UKC

From what I understand Scotland wants to keep the £ as its currency. What does this mean? Will it be a completely separate currency that only shares the name 'pound' like the Irish pound or will the Bank of England still be the 'bank of last resort' should a Scottish bank fail.

In reply to Indy:

No it's Pounds Sterling that is being referred to. Scotland can use it if it wants. It the currency union that is the uncertain bit.

In reply to Saor Alba:

O.K, it's the currency union that's what I was wondering about.

Don't wish to get into politics but it seems to me at the very least breath takingly cheeky that what in effect will be an independent country setting its own fiscal policies should be underwritten by in effect the UK Taxpayer.

Or have I missed something?

In reply to Indy:

"It's Scotland's pound."

Oh, and there was me thinking it was the UK's.

In reply to Indy:

Anyone can use the pound as it's a freely traded currency.

To you answer your question you have to get into the politics.

In reply to Indy:

One major issue that no one seems to have considered is what language will they be speaking post independence? I assume we are not going to let them continue using English?

In reply to Saor Alba:

But if Scotland wants any kind of democratic control over its own currency--if that currency is the pound--then it needs to stay in the Union.

Otherwise, all fiscal decisions about sterling will be taken in the interests of the rUK, not of the UK including Scotland.

As I've been saying for six months now, this is one very good and very fundamental reason why voting Yes will lead to *less* self-determination for Scotland, not *more*.

If there is a single basic point in the referendum debate it is this. And as is now completely obvious, the separatists have no answer to it whatsoever.

In reply to rogersavery:


If Alex would have the courage to advocate a national return to classical Greek, I'd back Yes like a shot

In reply to Tim Chappell:

As I am sure you will understand, I can't be arsed with a hundred reply long thread which I note you have also avoided very sensibly.

It might lead to less self determination on some things and more on others. Personally I think the rUK will be so radically changed in terms of power structures that cooperation on this is inevitable. You could argue in some ways that independence is much closer to feralisation with a currency union.

In reply to rogersavery:

It's irrelevant as everyone will be dead anyway due to repatriation of the Sovereign Gases. A Gas Union is much more pressing.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/independent-scotland-...

In reply to Saor Alba:


Yes indeed; CBA is very much in the air this evening for me too


No doubt. The net effect would be extremely bad, that I don't doubt. In particular in areas that no one seems to be talking about in this remarkably inward-looking debate, such as foreign policy. The UK is one of the most important and influential nations in the entire world, and (don't laugh, I know the objections too) on the whole it's a force for good. And it TRIES to be a force for good. What would an iScotland do? What could an rUK do? A lot less. You'll scoff and cite the UK's failures when I say this, but think it through. Think what it would be like to have a world where the UK's international influence was the same as Belgium's, and Scotland's was the same as Iceland's. A vacuum would be left. And who would you like to fill it? ISIS? North Korea? Israel? The truth is we are far better off as the UK.

>Personally I think the rUK will be so radically changed in terms of power structures that cooperation on this is inevitable.

Indeed. See above.

>You could argue in some ways that independence is much closer to feralisation with a currency union.

Feralisation? Is that where we all start, like, living in nettle-choked factory ruins and living off barbecued cat?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Grr, my auto correct must be employing a gremlin.

I disagree with you, but you knew that as did I.

In reply to Indy:

For those who bank with, or have mortgages with the Halifax, the company is registered in Scotland. Im assuming then any changes in interest rates within an Independant Scotland may or may not benefit you. A new currency and its exchange rate with the pound may not be to peoples liking and could introduce a level of risk you may not be comfortable with.

Ale

In reply to Indy:

I thought independent countries could set their own fiscal policies. Also, if Scotland keeps the pound, surely this only affects Scottish taxpayers. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that Ireland and Australia kept the pound for 50 years + of their independence.

In reply to alx:

Who said anything about a new currency and exchange rates?

In reply to craigloon:

Jim Sillars did, in the course of reminding us that Wee Eck is not the leader of the Yes campaign.

In reply to Indy:


It wont be if there is no currency union. However their fiscal policies will be restricted since they wont be able to do anything with the currency.

In reply to Mark Bannan:

I'm assuming what he meant to say was monetary policy, not fiscal.

As I understand it, the Scottish Government's argument is that there is a very high degree of convergence between the Scottish and rUK economies, so monetary policy (i.e interest rates) being set elsewhere (in this case London) will not affect Scotland in the same way it does, Germany and the southern periphery in the Eurozone.

In reply to craigloon:
Yeah, sorry; I meant monetary myself too!

In reply to craigloon:



So in short, Scotland should be independent because it isn't?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


like.

some would say that in Keighley, this has already happened...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Barbecued cat? Looxury.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
indeed.

though they came to regret their feline feast, now its more spartan fare...

http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/news_keighley/3966608.Infestation_of_rat...

In reply to Indy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840

In reply to Indy:

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394565144/big-independence-lie-scotland-coul...

Actually from the sort of person who might know what he's talking about and not some politician.

With digital currencies becoming more commonplace I'm surprised someone hasn't created the Tartan Sheckle, or the Scottish Dolarr.

In reply to zebidee:

And from the same source:
http://www.cityam.com/1404953397/investors-flee-scotland-ahead-referendum

In reply to zebidee:


Good point lets ignore the politicians when talking about a political decision.

In reply to mickyv33:

The Scots should bring back the drachma and escudo as they sound so good said in a thick scottish accent as anyone who hung around Alan Hansen in various duty frees in Liverpools all Europe conquering glory days will tell you.

In reply to zebidee:



He's talking about Scotland using the pound, not about Scotland and rUK having a currency union.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Correct ...but the rUK have been stating that currency union is out. This article makes a well-structured argument why this doesn't actually matter.

In reply to zebidee:

Well in that case I am sure we can look forward to Salmond agreeing, stopping whining the rUK won't do his bidding, and offering continued use of the pound as his plan B to the electorate.

In reply to zebidee:


If only it resembled any of Salmonds proposals. Then at least we could be reassured that the Yes campaign had considered this carefully.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I think you are kind of missing the point of independence. The idea is really quite potent to those in favour. I think More or Less on Radio 4 summed it up quite nicely. One of the commentators basically said that you could argue the toss over whether people will be x thousand up or down after independence, but the vote isn't really about economics but about identity.

Sure, the question over currency is yet to be answered but for those wanting to go it alone, it isn't really about that.

I am no separatist, but I do at least now respect that stance. I do however believe that in a shrinking world, being divided is not the way forward. We only have to look to Gaza, Iraq and Russia to see that. And leaving the UK in favour of the EU just seems barmy.

In reply to ByEek:
That's one view but I think a more common one is that independence is about facilitating more progressive policies. In a way it's about progressiveness versus conservatism.

Sorry I can't be bothered arguing the toss.

In reply to Saor Alba:



No need to apologise. Alas, this is usually where the the dream falters into reality as we found at the end of the Labour term. Progressive governance usually costs quite a bit more than conservatism. Which sadly brings us back to money.

In reply to ByEek:


I think you're partly right here - for many of the fairly firm 'Yes' people (including me), identity and opportunity are more important than financial details, as true financial disaster seems unlikely, despite the spoutings of a few doomsayers.

However, anecdotally - I won't pretend that this is hard fact - my experience is that there are three big groups: these firm 'Yes' supporters, an equivalent group of firm 'No' supporters, and a very significant group of 'soft No' supporters - people who could have been persuaded to vote for independence, but simply have not been given good reason to.

I also think most people have pretty much decided now, and would need something major to change their minds. Time's running out, and I don't think Salmond's refusal to address currency properly is helping.

In reply to zebidee:

I wouldn't say that. Were he stresses fiscal responsibility he's talking about limited spending.... and Salmond does not want to sign up to that. The thing he doesn't mention is how sterlingisation would further complicate matters with the EU.

I've not doubt Scotland could be ok with sterlingisation but nobody who actually wants independents seems to want that. The people who want independence want currency union which, if the rUK agreed, would amount to some form of devo max. You're essentially having a independence vote with no real vision of independence on the table.

In reply to ByEek:

Sure it's about identity. I am immensely proud of what the United Kingdom has achieved since 1707, and I want to keep it together--because historically and culturally, the UK is my identity.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

>
>

You've struck the nail firmly on the head here - the devil is in the detail ... but because it's not a single central group taking us into independence there can't actually be specific detail about what things would look like post-Yes vote.

Too many party policies are being pushed as being independence ones - tax policies, getting rid of Trident, oil slush-funds, etc.

These are all things which it would only be possible to decide upon if Scotland were independent but there's no guarantee that they would necessarily be implemented by whichever government is in power in an independent Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I disagree with that view, because I disagree with the analysis, but respect it.

In reply to Saor Alba:
WEll, Devo Max actually is now the debate and I argued that it should have been defined and included from the start. Both sides are discussing this in veiled terms but unfortuneately the Independence movement is locked into the most extreme position and ironically one it is finding very hard to define in relation to currency.And you can't argue that people should vote for independence because the independence movement are a bunch of shape shifters, having shifted it's position to one closer to federalism/Devo Max - that's absurd.I think the independence movement has revealed its been defining itself as it goes along and it looks a bit of a mess.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Sorry. don't follow you?

In reply to MargieB:


People keep arguing this.

I oversimplify here, but essentially it seems to me that they are two fundamentally different propositions. Independence is an irrevocable change in statehood. Devo max is a fully reversible change in government administration.

