UKC

So, are you keen to see Scotland out on their own, or is it a bad idea for them to leave the fold?

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

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

What's it to be- In or Out?

In reply to Ed Navigante: I'm not sure the economics statement there is very accurate. It appears that scotland generates more tax per capita... but whether scotland would be better off or worse off, I think it's likely to be marginal. Yet to fully decide which way I'll be voting, but I'm edging towards Yes.

In reply to David Barratt: And to add to that, I am finding when I talk to people about it, those undecided are edging in a yes direction rather than the other way. but that could change. Folk at work are fairly evenly split.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

Challenges will exist, as they do for all countries but, in my view, the best way to face them is with the full range of tools available. I will be voting yes.

In reply to Saor Alba: It was a very good debate wasn't it? I was impressed with the Green Party member. The War/military issue is a big one for me.

In reply to Ed Navigante:
I can scarcely contain my indifference though on balance I hope they vote yes and then it will be over and done with, Despite Fat Alex's 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' guff I can't see the nationalists giving up if they lose. It will just keep coming back until either they get their way or we all die of boredom.

In reply to Ed Navigante: as a scot im proud and at times ashamed to be both scottish and britsh in equal measure.
i suspect it will be a no from me.

In reply to buzby:

...and a No from me too. I see no benefit in it and have yet to see anything that will convince me. In fact I've yet to see anything (other than nationalistic guff) that actually lays out the real benefits of independence at all.

In reply to Ed Navigante: No from me. Geographical, historic, practical, linguistic, economic, emotional considerations all faviour one country with a fair degree of devolved power in the long term. Plus in the short to medium term the lack of thought about the implications of independence by nationalists on so many fronts (pensions, EU, military, currency, national debt etc.) means upheaval would be dramatic with all sorts of unexpected consequences.

In reply to MG: I think you'll find that all those issues have been carefully considered, when the time is right the snp will reveal the answers.

In reply to PeterM:

+1

In reply to David Barratt:

It was. I was there and it was interesting to see on the TV afterwards also. I'd say there was about equal support for both camps but the numbers of undecided is rising I think.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

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

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

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

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

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

To be sure, I haven't changed that much since then, but I get the nuance of political situations a lot more now.

In reply to Saor Alba:
If you promised to make Judith Ralston,Queen of Scots, count me in.

In reply to zebidee:

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

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

I think the fabled white paper will go some way to addressing your concerns.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

In reply to Ed Navigante:


Secondary schoolchildren in Aberdeenshire voted 3:1 against Independence in a mock election yesterday.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I saw that so lots of work to do. It's interesting to note the tone of much of the no camp.

In reply to Ed Navigante:


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


Perhaps, but I think this is a classic mistake made by adults that youngsters can't take serious decisions seriously.

In reply to Ed Navigante: I'm completely in the dark as to how the big questions would be dealt with the [post] SNP. At the moment it looks like the Scots are being asked to take a leap of faith. (Surely the detail will emerge over the next 12 months??!)

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

It may well be 'yes'

In reply to blurty:

I think you have hit the nail on the head, more detail (to follow I hope) and this is the long game and for the long term.

In reply to ByEek:
By that logic shouldn't five year olds be given the vote too?

In reply to blurty:

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

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

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


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

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

It concerns me that we'll end up with small fish attempting to negotiate with some real sharks in Westminster after a "yes" vote. Like what happened in Ireland between Collins & Churchill.

In reply to blurty:

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

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

It's going to be an interesting year to, hopefully, see some of this answered.

In reply to Ed Navigante: The whole thing is very risky, there are no certainties. For that reason I am voting yes. Uncertainty means things can change and I see that as an opportunity to change for the better.

In reply to Saor Alba:
I guess it has been impossible to flesh out the details because, as yet, Cameron has not started the negotiations.

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

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/24081596

In reply to zebidee:

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

And come a yes vote, they would find themselves in a weird position of their jobs going out of existence. They should in that situation join with the Scottish Government and get the best deal possible.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Agreed that is not a particularly helpful story but no big deal. As I am sure you will know, there is an almost daily barage of stories from the UK government. The best one recently has been the roaming charges for mobile phones.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to skog:

That more or less exactly mirrors my thinking.

