be, but who can say for certain - support for the SNP has peaked during a period of continuing decline in oil production. I would certainly suggest that if there wasn't another country across the North Sea with a similar population to Scotland and a great deal more to show for its oil than Scotland has, then support for Independence would be lower than it is.

Either way, it's a ridiculous over-simplification to say that "it's all about the oil". The desire for Independence is about a lot more than that.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


As Britain has no single document called its constitution, yes, but apart from that the results are fairly similar - in France we have less guarantee on individual freedom - no habeas corpus, limited right to trial by jury and no right of appeal when we do but overall it's not that different.



When you say:




I said "might", given that you seem to find it irksome that I, a Briton born and bred gives his opinion it would be a reasonable supposition to think you would do the same or worse for a total foreigner.

If in fact you don't and it is simple your wording that is a bit clumsy then that's a good thing and perhaps we could get back to the subject?

In reply to moffatross:


Well over it thank you very much. Anything else you want to take out of context?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Do you think companies are going to come out and say: "Vote for independence so we can screw you better."

Concerning oil production it's true what you say of late but in the early days as oil became a reality the correlation is very striking, as for the future I'm sure you are aware that talk of oil resources being nearly exhausted is nonsense, there's still plenty there and as new techniques are developed and oil prices continue to rise, the "War Against Terror" aiding, oil revenues still have a future.

In reply to Jim Fraser:




He's not my favourite person either but I agree with him if he's saying the solution to the pensions gap isn't inviting in loads of immigrants - don't you think they'll claim their pensions too? Or is the idea to milk them for their payments then kick them out when they reach pension age? I'm not saying this is your opinion but it is the only logical conclusion to justify those who push the "more immigrants to solve the pensions problem".

Secondly listening to Salmond and his Girl Robin speaking don't you get much the same feeling?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Utter claptrap. I don't care where you come from - the fact that you think I would attach less weight to someone's opinion because they are a "foreigner" (total or otherwise) says more about you than it does about me.

Now we've cleared that up, I'm happy to get back on subject any time you like.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The heads of BP and Shell have stated that he'd prefer to see Scotland remain in the Union. Are you saying that they're actually in favour of Scotland being independent so they can bully it, and that statements like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26461833
"The chief executive of the oil company Shell has said he would like Scotland to "remain part of the UK".
Addressing the company's annual reception in London on Wednesday, Ben van Beurden said he valued the "continuity and stability" of the UK.
He said the company had reached this view for the same reasons it supported the UK staying "inside the EU".

are all part of an elaborate subterfuge? There are some sticks you're absolutely determined to get the wrong end of, aren't there?


Now you're sounding just like the SNP!

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Well you were the one who accused me of wanting to "deny" people the right to vote, but never mind. I can understand why you are embarrassed about it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, that was how I interpreted what you said. Maybe if your language hadn't been so clumsy, etc. etc.


Your reasoning might be poor but there's evidently very little wrong with your imagination.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


Just giving what my opinion is of the truth, but I see this as positive for all of Britain, not just reserved for the lucky 10% who happen to live near where the oil is... that's the basic difference between a Nationalist and the rest of us.

In fact I think that one day we should have a debate about the whole business of who gets the benefits of windfall gains like oil, having small, barely populated places like some of the Gulf states or the 1000 or so inhabitants of the Malvinas or whoever can claim the rights over small bits of rock surrounded by underwater mineral wealth while millions elsewhere are starving doesn't sound exactly reasonable or fair to me.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


You Judge the destructive force of A Nuclear station ( designed to be safe) is more than that 1,280 Trident warheads that are designed specifically be as destructive as possible ( granted one quarter of them will always be at sea)
" each warheads are 100 kilotons each, about 6 times the power of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. "
I will swap you Faslane for your Nuclear power station Dr.S


No, I don't think people in a Scotland are more anti nuclear weapons than the rest of the UK , but when it becomes the question of where to re- locate these, the question will also be raised whether they really are a useful deterrent , and if will be a renewed matter of debate whether or not to just scrap them rather than move the risk, and of course the huge cost that they are saying it will cost.

As soon as the question becomes only where to re- locate, or to just scrap Trident supporters will revise their estimates of the huge cost and of long timescale , and it will become much easier to do and will suddenly become much less a problem to do.
(At the moment , of course, it suits them to portray it as as difficult and costly to do. )

Take your choice of what to believe from these various views :-

( Tory Plan A is possibly relocate to the USA, temporarily?)
"But some senior Tories privately believe those countries could provide the answer. One said: "Trident could go to America if Scotland votes for independence. It would not be ideal for the UK's nuclear deterrent to be outside the UK. But it would be a perfectly doable ­solution in the short-term, as a 'stop gap' measure".