The people of a country can vote for self-determination and expect to get it subject to authenticity of the vote - this is one of the guiding principles of the UN. However, a country within the UK whose people hold a poll into wanting devo-max is nothing more than an opinion poll.

Now, the UK government could have chosen to massively muddy the waters by mixing these things up, but that would muddy the waters and cloud the judgement of the fundamental, underlying question - do the people of Scotland want to exercise their right to self determination?

In reply to wintertre
On a ballot paper Devo Max, despite it being a fully reversible change in government administration, is distinct from independence and I believed people were capable of understanding this.

In reply to MargieB:


DevoMax doesn't have to be reversible if there is some kind of constitutional protection, as in a federal system. I think it would be a brilliant solution unfortunately Westminster doesn't want any of that and that's unlikely to change.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It struck me recently how similar the Scotland Vs UK position is to a classic middle aged fling.

In your middle ages, the Testosterone starts to drop, you (over) compensate by lusting after a trophy girlfriend/ wife at the expense of the tried and trusted spouse.

The UK has abused Scotland (& Northern England) for years, taking advantage of her and tilting at glamorous USA & EU. We have been disrespectful I'd say. Now iS is looking like she's going to give us a kicking and suddenly it's all Thorntons and Rose.

We need to beg her not to go and mean it.

Please don't go Scotland

In reply to RomTheBear:
Devomax should not be an option, you are in or you are out. Allowing people to cherrypick leads you to the very messy Spanish situation and way too many politicians

In reply to orejas:

I am not sure why there would be more politicians with a devomax option... Merely just more powers for those in the Scottish parliament. Anyway all the polls are showing that a devomax option is by far the most popular option.

In reply to craigloon:


To explain: I am immensely proud of what the United Kingdom has achieved since 1707, and I want to keep it together--because historically and culturally, the UK is my identity.

Now do you follow?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Devomax being utterly different from independence and the irrevocable division of the UK.

If the SNP had wanted Devomax or were happy for some form of devolution they would have been called the SDP.

In reply to Indy:

Salmond has it win:win.

If exit, then he's "won". Scotland will use the pound, either through a deal or pegged to it. They will adjust monetary and central banking policy to the new risk level.

If stay, then he's "won" a heap of tasty concessions.

In reply to off-duty:

From the Chinese whispers I hear, devo max is what Salmond actually wanted, whereas the current situation, from his (real but necessarily disguised) point of view, is a pig in a poke.

In reply to JJL:
"he"?

If the Yes campaign lose this vote--which they will, by plenty--then Salmond's arse is toast. Especially after he got owned by Mr Grey.

In reply to off-duty:



Unless you didn't know the SNP tried to get a devomax option on the table for years.

In reply to RomTheBear:


SNP's raison d'etre "The SNP is a social democratic political party committed to Scottish independence. "

I do hope that you aren't suggesting that devolution, devomax and Independence are somehow different points on the same scale.

In reply to off-duty:

Compare Plaid Cymru. Do you think they REALLY want a fully independent Wales?

Of course they don't. They're not completely stupid

In reply to Indy: no, but i also recall that Salmonds ideal referendum would have included devo-max but David Cameron out politiked him and insisted all or bust or no referendum

In reply to wbo:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/agony-aunt/i-have-completely-changed...

In reply to wbo:

You can't have a sensible 3 way vote. What does a 25 35 40 result mean? They have to be sequential. Also Devo Max requires agreement of the whole UK as it will affect them.

In reply to wbo:

And in the interests of balance:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scots-welcome-smug-english...

In reply to MG:


How is that not sensible ? You could have a condorcet vote if it was having three options that bothers you.
In fact what is not sensible is to not put on table the option that 80% of scots want.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Because which ever option is selected only a minority wanted it. Also you need to define Devo Max first. Independence is clear (except to Salmond who think you dictate other country's currencies). Devo isn't. Also Aa above it would need a UK mandate

In reply to RomTheBear:

I agree with Rom about this.

Perhaps I'm just getting overexcited because he mentioned Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet

In reply to wbo:


It was no more in Alex Salmonds interest than David Camerons. There is no way Alex Salmond wanted devo max on the agenda as he would have then had no chance whatsoever of winning independence. Whether you like him or loathe him I think you have to accept that his aspiration for independence is genuine.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I think you are mistaken. Salmond has always wanted to have a Devomax option, on the ballot, at least as a first step before full independence.

Quoting him : “There’s a view abroad in Scotland that perhaps it would be better from where we are now … that rather than become an independent country, at least in the first stage, that the fiscal base should increase to something near 100 per cent. And it’s a very attractive argument,”

“It has a major problem, and that is that the UK Government, while they respect the right and ability of Scots to decide on independence, are not prepared to accept the right of the Scottish people to decide on devo max.”

In reply to MG:


Not necessarily depending on which voting method you use. Anyway support for devomax is at 80% over here according to the polls.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Those quotes do not say that he wants to have a devo max option, he quite cleverly states that 'There is a view abroad............and it is a very attractive argument' without stating that he supports that view or argument.

He then goes on to put the blame for it not being on the ballot paper on the UK government without in any way expressing his views as to whether it should be on the ballot paper.

He is a very good politician.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Well the SNP did try to get it on the ballot paper... Salmons wanted a three options referendum. And yes Cameron categorically refused, why do you think Westminster insisted that the referendum should have only two options ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


To be fair with an overwhelming majority likely to vote devomax it is a bit of a pointless question fot a referendum, particularly when the elephant in the room, and the sole motivator behind the existence of the SNP would be the question of independence

In reply to off-duty:


Well that's the problem, the overwhelming majority in Scotland wants devomax, and instead all we are offered is an impossible choice between two less than ideal options.
Now I understand why Westminster would not allow a third question, it's a good opportunity to get rid of the question for several decades and get rid of the SNP at the same time. But it's not very democratic.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Undemocratic in that the elected government of Scotland has as it's primary goal "an independent scotland" and a referendum for independence (not devomax/devolution) was a manifesto promise?

In reply to MG:


I agree on your first point, but the second is rubbish. Devo Max no more requires whole UK agreement than devolution did in 98? or independence potentially does now.

In reply to ByEek:




I'm not is sure.. It depends on your life stage.. For many it is very much about short term politics.. For others an idealistic approach will be their view.. It will vary massively how people look at it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Federalism won't work if it's just the 4 countries... I think we'll see further devolution, but for federalism too work England needs further breaking up and a federal government created.. Otherwise England dominates..

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I prefer this one.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scots-welcome-smug-english...

In reply to RomTheBear:


But the SNP and Alex Salmond want independence. Independence and devo max are mutually exclusive.

No one in the last Scottish election had a manifesto promise to have a referendum on devo max.

If the SNP had wanted such a referendum they could have put it in their manifesto, they didn't.

In the absence of such a commitment and in the absence of any clear statement that they support devo max it is hard to come to the conclusion that they wanted such a question on the ballot paper

In reply to RomTheBear:


Damned right. Devolution is an internal matter to the whole UK, and as such should be voted on by the whole UK, either through choice of national government or through a direct ballot. In that sense it is utterly different to self determination, and is not compatible with a Scotosh ballot which, as I sad before, would be more of an opinion poll on the matter.

In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well that's the problem, the overwhelming majority in Scotland wants devomax, and instead all we are offered is an impossible choice between two less than ideal options.

You are offered two possible choices that go to the core of the matter.

If you want devomax the answer is obvious; vote for staying in the UK then seek to gain more devolved powers. It seems pretty likely that a No vote will be followed by further devolution... The nice thing about devolution is that the local government can have the powers to act, but when they don't excercise them they can still blame Westminster...

In reply to rogerwebb:

Why is it mutually exclusive ?


Again, they tried to get it on the ballot paper. The reason it wasn't in the manifesto is because nobody had actually came up with this term at the time of the manifesto. Bit the manifesto does say about more devolution.


Well again, they did. It was ok the press at the time of the negotiations... and Cameron said himself that he didn't want three options.

In reply to The New NickB:


If you believe in democracy it does. It would require fairly major changes across the UK if you didnt want a lot of people being pissed off about it.
Without that any party which stood against it would be likely to gain support particularly in England which would end up having the worse representation.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Where you hearing this from? I don't think there is the slightest evidence to back up what you are saying. It's the classic unionist tactic - pretend that it's not what it says on the tin so you don't have to deal with it.

Sorry, but those seeking independence, seek independence.

In reply to wintertree:


Whatever you say, the problem still is that the most popular option will virtually never be in the table. The only party that actually suggest a devomax after the GE is the lib dem...

Labour and the Tories are promising some more powers on income tax and other things but nothing on corporation tax and vat which are the core of the matter...

In reply to dissonance:

We should remember that all of the Unionist parties got in on a ticket of not holding a referendum on further powers or an independence vote.

Now they are promising further powers without a vote on it in Scotland or across the UK and bizarrely to get those further powers we have to vote No to further powers. They are reacting to events over which they have no control.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Salmond wants independence, but he also wanted a devomax option as a fall back, and actually tried to get it on the ballot paper.

But let's not be naive, the only reason Westminster would allow a referendum is because they want to get rid of the SNP and get rid of the question, they would never have allowed a fallback option for salmond that would almost certainly have won.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Other than the snide dig at unionists, I agree with you. I have no reason to like Salmond but I believe he is motivated by a genuine desire and belief in independence.

Sorry, but those seeking independence, seek independence.

You need to convince Rom of that- he's adamant that the SNP actually wanted devomax.
Youd

In reply to off-duty:


Well it's just a matter of fact. It's in the national press from the time

In the times in 2012 :

The First Minister has long argued for two questions on the ballot paper, one on independence and one on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, the “devo-max” option.