By the way - have you seen Simon Heffer's article in the Mail today? It's a shocker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2424713/Why-Scots-MUST-vote-indep...

In reply to skog:

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

In reply to graeme jackson:

Agreed. I can't see any issues though as all law is already EU compliant and the French and Spaniards are unlikely to deprive themselves of the fishing.

In reply to graeme jackson:


What's the latest on the UK potentially voting to leave the EU in 2017 anyway?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Spain? They'll have the spectre of catalunya hanging over them. Showing the catalunyans how hard independent life can be made to be could provide a useful demonstration...

In reply to AJM:

France have the same thing with the basque region

In reply to Ed Navigante:

Correct, this is a pressure many of the older countries are under. That it is exists is not a problem at all unless you believe in things never changing.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

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

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

Or

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

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

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

In reply to AJM:

Me neither. It's not a big issue to the debate here so they will just have to deal with it.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

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

The focus would change to the UK EU referendum. It is entirely possible that an individual votes no due to concerns about Scotland's EU membership and finds themselves out of the EU due to the UK EU referendum result. This is a real possibility.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Quite a few Scottish athlete are already worrying about not having UK athletics backing them. Personally I think a yes vote will be taking Scotland back into the middle ages, what next, tribalism, independence for Orkney and Shetlands, the whole idea is daft, we should be uniting as a nation not fragmenting in the 21st century.

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

Leaving the EU would be such a massive economic mistake for the UK.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

Agreed but it is a real possibility and as likely in many ways as Scottish independence.

In reply to graeme jackson:

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

Which I'm fine with, but it isn't going to be a vote-winner.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Ugh, that's a nasty piece of work!

In reply to Saor Alba:

Same sentiment as well.

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

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

In reply to Saor Alba:

I think I could have guessed how you will vote from your username.

In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

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

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

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

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

I've noticed that this thread is not exactly littered with references or links to info as to why the 'Yes' camp think it'll be a good idea.
Joining the Euro would be a disaster for Scotland.

In reply to PeterM:

Why would it?

(honest question)

In reply to FreshSlate:

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

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

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

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

In reply to Ed Navigante:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/18/scottish-independence-spend...

may be of interest

In reply to skog:

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

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

In reply to skog:



I agree, although equally I find those in favour of independence but wanting to stay in the EU puzzling.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

It'll be a No from me. Likely result will probably be the devo-max thang.

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?

In reply to MG:



But why? I'm a Unionist, but I don't see the need for both unions when we could be focusing on the bigger one.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

They are old enough to pay income tax. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
And what they choose to vote for should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to vote. Those who are too immature to think about it, are less likely to bother voting, but those who have an opinion should have it represented.

In reply to 999thAndy:
In 200 years the oil will have run out, and stuff we can't begin to dream of will be happening (who in 1813 would have dreamed of the atomic bomb or a man walking on the moon, or computers and the internet?)

What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as a part of the UK?

In reply to skog:

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

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

In reply to skog:

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

So I'll ask again - What is the compelling argument that tells me Scotland will be better in 200 years as an independent country?

In reply to lynx3555:
- An idea would maybe to base your voting decision on facts and or some research.


- Based on what?

In reply to MG:

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

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

I don't think staying in the UK would/will be a terrible thing, or that Scottish independence would be without drawbacks - I just think independence has the potential to be a bit better, hopefully for both/all 'parts'.

In reply to Ed Navigante: We used to hear how wealthy we would all be if we joined the "arc of prosperity" along with Spain ,Portugal, Ireland, Iceland how did that work out?

In reply to skog: Why would more tourists visit an independent Scotland?

In reply to Ed Navigante: I'm a firm believer in decentralisation and hope Scotland votes yes. I like to think it will pave the way for Wales and Ireland to follow suit, then eventually England to split into smaller states.

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

In reply to shaun l:

As a North-Easterner I really hope this doesn't happen, since for all the arguments about whether or not Scotland is better off without the rest, I know we wouldn't be!

In reply to skog:

Yes but that was *ages* ago!

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

That bit is just bonkers - sink it or something.


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

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

FFS! Grow up...