But there are big problems with that too, so it will be an option to scrap it ( or do a deal and negotiate it's remaining in Scotland, which I think the SNP will say is not possible ( but it will be negotiated, and it might well remain in my view.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/senior-tories-back-u...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27024682

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10847823/Scott...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Alas where then was the trust in the people's judgement and open discussion about the oil reserves back then Bruce ?

Buried unjustifiably by the official secrets act for 30 years.
Can we trust either side to give us the facts, not a hope in hell.

In 30 years I gave told my daughter to watch out for more revelations that will have been buried this time too.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

In reply to Jim C:

Our stockpile of nukes is almost 10 times bigger than when I checked!

I wondered about them going to the US, or Even France?

In reply to Jim C:


Nuclear weapons are designed to be very safe and stable until deliberately detonated. Its not something that would happen by accidently dropping one or having one caught in a fire, which can be shown by the multiple incidents including US aircraft carrying nukes.

So I would prefer the submarine base compared to the nuclear power station.
Then I would prefer both of them to Aldermaston which is within a few miles of three decent sized towns, including Reading, and 70km from London.
Quite a few of those warheads you mention will be there and given its purpose its far more risky location.

In reply to dissonance:

I agree with that, but I was making the point that IF something went wrong, the Nuclear station is less destructive. Not sure from what knowledge or experience , you make your assertion.

I have reasonable ( more than most , and more than perhaps your post assumedI) knowledge of the safety cases of current and New Nuclear stations, ( through my job , and working closely and also socialising with the Engineers who work in Nuclear stations all over the world. )

And on the other side , I have close family connections that was in management in missile processing at Coulport for many years ( older tech accepted)

Without going into details, I was able to get a flavour to how safe he felt processing the missiles is.
Safety apart , I don't want them, I don' t think they are a useful deterrent , and cost a fortune.

No problem D it is yours. ( when can you uplift?)

In reply to Jim C:

They can lurk off the edge of exmoor - the severn is so murky that they will be safe from even the most competent surveillance
http://tinyurl.com/pa6p3pk

Can we send Minehead B by return?

(agree about there actual value BTW, prefer two CBG's anyday of the week)

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Very interesting, I am just recently back from Orkney, which of course has a well known and extensive wartime history. I had never heard of this area bring visited before, just shows there are still things to be written into the history.

When I was up on the gun emplacements at Hoxa on South Ronaldsay , and all the other visitors I spoke to turned out to be German, young and old, so as in your clip, there is still an interest from the Germans in the war legacy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?autoplay=1&v=3Gq4FAZnp4s

(There was a young German lad walking on one of the partially collapsed roofs, I did warn him, as I had seen the sign and the level of deterioration, I wonder if he realised how risky that was)

In reply to Jim C:


That there have been zero accidental nuclear weapon detonations compared to nuclear power plant accidents. This has included being in exploding planes etc. A nuclear weapon (least the implosion type we use) isnt something which can really be set off by accident, the precision required goes against it (if it was the gun type it would be less so). Sure it can be blown up and turned into a dirty bomb but thats closer to what you would see at a nuclear power plant.


Now that is a separate argument.


when you take the power stations?

Anyways about the AWE and your statement.
"( And Westminster agreed with that because it was a long way away from them"
Since the more I think about it the more wrong it is. Southern England had multiple nuclear weapon bases, its just that as the yanks pulled back their weapons and we reduced ours to just the subs all thats left is Faslane and AWE. It is only 10 years or so that the USAF had a stockpile at Lakenheath. Incidently Lakenheath is supposed to have had the two most serious nuclear weapon incidents in the UK (planes and nuclear weapons not being the best mix). Strange westminster allowed them to remain there so long isnt it?

In reply to dissonance:

Good article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977

In reply to dissonance:

That is a fair point.
That said , I already said above, and we both agree that the RISK of an accident is low in either case. The weapons arming is only done in the air, or in the case of the subs, at sea. ( presumably well out of built up areas)

The risk is one thing , but the destructive capability of nuclear weapons against nuclear stations is still quite different , which was the main point I made.

In reply to Jim C:

But risk is not just probability of an event, its probability multiplied by consequence.