Of course Salmond wants independence, but I think he would have liked a fallback option.

More importantly this is by far what the Scottish people want.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I agree. I dont think it is really feasible to promise further powers which is probably why they are being so vague.
To go any further down the devolution path it would really need to be a UK wide approach, some sort of federalisation.

In reply to Saor Alba:



The Scottish Labour manifesto 2011 specifically mentions seeking further devolved powers for Scotland.

In reply to off-duty:

Anyone who bothers to look at the history of this realises that gradualism is the name of the game. I hope it is a Yes vote but I think it's 50/50 right now.

The view expressed by Tim is either evidence of a poor understanding of the subject or a protection mechanism which involves avoiding all counter information and maintaining the illusion. It's a bit like what some were furiously posting about the Common Weal a week or so ago (that it wasn't pro-independence). A few days later a report came out confirming it was which anyone who had access to information not on the internet knew months ago.

Internet only info misses out 90% of what is happening.

In reply to off-duty:

And does it mention a vote?

In reply to dissonance:

The other issue is that more powers makes the step to independence even smaller. They have to though and gamble on people being happy with that if they vote No.

In reply to RomTheBear:




You keep posting as if Devomax and Independence are just similar options on a sliding scale.

They aren't.

In reply to off-duty:


And specifically no control over corporation tax and vat. But in fact these are the prize of the game, which will probably never be devolved.

In reply to off-duty:



Whatever you think, devomax us the most popular option. And not the one on the ballot paper...

In reply to Saor Alba:


50/50? I like you, you're nearly as funny as lynx http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/08/09/huge-blow-fo...

In reply to RomTheBear:

You are probably right, or probably were right but the two options being presented are now the most popular. If it's No, Devomax will increase again I think.

Let's remember that it's not as if Westminster is trying to facilitate any transfer of powers to discussion of independence. They are firmly against it all and only doing it as they have to.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I was probably one of those "furiously" posting. If by that you mean pointing out that it clearly stated that it's ideas were regardless of independence.

If it's come out now to say that in the event of a No vote it will abandon it's campaign, then quite frankly that is a bit pathetic. Even if I'm not convinced by it's vision for Scotland, it appeared to be a goal that was "bigger" than independence, and to hear you say it was just another angle to convince people to vote Yes is disappointing.

As for the internet comments, it does get a bit tiresome that you continually assume that those disagreeing with you are only looking at websites for their information.

In reply to Saor Alba:

No what people were saying was that if it was pro-independence then it was being more than slightly misleading on its website where it claimed to be nonpartisan.
Given that its now split it would indicate that someone found the inconsistencies problematic.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because one results in two independent states and the other a single state, you cannot have both at once.


I have yet to see any evidence that the SNP tried to get devo max on the ballot paper. They would be betraying their principles if they did.


I have no doubt that David Cameron didn't want devo max on the ballot, but that does not mean that Alex Salmond did, and the Alex Salmond quote that you posted earlier rather supports the view that he didn't.

Neither wanted it because both fear it.

In reply to dissonance:

Yes it would indicate that, if your only source of information is the internet and you have no access to what is happening at meetings and so on. In that situation I can see how you made the mistake.

Either wat, it's pro-independence and has been for ages. Whether they updated their website or not doesn't take away from that fact.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I quite agree.

In reply to off-duty:

You have clearly misunderstood what they stand for and what the plans are. Like I say though, I can see where these mistakes are made as you are missing out on 90% of what is going on.

Where other than the internet are you getting your information on the Common Weal from?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Most policy is not decided by direct vote, but by election of parties. It's this thing we call "Parlimentary Democracy". How a democratic state goes about devolving further powers has sweet FA to do with weather a region within the state wants to seek self determination.

Given the petulant whining over the lack of a devo max option some people obviously disagree. Tough. If you want devolution, lobby for it through the same democratic system everyone else uses, you are not special. If you can't get what you want through the system, then poll your region for independence - people within any democratic system are empowered to seek self determination. If you want independence for independence's sakes, have a poll.

Polling a region to see if they want something changing through a parliamentary democracy is an opinion poll. Including it in the devolution vote could lead to future arguments over the validity of the whole vote.

(I personally think there is more of a place for direct votes, perhaps like propositions in the US system.)

In reply to Saor Alba:


We agree! (If people on both sides stopped doubting each others sincerity and belief that they want the best for Scotland this debate would remain civilised)

In reply to rogerwebb:

Ho for god's sake it was all over the national press in 2012 :

The Times :

"The First Minister has long argued for two questions on the ballot paper, one on independence and one on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, the “devo-max” option."

Daily record :

"First Minister Alex Salmond demands 'devo-max' fallback option be included in independence referendum"

Herald :

"ALEX Salmond has given his strongest hint yet there will be two questions in the independence referendum, by saying the Scottish people have a fundamental "right to decide" on whether Holyrood should have full tax powers, known as devo max."

Daily Mail :

"David Cameron was clear he wanted a straight Yes/No vote on independence. Alex Salmond wanted a second question asking voters if they supported 'devo-max' - securing more devolution of powers from London to Edinburgh without leaving the UK altogether."

In reply to rogerwebb:

It is civilised. I think this debate will go down as one of the most civilised independence debates ever given the history of some events elsewhere.

Robust certainly, silly (on UKC especially) at times, inspirational at others.

I was at the North Kessock meeting last night where a few people, from England but recently moved up they said, were intending to vote Yes due to the quality of the debate and vision.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I didnt make a mistake. All I, and others, did was point out that they were being rather inconsistent in their position. Which could be problematic eg say if I thought I agreed with their principles broadly and decided to donate since they werent taking sides.

In reply to RomTheBear:










I'm sorry, I simply don't accept that the SNP and Alex Salmond in particular ever wanted devo max on the ballot. It is so clearly against there interests. At the moment they have a very good chance of achieving their primary aim, with devo max on the ballot they would have had virtually none.

They have done a good job of deflecting blame about the absence of the devo max question, and those press reports are indicative of that and are a good example of setting up a straw man.



Why would a party want a question that would ensure their defeat?






We will have to disagree on this I think.

In reply to Saor Alba:

>

Must have been better than the TV one!

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think it's the gradualism question which generates the support for devomax. Anyway, I think you are generally right but it depends on how achievable independence looks at a given moment.

It was a lot better than the TV one of which I only saw a few minutes.

There is no doubt that the Yes campaign has seen a rebirth of participatory democracy at community level. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

In reply to Indy:
Roger, apart from the numerous newspaper articles and commentaries from 2012 you can easily find yourself i clearly recall the only options being in or out being clearly set by DC. You maychoose not to believe but you are factually wrong.

Tho devomax is clearly a good option in the eyes of many

In reply to wbo:

It is certainly. Not my chosen one but a good one nonetheless. Given it's not an option though people are going to have to make their minds up or not vote.

In reply to wbo:



Exactly. I recall a TV interview of Cameron in 2012 where he says clearly he achieved his aim of having a two question only referendum. And all the press was reporting at the time that Salmond tried to get a third option ( more specifically, he wanted two questions).

Now you can choose to just ignore it but you can easily check the facts yourself.

In reply to dissonance:


That doesn't read like a constitutional reason. How would it be different to the 98 devolution of powers.

In reply to wbo:



I absolutely agree that devo max is a good option and I would vote for it.

I find it hard to understand how any one can believe that Alex Salmond wanted devo max on the ballot paper. It is against his interests.

I fully accept that he wished to give the appearance of supporting devo max, but until he was sure it was not an option would not explicitly support it.
The quote supplied by Rom ( which I've reproduced below)is an excellent example of that. It appears to support a contention without doing so.



Quoting him : “There’s a view abroad in Scotland that perhaps it would be better from where we are now … that rather than become an independent country, at least in the first stage, that the fiscal base should increase to something near 100 per cent. And it’s a very attractive argument,”

“It has a major problem, and that is that the UK Government, while they respect the right and ability of Scots to decide on independence, are not prepared to accept the right of the Scottish people to decide on devo max.”



This quote does not say that he wants devo max to be considered, he just states that that is 'a view' and the UK government won't accept. At no point does this quote say he wants or wanted devo max on the paper.

Consider this, if today there was a volte face by the UK government and they said lets have devo max on the paper, do you think Alex Salmond would want it? When he is so close to victory?

In reply to rogerwebb:

Of course not and it's an absurd argument. If the UK Parties did say that they would be even more of a laughing stock than they are now.

Have you seen the "facts" sent out by the UK Government? I think pretty much anyone could have made a better case for a No vote than they have made. Mind you, given that there is no community part to the BT campaign it might be that they are remote from the electorate.......

In reply to Saor Alba:


>
I know its an absurd argument, but it does illustrate how absurd the idea is that a party that wants independence would support an option that would prevent it winning independence.

In reply to Saor Alba:

>

Case for the Union is quite simple, its delivered 300 years of peace (apart from the odd jacobite) within this island, seen a massive increase in wealth, provision for the sick and poor, delivered universal suffrage and resulted in a society that is capable of debating its break up without violence. I fully expect the trajectory of improvement to continue.

The Union is stronger than the sum of its parts.

There are problems but I don't see any for which independence is the cure. The people of Cornwall and Devon have more in common with the Highlands than the central belt does. Like wise Liverpool and Glasgow.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I am not sure why you deny all the evidence that Salmond tried too have two questions...
Did it occur to you that many in the SNP wanted a devomax ? More than 60% of the party wanted a devomax option. You seem to be convinced that all the SNP wants is independence or nothing else, but in fact for most devomax would be a good first step.