In reply to PeterM:

keep it clean - we've had a UKC debate about a thorny divisive political issue without any descent into name calling yet

In reply to 999thAndy:

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

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

Neither option seems particularly bad to me, but it's clear that neither side is going to be able to make accurate promises about 20 years from now, never mind 200.

In reply to blurty:

The UK Government ruled out Devo Max some time ago. That's the reason it's not on the ballot paper.

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

As for Scotland's future: it'll take faith, it'll take a belief that the people of the present and future can make it work. Before every big decision there is a feeling of doubt, when you buy a new house, or car or even climbing a serious route....but you know you can do it so you do.
I have trawled over lots of information relating to Scotland's prospects as an independent country, and see nothing but benefits....but I guess some people will value the things that will be lost more than others ie. Nukes, much smaller army, air force and navy...just like Norway, Denmark etc.....

In reply to 999thAndy:

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

In reply to lynx3555: Scottish people invented science? Sounds fascinating, can you expand?

In reply to PeterM:

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

You frequently comment on this topic so I presume you have kept up with the debate? Or do you not believe something unless you read it on UKC?

In reply to MG:


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

In reply to lynx3555:

I had heard that the union 300 years ago was because Scotland sent a load of money and people off to colonize Panama, and then went bankrupt? (called the Darien Scheme) Most of the ministers who voted for the union expected to get personally bailed out by the rest of the UK

In reply to MG:


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

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

How long have you lived in Scotland for?

In reply to Douglas Griffin: Some Scottish loch, I would guess. No longer RUK's problem...

In reply to Ed Navigante: not so much a 'big day' but a divorce and they seldom end well

In reply to Saor Alba:


Ahh Donnie, as usual completely missing the point! Bits of irony meter everywhere...
a) As I noted I don't want this to happen precisely because I *do* want everyone to carry on doing well.
b)Why should RUK care for a Scotland that has just unilaterlly chosen to piss off leaving RUK to mend all the bits that break as a result.

In reply to skog:

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

In reply to MG:


You seriously think that?

In reply to Al Evans:

It took you a bit longer than it usually does, but you got there...

In reply to MG:

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

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

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

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

Since moving to Scotland, have you stopped caring about where you were before?

In reply to Al Evans:

You remind me of Enoch Powell

In reply to Saor Alba:
How others see us, is vastly different from how we see ourselves!

In reply to PeterM: I see first hand the engineering skills that Scotland has and has even more potential to lead the world with. It still isn't fully appreciated the actual amount of oil and gas potential Scotland has, although even with out it independance could be an economic reality The west coast of Scotland I still delivering massive field....the Clare ridge project being one...eventually producing over 200000 bpd x $100ish pd
If Scotland had followed Norway and started an oil fund back in the 70',s we'd have something similar to them which is a 500 billion dollar sum to help Norway evolve away from fossil fuel industries.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/03/norways-oil-fund-realizing-full-pot...
It's never to late and Scotland could easily do the same....
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/28112701/4

In reply to Douglas Griffin: I suspect that when they negotiate the proportions of national debt to be incurred by Scotland (if Yes vote) then some bargaining will take place on keeping the nukes in Faslane for a reduced debt.

Pure guess but it would make complete sense for both parties I would imagine.

In reply to lynx3555:

Agreed. Keep up the good work and remember this site is utterly unrepresentative of Scotland.

In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:

Good point and interesting.

In reply to Saor Alba:

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


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

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




Never really thought before but as it happens 18 years.

In reply to Saor Alba:


The exact opposite in fact. If *Scotland* leaves my care and interest finishes (or rather reduces to the level I have for say the French). If it stays, I hope everyone in the UK does well.

In reply to the thread:

Come on folks, who spiked Al's drink?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I'd applaud Al for encouraging support for independence, but I'd rather it happened for positive reasons or not at all!

In reply to lynx3555: As an interesting aside to your point about Norways Sovereign fund. It is mainly invested in Western Government bonds and oil and gas companies (which is odd as the fund should act as a hedge against the one industry they excel in). Amazingly it doesn't invest in large infrastructure projects (you would think that would be a given...especially domestically).

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

Still a nice $750b problem to have though...

In reply to Douglas Griffin: I guess a bit more subtle and complex but essentially yes.

In reply to David Barratt:

A 5 year old would pay tax is they had a big enough paper round.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Obviously. But then there isn't a web site that is.

In reply to MG:

Essentially what? That the whereabouts of its independent nuclear deterrent "wouldn't be the UK's problem"? Well, it's a point of view...

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

The UK wouldn't exist!

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

Still, no doubt I am just a self-centred, bastard for even considering such matters.

In reply to Ed Navigante: Actually sir you don't know that because it's never been tried! I'm from the north east too and I think the best way to improve our little valley would be a localised economy, which I think would come with decentralisation.

In reply to Ed Navigante: 300 years ago Scotland was plagued with dire poverty mostly as a result of continental wars with Europe etc that prevented Scotland trading; King Billy had been on the rampage and now after his death Queen Anne was he'll bent on Scotland joining as one with England.
When the Scotish parliment objected to the Queens terms for the union the English Parliament responded with the Alien Act 1705, which threatened to impose economic sanctions and declare Scottish subjects aliens in England, unless Scotland either repealed the Act of Security or moved to unite with England. The Estates chose the latter option; the English Parliament agreed to repeal the Alien Act, and new commissioners were appointed by Queen Anne in early 1706 to negotiate the terms of a union.
Just as people were starting to starve to death all over Scotland, "The man who came up with the answer was a financial adventurer called William Paterson, a Scot who had made his name down south as one of the founding directors of the Bank of England. Paterson returned to Edinburgh with an audacious scheme to turn Scotland into the major broker of trade across the Pacific Ocean. Whilst in London, he had met a sailor called Lionel Wafer, who had told him about a wonderful paradise on the Isthmus of Panama, with a sheltered bay, friendly Indians and rich, fertile land - a place called Darien."
The whole venture was destined for disaster all along...English partners pulled out and it became a financial nightmare...some would say that it was a set up....

In reply to PeterM: Jesus... what's got your knickers in such a twist?

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

In reply to MG:


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


Maybe, maybe not - I really don't know. I'm just curious as to how you can in one breath say that it wouldn't be any concern of the rUK, and then in the next recognise that they'd have to negotiate to keep it.

In reply to Al Evans:


Feasgar Math Al, I had a wee bet with myself that you'd be on havering about Yorkshire Independence sooner or later. I owe myself a pint. Cheers. Although you really should read a wee bit more history.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
and then in the next recognise that they'd have to negotiate to keep it.

I was suggesting they would not want to keep it!

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

In reply to MG:

OK, you think the rUK would simply wave its independent nuclear deterrent goodbye. Well, it's a point of view...

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

In reply to Saor Alba:

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


OK if there is no good reason to break the union, why do you want to?

In reply to Ed Navigante:

Are we ready to jump or are we being pushed?

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


S

In reply to 999thAndy:

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

Are you planning a near-lightspeed return trip to Alpha Andromedae?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Jesus Christ, he is the most hated politician I can think of hating. The difference is he was a racist, I'm not, certainly not where scots and welsh and irish and English are concerned, or even Jamaicans or Asians etc, how can you have come to that conclusion about me? I just think that it is insane to split nations even more than they are already split, it is madness and the splitting of Scotland from the UK is political and demographic madness,

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

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

What is is going to come down too is whether a majority of Scots feel that Scotland is a nation and whether they are ready to take all the decision for their future by themselves, either way, everything will be fine, unless Scotland stays in the UK and the Tories win the next UK General Election, because then many people here are going to be really pissed off ))

In reply to Al Evans:

Perhaps because of the bile you come out with? You might want to reflect on the fact that your attitude as you express is a remarkably efficient recruiting sergeant for independence. Everything you way is about Scots being thankful for what they get from Lady Bountiful in Westminster, and how dare they get ideas above their station. It's the most demeaning patronising guff you could possibly come out with.

In reply to tony: I completely resent the accusation that I come out with bile< find me a single sentence that I have posted that could be considered 'bile'

In reply to Al Evans:

"The puke making self rightousness of the Scottish IP propagandists makes me sick"

In reply to tony:

Isn't that vomit, rather than bile?