I don't see why this is do absurd, in fact it would have been a win win strategy for the SNP, which is why it was never considered by Westminster.

In reply to Saor Alba:

You are getting desperate now, as not only will a no vote reveal the 'small scots demeanor', it will also destroy Scotlands economy.

In reply to rogerwebb:


300 years of peace ? Maybe you should read a history book.




Liverpool and Glasgow are not nations. Scotland is one.

In reply to The New NickB:


I wasnt aware it had to be?


That gave some powers and it has already resulted in problems. So extending it further gives more scope for conflict.
Take the tuition fee vote for England which would have failed without Scottish MPs voting for it.
You only need to look at the objections to a currency union to see the issues that devo max would have unless it was accompanied by changes across the entire UK system.

In reply to Saor Alba:



I loved the bit where they say that Scotland spends 10% more per head on public services than the rest of the UK. Forgetting to mention that GDP per head is also 10% higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK...

In reply to Saor Alba:



My information specifically on the Common Weal is indeed coming from the internet - almost exclusively from their own website, though tempered with the information you provide - about their real aim being independence, rather than their professed aims of a better society within a future Scotland.

Why is it from the internet? Because when I speak to my friends and relatives, of both Yes and No camps, expats, and those eligible to vote, few have heard of it and those that do don't have exact knowledge of what it actually wants. So forgive me, in the 21st century, of going to the primary source - it's own website. Where I am apparently being lied to.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Because I haven't seen any convincing evidence, read that quote you posted closely, note what it doesn't say.


Yes, but its not party policy



How? if devo max was on the paper they would lose the independence referendum.

Its not on the ballot and they have a vey good chance of winning.





We are not going to agree on this so perhaps best that both of us accept that and leave the forum clear for other discussion.

The issue is historic now anyway.

In reply to Tim Chappell:





Hi Tim, you have indeed been saying this for quite a long time, but I'm pretty sure I gave a response before. But here we go again...

First, I think you mean monetary decsions about sterling, not fiscal decsions, as you don't really make fiscal decsions about a currency.

So, my response is in 4 parts...

1. We have no or very little democratic control now. The parties don't really differ on monetary policy which is largely left to the BoE, people don't change their vote based on it and Scotland rarely influences the result of an election.

2. Independence is unlikely to make much difference to interst rate. It's set now based on what's 'best' for the UK. I doubt this is often significantly different for what's best for the rest of the UK.

3. We could actually have more control. If we did have a formal currency union we'd probably get our population's share of the Monetart Policy Committee votes and the MPC would target UK inflation. So there'd be some votes that specifically had Scotland's interests at heart, in a close vote that could tip the balance.

4. We can always leave if it's not working for us.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Mind you, given that there is no community part to the BT campaign it might be that they are remote from the electorate.......

I do object to that. Your view of the campaigns is so one sided it detracts from the valid points you try and make.

To rephrase a comment you made earlier : -

There is no doubt that the independence debate has seen a rebirth of participatory democracy at community level. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

In reply to RomTheBear:


>
I do, note I said within this island. I'm not talking about external warfare (including Ireland).

In reply to rogerwebb:

If you ignore gradualism which you can't as history supports it.

As for the case, as you present it, that is open to debate if it would have happened anyway. There is no evidence to say the Union delivered this and I would remind you, as you appear to have forgotten it, of Northern Ireland (yes I know you said "this island").

The people of Liverpool are as failed by westminster as others. Westminster isn't going to reform though unless it's forced to and independence would be that force.

You can't just dismiss issues with vague notions of things for which there is no evidence the Union delivered.

When is the debt going to stop rising?

In reply to off-duty:

This is where I think you show the gaps in your knowledge. You may object to it (you should!) but there is no Better Together campaign run at community level. They are paying people to pose as community workers, preventing people getting into their "meetings".

Sorry, you may object to it but the rebirth of community meetings and so on is the result of the Yes Campaign.

In reply to RomTheBear:

compare and contrast the history of England and Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries with the following 300 years and the internal histories of continental Europe with British history in those 300 years.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I don't see that


Ireland is another matter and the rest is open to debate but typing it with one hand is not the best way to do it. happy to debate in person if you have the time.


Westminster does reform though, look at the difference since 1707, the extension of the franchise, the reform acts, the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, Lords dominated by life peers (more reform needed there). I don't see that independence is necessary to make that happen.


don't follow that.


When we spend less

In reply to rogerwebb:

What? Are you seriously trying to say that Westminster is reformed (we live in 2014) as it is different from over 300+ years ago. Everywhere is and based on that argument everything is reformed, job done.

No I am taking about the House of Lords and so on - not the existence of a second chamber but who is in it.

Karren Brady has been apppointed to have power over you btw, probably until the day you pass away and there is nothing you can do about it.

In reply to rogerwebb:


If that's your only argument it's pretty poor, frankly I don't think that we would see Scotland declaring war to England in case of independence.
This union dragged us into an illegal war in Iraq that pretty much f*cked up the whole region, so much for peace...

In reply to Al Evans:


What does this mean, please?


Remarkable! I've heard some scaremongering about how us poor little Scots are so helpless we couldn't run an economy, but I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone say that staying in the UK would ruin our economy.

Thanks for the warning. What made you decide to switch sides?

In reply to Saor Alba:

No I am not saying its reformed but that it is a gradual and continual, if hiccup like process of reform.

Separately I think one of the unfortunate matters of history was the suspension of the Irish (and Scottish) Home rule act of 1914 because of WW1. How different things might have been.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Well f@ck me. I suppose I'd better tell that to those I know who, despite never having been politically active before are now pounding the streets, knocking on doors and actively campaigning for the No campaign. They certainly aren't getting paid - who do they have to contact to submit their claims.

Really, claims like this demean the debate. It is almost as if you are unable to accept that people politically opposed to your position can feel as passionately as you.


I think that the active engagement of both sides in community democratic action is a good thing. If you are desperate to claim credit for it, then crack on. I didn't see many community debates from anyone before independence was put the table.

In reply to rogerwebb:


You carefully ignored all the national press from 2012 which was pointing out that salmond was trying to get a second question in.

the SNP always wanted more devolution, independence is the ultimate goal but not their only goal.


And also avoid seeing the SNP split and die after the referendum.
The SNP has a clear mandate to put independence on the table but you'll be surprised at how many people in the SNP don't actually want independence,


No there was never any chance that independence is ever going to win, that's a statistical fact.


It's with the facts that you disagree, not with me.

In reply to off-duty:

Knocking on doors and campaigning is not the same as holding public meetings.

Where, exactly, are these people know you doing this?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No its not.

We are discussing the internal arrangements within the UK not its foreign policy under the last government. Please do not assume that I agree with that policy.

In reply to Saor Alba:



FFS. I have no idea why I need to justify myself, when you are the one smearing.

Near Edinburgh.

In reply to RomTheBear and rogerwebb:

Would it be reasonable to conclude that Salmond would prefer more devolution to the status quo, but would rather have full independence, and so he didn't fight too hard against the exclusion of this extra question?

In reply to RomTheBear:


There is a chance


No, I am making an assessment based on what Alex Salmond has said, not the views of journalists.

In reply to skog:

!

Nicely put! Peace broke out

In reply to Indy: final comment re. Devo max on/off the ballet - it may be historical now, but if the vote goes against independence I'd expect who said what when to be fully explored in the repercussions and excuses prior to setting up for another referendum

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nonsense. The bookies say 6-1, add on some proft for them and a bit more and lets say 10-1.

In reply to skog:


What you have to see are the political games behind all this.

In fact Salmond wanted badly a devomax option because he knew he would never win a full independence referendum, which he had to have because it was elected on that promise.
But that's the perfect opportunity for the other parties to get rid of the SNP and the devomax question for good by not allowing any second question on devolution.

Salmond tried to counter that by suggesting a currency union, (which is basically a sort of devomax), but that again was carefully destroyed by the Westminster parties who pledged to not allow one.

In fact Salmond put himself in a corner with this referendum, and I don't think his party will get out alive, his only hope of survival is maybe a score for the yes higher than 40%.

In reply to Donnie:

From my personal sources in the Scottish Parliament (who have access to proper in depth polls), apparently there is absolutely no doubt there that the result will be a no. But one can always hope

In reply to RomTheBear:

The SNP are unlikely to be killed by a No vote, there is plenty of support for them.

There will still be the ongoing issue of more powers/reform - if that's denied too badly, if we're 'bluffed' on it just now, support will probably rise for another referendum.

A No vote followed by a strong "devo max" type arrangement might keep the SNP support firmly in the minority for a long time, but the only thing I think might actually kill them is a Yes vote.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It may be unlikely but there clearly is a chance. As a matter of statistical fact.

In reply to skog:


It's not a question of support, it's more an internal issue for the SNP, most certainly it will split.

In reply to Donnie:








Point 4 is exactly why there should be no currency union ...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Might be a good opportunity for rebranding - the name's awful!

In reply to IainRUK:


A country being able to leave a currency union is in and of itself a good reason for not having a currency union?

In reply to Donnie:

It should be so punishing that it makes it all but impossible unless in the most economically screwed times..

Scotland has no long term desire to stay with the currency union, we'll end up in the euro too.. That is the standout option...

In reply to IainRUK:

You seem very certain about all this Iain. But just to clarify are you saying that a country being able to leave a currency union is in and of itself a good reason for not having a currency union? And, if so, why?