In reply to Clauso:

damn you Jackson, always with the details ...

In reply to Al Evans:

Another Evansism

"You Scots really do need to join the 21st century, or would you like to have a Balklans like situation going on in Great Britain."

In reply to Al Evans:

And another gem from Al

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

In reply to Ed Navigante:

Leaving aside the economic and emotional arguments, who thinks the respective governments are capable of delivering a project of this scale? If we can't create a national NHS database in five years how long do you think it will take for all the national organisations to untangle themselves. The big arguments taking place will be repeated on a smaller scale by every national organisation including NGOs etc. how much resources will be taken up by, for example, the dept of Transport, while this is done? A simple office move usually means paralysis for a day or two in most organisations; this will lead to inefficiencies for years to come. If there is a yes vote let's hope there turns out to be some damn good reasons for it.

In reply to skog: just wanted to mAke it far enough that we'd have no prospect of making predictions.

In reply to RomTheBear:

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

I understand why they've done it, this is just to clarify which bit it is that gets people's back up.

In reply to Ed Navigante:


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

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

In reply to Tyler: Pretty irrelevant really in the grand scheme of things - we'd be a long time independent.

In reply to Slugain Howff: I love it when you talk dirty!

In reply to Ed Navigante: A no from me. I cannot see anything the Holyrood politicians have actually got right, so I certainly don't trust them on this one.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Ah.

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

In reply to Ed Navigante:

The kids they say NO.

Thank feck.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:


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

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

In reply to Al Evans:

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

S.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


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

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/alex-salmond-aide-alex-bell-...

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

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

In reply to Removed User:


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

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

In reply to blurty:


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

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

e.g. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4606031/EU-liar-Salmo...

(from a paper that used to support the SNP)

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I really really hope that we can get through this without dividing the nation. I think we need to make sure that nastier elements on both sides are not allowed to hijack the debate.

In reply to Ed Navigante: We are not used to long campaigns running up to elections and i think a lot of the electorate won't get interested till far nearer the time. most of those following it at the moment are those who are very interested in it and have made up their minds already.

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

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

at the end of the day its 12 months to go and people who will vote but don't feel strongly about it will probably not be engaged for some time yet

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No they wouldn't, that would be illegal. You receive your NI card at 16 and are allowed to work longer hours. Under 16's are not allowed work long enough to pay income tax.

In reply to skog:

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

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

youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o&

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

In reply to Removed User:


I'd disagree with that - I think he's one of the most effective politicians in the UK. Without Salmond I don't even think we'd be having a referendum on Independence.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

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

In reply to David Barratt:

hmm, what if they managed miraculously to land a well paying job? Or could you give your kids a load of stocks and shares, and not pay as much tax on the dividends?

In reply to Fraser:

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

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

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

In reply to Al Evans:


Hey Al,

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


Oh hang on!

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

We'll have to disagree on that one Doug!


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

In reply to lynx3555:


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

If anything, as Chinese engineers become better educated our remaining competitive advantage will be eroded.

In reply to Removed User:


Excellent video, thanks.

In reply to Ed Navigante:

A far quicker way to pick holes in my logic would be to point out that anyone buying anything pays VAT... But regardless, at 16 you can pay income tax, you can join the military, you should be allowed to vote, should it interest you.

In reply to lynx3555:

I must be "worried and insecure" then .

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

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

In reply to Removed User: you have a very negative out look regarding Scotland future regardless of whether it's independent or not!
For 5 million people we have a lot going for our selves, we contributed immensely to the Union and I see no reason we won't contribute to creating a great independent Scotland.
The oil and gas industry is serviced by very high tech and world leading engineering service companies, a lots of the equipment is developed and constructed here in Scotland.
Manufacturing in Scotland has been on the rise for some time here in Scotland, 6% increase in 2011 alone.
Scotland is more than capable of looking after it's own business and making a very good job of managing its own affairs both here and abroad.

youtube.com/watch?v=G1tJJO_pVvQ& Still makes me laugh

In reply to David Barratt:

I was actually wondering, do you know what does happen when a person under 16 breaks the tax barrier?

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

In reply to lynx3555:

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



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


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

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

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

Regarding remaining oil reserves and future income from them. There was an excellent discussion between three academics (including the famous prof McCrone) on future North Sea oil revenue. There were all agreed that the future value of UK oil reserves, which would mainly become Scottish in the event of separation, could be anywhere between the lowest estimate from the OBR and the highest estimate from the Scottish government. The message is simple, don't believe anyone who predicts future revenues with certainty.

In reply to Ed Navigante: What I continue to struggle with is how we can disassociate a yes vote for independence from a yes vote for President Alex and his cronies..unfortunately these are two very separate questions.....

In reply to doz:

It's quite easy really.............vote "yes" for independence. Then, if you don't like the way that Alex and his cronies run things, vote for someone else at the next election.

In reply to coinneach:

Who?

I can only see Chaiman Galloway possibly forming an opposition

In reply to lynx3555:

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

youtube.com/watch?v=x2F-H01Qm1I&

In reply to andymac:

That would be mental!

We'd all have to be Dundee Utd supporters............

In reply to Removed User:


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

In reply to coinneach:

"Have to"

Are you suggesting that under George we would be living in a Dictatorship?

In reply to andymac:

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

George or Alex?

Doesn't affect me as I live in Englandshire.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I'd like to think you're right Doug but without having a substantial market on it's doorstep CEOs will start to question the reasons for maintaining a presence in Scotland...and when it comes to that fight, as it surely will, I wonder whether it would be better if a UK government were fightng to keep them in Scotland or a Scottish government? I suspect a UK government that still retained the £ would be the best ally the Aberdeen oil industry could have.

In reply to coinneach:

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

In reply to doz:


How do you work that out?! The referendum isn't a Scottish general election.

In reply to David Barratt: It's nothing to do with how long you work, it's about how much you make.

A one year old that makes £1,000,000 when their parents make £8,000 would pay tax.

In reply to Ed Navigante:
Thanks - really good thread with lots of decent & varied contributions. It has pulled me away from work, but in a positive sense. Not got an opinion on all of this, but the thread (I have lurkingly read it all) has been informative.
Cheers

In reply to lynx3555: Scotland is not a colony of the UK, it is an integral part of the UK.

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

In reply to Ed Navigante: Glad you answered him. It is a widely held but incorrect belief that 5 year olds aren't due for tax. If it wasn't the case then Brooklyn Beckham would make £50 million a year and David Beckham would make nothing.

Saying TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is in reality a high jack of a noble campaign for equal rights

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

It's an interesting one that, based on paranoia I think. Salmond has never claimed that but it's continually rolled out all the time. I can only presume that is due to some feeling of being threatened.

In reply to Saor Alba: Which post are you replying to?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

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

No one has ever claimed that but you appear to hold that belief quite strongly.

In reply to Saor Alba: Really, no other English person has ever expressed that opinion. I am amazed. I know loads of English/(N)Irish/Welsh that share my opinion.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I am referring to your belief that Salmond and Co have claimed what you say. You are plain wrong.

In reply to Saor Alba: I am glad that you have pointed out that Salmond & Co have never actually spoken the thoughts that I credited them with. I withdraw my acussation.

However the argument that 16 year olds should have the vote because they pay tax is complete and utter bollocks is the one that I was progressing. What are your views on this?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I think it was Bill Clinton who said that the way the issue is handled is almost as important as the result.

Didn't he also say that about his d*ck.

In reply to blurty:

youtube.com/watch?v=mBC0mLFz91o&

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

In reply to doz:

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

So a major plank of unionist scaremongering collapses; a vote for independence is not a vote for Salmond to endure. He would help himself if he made that clear.

In reply to Al Evans:

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

In reply to Al Evans:


While we're busy doing that, could you maybe take the time to familiarise yourself with some basic terminology?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

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

Regarding 16 year olds voting, I have no strong opinions on it.

In reply to Al Evans:

I am sure you aren't aware of this, but almost every single post you type on this subject is nonsense.

In reply to silhouette:

Does he need to? It takes an enormous leap to get to the idea that a vote for independence is a vote for Mr Potatohead in perpetuity, and I haven't seen any suggestion that the current type of parliamentary arrangements would not continue in an independent Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba: So the argument that 16 year olds should vote because they pay tax has a basis in reality?