I'm not necessarilly disagreeing I'd just like to understand what your argument is exactly.

For the record I think our own currency might be the best option.

In reply to Donnie:



No, but a currency union should also mean central control of fiscal policy. The eurozone now has the European Fiscal Compact and it's widely acknowledged more fiscal union is required in the eurozone (you know, in response to that crisis that seems to have put nationalists off the euro).

In reply to IainRUK:

The UK was effectively in different currency unions for most of the past century. The pound was tied to the usd until the 70s, and then tied to the deutshmark by Thatchers, then there was the erm... It's only at the end of the 90s that the pound became a totally independent free floating currency.

The UK has used many different systems and unions during its history depending on what was possible and best suited at the time. And so can Scotland, there is a large array of options available.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Yes, a currency union would be likely to require some fiscal controls. But it'd be up to Scotland to agree to them or not and it wouldn't less control than we have now.

In reply to Donnie:


True, but that's exactly why there should be a plan B. Salmond seems to be going the other way

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/09/alex-salmond-refuses-curren...

In reply to Donnie:
Any currency union should be a generations thing.. Decades... Not jump between depending on short term strengths..

I've seen a few scots now say 'well we can join the £.. (So the Uk restructures it's management) and leave if it doesn't work)..

Long term the euro will dominate, it's the bigger currency, but salmond knows that's not popular at the moment but I suspect they know that but don't want to say it...

In reply to Donnie:




Why?

I just think your own currency will be a hugely expensive transition?

The EU would love Scotland in the euro.. And to get in the EU they will need to commit to the euro... As a unique case I think a path will be created from the pound to the euro if Scotland votes yes..

I really don't see why anyone wants yes and wants to share the £... The UK would have a huge amount of input on many Scottish matters as we would be the LOLR still... So I think it would be right the RUK could say 'no lower that tax, raise x... The behaviour is too risky..' You'd just not have independence, it would effectively be devo max... At best..

In reply to IainRUK:




Indeed independence with a currency union is a basically devomax. Which is what Scottish people in their majority would want to see.

But I agree with you, now that devomax or currency union are off the table it's clear that the best option would be a separate currency or the euro.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Really? Do you think that, if there is a "No" vote, there will be no further powers devolved to Scotland? Do you think a law will be passed preventing any further lobbying for, or granting off, devolved powers?

There is a vote for the people of Scotland to decide if they want to exercise their right to self-determination. After that, if people vote "No", there is amply scope to increase devolution, in keeping with recent policies...

Increased devolution is on the table and always has been. It's just not - rightly - in a vote on independence, as it is a different concept.

In reply to RomTheBear:



CU isn't off the table, Salmond says so. Do pay attention.

In reply to IainRUK:

You're answering different questions from the ones I asked.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I think Salmond's position here is purely political. He doesn't want to give the media the chance to say Scotland to have own currency, and he wants to improve his negotiating position in the event of a yes vote by prior commitment, making it more costly for him to back down. RUK is doing the same thing when it says absolutely no chance of a currency union.

Personally, I think he's misjudged it - avoiding being explicit on a plan B's been pretty costly for them. He's in tough position though particularly given the media bias.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


When have you ever seen countries go into a difficult negotiation without saying the thing they are most likely to compromise on is off the table?

Speaking of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt how do you feel about Juncker's clarification with regard to Scotland joining the EU?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-juncker-symp...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Strange, I read that piece and I can't see any quote from Juncker, nice try though, but a bit desperate.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Why not just admit the 'EU won't let Scotland in' line was obvious crap. Same as the 'UK won't share the pound under any circumstances' line and for the same reason: it is in their own interest.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Sorry, I missed your quote from juncker, could you repost it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So, order of events as I understand them -

Junker mentions that the EU won't be getting any bigger
No campaign jump on it as meaning Scotland wouldn't be allowed in
EC confirms publicly that that wasn't Junkers meaning
EC source quoted in mainstream no bias news paper, what it says which supports yes position
EC fails to deny said source

Now it doesn't mean anything for certain and I don't think anyone's saying it does. Butit's certainly not an nreasonable or "desperate" to think that probably we'll get in the EU withou too much trouble.

In reply to Donnie: Well, the first hurdle is a vote for independence, and that doesn't appear to be very likely.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

True, but any reasonable interpetation of the discussion about EU membership was that it assumed we'd already voted yes.

I suspect you're just trying to change the subject now because you look a bit silly with your "anything that's not a direct quote is meaningless" nonsense.

In reply to Donnie: Here's a direct quote "The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland,"

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So, I say your trying to change the subject and.... you change the subject again!! It's a bit like Alex Salmond on currency unions (ironically given your quote which I agree is a bit mental).

Happy to discuss currency instead of the EU if you prefer?

In reply to Donnie:



We can do either, YES has no answers. IScotland isn't an EU member and it can't force foreign countries to join a currency union, so not much to discuss really. We could look at the latest polls I suppose.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Excellent statement of the obvious.

I'm pretty sure that no one is saying Scotland is an EU member or that it can force rUK to join a formal currency union. Clearly the things to discuss are what is likely to happen if Scotland does vote yes and what would happen if it votes no.

On the EU it seems likely that we would be allowed back in without too much trouble. Spain were the main risk of veto and they are taking the line that Scottish independence is different from that of catalunia or the basque country for constitutional reasons.

On currency union the rUK does seem to be painting itself into a corner where it would have to say no. But I think we'd be prefectly fine with our own currency anyway so it's really a bit of a non issue to me. Both sides are playing politics and jostling for position in any negatiations.

The polls do suggest that there will be a no vote. You never know though! Vote YES!

In reply to Donnie:



Er, Salmond (you know the chap, YES cheerleader) says iScotland can make rUK join a CU. What is it with the lies?


You have no idea how likely it is. All you have is wishful thinking.


So why doesn't YES campaign on the basis of a iScotland currency? Do they want that? If they do why are they saying they want CU?


Clearly you can vote however you like, it seems most Scots have more sense than you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


He's said it's in the UK's inetersts and he expects them to join and he's said that if they don't Scotland won't pay it's share of the debt. And he's said they can't stop Scotland using the pound. He's not said Scotland can force the UK to have a formal currency union.


Okay.


Mainly because it's politically popular.

In reply to Donnie:


Well, let's remember what he said "The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland," just in case you'd forgotten. Do carry on an try and spin it though.


Oh, I see. What a fine leader for independence.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


In the same first minster question he says that if they won't have a formal currency union Scotland won't take it's share of the debt. I'm not sure how you can interpret that as him having the ridiculous view that Scotland could actually force rUK to enter a formal currency union.


1. We're not voting for Alex Salmond

2. rUK are doing exactly the same and they don't have disadvantage of being on the wrong end of a shamefully biased media. Salmond refers often to the other options listed in the white paper and that he won't go for the Euro option. He's basically avoiding giving the media and the no campain the headline they want. (I think he'd be better being more straight forward)

In reply to Sir Chasm:

if you'd like to take a look http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04cs472/scottish-parliament-live-firs...

In reply to Donnie:


I can only go on what he says as the YES cheerleader, if you can suggest someone else then carry on.


Agreed, he's a bit of a fud.


That's just shorthand for "lying to the electorate", but as you say, he's a bit of a fud.

In reply to Donnie:




I think this.. I just think Salmond needs to not be too threatening.. Cameron played that and got his arse kicked out the door..

But the EU wants to grow and wants all western european countries in.. the last thing it wants is a rival northern atlantic ark or anything of that like.. they will strategically want Iceland in and Scotland.. despite a few issues… if europe is to work, which I think it is, it needs to grow..

the EU is still a pretty revolutionary idea on the world scale, there will be errors.. its still taken very disparate people and trying to form a stable uniform government of it all.. the euro has had a pretty good start over the first decade or so.. it did survive the crash but its now apparent there needs be more of a central fiscal control.. less variability between countries anyway..

Idealistically I still think its the future.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


He says that if we don't have a formal union Scotland won't pay it's share. This isn't a position I support but it's very clear that this acknowledges that rUK could refuse a currency union.


Fud! Good word! I think Salmond's alright though. Bit smug but I really do think he's trying to what's best for people in Scotland and that he believes it.


No it's not. His answer is that they've stated the other options in the white paper and they have. I didn't say he was a bit of a fud. That was you.

In reply to IainRUK:

It's nice to see someone on either side not just taking the partisan line on every issue. And I think I might have acuused you of doing just that a while back. So sorry about that.

In reply to Donnie:



Once again, and I'm sorry to harp on about what he actually said to parliament "The reason we are keeping the pound in a currency union, and the reason we are so unambiguous about it, is because we are appealing to the greatest authority of all, that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland,". Do you understand what " we are keeping the pound in a currency union" means? It isn't aspirational, it isn't saying that's what he wants, it is stated as fact.


I think he's trying to do what's best for wee eck, but then he is a politician.


So is a CU his preferred option or is it the only option he thinks he has a hope of selling (and it isn't working) to the voters?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

This really isn't that difficult. Think about it this way. I could say that my football team is going to sign a certain player because that's what the fans want. Most reasonable people wouldn't inetrpret that as saying that the other club or the player do not have the option of saying, "no thanks, I'd rather play for someone else."

Now, I realise that that the currency debate isn't quite as clear cut as that and the words that you have quoted could, on their own, be interpreted as meaning that Salmond believes that an independent Scotland will be able to enter a formal currency union with rUK and there's nothing rUK can do about it.

But taken in context of what else he said at the same time, no reasonable and intelligent person could draw the conscusion that Salmond does not understand that the rUK could say no to a formal currency union.

Why could no reasonable and intellignet person take that view? Because he also discussed what would happen in scenaios in which rUK does refuse formal currency union.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think it probably is his genuinely preferred option. I don't know though.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well CU is off the table as far as Westminster is concerned...
I am not surprised. CU = devomax and we now know that is one thing Westminster clearly doesn't want.

In reply to wintertree:

Have you seen the plan from labour and the Tories for more devolution ? They are laughable. None of them devolves vat and corporation tax or immigration, but these are vital levers.


The recent policies gave been to give more power without the tax base, which frankly is useless, there is no point having more powers if you can't properly adjust your tax system to finance it.


Again, the devil is in the details. There has been more devolution but every time every power we get is carefully limited to be rendered useless.

For example there is now in Scotland a power to raise or lower income tax by a few points. But we can't change corporation tax nor any other tax, nor can we change the different levels at which income tax is paid. That is utterly useless, in fact we can't use this power because any difference in income tax without compensating on vat or corporation tax would create a big problem for Scotland.

Plus there is no plan from the labour or Tory government to protect to scottish parliament, as it stands any law the Scottish parliament passes can be undone by Westminster. As a matter of fact the Scottish parliament could disappear overnight if a majority of mp wanted to.


Really what Labour and Tory party are calling "more devolution" is just more the same, more fictional or minimal powers, and a Scottish parliament that can be overruled at any time.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The whole "scottish parliament not enshrined in law" thing - I'm afraid thats how we do things, and as has to been pointed out to you by others before, the use of constitutions does not guarantee anything, your own country of origin being a prime example of this.

Similarily the westminster govt allowing the referendum to go ahead was not just some sort of political ploy - there was a clear mandate and it would have been very hard not to give it the go ahead - cutting the legs off a lot of UK foreign policy in the process.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


"That's how we do thing " well can I point out that how we do things is wrong ? Written constitution or not the fact the the Scottish parliament can be overruled is simply wrong and that's a total lack of democracy. You might be happy with that but a lot of people are not.


It would be very naive to say their was no politics behind the referendum, their was a time limit and a one question limit imposed by Westminster, I don't think that was just by chance.

In reply to wintertree:


What they won't do is offer powers that would allow Scotland to compete economically with the South East. They'll let the Scottish parliament vary income tax rates by a few percent but they won't let it change the tax system or access oil taxes.

The UK tax system is set up for the needs of South East England, not the needs of Scotland. For example, Osborne chose to grab tax from North Sea oil thus making investing in new capacity less attractive and screwing up a major Scottish industry, he also made targeted reductions to corporation tax to try and attract multinationals to move their head office to London. Making oil look like a declining industry with less capital investment going in, in the run up to an independence referendum is just an additional benefit.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45e463d8-0b35-11e4-9e55-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3A0...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Is that much different to the RUK ? Our monarchy still has power to dissolve or even over rule I think.. But it won't happen..

Likewise you'll next have Europe as a higher level of government which can and does over rule on a regular basis on human rights issues..

I've never had an issue with our constitution though, I think it's fluid, dynamic and has supported a stable working democracy for generations..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If you have a currency union we'll still have a huge say in your monetary policy... It's why I just can't see why anyone wants that who wants such independence...

If salmond gets his way we will be your LOLR.. So it is only right we have considerable input in fiscal policy and the right to veto plans if we deem them too risky...

In reply to RomTheBear:

I can't see how Devo max could be on..

It would be a huge debate on what's entailed and BT have no powers to offer anything... Or make gurentees as it will likely be another government in power when the devo max would happen..

In reply to IainRUK:


I don't see the problem, England running the monetary policy is the status quo. Immediately post-independence what is needed is to put most aspects of the UK back together as agreements between sovereign nations: nobody needs or wants massive disruption to things that work well. Then over 10 to 20 years the two countries can either maintain the close relationship with most things the same as before independence or gradually drift apart. Quite likely in that time-scale we will both end up in the Euro and surrender more sovereignty to the EU.



Sure. But the really risky thing is the City of London and the amount of money banks are putting into loans against overpriced property in the South East. Everybody in London feels happy in the glow of £300 Billion of QE money flowing through the UK banks but we are following the same trajectory as caused the 2008 crash and until QE is stopped and interest rates rise to normal levels the game is not over.

What is more there is no way Scotland should agree to assuming a proportional share of the UK debt unless it is in a monetary union. The exchange risk of assuming a debt in a foreign currency is too high and there is no way Scotland should pay interest on the fraction of the debt which was monetized by QE and is owned by the Bank of England.

In reply to IainRUK:

This is in fact a myth, the monarch in the UK must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
This is quite different from an UK government which currently has clear legal power to overrule any law made in the Scottish parliament, reduce its powers, or disband it.


Indeed, and that's fine as long as you want to be part of the EU and you are OK with the way the powers are distributed. However with more than 80% of Scots in favour of more devolution I would say that they are not too happy with the way powers are distributed within the UK.



To some extent it's true but I think there are also big risks to this approach, and I think the UK is currently on a slippery slope of chipping away at human rights. Freedom of speech is being reduced step by step, right to privacy almost doesn't exist any more with GCHQ, discriminating laws like tax breaks for married couples, and minimum income requirements for bringing a spouse from abroad...

There are reasons to be worried, in fact the only thing that's limiting this chipping away of fundamental rights in the UK is the European Convention on Human Rights, unfortunately there are big risks that we'll get out of this treaty at some point...

I agree that written constitution are not necessarily for ever, but they do guarantee that laws that are restricting fundamental rights are not passed under the radar and that there is proper wide support for any change.


Regardless of all this we need some kind of constitutional reform in this country, written or not.
It's seriously archaic, frankly you can't argue that having 800 peers in the House of Lords is useful or good for democracy, with "Lords Spiritual" and "Lords Temporal", maybe it's my French roots coming out here, but come on, that's total and utter medieval bullshit we should get rid of

In reply to RomTheBear:


Certainly is medival bullshit, but its been very stable and succesful medival bullshit.

I'm very happy to ditch the house of lords, but I'd want to find a way that keeps people in there (or new similar people) with bags of experience - people like Lord Trees and Lourd Soulsby from my proffesion, so different from the career politicians in the commons. The good features of the house of lords may be very difficult to replicate in a more democratic system.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Actually I'm not for ditching the house of Lords, I think it can be a good instrument for stability. But surely we don't need 800 peers and it has to be made more democratic and secular, it's become a way for political parties to give compensation to donors and friends and surely that's not right.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Totally agree we need to reform the lords, I like the idea of the two tier system but it does need changing to a more balanced house representative of the society it represents… I'm not silly enough to argue that one..

In reply to Dr.S at work:

How are you measuring success? I don't mean if a second chamber is required, I mean on who is in there. Since the public have never been allowed to get into the chamber on democratic means there is no benchmark. Opening it up to elections (by whatever system) would certainly be no worse.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'm referring to the system in toto, rather than the house of lords in isolation really - Post the English Civil war its done pretty well.

I think just having elections for a second chamber could well be worse than the current system - if the people in there ended up like the MP's and MSP's/AM's then I'd not see that as a benefit.

Do you envison a second chamber for Scotland? How do you think it might work?

In reply to RomTheBear:



I agree with that but sadly in this, Scotland is in many aspects leading the way, with proscriptive laws and interpretations of laws, a single police force with at best inadequate accountability, the concept of justice as an administrative process and an erosion of local justice.

When this referendum is done I hope people will pay attention to this whatever the outcome.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I suspect lords reform is one where we all agree.

Is this a first?!

In reply to rogerwebb:

I think we all agree that reform would be a good thing, in the same way some form of constitutional reform/restructuring of the UK would be a good thing - its the how thats the problem

In reply to Dr.S at work: If you have any questions just ask Auntie Al Alex's sex advice, Brilliant http://t.co/EiNijyDMto

In reply to rogerwebb:

And that is where I find the irony of your No vote becomes apparent. Clearly the Lords is not going to undergo any radical reform under the current three main UK parties. You are voting against reform.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Not really. He's just voting against the "reform" you want.

In reply to off-duty:

Disagree. If someone could give me a state by stage timeline and plan for house of Lords reform (in the event of a No vote) and who is going to do it, I would love to hear this. *

* by reform I mean the members are chosen by the public in some democratic system.

In reply to Saor Alba:



I'm sure that would be great. Unfortunately suggesting that one should vote Yes as a means of reforming the house of Lords is a bit like suggesting using a nuclear bomb when all that is proposed is knocking down one towerblock.

In reply to off-duty:


If it is one of those in Luton....

In reply to Saor Alba: Oh dear, http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/scotland
oh dear, oh dear.

In reply to Saor Alba:

In the last 20 years there has been significant reform of the house of lords, and much other constitutional change. I see nothing to suggest that reform/change will not continue.

In reply to off-duty:

And that's why I am not suggesting a Yes vote is a way of reforming the House of Lords. I am suggesting Scotland abandons the House of Lords, stops paying for it, takes no direction from it and it has no power at all over Scotland.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Oh well if you are happy with that then great. I see it as a subsidised, unelected, unaccountable chamber with too many members with too many powers who no one can remove.

On this there is clear water between a Yes and No vote.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Which significant reforms ? The history of the House of lords reforms is a long list of proposal that were never adopted. The only significant thing was to reduce the number of hereditary peers.