When you say that people don't understand the subject you mean they disagree with you. You are beginning to sound like Bruce.

In reply to Ed Navigante: "Project Fear" as it's commonly referred to, is an attempt to use negative propaganda, to petrify the Scottish people in to remaining British. It's absolutely relentless and "Project Fear" has friends in high places.....the BBC, ITV, Scotsman, The Tories, Labour, the Armed Forces....the number of prominent objectors to Independence is just way too big to list.
The Media has controlled the general out let of information regarding the Independence debate and it's obvious to nationalists that the media are giving the upper hand to the Unionists.
Even with all those Unionists applying all that pressure to the nationalists, the percentage of nationalists remains the same, why would that be? Personally I think it's because, a lot of Scots are big enough and brave enough to say Yes, and become a responsible and totally independent country....it's in our blood, psyche and we would vote yes with out hesitation at any given opportunity.
Ask Norway if they regret becoming independent, ask Ireland, ask all the other countries that took the opportunity that Scotland is being given now.

In reply to tony:

Yeah I think he, the campaign, does need to make that clear. From the posts here, letters pages in papers, Facebook and conversations, it's very clear that many people do not understand that this is not an election.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

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

Re voting again, I don't have a strong opinion either way and can't be bothered discussing it in relation to tax.

In reply to Ed Navigante:


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

ANdy

In reply to Ed Navigante:

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

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

- what is the validity of the current relationship?
- why has it never been set down in a proper constitutional document?
- who is protected by not addressing the major imbalances in the current relationship?
- do Wales and Northern Ireland have a valid relationship with a group that does not include Scotland?
- is it Southern England that is clearly a different country rather than Scotland?

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

+1

In reply to lynx3555: Don't forget that anyone who votes no isn't a true Scotsman.

In reply to tony:

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

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Do we have a definition of a 'true' Scot?

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

The same reasons England wants to have an adventure in Syria. Oh, hold on a minute.

In reply to dek:

One who is "big and brave enough" to vote yes. Obviously. Anyone else is a weedy coward and not a true Scot.

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

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

In reply to Sir Chasm:

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


ANdy

In reply to Jim Fraser:


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

Actually, when I look at it in terms of what would be the benefits of South East independence to the South East, I can understand why pro independence Scots are so in favour of a yes vote in their referendum.

In reply to MG:

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

ANdy

In reply to tony:

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

I see what you mean about NS but I think the world will be a different place in a years time. Either way it doesn't matter as this isn't about political parties.

In reply to tony:

People understand quite well, of course. They also understand if the answer is yes, Salmond is hardly going to quitetly retire and will be in a strong position to remain as FM. For many this isn't an appealing prospect, even if it is a relatively short-term consideration.

In reply to Saor Alba: No. But don't worry your little head about it, you won't understand.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

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

In what way is England holding onto Scotland? At the moment we are united - England didn't conquer Scotland and claim it as English territory.

In reply to MG:


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

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

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

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loaded%20question

In reply to MG:

I know what it means, the "WTF" was in response to your chosing to express it in those terms as opposed to just saying that you thought it was a loaded question.

In reply to MG:

I can see and understand.

Summary: You find change and thoughts you don't like to be very challenging. Your conservative and Conservative outlook is very rigid. Your knowledge of Scotland is actually quite limited due to this attitude. When you get angry you find yourself writing stupid stuff to strangers about them beating their wives. Despite the above, you consider yourself to be very well informed on this and multiple other subject.

In reply to Douglas Griffin: It's a well known example.

In reply to Saor Alba: yeah yeah - just piss off.

In reply to lynx3555: Sure, ticking Yes won't be a vote for Salmond, or even a party, but that is hard to disentangle for many (me included, I'm no fan of his). But even if we accept that, there does seem to be a logical slight of hand going on here. After all, Nats seem very happy to trade on the unpopularity of the Tories to bolster their case (such as it is) for separation. That looks like double standards from where I'm sat. It's not about 'us', but it is about 'them'. Cake and eat it?