Apart from that not much change as far as I am aware of. Clegg had a proposal, which was immediately buried by the backbenchers so that's that.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Absolutely. As a possible indirect consequence of Independence. Otherwise the question of the ballot paper would be "do you want to abolish the house of lords".

In reply to off-duty:

Correct. It will happen I think as a consequence. It's not the primary aim. Scotland would need a second chamber though and that could be democratic.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Sorry I am not looking for an opinion. I am looking for the factual evidence that the future independent Scottish Parliament will a)have a second chamber and b)it will be democratic.

In reply to dissonance:

You wont get any then as I think it may just be my opinion. However on the second point I think you would struggle to find a person who would want to replicate the house of lords.

In reply to Saor Alba:

But you've got to have a House of Lords! Where else are you going to put the Scottish peers? Eh?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Why would it need a second chamber ? I think we have been managing quite well without in Scotland. The system of committees is great and has led to polices of much greater quality, it also makes the whole process completely transparent which is a nice change.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Of course they will. But it will be called the House of Lairds.

In reply to ByEek:

How true....Dan Snow....I wonder if Lord Snow will get in? Rhetorical question.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Typically a 2nd chamber is used to revise legislation (badly needed in Scotland as the quality of legislation if not the intent is often appalling) and to restrain the 1st chamber and make it think again.


How you choose the members of that 2nd chamber is another matter........

In reply to rogerwebb:



Isn't this exactly what hereditary privilege, blue blood, a grouse estate and an Eton education is meant to train you for?

In reply to rogerwebb:

I completely disagree, the committee system is Scotland eliminates the need of a revising chamber, I think it's been an excellent system that produced legislation of much higher quality than what we see from Westminster, and it's also a completely transparent process.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

We always looked down on the Eton lads as thickos where I went, not that this refutes your point in any way.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The criminal legislation has tended to be ill thought out and insufficiently flexible to work properly.

I am fed up with having to deal with people that neither I nor the cops involved think should be in the criminal justice system. This lack of proper scrutiny has led to completely outrageous situations where people are kept in custody for matters which not only would most not consider to be criminal offences but I would hope that the Scottish Parliament did not intend to criminalise.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Holyrood? High quality legislation? Mm, interesting. Examples please?

In reply to RomTheBear:



In terms of the House of Lords,the reduction in hereditary peerages and their eventual elimination was a pretty major change - that systems been in place for hundereds of years.

More generally Devolution has been a fairly radical change in the last 20 years - characterising the UK as not willing to reform is simply untrue. Lots more to do certainly, especially to the House of Lords, but I think getting the house of Lords right is not straightforward.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


We'll they are not eliminated as far as I know, simply reduced to around 90 if I remember well.
And that's not really a major change, more a total absurdity that should gave been eliminated 100 years ago.


But look again the timescales here, it's taken 300 years to get where we are and there doesn't seem to be to be any plan from any Westminster party to deliver on the crucial things, like corporation taxes and revenue from oil money as well as guaranteeing that the Scottish parliament can't be overruled.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Not perfect but certainly better than UK laws that are challenged in various courts all the time, despite having 800 Lords supposed to scrutinise them...
I know there were some problems in the past but I reckon the role of the committed over scrutiny was reinforced.
I find this system much more democratic and transparent.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm not sure why you baulk at the timescale - over that period there have been HUGE changes - starting with the rather Radical act of Union itself

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Really ?
Act of union 1707
First Scottish parliament 1999.

In between not much apart from many attempts to get home rule all rejected or killed in the womb by Westminster, including a referendum in 1979 where a majority voted for devolution...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Reform of the UK political structure, not just the relationship between Scotland and the Union.

This has in many ways been more radical and advanced than in that glowing symbol of reform, France.
http://www.iub.edu/~paris10/ParisOSS/D11_Sex_and_Gender/d7_Offen.html

In reply to Dr.S at work:




I am not sure how that relates to the issue of Scottish devolution that has lingered for 300 years.

In reply to RomTheBear:
well, we have been straying a bit - House of Lords reform etc.

One of the points made in favour of breaking up the UK by Soar Alba and others is that the UK is not following a particular political agenda which they support, often citing lack of change/reform of some institutions.

I'm trying to counter by suggesting that in fact the history of the UK is full of major reform, and it is often ahead of the curve when it comes to constitutional change. Also that recent UK history has shown major constitutional change, in the case in point devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In reply to Dr.S at work:




Well again I disagree I don't think there was much done. One significant reform in terms of devolution for Scotland after 300 years is not exactly an history "full of major reform"

In reply to RomTheBear:



Reform acts, votes for women, removal of Lords veto power, lowering the voting age, removal of University MPs, joining the EU, joinng ECHR, devolution to Scotland, Wales, Ireland, House of Lords Reform, Mayor of London etc etc

It seems the British state changes pretty regularly and in all sorts of ways to me.

In reply to RomTheBear: If you have nae figures just make it up as you go along http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11026966/Eye-c...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Don't be negative.

In reply to MG:


Of course it changes but the fact that we still have hereditary peers and lords spirituals is not exactly very modern.

But again in terms of Scottish devolution there was not much happening. It took a very long time before the home rule movement managed to get a referendum on devolution in 1979, which was engineered by Westminster to fail with the 40% rule, it then took again 20 years from that point to have another referendum and a Scottish parliament...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think we can all agree that the figures given by both camp are out of thin air. No news there.

In reply to MG:


Sorry, how about this - most Scots aren't stupid enough to believe the lies Salmond is feeding them?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes campaign is giving eye catching figure they got out of thin air, Better together does exactly the same to put the worst possible figures out there.

In that respect both campaigns have been absolutely crap, but I wasn't really expecting much anyway.

In reply to RomTheBear:




Because, rather obviously, until the 1960s it had minimal support. Requiring 40% support before adopting a major change is hardly unreasonable.

it then took again 20 years from that point to have another referendum and a Scottish parliament...

Referendums at 20 year intervals on such matters strikes me as rather frequent. Do you want one a year or something?

In reply to RomTheBear:



Well, not exactly the same, remember these made up figures?http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/flaws-found-in-scottish-governmen...

In reply to MG:

Requiring 40% support before adopting a major change is hardly unreasonable.

Ho come on everybody knows the 40% rule was designed by politicans opposed to devolution to make sure the referendum fails, with the low participation rates at the time they basically made sure the devolution would not happen.



It would be better if devolution had happened step by step rather than by long waits of repeated attempts all rejected until once in a blue moon it's just not sustainable and we need a referendum.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So politician talk numbers out of their arses, shocker, I didn't know that.
Read both leaflet from the Scottish Government and HM Government that we all received recently regarding independence. They are both full of out of context numbers and wild predictions.

My favourite is from the HM Government leaflet "Scotland spend 10% more per head in public spending than the rest of the UK" Forgetting to mention that Scottish GDP is also 10% per head higher so actually as a proportion of GDP per head Scotland spend less...

In reply to RomTheBear:




So your favourite is not made up and is factually accurate if incomplete? That definitely compares with making up figures about how well off an iScotland would be.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I know that's the SNP myth but I doubt it is the reality.

with the low participation rates at the time they basically made sure the devolution would not happen.

Participation rates in elections were much higher then.


One was rejected, one accepted.


it's just not sustainable and we need a referendum.

Well it's lasted 300 years so far, which is far longer than most states. That seems pretty sustainable to me. And you are getting a referendum that will be lost. No doubt you already have all sorts of reasons why this is unfair and a sinister plot by "Westminster".

Basically you seem to be saying that if you don't get exactgly what you think is best right now, that is a disaster.

In reply to RomTheBear:

High bars for major constitutional change are pretty normal internationally.

Do you not think that the maintenance of much separate Scottish Law etc for the 300 years of Union was pretty good - given the experience of other major European merged states - France for example?

In reply to MG:


Well yes it is. Look it up, there was never any 40% rule for any other referendum apart from this one.



I am not saying it was lower, it was simply undemocratic to impose a 40% rule, it amounts to count in abstentions as part of the result which was never done before in the UK.

That is exactly why the Scottish Government has done everything they could to make sure that this referendum is organised and run in Scotland. Unfortunately they partly failed as they did not manage to have the choice of the timescale nor of the number of questions.


You forgot the dozen of proposals made over the years.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Unfortunately they partly failed as they did not manage to have the choice of the timescale nor of the number of questions.


You Nats are unbelievable. You have had absolutely everything your way. Referendum with SNP administration, gerrymandered voting age, divided opposition, unpopular Westminster government, two years to prepare and still you complain because you couldn't have a non-nonsensical ballot question. Face it, you are going to lose because it is not what Scotland wants, not because of some Machiavellian plot to undermine your cause.

In reply to MG:


Not "Machiavellian plot", just usual political games, these tactics are nothing new, the format of the AV referendum is another example. There is nothing wrong or evil about it but let's not be so naive to think that things are always done in the best interest of democracy.

If anything the timing and format of the indyref is not the result of a Machiavellian plot by Westminster, it's the result of bad strategy from Alex Salmond. He put himself in a corner by promising a referendum on independence before the end of his mandate to get elected, reducing greatly his leverage in the process. That was short term thinking from his part and now he is basically beautifully shafted trying to promote a devomax in disguise in the form of a currency union, that Westminster can just simply vow to reject.

I am not sure why you think a second question on more devolution would be nonsensical given that it is widely popular, in fact if this referendum has only one question it should have been on more devolution as it is more popular than independence.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The format of the independence referendum is an absolute disgrace. There's no way that Salmond should have been allowed to lower the voting age for this one vote. That is an utterly unconstitutional piece of gerrymandering, and it undermines the credibility of the whole exercise.

Fortunately for all concerned, it doesn't seem that the young people of Scotland are as naive and gullible as Alex hoped.

In reply to RomTheBear:


We went through that the other day. You need the questions to be sequential, otherwise you will probably end up with a three way split with no majority opinion. Devo-max would also require the agreement of the rest of the UK, either through parliament or by a nation-wide referendum as it would affect the whole population through changes to tax, borrowing and a whole host of other things. Of course this is actually happening with various further powers likely to be transferred to Scotland.

In reply to MG:

I don't see the problem, you can have two separate questions, which was what Salmond suggested, this way you can't end up with a three way split with no majority.
I agree that devomax needs agreement from the rest of the UK, the fact that the second question was not allowed is a sign that the rUK is not prepared to give that agreement and allow further significant devolution.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I think it would muddy the waters. It doesn't seem possible to define what independence would be, throw in another option and people wouldn't know what they were voting for.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't know why it is so hard to grasp. Independence is massively different from some form of devolution.
It's a fundamental restructuring of the UK and Scotland.
It is the main plank of the existence of the SNP and it was a manifesto pledge.

Let's not try and avoid the elephant in the room with some kind of devo - let's find out if Independence is the way forward or not.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The format of the Referendum was a deal/ compromise/ what-you-will.

As noted above, I think the indications at the moment are surprising to both the UK & Scottish parliamentary leaders who agreed it.

An all or nothing Referendum that decides to keep Scotland in the Union would not stop further devolution necessarily.

Personally I think the UK Parliament would be so grateful if Scotland decides to stay that significant further concessions can be expected.

Whatever Scotland decides is fine by me anyway. Without irony I have to say I'm very pleased with the way the Referendum has been handled, you can quibble on detail, but no one is threatening violence.

We should be proud of ourselves.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I think the average voter is fairly gullible and has not much clue about politics in the first place.
(You'll be amazed at the number of Scots who don't even know the difference between a MP and a MSP).

But to say that having two questions instead of one would confuse everybody is a bit much !
Actually I woudl say that it is the current one question that is very confusing, because the yes vote is now more or less a devomax vote with proposal of a currency union, but again that's not clear at all whether that would be possible or not, and a No vote means that maybe there will be some more powers devolved to Scotland but then again it's only hypothetical and quite vague.

In that regard I think a clear Yes/No question on full independence (no hypothetical currency union nonsense), plus a DevoMax question based on a clear agreement of what DevoMax actually means would actually be a lot less confusing.

In reply to blurty:


Exactly, people need to understand that it was a compromise, to say that the Scottish government was given a mandate to organise a referendum exactly the way they wanted is very far from reality, concessions were made on both sides.



It won't stop it, but I think it will postpone any further significant changes to a few decades away. Unless the Yes vote is dangerously close.


I think there will be concession but I doubt there will be significant. Most significantly I very much doubt that the UK would let go of corporation tax and Oil money.



Very true, overall it's a great success.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So what happens if you get a "yes" for both independence and "Devo Max"?

Regarding a second question and the UK government, not allowing it was not a sign they did not want further devolution as such. Rather, quite reasonably, the UK didn't want a referendum where the effects of ill-defined further devolution weren't considered by the UK parliament. A yes vote on "Do you want Devo-Max?" would have been meaningless without Dev-Max being defined. As it is, further devolution can be examined by parliament properly (and probably done incrementally, which also seems sensible).

In reply to RomTheBear:



I don't mean confuse, I just mean, well, muddy the waters.


We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would have been possible to agree to what devomax would be, it doesn't seem possible for independence, and that should be clear cut. I suspect Scotland would have been offered 2 forms of devomax, without the SNP and westminster agreeing on either, but pretty much a certainty that the lesser would go through, thus a 'victory' for Salmond.

I think independence is so important is should be voted on in isolation.... it does seem as the time comes people are really thinking about what it would mean (but then I'm in England so might be getting the wrong impression).

In reply to Indy:

They should have the following £1 = 1 JocK

and 1p = 1 bollock

That way a load of bollocks can make up one Jock.

In reply to MG:


Very easy then it's independence. The idea put forwward by Salmond was to have a second fallback question on devomax in case the majority votes against independence.

And that's a very sensible thing to do, in fact most No parties are now saying that they will put forward devolution plans in case of a no vote. The only problem is that they are vague, hypothetical, and generally insufficient (apart from the libdem but let's face it they have zero chance to ever be able put it forward)


I think there were already several DevoMax proposals out there and they could have been examined and negotiated before being put to a referendum. You argument that they didn't want a question on more devolution because they want more devolution is a bit twisted. My interpretation is that they didn't want a question on more devolution because they want to avoid it if at all possible, plus a single question on independence that is likely to fail is a perfect opportunity to get rid of the SNP for a while.

In reply to RomTheBear:




A Yes vote for Independence is massively different from "more or less devomax with a proposal for a currency union".

If you really think that the consequences (and impact) to the whole of the UK and Scotland of voting for Independence is "more or less" the same as voting for Devomax then I implore you to think again.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Not a bit like Salmond's plans in the case of a Yes vote, then?

In reply to Indy:
This is an interesting bit from William Hill the bookies
http://willhillbet.tumblr.com/post/94438394233/79-of-scots-backing-yes

In reply to blurty:

Agreed. It has been robust, at times ill tempered, but overall very good natured and a lot of fun at other times. One thing is for sure, things will never be the same.

I don't know why people like Tim are still confused about this. Clearly the push for independence is not just about one man but the continually mention him. Of course it's to use his perceived unpopularity to denigrate the independence push but as we know, the Yes Campaign is way more broader than that.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'm not in the least bit confused. Even if he is not technically the head of the Yes campaign, the Yes campaign have chosen to use Wee Eck as their front man in almost all the forums that matter.

Your bed; now lie in it

In reply to lynx3555:



How is it interesting?

The odds are better for a yes.. Worth a punt.. Sticking a few quid on a no would give you something like 30p back...

In reply to RomTheBear:






Given people do not agree on what independence means (ie, keeping th pouns sterling as a joint currency as an example) hardly think agreeing on devo max would be any clearer

In reply to IainRUK:
79% of bets have been placed on a yes out come even though the returns will be small, in the case of Motherwell and Dundee, 100% of bets have been placed on a yes vote....I find that interesting.

In reply to orejas:


Devo max would guarantee keeping the pound, but then that wasn't on offer, because Westminster would likely prefer reducing Scotland's powers than increasing them.
Bungling Boris let slip recently that there was no need for Scotland to have any more powers.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-letting-sl...

In reply to lynx3555:

Returns will be small on a Yes result? The odds are 9/2!

What is interesting (despite the fact that they aren't revealing either the exact total numbers or the amounts bet) that they have set the odds very strongly in favour of a No vote, despite the apparent large number of bets for Yes.
And the only thing bookies want to do is make money.

In reply to lynx3555:

I don't think you understand odds..

If you put $8 on a no you gain a $..

If you put $8 on a yes you gain $36..

In reply to off-duty:



Must confess to be a bit green when it comes to betting Odds....it would be interesting to know what the numbers are that have placed bets.

In reply to IainRUK:




I wasn't really paying attention to the odds, more interested in percentages...gambling isn't my forte....been to Vegas 3 times but never put a dime in a slot machine, don't gamble.

In reply to lynx3555:

Well it shows that the bookies want to encourage people to bet on the side they think will lose... And the bookies are confident of a no win.. Hence such awful odds that put people of betting on a no ..

In reply to lynx3555:


Ironic statement from someone who is advocating taking such a big gamble

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I would say that it's a much bigger gamble on our future remaining in the UK, but then I would say that....that day is drawing closer now, and I am still very confident that Scotland will chose independence....in the unlikely event that we don't, then I have every faith that we will continue to push for further powers, and ultimately maybe Devo Max. This will no doubt annoy a lot of people, but that's dedication for you

In reply to Indy:

How about the Groat? A little bit of history repeating, as the Welsh lady sang....

In reply to off-duty:


I wouldn't put it past betting chains risking a little money to try to influence the result, either for business reasons because independent Scotland might change regulations on gambling or because of the political views of the senior management/shareholders.

Whatever the odds I think most voters will be smart enough to realise that a victory for NO by a large margin would be carte-blanche for the UK government to refuse any meaningful additional devolution and mess with existing funding arrangements.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

You are confused. The point I am making is the vision of independence is shared by many, not just AS, and people do not have that vision because of AS.

In reply to lynx3555: why will Devo annoy people?

It's clearly not unlikely...

In reply to IainRUK:
our relentless campaigning will no doubt annoy the Unionists, they are hoping we just melt away into the wilderness if no wins. If through petitions etc we can campaign for this, then I think it would be a sure winner. It should have been a choice, not my choice, I'm total independence, but I know that some no voters and a lot of undecideds would have ticked the Devo Max box...but Westminster refused to consider this choice, probably because of the likely hood that it would have been a winner.

In reply to IainRUK:


I don't trust the Tories, Labour or UKIP with Scotlands future, they will resist change and I strongly suspect that they will renege on any extra powers...they haven't laid out what those extra powers are, that they have suggested that they will give, what are they? No one knows.

In reply to lynx3555:


Unless they are interested enough to do some real investigation, like reading a newspaper....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ff0a24a-1e3e-11e4-bb68-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AD...

In reply to lynx3555:

You think it's unlikely there will be a no vote..

Many dissgree..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And you guys complain about BT being negative. Interesting how see how things are changing.