I can't speak for 'sinister supporters' but I'd guess that view of the opposition cuts either way, depending on your own personal bias (and no offence, but you've some pretty strong emotive sounding views on the subject). I personally find some of the unhinged fantasist cybernats that you see cropping up on the Scotsman and elsewhere pretty unpleasant too, but I really try not to let them colour my judgement of the perfectly reasonable majority in the Yes campaign.

In reply to Saor Alba: Can't help sticking my oar in briefly. I think MG was referring for rhetorical purposes to a well-known example of a loaded question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question , not suggesting anyone's actually beating anyone else. I'll duck out again now.

In reply to lynx3555: P.S. Just read my post back. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not tarring you with the 'cybernat' brush!

In reply to Saor Alba:

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

In reply to MG:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think all of those interests would be better served by an independent Scotland.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Neither do I. I just think it was indicative of many other issues, a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to deal with the issues. It's a very scary conversation for some to deal with things that they have held dearly for so long. Challenging one's own beliefs is never a bad thing.

In reply to Saor Alba: You've a lot of political energy. In the event of a No vote, would you work with enthusiasm towards all the positive things you just listed, within the context of devomax in a continuing UK? You might find, counter to your apparent opinion that nothing positive can ever be achieved without separation, that good changes can still be brought about. Only they'd be of benefit to 60million rather than 5. I guess accepting that possiblity might be a bit like challenging your own dearly-held beliefs?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: The very existence of the term "cybernats" is offensive to me.....it's a term used as a derogatry handle, by "cyber bully's", to try and prevent passionate Nationalists supporters from talking out...belittle them, make there voice seem worthless, silence them

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I'm scared of a return to the 80s when the Tories had a permanent majority in Parliament

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

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

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

In reply to Saor Alba:


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

In reply to teflonpete:

I don't know but I do know that I don't want Scotland to be subject to the tories as we clearly rejected them.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I don't just think they are silly, I think they are sad and profoundly misguided, and before anybody else talks drivel, I live in Spain purely for the weather, and in any case am moving back to the UK soon, it's where I pay my taxes and where my passport comes from, I would want it no other way than to live and belong to the UNITED KINGDOM.

In reply to Al Evans: Then get your skates on Al and move to Scotland. That way you can have a vote.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Yes - there would be no more Tory rule in Scotland. And any attempt to try "New Labour" (with its Tory friendly market ideology) would have received short shrift too.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Fair point.

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

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

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Question:

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

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

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

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

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

By the way I'm not, and never have been, a Scottish Nationalist with capitals. I've voted for them in the past because it appears to me to be the best way of getting what I see as the best settlement for the people here. I'm a bit more of a Green myself with a red tinge.

In reply to lynx3555:

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

If you had you wouldn't be so quick to defend them. Sad and unpleasant people in need of counselling.

In reply to Ed Navigante: Here is my take on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to Craig Mc:


Surely the essence of the No campaign would be that remaining in the Union after a no vote at referendum would be largely the same as being in the Union now. ie. No changes to spell out.

In reply to teflonpete:

Aye Pete, you'd think so. But Messrs Alexander, Darling, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie are all dangling promises of jam tomorrow in a coldly calculated attempt of muddying the waters.

In reply to Craig Mc:

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

The next few months are exactly the right time to have this sort of discussion and obtain commitments from all the main as to what they would be willing to review regarding devolved powers. Not only will the right commitments strengthen the pro UK case but in the event of a pro UK result people in Scotland are likely to vote for the party that has made the most attractive offer.

In reply to Removed User: I think the Rev could possibly be a cybernat http://wingsoverscotland.com/

In reply to Fidman:


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

Otherwise I agree with your post.

In reply to Removed User:

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

Despite this I'd still welcome a cohesive attempt at spelling out what the post-referendum options are. I await with interest.

In reply to teflonpete:

Absolutely correct on that. The Nats are the ones that are proposing that Scottish people make the biggest decision and arguably biggest gamble of their lives so they should be the ones coming up with all the answers. At any rate as we've seen on pretty much every issue so far, currency and defence for example, their plans can change depending on which way the wind blows so you might as well take their answers with a pinch of salt anyway. Whichever way you look at it voting yes is one hell of a gamble based on what the Nats have come up with so far.

In reply to Sir Chasm: