UKC

Interesting reflections from a considered person.

http://davemacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/scotland-what-to-decide-starting-...

In reply to ericinbristol:

Typically thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Although, as an Englishman with Scottish heritage, I still hope they vote no!

In reply to ericinbristol:

very brave thing to do for anyone in the public eye. Can you imagine the consequences of Any Murray doing this?
Your rationale is the same as mine. Believe and commit. Ha ha a bit like climbing.

In reply to yer maw:

Indeed. I hope that his thoughts don't result in the rude and aggressive responses you see so often on here.

In reply to ericinbristol:



Thanks for the link. Well reasoned and balanced and I enjoyed reading it. His own thoughts are being mirrored elsewhere.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Nice one Dave.

In reply to ericinbristol: Nice one Dave.

In reply to Saor Alba:


What did you think of the suicide point - seemed rather odd - especially since the UK has a lower suicide rate than most of the Nordic countries.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

And that's a global issue too..

In reply to IainRUK:

In some ways the identified age group 20 -50 iirc, should in a country with a good healthcare system rarely die of anything - so self inflicted death could well be a leading cause of death.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Yeah, in the US I think it was car crashes that led the way until the past few years when suicide has come the leading cause of injury death..

So in that age group you'd either expect car crashes or suicide to be the leading cause of all deaths in a lot of countries..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120921123959.htm

In reply to ericinbristol:

I had an interesting idea about this recently. I imagined that the voting system was available live as it happened and that I went into a polling booth at 9:59:59 as the last vote to be cast knowing that it was currently a dead heat - how do I vote? It would make quite a nice little drama.

In reply to ericinbristol:
Well written and well reasoned, and it's refreshing to see someone coming down on the side of Yes without falling into nationalist tooth gnashing, or pie in the sky promises, or scare stories about what those evil Tories in Westminster will do to us if we're foolish enough to vote No.

I'm still a very positive No myself, and aside from the many technical, economic and political reasons for that, this stems from some of the self same considerations that Dave has cited in his decision to vote Yes, just inverted.

For instance: 'a greater sense of being part of a community, greater sense of purpose' is something I get far more from being part of a union of 60 million than just a resident of Scotland. My sense of community is tied up with a solidarity I feel with everyone, not just we few up here.

There's plenty I'd want to criticise in the rest so I'll just cherry pick:

Unlike Dave I feel no more represented as an individual by Holyrood than by Westminster; how would I be?

Neither am I concerned with the effect on governance of the geographical distance between me and London, just as I don't think Edinburgh would be unable to represent the interests of Shetland simply because they are very far apart geographically, economically and culturally.

I would take issue with the idea that Scotland is culturally and politically distinct from the rUK too. I certainly see no basis for that as the bedrock of a separation. After all, the Central Belt has more in common with, and votes roughly the same way as, south wales and urban Northern England than it does with the rural Borders. The Highlands has a as much in common with west Wales and Cornwall as it does with Dundee. To say nothing of class interests, which know no borders.

Neither can we say that a future Scotland is likely to be more left-leaning. Right now, perhaps, but this vote is forever. In living memory the Tories did well up here, while electable right wing parties are a feature of every mature democracy including all the nordic countries that we are most likely to wish to emulate. There is simply no prospect of endless left wing government, that's fantasy. If Dave wants rid of the Tories why not use his vote wisely next time at Westminster - enough of us do that and we're home free. Dare to dream big!

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

plus 1

In reply to Postmanpat:

+Two

In reply to ericinbristol: Most recent Mori poll....51% yes and 49% No, after you strip away the undecideds, personally I think it's more yes voters than that....really enjoyed reading Dave's article, he made some good points really....everyone has there own personal reasons for wishing for independence, some of his points I share.
Rupert Murdock has now decided to jump in to the debate, no doubt we'll be inundated with offers and love bombed to death....soon we'll have the Orange Lodge marching through the streets of Edinburgh, hope their supporters don't throw bottles into the faces of young girls again; and I'm sure Scotland is looking forward to UKIP coming up to stir up UK patriotism in the hearts of Scots....incidentally, quite a few of Scotland's 128000 UKIP voters are King Billy supporters, maybe they should combine there visit.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

+ three.



Along a similar line, an interesting statistic I heard on one of the tv debates last week was that, as a consequence of the 18 General Elections since the second world war, Scotland has actually ended up being governed the party it voted for more frequently than England has.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

+ four

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


It isn't.

If Dave wants rid of the Tories why not use his vote wisely next time

That's the point. Doesn't Matter what he votes, it'll be decided by how England votes.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I agree with what he says in his blog.

What amazes me, and leaves me happy, is the huge change that has taken place in Scotland, utterly unseen on the internet but apparent in ever community. No longer is the High street the place of shopping and consuming. It's a place of great debate and discussion about a multitude of things. Now and again there is a bit of verbal jousting but very rarely. This has been a real awakening on every front and I am surprised that BT hasn't bothered to engage in the same way.

In reply to aln:

Either you or Fraser is incorrect. One of you is basing what they say on fact and you are basing it on feeling.

But as I have said a few times, never let the facts get in the way of anything.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

The Highlands has a as much in common with west Wales and Cornwall as it does with Dundee. To say nothing of class interests, which know no borders.

I would question if you have really understood what "the Highlands" is all about then with a statement like that.

The point about using your vote wisely, and what Milliband said (vote Labour to get social justice) is that Scotland did and has voted Labour. And it doesn't work.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Indeed, it's been a lamentable campaign from BT and if we do go for separation it'll be right to ask how such a poll lead could have been frittered away. Doesn't make the Yes arguments any better, if you ask me, but then they haven't really had to do detail so much as a sense of buoyancy. Which they've done magnificently.

Come on Scotland, endorse a pretty shonky nationalist project just because the No campaign has been lacklustre and Yes all smiley? We can do better than that!

Sorry, had to slip that in!

In reply to Saor Alba:

Except, more often than not, it does work.

We may have a tory led coalition right now (bolstered by Lib Dems that hitherto have done well up here, incidentally) but that hardly represents years of overbearing democratic deficit

In reply to aln:

No, actually, it's decided by how the UK votes. More often than not Scotland gets what it votes for. It must do as well, in this, as regions of comparable size inside England

In reply to Saor Alba:

"No longer is the High street the place of shopping and consuming. It's a place of great debate and discussion about a multitude of things."

F*ck me, between your Utopian daydreams and Salmond's bullshit I really hope that Scotland has some pragmatic realists in charge if you do get a Yes vote because otherwise I fear for Scotland.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
It's fairly easy to see what has happened. BT is a top down campaign run by people a long way from the real world. The approach was to use the very supportive media to scare people which then started to get bogged down with some of the bizarre claims. Then, about 5 months ago, the Yes campaing started to get the community campaign organised and BT had no ground campaign at all. No one to call upon and when it tried to, it had become toxic ( I don't mean the Union has, just the BT campaign) meaning it can't get anything going. It relies on the media.

I'd say you are actually continuing the tactics of BT with your use of "separation" as most people call it "independence". Also your use of "nationalist" suggests to me you are some way from understanding the breadth and nature of the Yes campaign. These terms might have been fine a decade ago but are miles off explaining the huge community campaign which is drawing people from all backgrounds. "Nationalist" is a term which is almost irrelevant in that context.

BT can't change now. I reckon their (paid) "activists" were outnumbered 50-1 today in Inverness. Much of the campaigning is bypassing the traditional media and it's all happening in the street, pub, croft, events and "on the doorstep". Unfortunately for Unionists, the BT campaign has been so badly run it now can't change.

The Yes Campaign isn't actually running the independence campaign apart from at a high level now. IT's a self-sustaining community effort without direction from above.

In reply to Saor Alba:


But isn't that two quite different arguments you're referring to and trying to combine? On the one hand you suggest voting 'Yes' in the referendum will get you the govt you want, locally, and everything will be peachy; on the other, historically voting for what ended up being the party in power still didn't give Scotland what it (you?) wanted in terms of social justice. Which is it?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

There you go again. This really is happening. How do you know it's not?

In reply to Fraser:

I am saying this - Milliband says vote No then vote Labour. We did vote Labour, solidly, through the 80s and also more recently and it didn't produce the government which reflected Scotland.

I am not suggesting everything will be peachy. That is why I didn't say that. I am saying vote Yes.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



Oh well that's me told. Good to know you have facts to back up your opinions.
I'm sure the other side also have facts to back up theirs.

In reply to Saor Alba:

And yet it is still a nationalist project, the only sure outcome of which is separation. Nah, sorry, it is still regressive for all its grass roots success.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

It's your closed mindset, and maybe lack of experience on this (I mean actually being at events, campaigning, listening face to face to what is being said) which I think leads you to statements like that.

In reply to Saor Alba:

In 1983 the vote was Lab: 990,654 Con: 801,487 Yes we've consistently voted Labour for a couple of decades at least, but i do find that stat interesting, it was pretty close.

A similar pattern exists in comparable areas of England of course.

To me that says there's nothing unique or special about Scotland, in this context.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


Exactly. That's the problem.

In reply to Saor Alba:

We did vote Labour, solidly, through the 80s and also more recently and it didn't produce the government which reflected Scotland.

How is this different from 60% of people voting Labour, Tory, Lib Dem in 2011 but getting an SNP govt? All the ministers are SNP right?

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'll have to bow to your superior experience on that, I have been to no events. I am out of the country for the big day too, thank christ (vote cast, never fear)

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I am grateful for the SNP 'project' as you put it despite not agreeing with many of their policies. The other parties will need to rethink their approach if it is a Yes vote and that can only be a good thing for politics, though I suspect they will wander around like zombies for a wee while if a Yes vote.

Perhaps post No it will be an opportunity for the whole of the UK to rethink how Westminster operates and maybe someone with a vision will seek to change matters so 'Middle England' doesn't decide everything for the rUK e.g. counties and not populous determine votes in order to get more regional representation and balance into things.
However the self preservation of the Westminster mentality means it will be the same old same old. Sadly. Hence Yes.

In reply to yer maw:

Yeah revive the rotten boroughs, that'll help

In reply to ericinbristol:

In a world where so many countries are being forced into hostile divisions, do we need voluntarily to add more division when there is so much more that unites us? Unity is a precious value that we would do well to cherish and not discard. Diversity within unity is well worth preserving.

In reply to ericinbristol:
A No vote is a vote for the status quo. It says we are satisfied with what we have. And we'll settle for it. A Yes vote provides those of us living in Scotland with the chance to make our own decisions and influence things in a positive way. And the campaign isn't exclusively nationalist. It's been inspiring to see such a strong grass roots movement bringing together people of all backgrounds, all ages and all classes because they want to make a difference. A Yes vote will be good for Scotland and I hope it will galvanise a similar democratic movement in England to shake up the self interested elite that governs from Westminster.

In reply to rtinma:

Correct. Great Britain and United Kingdom.

In reply to yer maw:

Yes, I think No will actually lead to more exciting things, for more people, than Yes. Especially a narrow No, which now looks like the best outcome possible for me. A rethink of how the whole thing works, sure. As it happens, just saw this in the Grauniad: No to offer radical devolution settlement, to be decided by all of us (somehow? details? Well at least it sounds better than the post-independence negotiations behind closed doors deciding pretty much every detail without any more input from us after the big day): http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save...

If we opt to go it alone then whatever transpires up here I fear it will be pretty bleak in rUK for some time, and since I care about the lot, not just a little, that more than worries me.

In reply to alastairmac:

No it isn't a vote for total stasis, that's been made clear countless times. There's no need to make things up: you can just say more devo is not good enough, I want to go the whole hog: that's perfectly good as an argument (though not one I'd go along with myself).

I'm an undecided. Really disappointed with the whole campaign and have found it to be very divisive and negative. I think there will be a lot of bitterness and resentment after 18th September from whichever side loses. With the polls so close, that means almost half of the country.

Not enough reasoned debate, mostly just zealots on either side regurgitating points to reinforce what they already feel.

The lure to leave Westminster is huge, and yet the vague answers and 'let's just go for it' from the snp on the major issues are a massive concern.

Devolution max would have probably been what the majority of people would for, and yet we're not allowed to vote for that. You couldn't make that up!

One final point I'd like to ask saor alba, or any other nationalists.. If we're going back to being a separate state as it was 300 years ago... Why are we picking that seemingly arbitrary period? Why aren't we going back to how it was originally in the 9th-10th century, for example, with separate kingdoms dalriata, pict land etc. so the west of scotland is joined with parts of Northern Ireland, and east with Northumberland etc.

Genuine question..

In reply to Paul249:

If I am understanding you correctly, you are asking me why the Yes campaign is not wanting to go back to a civilisation of 1,000 years ago?

Eh, don't know.

It's not about going back. It's about going forward. Have a look at http://www.allofusfirst.org and http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/

In reply to Paul249:
Why not dalradia? Because Scotland does exist as a distinct and recognisable geographic and cultural entity, with some attached apparatus of government - dalradia does not.

Compared to re-establishing one of those extinct states, breaking up the UK is relatively easy.

( not a Yes person, but I think that's a reasonable answer to your question if I under stand it correctly)

In reply to aln:



Clearly untrue.

"How many people know that out of the 18 General Elections since 5 July 1945 - measured by the winning percentage of overall vote on the day - 9 times Scotland voted Labour, and got Labour. That is, half the time! A further 3 times Scotland voted Conservative, and got Conservative.

In total 12 times, or 66.67% of the time, or two thirds of the time, Scotland has got the party which it voted for - measured by the winning percentage on the day.
That is pretty good going, considering Scotland is around a twelfth of the population of the entire UK. Of the remaining 6 times - Scotland voted Labour and got the Conservatives 5 times, and a Coalition government once.

This compares with England which has also got what it voted for 12 times. That is 7 times England voted Conservative and got Conservative, and 5 times England voted Labour and got Labour. Once it voted exactly for Conservative and for Labour by an equal percentage, and got Labour. In addition, 3 times it voted Conservative and got Labour, once it voted Labour and got Conservative, and once it voted Conservative and got a Coalition.
"

From
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Sorry Dan we have been here before. These are the politicians that promised us no top down reorganisation of the NHS and no tuition fees. As soon as there is a no vote they will make all the right noises and then move on. Or possibly work to make sure the Scottish parliament never has the ability to frighten then again in this way. Voting no means probably leaving Europe, more austerity, the steady dismantling of the welfare state, more child poverty, maintaining a nuclear arsenal and it's cost in Scotland. And most importantly getting governments and policies we don't vote for. I think the momentum is now huge because at last we have the confidence to say we can and should have self determination. Not just waiting patiently for the crumbs to be swept from the table in our direction. Independence is not a panacea but it puts power where it should be..... in hands of the Scottish people. And more of us now believe that we are capable enough to wield it responsibly and effectively.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

There you go with your bleedin' facts. Don't you know that facts are negative because they limit people's imagination

In reply to Saor Alba:



But what you say there is simply a convenient snap-shot taken at a time to suit your argument. (It makes sense for you to do that as it best presents your case, so it's completely understandable why you should choose to do so.) However, when you increase the time scale over which you analyse the statistics, ie back to WW2, - taken, as it was referred to in the tv debate I mentioned in my original post, but surely more representative as it covers a greater period - the truth is that Scotland has been governed by the party for which the majority of its electorate voted, more frequently than England has. Scotland hasn't always voted Labour. Here's a link to the election results for that period:

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

...and some further historical data for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland




Sorry, you're right, I was inferring from your earlier comments that things would be 'better' and paraphrasing.


The big confusion for me is that Salmond is equating his personal SNP manifesto with an Independence one. It's not the same, and he is in no position to state unequivocally how any non-SNP party will legislate on key issues in the event of a Yes vote.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Dan my big issue with continuing in the Union is not whether we in Scotland get a say in electing the government for the UK, but more that there is no real choice between Labour and the Tories now. We can vote the Tories out and put Labour in... And then what?

Where is the evidence that either will do anything different from their pervious times in government?

But with a Yes there is more chance to do things differently because the situation will not be same. Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives and Lib Dems will need to work out a new game plan. The Greens and other minority parties will likely have more of a say too.

And what of the newly motivated and involved Scottish electorate. Will all this new found interest in politics just simply dissipate once more as we hand over control to the politicians again? I hope not.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Dan, my impression is you are voting for the greater good of England and not Scotland which is why you don't see the desire of Scots to want to change as they don't have the same emotional attachment or links with England.
I posted a while back that Scots need to encourage the Poles to vote Yes to counter balance the English in Scotland No vote. All of which on here are No voters which is democracy in action. Thankfully despite most Poles feeling it isn't for them to determine the political direction of another country, they anecdotally agree and will hopefully vote Yes.
There isn't a hope in hell of a 're-think' as it has been touted by many politicians before such as Robin Cook RIP. The only guarantee of a radical rethink is a Yes vote, and as you also agree with the need for radical change then a Yes vote is the only way you will get it.
You know the consequence of a Yes vote to England is hugely significant which is why the No campaign are battering us with every scare story going. The battered wife campaign i.e. you're shit, you're worthless, nobody will take you in, all masking the fact it's the rUK side that'll lose and Scotland will be able to stand on its own two feet.
If I believed after all these years that Westminster was doing a good job, had vision and actually cared about Scotland (or other minor UK regions) then I'd be an easy No. Unfortunately Westminster politics has become all about the pound in your pocket and nothing else, moving more and more to the right. Thatcher et al didn't/don't give a stuff for Scotland other than the oil revenues and once they are gone we become an even bigger bunch of needy whinging moaners. Sorry for the rant but I try not to think about Westminster.
It's broke and they aren't going to fix it.

Thanksy to Saor Alba:

I do not see how nationalism and division will ever address problems of social justice and or protect our civil liberty.
The politicians of Scotland are cut from the same cloth as those in Westminster.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


And interestingly there are 70 food banks in Oslo alone.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'm not asking that, I'm asking if the snp want to separate to get what they want, then in theory surely they will be fine with further separation.. E.g. The east coast of scotland doesn't want to share it's North Sea oil wealth with the west. The Shetland isles feel isolated from scotland and want to be independent.

A 'nation' is such an archaic concept, and, other than sport, nationalism often causes more division and harm than good.

If you're telling me that the overriding principle for independence is based around a shared ethos of a fairer society rather than a flag or an arbitrary border then I'm more supportive. That alloffus site looked positive and I agree with the principle. The weebluebook I only read the opening 5 points and thought it was the same tired old crock of shit I've been reading from both sides constantly for the past 10 months, concentrating as much on the other side of the debate then the media, every bit as much as their own opinions. I will go back and look at it in greater detail when I have more time though.

But however far you take politics someone will feel their voice is not being recognised, isn't that just democracy? In 5 years time in an independent scotland if 80% of dundee are voting labour, yet scotland as a whole is liberal, should the people of dundee push for independence?

Can I ask what is the single most important reason you are strongly pushing for independence? .....
Is it to go back to being a separate country because we were before? Or because scotland will be wealthier? Or you don't agree with Westminster on most things and feel we need a change? ...

In reply to rogerwebb:
>And interestingly there are 70 food banks in Oslo alone.

Looking at Scandinavia as a whole thats interesting as whenever you look at products from the region the prices definitely stand out think Hilleberg. Most of the additional price comes down to tax's to fund the generous social programs that seem to be the envy of the world.

In reply to rtinma:


Scotland can, and probably will, have all kinds of deals going with the ruk come independence, but we will have these forged with the ruk as an independent country, what's wrong with that?
Canada threw out the USA's nuclear weapons from it's soil, yet they managed to then negotiate plenty of agreements between the two countries. It's easier for an American to work in Canada than it is for a Brit.
The best move for the ruk is to not allow your nose to be put out of joint and start to consider forging relations with Scotland....

In reply to ericinbristol: one of many reasons Scotland would want to be independent.....
"Panicking Tory MPs plot to do deal with Ukip - and demand Farage is made Deputy PM"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746282/Panicking-Tory-MPs-plot-dea...

Whol



ly to lynx3555:

As reasonable as quoting any extremist fool as representing a wider constituency. Even if his wishes came true it would merely guarantee a labour victory at the next general election.

In reply to lynx3555:

I just read an article in a French newspaper, is it true that Salmond has promised to cut the tax on companies heavily after independence? If it does then it's one of those signs that shows him to be a true Nationalists in the historical sense, ready to say up with the workers to get into power but in reality being on the side of the bosses... but by then going back will be difficult.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Dave uses this link to argue that the UK is in a bad position as far as social progress goes

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi#data_table/countries/spi/d...

As in so many similar tables the UK comes in at the mid teens - 13th internationally in this case.

The fact that this is represented as a bad thing is typical of the negative side of the 'Yes' campaign, "the UK is a terrible place, look at the social inequality, look at the lack of democracy, look at the corruption etc etc"

In reality it shows that the UK is a great place to live, at the top of what can be achieved in terms of social progress economy etc - sure there are countries ahead of us, but only by small margins, we are 3.5 points behind New Zealand on that survey, the bottom county is 50 points below us.

This pattern of being very close to the global best performers should be a point of celebration, not a source of worry and fear.

In reply to rogerwebb:




That is unless UKIP and the conservatives become one party.....and as I said, that's just one of many reasons a Scotsman might want to become independent.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Interesting stats.

Thing is though, the wee countries can only swing a close English vote.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think they will cut corporation tax and introduce exemptions for start ups.

Corporation tax isn't a straight forward workers v bosses thing though. Some of the tax is paid for by workers and some of it's paid by owners. Some workers are rich, some aren't.

Cutting corporation tax and raising top rate income taxes, capital gains tax or some kind of wealth tax would be progressive.

In reply to Donnie:

Hmm... if you say so

In reply to Donnie:


But of those options only the corporation tax cut is in the white paper. Not progressive at all.

In reply to rogerwebb:

but not particularly regressive either.....

In reply to Donnie:


Benefits the owner rather than the the worker though....

In reply to Donnie:

The English are not a monolith.

Fact is we are all UK citizens first - that's where we derive our voting rights from - if we had the degree of enfranchisement granted to the subjects of Scotland and England, most of us on here would not have any vote.

In reply to alastairmac:

Sorry Alastair but I just see most of that as emotive rhetoric (vote No and we're doomed; vote Yes and it's all so exciting), to me it's not a convincing set of arguments and policies.

In reply to jacobfinn:

Sorry to be cynical but after a brief honeymoon period it will be (big)business and politics more or less as usual, just under a different flag. Top-down politics, heavily influenced by commercial lobbying, and no more representative than Westminster - if a little more modern in its organisation. The parties will find a new equilibrium and until the Scottish Tories (rebranded) rise, inevitably, we'll have a two party state swinging between triumphalist smug SNP and uninspiring Labour, with little to choose between them. Oh aye, it's inspiring alright!

In reply to yer maw:

No, I care about everyone and every part of the UK equally; I don't favour England. I just don't happen to favour Scotland either despite living here.

It's that relentlessly un-nuanced negative view of the UK coupled with complete disregard for fellow citizens outside of Scotland that has put me right off the independence movement! The Westminster system is a joke and much needs to change. But the moment people started telling me we had to swing a wrecking ball at the whole UK (not just its system of governance), pull up the drawbridge and not concern ourselves with our brothers and sisters elsewhere in these islands... and even tried to sell that as a positive exciting thing... was the moment they utterly lost my vote.

In reply to rogerwebb:


I've got no axe to grind on this, but that seems like a very dubious fact. 70 food banks in a city of 600,000? Have you got a source for that?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

'But the moment people started telling me we had to swing a wrecking ball at the whole UK (not just its system of governance), pull up the drawbridge and not concern ourselves with our brothers and sisters elsewhere in these islands'

i doubt anyone is telling you that - it would be political suicide for a start - but it is clearly what you are hearing. you seem very typical of a lot of no voters, cynical, pissed off - the basic view seems to be that 'things are pretty sh!t so we may as well not risk things getting any more sh!t'.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Interesting comments here by Rory Stewart, MP for Penrith and Scottish. Main point is the curious lack of awareness or involvement in the issue he sees at westminster. It seems they just thought they could continue with business as usual.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-indepen...

A large element in the Yes vote reflects a frustration with the Westminster village, a frustration shared with people all over the UK including London and reflected in the votes for the Libdems and then UKIP. But Westminster seems either to be unaware or in denial about it.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Absolutely not! Yes politicians will always be a source of utter cynicism for me, that of course including the SNP. I am extremely negative about separating too, because I think it's an extremely negative, regressive move.

However it is obvious that progress can still be made, and I'm enthusiastic about devolution, which opens all sorts of possibilities (everywhere, not just Scotland) without having to destroy the social fabric of Britain. What's not to like about that?

Don't tar all No voters with the negativity that Better Together used so ineffectually (though they're right to ask the hard questions, still unanswered); we do have our own minds too.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes the referendum is a product of the crisis of democracy in the UK as a whole, rather than arising in independence from the bigger picture. Lucky us I suppose, at least we get to have some sort of a say. For what that's worth.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
'In 1983 the vote was Lab: 990,654 Con: 801,487 Yes we've consistently voted Labour for a couple of decades at least, but i do find that stat interesting, it was pretty close'.

yes that is interesting as a snapshot of how things were over 30 yrs ago, but if you think it in any way explains the current situation i suggest you need to re-think. in the 2010 election over a million people voted labour in scotland and approx 412k voted for the tories. not very close at all. will that change your perspective? i doubt it will.
what is happening today in scotland [in my humble view] is the manifestation of a dissatisfaction with a way of seeing/running the world that actually started in about 1983 with thatcherism and continued via blairism up to the present. a world where the market is king, the welfare state is just bad [with the daily mail on hand to 'prove it' at every opportunity], all immigration is a threat, 'europe'is a threat, trade unions 'hold the country to ransom', council workers lord it up with 'gold plated pensions', too many disabled people lord it up on benefits rather than take low paid jobs, unbridled inequality is ok because it rewards those with 'enterprise' [bollocks it does] and we 'are all in this together' [bollocks we are] etc etc bla bla bla. this is not the snp nationalism of the 60's and 70's, of lochs glens and william wallace. this is a rejection of a social and political version of the world which a significant number of people in scotland - not all of course, as lots of people in scotland are doing just fine the way things are - increasingly find not to their liking and plan to show this in a referendum - and to that end scotland is different from the rest of the uk, the north of england for example hasn't got this opportunity. only a brainless muppet would suggest that the snp is anything other than a slightly left {if that?} of centre social democratic party or the plan was to create a socialist haven which will look like brigadoon. but to vote no, to tacitly support the status quo, .... na, not an option. for me.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

As I've said elsewhere, the positive take is that whether Scotland leaves or stays it may finally provoke a serious constitutional revolution. Basically we have a barely understood constitution cobbled together over hundreds of years, a structurally corrupt second house,outdated constituency boundaries, dodgy voting systems, and ramshackle Westminster institutions sharing overlapping powers with the other national assemblies and the barely accountable EU. Oh, a PM with quasi regal powers.

And that's just the obvious flaws. Revolution required.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Many thanks for bringing this to our attention. Nice piece of thinking. Positive and hopeful.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm with you all the way Pat. My thoughts entirely. A 'barely accountable EU' has to change as it's causing unrest and affording reasons for opting out to some elements in UK. As far as EU goes I believe we are better together! Can't believe I just used those words...

In reply to lynx3555:

Your mask is slipping a bit - Scotsmen aren't the ones voting. It is people of lots of nationalities who live in Scotland that are voting. Approx half of which are women.

The vast majority of Scotsmen are disenfranchised as they don't live so stop pretending.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

One thing that is troubling me. What kind of nation state would disband itself after 300 years on a very close vote by only a small section of its population employing new voting age rights not available to the rest?

You'd thing at least that there would be a requirement for a vote reaching a certain majority, say a clear two thirds or three quarters of those voting before the majority of the population with no vote have their nationality and rights irrevocably altered?

In reply to The New NickB:


The Times Saturday 6th September

In reply to mac fae stirling:

You've said it yourself Mac, they're slightly left of centre social democrats. They are cautious in their reformism, as likely to cut tax as raise spending, and desperate to seem 'responsible' to the money markets and friendly to any shady businessman that comes along (remember the Trump fiasco?) - with all that leads to. They will buy wholesale into the EU and every international trade deal. Nato, the monarchy. Anyone who thinks this is a recipe for a radically different independent Scotland is, in my view, kidding themselves: Projecting their own idealism onto the Yes Scotland blank slate, something that Yes has been very good at leaving room for.

Compare that description of the SNP with Labour at Westminster. Not much to choose between them, except, at present, Lab want 50p top rate of income tax and actually bother to turn up and vote against the bedroom tax, while the SNP are too busy with their referendum to commit.

So with your list of ills in mind (one i share) you're going to get about the same outcome if you vote No this time, get more Devo, then vote Labour in the next UK election and try to ensure that everyone else does too. Except better, in that you preserve the social fabric of Britain and don't shatter the social solidarity and shared risk/reward that we've worked centuries to achieve.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


I think this where the SNP have played it smart, they have changed a referendum on independence into a vote against the Tories and/or capitalism itself. All over the world nationalists use the same method, ostensibly pro-worker to get into power then gradually showing their real face, the face of friends of business, afterwards.

This may sound like over-dramatising things but so is saying a no vote would be a vote for supporting the status quo on an overall social front. After independence the social system in Scotland would remain the same, there would still be the huge under-use of the countryside to provide shooting grounds for the extremely rich, there would still be the same social inequality, there would still be the same class struggle. The SNP would quickly dissolve into left and right sections, the right would combine with the old Conservative party (which is where they came from in the last century) and the left would probably merge with liberals or labour (which is where they came from too) and the overall balance of power would go back to about 50/50...

So if you are left wing inclined, as you sound, then go back to basics, when was Nationalism anything other than a rehashed extreme-right? When did union is strength lose its force, and when did nationalism beat internationalist solidarity? If you don't mind me saying, of course.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

you have an astonishing level of knowledge of what the SNP - who wont exist post-independence - are going to do. your reliance, i would say blind faith, on new labour to reverse the impact of this revolting coalition - most 'austerity' cuts still to happen of course - is also nothing short of astonishing. in the face of what has been going on, your understanding of a shared uk-wide solidarity built up over centuries is also... well, astonishing.

but good luck to you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

aye but it is precisely not about 'nationalism', as normally understood.
vote yes, cripple the tories and new labour, build alliances across the rUK and fight back. don't vote no and give up.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Break it all up to rebuild. It's a funny sort of logic.

Your faith in both the SNP and the capacity of an iScotland to do genuinely exciting things is pretty alarming stuff too given how modest it all looks on paper. As is the belief that this is not, at heart, about nationalism as normally understood. Forgive me but it is about nothing else half so much: a new nation is the only guaranteed outcome after all. The progressive dreams being projected onto the face of the new Scotland seem to stem from a sort of scottish exceptionalism, a national mythology. That's typical of Nationalism, as normally understood.

In reply to mac fae stirling:
build alliances across the rUK and fight back. don't vote no and give up.

Why would the RUK take more notice after independence than before ??!!

In reply to mac fae stirling:


In what way is it not about nationalism?
It's the same story,if it wasn't for the 'other' from whom we are different,our world would be better.
It is the politics of division, finding differences with people with whom we have more in common with than not and blaming those differences for faults we see in our society rather than addressing them.
Sure there were problems of governance in the 1980s but we as the UK addressed those with devolution which has been an ongoing process (2012 Scotland Act for instance)
The splitting of this country will impact most heavily on those who are least equipped to deal with it.

Voting No is not about giving up.

Would write more but I am on a phone in Gatwick

In reply to Postmanpat:



Even after a Yes vote I'd come down and march with you on that one.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

why would it all 'break up'? are you suggesting nothing, nothing at all, would be the same? this is apocalyptic scaremongering typical of the no-camp.if you are happy to believe that a spineless new - labour is the way to go then fine. given that there is every possibility they wont be elected then i think you should be preparing for the worst.
ps. i don't vote snp and i think salmond is a bit of a knob. get your pro-union heed round that.

In reply to Postmanpat:

why wouldn't they??

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Because their is not the same mutual advantage. They will be aiming their efforts at different governments, different institutions and different opponents.

Trade Union or other lobbying groups relationships with French or Irish interest groups are qualitatively and quantitively different from those between English,Scottish and Welsh equivalents/

In reply to wercat:



Suck it up buttercup....that's good old democracy for you.

In reply to lynx3555:


Are you a member of the Siol nan Gaidheal neo fascist racists? You sound like it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11079296/Anti-...

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Why is vote no a give up? Very disrespectful tbh..

In reply to rogerwebb:


Any chance of telling what it says, as it is behind a paywall. It is not a stat I have been able to find anywhere else and to be honest the numbers just don't make sense.

In reply to lynx3555:


It is quite surprising, certainly not uncommon for a larger majority to be needed to change something so significant, but those were the rules agreed to..

Just a one off yes/no vote, no devo max talk and the one with the most votes wins.. nothing should change now.

As a scot who is from English blood, I am voting yes. I am also a socialist and will be voting for Labour in a hopefully independent Scotland. I have no nationalist ties or feelings, and would have accepted a devomax option if it had been presented at the very start, but it wasn't and it is too late now. I am a socialist, and see indy is the best possible tool to start building the society I want, and want my children to live in. Yessers and Noers trying to convince each other at this stage in the game is a lost cause so its a futile argument with no gain. If I can convince just a couple of undecided then I'll be happy. No matter what result comes out, yes or no, I can say I done my best and didn't sit on my arse worrying about what will happen to Eastenders.

In reply to IainRUK:

why so sensitive - disrespectful to who? it is hardly a withering insult is it? give up on change, give up on independence, give up on sticking it up the tories etc, i dont expect you to agree with any of that, but 'disrespectful'? eh? the bedroom tax, austerity, letting huge companies off with billions of tax, scapegoating the poor, immigrants etc, now that is disrespectful. a bit of pointless banter on a website is not really in the same category is it? i humbly apologise if you feel disrespected tho.

In reply to Milesy:

what he said

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



This Scotsman and his male friends are voting yes.....
What about the No campaigners trying to Scare poles into voting no.....The Better together group took there masks off long ago.....
"YES campaigners have demanded an apology from Better Together amid claims that No activists warned Polish and other EU nationals that they would be forced to leave the country if Scotland became independent"
Herald today.....

In reply to The New NickB:


It quotes Gjermund Stormoen of the Matsentralen food bank which distributes to 70 outlets in Oslo. The largest soup kitchen in Oslo is at the Evangelical Centre just north of the main railway station

In reply to rogerwebb:

'It is the politics of division, finding differences with people with whom we have more in common with than not and blaming those differences for faults we see in our society rather than addressing them'.

the politics of the UK coalition gov [and UKip] in a nutshell

In reply to lynx3555:


I know a Polish woman who was told by a Yes activist that if No won she would be deported


It is completely reprehensible and extremists on both sides using that kind of tactic are beneath contempt.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Rather more the SNP u I think (and Ukip)

In reply to rogerwebb:


Ok, not 70 food banks as we understand them in the UK.

In reply to The New NickB:


The soup kitchen appears to be in addition to the food banks and not part of Mr Stormoen's organisation. So It seems they are the same.
I am in Gatwick just now I will try and research it tomorrow and get back to you

In reply to ericinbristol: The Scottish people have been let down by Westminster politicians for too long. Possibly by all politicians. But this independence movement has given a voice to people who have not been heard for an awfully long time. Scottish working class voters. This is the first time in many years that we have seen a real democratic movement for change in Scotland. And I hope that it is now unstoppable. The only way Scotland can build a better and fairer society is as an independent country. Staying in the UK means the dismantling of the welfare state, pulling out of Europe, growing inequality and shameful levels of poverty. And beyond that it is clear that we are more than capable of running our own affairs as a strong and successful smaller country. Why on earth would we want to be ruled from Westminster by people that don't understand us, don't respect us and don't have our best interests at heart. Now definitely going to watch Scotland play Germany!

In reply to alastairmac:

well said that man!

In reply to alastairmac:

some good strong "fear" assertions there - staying in the UK does not guarantee any of the things you state.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

no but it is not worth the risk, best vote yes.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Half time......... I disagree. It's happening now. And it will get worse following the next general election. The Labour Party offers no real alternative. I hope in an independent Scotland we will chart our own course. No promises.No guarantees. But we will make our own choices and I trust us to do that.

In reply to rogerwebb:
Norway, like all countries around the world, have people who are unable to maintain a harmonious life style...it may be mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction or just down on their luck, as quoted in the article....whereas, in Scotland "Scots families have taken 2million meals from food banks in desperate bid to feed their hungry children, new report reveals"
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-families-taken-2milli...
Low wages, bedroom tax, and various other austerity cuts aimed at the less well off in Scotland has caused this.
Norway has no intention of banning food banks or soup kitchens unlike Tory proposals in this country, made earlier this year.
The fact, that the article that you have referred too, starts off with a dig at the SNP and the papers full of negative anti independence propaganda, I would take it with a pinch of salt.
Once I sat with a down and out in Norway who had a bit of a drink problem...he hadn't worked for a long time.... he received free accommodation, free food, free clothes and an alcohol prescription.

In reply to lynx3555:

good point [s], very well made.

In reply to alastairmac:


And this "hope" with "no promises" and "no guarantees" is worth the inevitable and unknown) costs of separation, the potential economic fall-out on both rUK and Scotland, the break-up of the UK and the internecine wedge driven between the inhabitants of Scotland?

It very much is a vote with the heart and not the head.

In reply to alastairmac:

you disagree that you are attempting to scare people into voting Yes? you clearly are.

In reply to aln:



What a weird point. Every single person can say that, wherever they're from. No matter how you vote you're in a minority of one and some 'other majority' decides. You don't understand this democracy thing do you?

In reply to off-duty:

yes it is very much worth the risks involved. a cool calculation based on the available evidence and not on a sentimental misty eyed sense of belonging to a worn out union that has long since served it's purpose [being generous].

In reply to Dr.S at work:

nope he is trying to make people see sense.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Nice rhetoric. A little sparse on the "available evidence" that you have "coolly calculated" though.

In reply to off-duty:

you are the one trying to scare people with talk of 'inevitable and unknown [!] costs of separation'.... over to you.

In reply to off-duty:
I disagree. It would be dishonest to say that any new country can have complete visibility over every consequence and every outcome. But the same applies to staying in the UK. My own view is that there is more risk attached to staying in the UK. The biggest risks are the ones I have referred to. Which are based on the current policy and direction of travel of the three. main Westminster parties. But what many of us voting Yes understand is that this is an opportunity to improve things. It is unashamedly about creating a better future. Which involves head and heart. Unashamedly. The simple truth is that more and more of us in Scotland believe there is a better way. And we have confidence in ourselves to make it happen. ANYA Ya Beauty!!!

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Do you think that splitting Scotland from the rest of the UK will be free? And who do you think will pay for it?

How about, for one example, the cost of changing the welfare system from a UK wide system to a Scotland only system. Or the division of the UK military into rUK and Scottish (or whatever solution is decided) - you don't think that rUK are going to stump up for all the costs, do you?

In reply to off-duty:
no. who said it would. scot's i would imagine.
ah, yeah, that one was in the papers last week, not surprised it came to mind.
nope.
that it? independence may cost a bit...
lame.
voting yes is clearly the way to go.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/welfare06012013

In reply to mac fae stirling:


But that's not the only option. A similar situation existed in N France, people had been voting left for decades and still it was right wing governments in power, but despite regional historical reasons no one suggested breaking away from France...

Then finally the Left did come to power. Only problem was it was hardly worth waiting for, the mines and heavy industry still closed and unemployment kept rising and they mostly felt betrayed by those they'd voted for for so long...

Maybe not such a good example after all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That was Mrs. Thatcher's fault. Any fule knows that

In reply to mac fae stirling:







Interesting. You asked for some of the "unknown and inevitable costs", I provided some examples.

Your "cooly calculated" response is first to accept that the Scots will be paying some of these costs (despite having initially accused me of "scaremongering" and second to dismiss them as "lame".

Thanks for that.

In reply to off-duty:

you think those voting yes don't know it will have costs and benefits. you emphasise the 'costs' in order to deter people voting yes. you are wasting your time, this has been tried, it is not working. as a strategy it is lame and increasingly seen to be so even by BT.
for some benefits have a peek at this - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/welfare06012013

cost - benefit - a calm calculation, not irrational, not the heart over the head [to use your patronising phrase].

In reply to mac fae stirling:

I think it is.. that anyone voting know is scared or a sheep..

I don't feel disrespected.. I live in the US..

But I think some f the tactics being used on both sides are shameful, the traitor insult is banded around by the yes..

The problem is, and Lynx is one who does this, the defence of such reprehensible behaviour is 'well the no do it..'

In reply to alastairmac:

Here's my highly scientific analysis of the risk (of whatever: general right wing nastiness, economic problems leading to much the same spending environment, unknowns such as EU membership timetable etc) versus benefit (potential for social reform). For what it's worth:

1. No change whatsoever = big risk, v.small benefit

Luckily no-one seriously believes this is a realistic prospect, though nationalists continue to try to scare people into thinking that it is.

2. Independence = big risk (a different set of risks but they are massive), medium benefit

3. More devolution, whatever form that takes = small risk, medium benefit

I simply don't see an iScot doing better than a more devolved one on the social issues we'd like addressed. However it is impossible to deny that it carries more uncertainties and potential for mishaps which could at the worst lead to less progress than under devolution.

Hence, No is the rational progressive choice.

In reply to off-duty:
Good Scotland performance and a very dodgy referee......... I thought we wee good for a draw at least....... some great chances.... the examples you provide don't illustrate your point. The welfare system under this government is shamefully designed to disadvantage those that are most vulnerable. And it's massively wasteful and poorly managed. Everybody but Ian Duncan Smith will agree. I am certain that after absorbing the set up costs the payback on a well run and fair system would make sound commercial sense. I think the same applies to most of the other set up costs. The UK is currently mismanaged to the advantage of a small and wealthy elite. And we hVe a unique opportunity to change that. But ultimately you either believe we have got what it takes and you have confidence in our ability to succeed or not. I think there is a mountain of evidence to show that confidence is justified. Why wouldn't we want to make our own decisions?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
The problem is Dan we won't get more devolution. The promises from Osbourne today is just so much hot air. Desperate words from a desperate and unprincipled man that couldn't care less about Scotland. Call me a cynic......... but we have been here before. There are risks but they are manageable. But the dividend is huge.

In reply to IainRUK:

the phrase i used was 'vote no and give up'. no scared sheep involved. it was just a bit of somewhat throwaway banter really.

i have to say i have never seen nor heard anyone calling another a 'traitor' in relation to the ref. maybe i move in polite circles..

btw, i did notice out of my window someone was in the process of putting a huge 'YES' on one of the Ochils - well, i assume that is what they were doing, or they could be from an obscure radical 'ES' group... - i wonder if i will get photo of the week on UKC if i send in a pic...

In reply to alastairmac:


back of the net!

In reply to alastairmac:


Many of whom have been, err... Scottish!

I agree it's probably impossible to change the minds of most who post on the subject now, but lets be clear and honest, your post was a pure and simple bit of Nationalist rhetoric, from start to finish.

PS. I agree with whoever said that there should be a higher than a simple majority of voters set to break up the country. If the turn out is low, say 60% and 51% of these vote for the break up is 30.5% of electors enough for such a major change? Taking a country that many Scots feel sympathy for, France, to make changes in the Constitution, which independence would at least be the equivalence of, requires a 2/3 majority of the combined Parliament and Senate, for example.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


So you are an avowed Nationalist then, a Nationalists and also a Socialist, now where have I heard that before... ?


Sorry, just joking, internet banter you know

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

Highly scientific analysis....more likely you are just a supporter of the Status Quo, so basing your argument on Science fact is very deceiving.

Most likely the out come if Scotland votes no

Very real prospect....Darling happened to squash Osbourne's promis of extra powers only six hours after he announced them, the interview is on Sky News...Darling said that Scotland will recieve only limited powers, nothing like the powers that Scotland needs.

Are they, only if the forces of darkness are unleashed on us as we have already been warned by George Robinson....there is absolutely no reason Scotland couldn't make it's own prosperous way in the world, but carry on with your fear tactics.

Very, very limited, and I wouldn't trust Westminster with any VERBAL promises.


I fail to see how you come to this conclusion, I doubt if even Einstein would have come to your "Scientific" conclusion

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Scotland will have pragmatic realists in charge if it votes for Independence. Pragmatic and realistic is the way we are and a small country, like a small company doesn't have the scope to be anything other than pragmatic and realistic. It's the UK that has its head up its *rse with Queens and Lords and dreams of Empire. It is the UK that pours money into aircraft carriers, nuclear deterrents, bombing any random country in the middle east, £10 Billion a year in 'foreign aid' and £20 billion every couple of years for railways in London while at the same time saying it can't afford to pay university tuition.

Scotland will be a well managed small country which - very pragmatically - spends more of its money in Scotland.

In reply to mac fae stirling:




I'm not clear why you link to a report on what changes the Scottish govt. intend to make to benefit payments.
Despite the possible arguments about how any changes to the welfare system would be dependent on whichever party was in power in Scotland, rather than a de facto consequence of independence, or arguments about the minutiae of the costs of the benefits payments proosed and the funding sources for them, - those are not, and never were the argument I was putting forward.

The benefits system will have to be changed from being administered as part of the UK, to being administered within Scotland. That will cost money. Someone will have to pay for it = "inevitable and unknown" cost.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

yeah yeah...

it is odd though how often those voting/arguing for yes are often dismissed as silly/nasty nationalists by those supporting the union/UK....

In reply to alastairmac:

To extend your football analogy, what you're asking Scots to vote for is the shrinking of the pool of players available to govern and be part of the new independent country. Maybe you want to have your own team of local players kicking around a burst ball in the local park, but wouldn't you rather have the opportunity and benefits of playing in an international stadium with a greater selection of players to choose from?

Why shrink? It makes no sense.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



All peoples who are attempting independence for there country, are going to be labelled nationalists, the Irish were republican nationalists etc....whereas Germany (I assume you refer to Germany) were actually already independent, just a bit battered after the First World War and then a nasty recession...not really comparable with Scotland today.

In reply to rogerwebb:




I know. I am not a nationalist. I don't think Dave Macleod, Chris Townsend and Cameron McNeish are nationalists either.

I want Scotland to be managed from Scotland.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


Hi Dan,

If Westminster was serious about giving us more devolution, they would have offered it to us before now. Instead, they've made vague and varied mutterings about what might just happen, maybe - if we're good enough to sit nice, wait and see. There hasn't even been a cross-party consensus on anything specific.

A large number of people have already voted. I posted mine off ten days ago.

There's really no doubt a firm offer of something worthwhile would have reduced the Yes support, but we didn't get one.

It seems obvious there wasn't actually any real commitment to giving us it, and most people aren't going to trust promises made now.

In reply to off-duty:

yes, someone will.
who are you arguing with?
for some of the potential benefits of this 'cost' see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/welfare06012013
just to be clear - independence will have costs.
now - back to the bigger picture - why should that necessarily mean we should vote no?

In reply to Milesy:


It is why so many UKers on here are so opinionated because they are desperate to maintain the Union because the system as they know it is screwed and Scotland has an opportunity to create something new. Surely this is something to be encouraged.
I used to be Labour until labour's second term after the first post Tories they had a free mandate to change the whole of the UK ethos for the better. But that b*stard Blair courted the middle ground, created mindless robotic politics and forever changed the face of UK politics for the worst. I then moved onto the Lib Dems believing they still had principles and would stand up for something different until they sold their souls to Clegg and his entrancement to the middle right too.
Sad sad sad and now no-one worth voting for.
Bring yourselves to the new beginning in Scotland folks. You are all welcome.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So give up aid.. what a wonderful world you propose..

Like many seem to favour not supporting the welsh…

Re the empire.. what nonsense..

And you do realise what will happen with the monarchy after a yes?

In reply to IainRUK:



no, what? please tell me it will fade away never to seen again.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Here here. So this has all led me to go yes. What hope can you give me that things might be rectified with a no vote?

In reply to mac fae stirling:






So when you said:-
you are the one trying to scare people with talk of 'inevitable and unknown [!] costs of separation'.... over to you.

What you meant is - "Yes there will be costs, and no, neither I nor anyone else knows what those costs will be".

As can be seen from the actual published reports (rather than the announcement of the formation of the expert working group that you keep referring to).

In reply to off-duty:

er, no, there will be costs [and benefits] but we don't have to be scared into voting no by people continually banging on about costs - unknown or otherwise.

there ya go. please get back to me for further clarification if required. but i am guessing you must get it now, so have a pleasant evening.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Corporation tax falls on workers, owners and customers. So far as it falls on customers and less well off workers it's a regressive tax. So far as it falls on well paid workers and owners it's a progressive tax.

My point is that it's not as simple as just saying a corporation tax cut just benefits the rich.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


What will be the Scottish budget for aid? If they want to keep up with the Nordic Jones they will have to increase the percentage of GDP than currently the UK spends on aid.

In reply to IainRUK:


Nothing. The question is "Do you want Scotland to be an independent country"

Once Scotland is an independent country it will, at some point in the future, be able to decide whether it wants to keep the monarchy. We will get rid of the House of Lords straight away by breaking from Westminster which is a step in the right direction.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



I was just pointing out that the English not getting the government they vote for isn't directly analgous to Scotland not getting the government it votes for....

In reply to mac fae stirling:



That's fine, I see your position is now "Don't worry about it, it will be ok."

I apologise for "banging on" about something that is clearly of no consequence...

In reply to Saor Alba:


In the nicest possible way that's not the impression that your choice of nickname or most of your non-telemarking related posts over the last decade or so give!

In reply to yer maw:


If Scotland wants a PR system like all the Nordic and many of the other European countries have, then compromises and scrapping for the middle ground is what you get in politics.

In reply to skog:

They have all said from the start there would be new powers, this is not some new surprise. Instead of not being serious on this I suspect it's more a case of them complacently assuming the referendum was a done deal for No and thinking we all had plenty of time afterwards to work out the shape of more devolution. They have played it spectacularly badly throughout the campaign but that does not make more devolution less likely in the event of a No, and nor does it mean that the devolution model is not in fact the best available.

You may not trust their promises but I certainly do. This is Labour, the party that brought us devolution, Lib Dems, the party of federalism, and the Tories, well ok I'd not touch them with a bargepole but even still it's not in their power to deny us, now.

And besides it would be one sided and curiously blinkered to openly mistrust unionist promises but place one's trust in the word of the SNP on how wonderful it'll all be if we just sign up to their project.

Healthy scepticism needed all round I'd say, but you can go too far down that road.

I've already voted too, but I did so knowing full well that i was voting for more devolution.

In reply to contrariousjim:


I can't, except that Westminster will have have had the shock of their lives or UKIP will give the Tories the shock of their lives. Interesting that Carswell's gripe seems to be more with Westminster than with Brussels.

I've said elsewhere that it seems that the only catalyst for real change seems to be the otherwise unnecessary breakup of one of the most successful nation states in history.

But I think you are going to be sadly disappointed if you think that an independent Scotland will result in some form of socialist nirvana.

In reply to TobyA:


How would I know what the aid budget for a future, as yet unelected Scottish government would be. I'd hope that a prudent small country would spend its money on education and health at home.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

So the SNP will cease to exist the day that Scotland becomes iScotland. Really. Granted they will re-brand but are you seriously saying that Salmond has no desire to become the 1st Scottish PM/President as head of the Scottish Democratic Party/ Scottish Whateverhecallsit Party. Well astonishing.

In reply to off-duty:

nope, you still aint got it.

no need for apologies. you keep doing what your heart tells you to do.

it has been an interesting [sort of] experience responding to a long thread. never done it before. it is all kind of pointless tho. i wont be doing it again. i dont get why you, and other relentless posters, do it.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

i just pointed out that the SNP wont exist post-independence and you obviously agree.

In reply to lynx3555:

Either you don't understand or you don't accept the many things that you have said over the last 6 months.

So you are either a thick f*cker who doesn't understand that what YOU say (not what other Yes voters say) is racist and as you have also today demonstrated sexist. So you are just a bit thick.

Or you do understand and therefore you are a racist and a sexist.

Please note that this is directed at you and you alone, based on your posting history. I disagree with many things that Yes voters have said but my accusations is against you and you alone.

In reply to Donnie:

and i was trying to point out that the division of the single state that is the UK westminster for electoral purposes into Scotland, England etc is a bit false, and overtly nationalistic.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

I am saying that the SNP will continue to exist but will re-brand. Do you agree?

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


Not in their power? Of course it is! And, then, there's always the tried and tested option of giving with one hand while taking with the other...

They don't just represent Scotland, and in the off chance that the rest of the UK is starting to get a little bit fed up with Scotland getting special treatment, they might think those votes worth pursuing. Or even that they should represent their constituents.

Hey, there might even be a Tory-UKIP coalition government..!


I can assure you, I'm not doing this, and am very unlikely to vote SNP after independence!


I really hope you aren't disappointed.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

nope.

In reply to yer maw:


what? Are you suggesting that people who do not want to see the end of the union are doing so because they do not want scotland to do well? I'm afraid thats complete balls.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Okay we were at crossed purposes.

You say that the SNP will effectively totally disappear after a YES vote. That all of their politicians will join different parties or retire before Scotland's first General Election..

I say that the vast majority of SNP politicians will be in the same party for at least an electoral term in Scotland.

Does this sound like what we are saying?

In reply to mac fae stirling:




No problem. If you can't defend your position then no need to continue posting.

In reply to off-duty:

ah, you're good. I can see you're hooked tho. i promise not to respond after your next posting so you can have the last word. it has been... odd.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

aye, sort of.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


You were doing well until you forgot that Scotland is currently part of the UK. Whilst you might have more freckles and gingers in Scotland than the rest of the UK we are pretty bloody similar

RBS and BOS never had any dreams of Empire. Really, sorry Tom, cut the BS.

The most vicious sectarian violence on the UK mainland dies not happen in England, it happens in the Socialist-Egalitarian Utopia of Glasgow. Cut the crap.

Oh and by the way I run a SME so I know that when you say "Pragmatic and realistic is the way we are and a small country, like a small company doesn't have the scope to be anything other than pragmatic and realistic." you are generalising. My company is a successful SME and is not remotely pragmatic.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:


Do you think? I thought it was a bit bizarre.

Like Dr S said the suicide stuff is just weird, possibly factually inaccurate (the figures on the scottish health website are up to age 35 not 50) and certainly not based on any work on suicide. In fact income levels are a big factor in suicide, so if the Scottish pound dipped after independence it could have a worse effect. But it's based on a really poor understanding of stats, as it demonstrates successful health outcomes and the remarkably low road traffic death rate in the UK.

The whole talk of a distant Westminster govmint seems like small town provincialism and little else. If we're talking physical distance then there are lots of countries in the world where the seat of government is far from some parts of the country, the few miles between Carlisle and Annan make no difference.

Even labelling the UK government as a Westminster government is alien to english ears, no-one south of the border talks like that, except where they've been drawn into it by Scottish nats (or they're ridiculed for it, like a yorkshireman complaining his MP has fancy London airs and graces). Do you remember when the Ramblers closed their Scottish office and Hamish MacInnes made a right tit of himself by constantly referring to them as the London Ramblers?

Somewhat ironic that he complains about the debate in the mass media.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

I posted a video of someone getting called a traitor this week..

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well, Norway, Sweden and Denmark don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid#Officia... I would have thought that Scotland wanting to show that it was an outward looking and internationalist sort of country would want to be a supporter of international development aid.

In reply to lynx3555:



Matsentralen provides approximately 100,0000 meals per month to over 10,000 people.

The problems appear to be similar.

Incidentally much of my working life involves sitting with down and outs with drink and other problems. Generally speaking basic needs are met by the state. I do not doubt that we can do better in prevention and cure, I imagine most Norwegians feel the same.

In reply to yer maw:


Really? I'm pro Union in that I have a very British background..

Grew up in Manc/Sheffield degree in Wales, PhD in Scotland, lived in Wales for 10 years, competed for Wales, competed for GB, sister lives in Scotland, parents have semi retired so spend time between sheffield and Scotland..

I have liked that freedom to move around.. I just don't think breaking down unions is the way to go. I'm just very unnationalistic, very pro-EU, pro-immigration..

I am someone who really does see themselves as British..

I know that movement may well still be possible but it may not be..

I don't think the union is screwed anyway, we have one of the strongest economies in the world.. there's lots of negativity but that's actually misplaced and often stems from ignorance about what the rest of the world is actually like..

we get this constant spout of nonsense about how great norway is.. when it also has its issues..

But the suicide issue DM mentioned was very very odd.. for a start it didn't compare other nations.. and secondly it actually shows the UK has good health care..

In reply to Saor Alba:


This is a declaration I simply do not understand.

Perhaps we need a separate thread here. I cannot expand more at present as having spent a lengthy time hanging around Gatwick last night I find I have to go to Skye....




It is. I don't think you and I are that far apart on the outcomes we want for the inhabitants.

In reply to The New NickB:


http://www.matsentralen.no/

In reply to lynx3555:

>


Perhaps not

http://www.matsentralen.no/

In reply to mac fae stirling:



Maybe for obvious reasons? SNP does mean Scottish National Party and as you say you like the traditional Nationalist rant just above it's hard not to draw this conclusion.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Exactly, you are a Nationalist... why the denial? You are in the SNP and actively campaign for them, they are a Nationalist party, it's in their name. This denying your own reality is really strange.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I do wonder how you work out that Scotland is managed from Scotland when multiple, important powers are devolved.

I could post a like of things that are not managed from Scotland but Westminster instead. But I don't think there is any point.

It's all about the undecided now, and has been for ages. Battling it out with UKC isn't productive.

In reply to TobyA:


I don't really have a big thing about following the Nordic countries in everything they do.

Scotland is under-populated, it has antiquated land ownership and it has under invested for years relative to its potential. There is so much needing doing in Scotland I'd be quite happy if the government became inward looking for 10 to 20 years.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

like a lot of people who will vote yes, i am not a member of the snp and have never previosly voted for them and when i vote yes in the ref it still wont be a vote for them. the BT campaign and lots of no voters just cant seem to get their heads round this. the yes vote is a social movement not reducible only to 'nationalism'. i dont expect you to understand.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Nationalism
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Are you saying you don't meet any of these criteria?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Sure. But this isn't a vote for the SNP, it's a vote on whether Scotland should become an independent country.

Perhaps you don't realise - the Yes campaign is not the SNP. They're a big part of it, sure, but much of it is individuals, who may even never been politically active before, and who are almost as likely to be Labour (or other) voters as SNP.

Loads of people who are actively campaigning for a Yes vote have nothing to do with the SNP, and many don't even like them.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Aye - fairy nuff. I've just watched lots of seminars and experts panels, read reports and the like over the last decade where Scotland was very overtly looking to the Nordics as the inspiration and target for life as an independent country. Look at even the physical shape of the Scottish parliament chamber - its like a modern version of the Riksdag or the Eduskunta.

I think though the SNP has been deliberately not saying what you're saying though, because "Scotland for the Scottish" would hardly be a good rallying cry in the face of the criticism of people like Bruce who don't see that nationalism has as much of an emancipatory history as it does one of subjugation.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think that's a rather limited explanation of what nationalism is. Just take 19th century German or Italian nationalism for example, conglomerating numerous smaller proto-states. Or French revolutionary nationalism, of belief in the power of the people of a country rather than in a divine right of one family to own that land/people.

In reply to TobyA:


Of course it is. Nationalism can mean anything from wishing for an independent democratic sovereign state to some sort of ethnically based protofascism (some of that in Scotland as well) but that doesn't mean the former isn't included under the term.

In reply to Postmanpat:
To a certain extent I think the No side has its fair share of "UK nationalists", as well as the Yes side has it's fair share of "Scottish nationalists", but for most people the discussion has gone beyond these purely ideological principles, Scotland is already a nation and that's not going to change, it's more the constitutional set up as well as lots of other issues that are being debated.

I'm an undecided. What I see here is that all we're really choosing is whether we in Scotland will be ruled by a group of out of touch tossers in London who are entirely beholden to businesses and have no social conscience or by a group of out of touch tossers in Edinburgh who will be beholden to businesses and give up their social conscience because it's too expensive.

I'm undecided because I don't like either option I'm being offered.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nationalism
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Are you saying you don't meet any of these criteria?

yip - each point as written looks like bollocks to me:
i am not 'devoted' to the scottish, or any, other nation.
i dont see how nations can act independently of other nations
we are not under foreign domination.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Does "yip" mean you don't meet any of these criteria i.e. you don't aspirations for "national independence"?

Given you think the dictionary definitions of nationalism are "bollocks", pray,what is your definition?

In reply to Postmanpat:
you don't aspirations for "national independence"?

yes i do have that but that aint what you wrote above.

In reply to mac fae stirling:



What did I write?

In reply to mac fae stirling:


'Cos I'm too thick, eh? Being English an' all?

This sounds to me like Nationalism of the old sort, even if perhaps from you it isn't. Have you been battling away for years in a minority Left party to no avail and see this as a way forward? If you have you've fallen for another old Nationalist trick. Other countries have been though this before.

In reply to skog:


And yet they have the same stated goal.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nationalism
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Are you saying you don't meet any of these criteria?

'aspirations for national independence' is not set out as a seperate point - you added 'under foreign domination' which i dont think applies in any serious way in this context.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

No I don't accept your interpretation of what I've said over the past 6 months

Again that's your interpretation and I would say you were the one with the thick element in your character
Neither of the above and yes I understand what I write....if you need help understanding peoples comments then I suggest you sign up to a children's chat site.

You do seem to repeat yourself quite a lot.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

i have no idea where you are from.

In reply to rogerwebb:



Perhaps yes Roger, I was referring to the Times article.
And can that link be translated into English?

In reply to TobyA:


Come on now, you know there are different sorts of Nationalism - that of a colonised country fighting for it's freedom, India for example under the Raj, and that of the BNP or the pre-war movements in Germany, Italy and so on, as well as regionalist movements in Spain, France etc. Scottish Nationalism lies somewhere in the middle but I don't think even the SNP would claim that Scotland is a colonised country fighting for it's freedom from a brutal oppressor... except perhaps Sean Connerry the other night

In reply to mac fae stirling:







Well it's set out as point "3" of 3. How does that not make it a separate point? And of course I asked the question using the term "any" not "all" deliberately.
I didn't add the phrase "foreign domination". It was in the original.

But to be clear, the domination of the RUK over Scottish policy is not a motivation for you to vote fro independence?

What is your definition of nationalism?

In reply to skog:


If the no campaign can be confused with the tories then the reverse is also surely fair?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, yes.

In the same way that the Labour Party and the Conservative and Unionist Party do, on this matter.

Neither side is drawing from the supporters of just one party.

By all means keep suggesting that everyone who's voting yes is a nationalist.

It's true if you define 'nationalist' as someone who wants their country to be able to govern itself, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell anyone!

In reply to dissonance:

Neither is fair!

In reply to Postmanpat:

ok...you copied out a definition of nationalism that included the term 'under foreign domination' then asked me if it applied to me in some way and i said it didnt for reasons given above..

i don't concieve of scotland as being a 'country under foreign domination'.

i am not that interested in 'nationalism' and i am certainly not interested in defining it. i will leave that to you.

In reply to ericinbristol:
How low will the better together lot stoop to gain a victory, seems the media and social networking sites are truly going into melt down....
"ISLAMIC extremists are threatening to kill Scottish aid worker David Haines to help secure a Yes vote in the independence referendum, an intelligence expert has claimed."

"Professor Anthony Glees of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham said: “ISIS are masters of propaganda and realise the impact of selecting a Scot.

“They will hope by showing the UK is weak and unable to defend its citizens it will drive Scots to embrace independence."

The Scotsman.com


The UK's a model Democracy, my arse it is....

In reply to mac fae stirling:


So, having strenuously denied that you are a nationalist you now acknowledge that you actually haven't thought about what the term means? Odd.

Given that in wanting an independent sovereign nation you meet many definitions of nationalism you aren't really in a position to deny being a nationalist!

Never mind.

In reply to TobyA:


Often the French claim to have "invented" the notion of "Nation", the defining moment being when just before the Tuileries Palace where the royal family was holed up, defended by its mercenary Swiss Guards, just before the assault by the Parisan Guards started the Swiss cried "Vive le Roi!" but the Parisians replied "Vive la Nation!"

Just little snippet from my failing memory, but in this case is was the progressive movement from feudalism to national politics, the start of democracy and capitalism... not quite what's going on in Scotland just now, a wee bit more dramatic. The Swiss were massacred to a man IIRC, but they respected their contract and refused several offers to surrender and be allowed to go home, perhaps why no one has invaded Switzerland recently?

In reply to skog:


Well they have to be at least a little bit, surely?

In reply to Postmanpat:

well, just to add to the fun, in the past i have actually taught courses on nationalism/nations states/national identity at university and i have a huge pile of books teetering in the corner of my room on the subject. they have dust on them now.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
perhaps why no one has invaded Switzerland recently?

No, this is because no non-Swiss could cope with the demands of putting out the right coloured recycling bag with the right contents outside at the right time on the right day with the right sticker at the right price

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's true if you define 'nationalist' as someone who wants their country to be able to govern itself, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell anyone!


There seems to be a bit of an echo in here.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Even odder.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Even odder'

only if you dont understand what is happening in scotland right now.

In reply to ericinbristol:
And as for the new powers being hastily decided by the UK NATIONALISTS.....

"Better Together after finding a poll in favour of the Yes campaign are now in talks with each other to put together some kind of deal. While there is very little chance that the Scottish Electorate will believe them anyway based on the fact that they ensured that DEVO MAX was not on the ballot, it raises serious questions about the electoral rules.

Part 4 sections 1-4 of the Scottish Referendum Act 2013 stipulates that campaigners are not allowed to release new documentation to the public within 28 days of the referendum date except in response to a direct enquiry.

As no such information has been sought this meeting with better together and subsequent advice that will apparently be published is in contrevention of said act.

As there is less than 10 days left of the referendum campaign, we believe that it is the commissions responsibility to investigate the matter under law and if necessary advise better together to cease and desist or risk allowing the rules of the referendum to be breached."

In reply to mac fae stirling:



What is odd is the concept of strenuously denying something you aren't interested in defining and either not being prepared, or maybe able, to clarify what it is you are denying.

That is independent of any debate or understanding of what is going on in Scotland.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'nationalism' now bores me sh!tless.

it really is that simple.

In reply to lynx3555:

interesting - i guess this is why darling was at pains to point out that no new powers were being offered soon after osborne put his foot in it on national telly.

In reply to lynx3555:

So you would rather NOT have any devo-Max promises set in stone before the referendum.
Seems a bit shortsighted.

In reply to mac fae stirling:



Bores you shitless but not enough to stop you denying being a nationalist!

It's that simple.

In reply to off-duty:



Personally, I just want Scotland to be independent and always have had....but if they had offered Devo max when the referendum was legally allowed to proceed, then I would have respected the decision of fellow voters to chose that option.
Incidentally, i have absolutely no dislike of English people as some idiots on here have suggested. Why is it that people think that Scots wanting independence means they are racist, I'm at a loss to make that connection.

In reply to Postmanpat:

nope, youve got that all wrong.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


So you're not bored shitless by it or you're not denying being a nationalist? Or since it's "all" wrong presumably both?

In reply to Postmanpat:

lol! gordon bennet postmanpat, gie it a rest man!

mind you, as work avoidance goes this has been great, so cheers for that!

In reply to mac fae stirling:



Glad to be of service!

In reply to lynx3555:

They've also just released news of another royal baby… terrible how they are using these things…

You really are living with a tin foil hat on…

The UK is a great model for democracy.. you are attacking it's lack of democracy when discussing a vote to peacefully dissolve the union between Scotland and the RUK..

How many others have done this?

Spain? USSR?

In reply to IainRUK:

France would never allow a region to break away, not without a fight!

In reply to ericinbristol:

Thanks for sharing. This is an excellent piece by Dave.

As an English man I'd loved independence. If we can get it by proxy from a Scotland split (which will hopefully precipitate a break up of the wider UK), then so much the better.

No one is actually moving anywhere. We will always have the bond of a common heritage. Independence is no barrier to ongoing collaboration.

Go for it Scotland!

In reply to Shani:





It actually could be.. EU.. currency issues..

Them not using the £, them using the euro, us leaving the EU, them not getting readmitted, us using the euro..

I think it should all smooth out pretty quickly as both countries need each other but in the short term 2-5 years there will be a number of bumps. It just depends how quickly the EU and currency options are mapped out really.. the quicker the better for ongoing collaborations and businesses..

In reply to IainRUK:




With strong familial links to the republic of Ireland, and as a regular traveller to the continent, I don't think a different currency makes that much of a difference at all. In fact, of all currencies bar Sterling, if Scotland adopt the Euro then that is a very easy currency for us to work with - especially given the volume of trade the UK does with the Eurozone.

I don't think differences around who is in/out the EU will make much difference either. We trade heavily outside the EU and are continually trying to increase trade with non-EU countries such as the BRICS.

More importantly, the simple geography of the matter, Scotland is VERY close to England, means that pragmatism will triumph and trade/cultural exchange will continue pretty much as it does now - particularly amongst those who live in and around the border.

I do agree with your last sentence though. It will be a bit bumpy and it will take a few years to work out. Whatever the bumps though, they will unlikely match the costs of the banking bailout, Trident, PFI and (aggressive) UK tax avoidance.

In reply to Shani:


Then what's the point of the break up in the first place? It's not like Ireland which was conquered and colonised. This was a voluntary union which has been working well, despite what the Nationalists claim, why break it up, what is to be gained?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's an interesting question and I think that colonialism is at the heart of it. There is the perception of colonial rule through the political system (essentially the Conservative Party). Given the population disparity between Scotland and England, it will always be thus.

And this perception of colonialism rather than a union isn't just confined to Scotland. Irish perception of the situation is similarly skewed (see comments at http://bit.ly/1w7C0MY and pay attention to those that talk about 'freedom').

All non-English members of the UK seem to view the UK through a prism of subjugation. Only through independence of each and every nation can the Welsh, NI and Scottish emancipate themselves.

From an English perspective I think English independence will lead to the regions outside of London asserting themselves and pushing for much more influence, recognition and investment.

Also, the Conservative's 'divide and rule' strategy will not gain much traction without the nationalist card to play. The future is most definitely NOT blue. But without the support of the Scots I don't think Labour will have an easy ride.

In reply to Shani:



Which is?

In reply to Shani:

That just is not true..

TBH I heard very very few in North Wales view the UK like that, there was appetite for more powers, language protection/promotion, actual independence? No, very very little…

I don't think there is any lack of identity though..

Wales and England are just too entwined.. geographically we can't just separate the two, trade from east wales goes east > england.. trade in north wales goes east to manchester/liverpool/chester… trade in south wales goes east along the motorways to the south/south west/west england..

Scotland is much more geographically isolated from england. I really don't think there is the stomach for so much upheaval and associated costs to change very little.. the two economies are so entwined you couldn't have any vastly different policies.. many live and work in separate countries etc..

More trade goes wales out than it does north to south wales.. they even struggle to maintain an air link between the two as it was used to rarely..

Northern Ireland, well that's just a whole different kettle of fish and severely complicated by the desire to unite ireland and also religious issues and the obvious history…

In reply to IainRUK:



I'd disagree and restate that the Welsh DO seem to view the UK through a prism of subjugation. I agree that they may not want independence but independence will most certainly emancipate them.


There is waning appetite in the republic for reunification. NI probably has more ties with Scotland than England.

eply to Saor Alba:


Fair point

I am genuinely confused as to how one can run an argument that relies on the proposition that the problems of a people can only be solved by the recreation of their own nationstate without being a nationalist.

Perhaps after 18 September

In reply to lynx3555:


There was a translate button on the top of the homepage

In reply to Shani:

Don't agree.

I think Wales is doing perfectly fine as is. I have never (and don't know anyone who does) that feels enslaved, or need to be set free.

Take a look at a map of the world. The UK is a tiny island in the grand scheme of things. People complaining Scotland is too far from London for effective governance?

I fail to see how 4 lots of politicians, 4 lots of healthcare systems, 4 lots of police is beneficial?

If they get the Yes vote, are we then in 10 years time going to see the North, disgruntled by the distance from Edinburgh and Glasgow, going to seek Independence? How far do you take it?

In reply to steveej:



Enslaved is probably too strong a word. 'Ruled over' is perhaps closer to the mark from my experience. But this is a fluid situation. Will the Welsh and NI feel represented in an rUK which will be made up of 40 MPs from Wales, 18 from Northern Ireland and 528 from England?


And yet half of Scots feel Westminster doesn't understand their needs. Heck people in Yorkshire don't feel Westminster understand their needs and they are much closer!


It still only one lot of politicians, helthcare systems and police services per country. That is in line with the world-average.


Yep. People are discontent with our political system and the drive to independence may well be viewed as a source of personal and civic empowerment for those with a sense of political impotence.

In reply to Shani:


No, subjugation is far too strong a word for it. Ignored maybe is a bit closer to how we feel! However, pretty sure that the Welsh are not unique in feeling that way about the UK government.

In reply to thread:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-he...

not sure if anyone has posted this link yet or spoken about it. Yes it's fear. Doesn't mean it should be dissmissed as such though IMO, unless of course it's independence and fck the consequences. In which case you can totally ignore

In reply to Shani:


Heck, plenty of people in London don't feel Westminster understand their needs!

In reply to wynaptomos:


I'm sure that 10 minutes on Anglesey and I'd find someone who thought 'subjuated' was closer to the mark or at least if I could find members of Cymru Annibynnol/Cymru Rydd. But then my experience of Welsh nationalism is based upon having lived in the North where support for independence has historically been stronger than the south.

But yes, the Welsh are not unique in feeling ignored/unrepresented by the UK government. There are strong feeling that way in the Midlands and most certainly in Yorkshire.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Thanks to this thread..

Todays lecture on experimental design will feature this…

Talking about bad science.. pseudoscience.. and using poor science in arguments

No valid controls.. i.e. what would you expect in other countries?

How its a no win?

There will always be a leading cause of death?

Whats a good one?
Car crashes? Heart attacks? Gun crime?

And evolutionarily, why don't 20-50 year olds die of natural causes.. where NS works..

In reply to Shani:

There is definately an element of society with strong National pride in South Wales. Sad thing is, the vast majority of them have never even visited their own country (North, Mid, West Wales etc).

I'm just glad they don't run the country else we'd still be living in caves.

Things are supposed to move forward.

In reply to Shani:


There's plenty of people who would support the idea of independence here but in practice know that it's not viable given the current weakness of the economy. We've not done a very good job at running our own assembly up to now either.

In reply to steveej:


The problem is not the physical distance but the ideological one.

In reply to IainRUK:

They also have the Queen on the front page of one of the papers looking very un amused...she's supposedly pleading with the Westminster government not to lose Scotland from her control....but that piece is aimed at the really ignorant as we are keeping the Royal Family.....although I'd sack them if I could and form a real democracy.

Nope, but carry on trying to put down people that have opposing views from yours.



Quite a few actually....Britain had a really bad track record when it came to granting independence to its Colonies.

In reply to lynx3555:


My understanding is that on the whole it was rather well done in comparison to other colonial powers. Not that it's in anyway relevant to the current debate.

In reply to DaveHK:

Agreed it's not relevant to the current debate.....I guess I'm just a bit pissed off with the way the media are playing this and I'm not impressed with the way that this has been handled by the Westminster government either...Westminster shouldn't have dismissed the referendum as some kind of inconvenience and should have agreed to pre-negotiations.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Shame I can't read all of that article, I doubt that Paul Krugman actually has much experience of being in Scotland or knowing much about Scotland other than the fact that some of us wear kilts and we have a mythological monster called Nessie.
The US government are very worried about Scotland becoming independent for several reasons, also a lot of them love the UK being united although a lot of them refer to the UK as England.

In reply to lynx3555:


Switching hats for a moment, so do a lot of English! But I'm still voting No.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: Not sure if everyone would agree with this.

On Gordon Brown vs David Cameron
According to Krugman, Gordon Brown and his party were unfairly blamed for the late-2000s financial crisis. He has also praised the former British Prime Minister, whom he described as "more impressive than any US politician" after a three-hour conversation with him. Krugman asserted that Brown "defined the character of the worldwide financial rescue effort" and urged British voters not to support the opposition Conservative Party in the 2010 General Election, arguing their Party Leader David Cameron "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic."

In reply to Fraser:


I was actually going to say that but thought I'd better not

In reply to rogerwebb:





Maybe you are and you will have to ask the people who are saying that.

In reply to Shani:


But how many MPs should they have? Central government is necessarily central, each bit send an MP and things go on from there. That it's in Westminster - let's say London, the exact area is only used for propaganda purposes because it's an expensive area so increases the them and us element - or Yorkshire, Cardiff or anywhere else, it just has to be somewhere, what's wrong with putting Parliament in the biggest city like most other old democracies?

Is it really provable that the S E is richer because London is there, isn't it really the other way around, the capital is quite naturally the most prosperous area? Help must be given to poorer area but isn't this already done?

The truth is that splitting is happening where it is and not elsewhere because of oil. There are Nationalists all over the place, most get nowhere, like the bloke I met in Cornwall once who was proud to wear a kilt of a tartan he'd devised himself, but in Scotland there was oil to be had just for Scotland - "It's our oil" - which boosted the historical rancour of a tiny minority which, playing on the legitimate (but country wide) grievances of many built it up to where we are now - breaking up a perfect good (but perfectible) country by 8% of the population being persuaded of a rosy future paid for by oil... the Norwegian dream.

Wales and N Ireland, or Yorkshire, no oil so no independence movement, nothing for Nationalists to get a grip on. Scotland isn't the first place in the world where oil or some other newly found mineral wealth led to it splitting away from the rest... it could almost be said to be human nature, almost but not quite.

In reply to lynx3555:


Err well not if you compare it to France, the other major colonial power... the Algerian war of independence lead to about a million deaths, the Indochinese war was a major one too... never heard of them? Then there is Portugal which kept the blood running until not that long ago... which countries with major colonial empires were you thinking of that did the job better than Britain?

Of course there"s still the Malvinas and Gibraltar but best not speak of them on ukc, peole get hot under the collar, and not just English posters IIRC!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I didn't make any comparisons with any other countries who had colonies....the very concept of colonising another country by force is Evil in my book....Britains track record was horrendous, but I agree that it wasn't just Great Britain. Scotland's role in the opium trade is very close to me as I'm related to William Jardine and I live very close to one of the relatives of Mathison his Partner....in Duncraig house near Plockton, the Fire place is poppies carved into stone, that was the Mathisons house.
I'm far from proud of being related to the biggest drug dealer the world has ever known.

In reply to lynx3555:

I understand your comments. They are often racist. Others have also accused you of this so it is obviously not just me.

In reply to lynx3555:


How is Scotland in the queens control? And how is it not a real democracy?

You are in the process of voting for independence? If that is not an example of good democracy I don't know what is…. The UK has its faults, but its one of the least corrupt nations in the world.. our democratic system has its issues, the lords etc but its still one of the best and is slowly being reformed.

I actually like an unelected second house but think it should come from more 'normal' groups, be more representative, possibly shorter terms, but its basic idea is sound.. it allows a longer term view, which I don't think MP's have.. they think over election time scales.


This is just superb! Haha i can't believe you just had the cheek to use that one...


It had a fairly good track record.. hence the commonwealth.. and nations voting to stay in the commonwealth..

In reply to Saor Alba:



The management is mostly here, (it had better be or start up costs will be rather higher than predicted) its whether those civil servants and council workers respond to executive decisions made by Regional Councils, The Scottish Government, UK Government or EU or any combination of them.

In reply to IainRUK:


I agree. The lords are in fact mostly (relatively) normal people now. They become lords on appointment, not the other way around. The appointment process itself is dubious though.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Aye, whatever you say.....what was that they were chanting at he Swiss-England match last night....it was - "F*ck off Scotland we're all voting yes" and if you follow Twitter then maybe you've seen the very anti Scottish Comments being banded about, far too many to list.

In reply to IainRUK:
Britain had a fairly good track record with it's colonies did it....
"There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-...

In reply to lynx3555:


Two racists don't make a right.

In reply to rogerwebb:

The management/policy of defence, social security, economy, foreign policy and so on I want to be in Scotland. Not in Westminster.

A No vote doesn't offer that.

The events of the last 48 hours have made Westminster look even less competent. Offering rushed, late, vague changes after voting has started? They haven't the faintest idea what they are doing.

In reply to rogerwebb: I would like to think that Scotland is running it's self, but the reality is that behind all these offers of more powers etc...is a real desire to strip Scotland of more of it's powers. The wig wearing, pompous and unelected House of Lords, only recently voted to strip Scotland of this power....
"A Scottish MP has reacted with fury after the Scottish Parliament was stripped of a key energy power after a House of Lords amendment was backed by Unionist MPs"
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8428-fury-after-unel...
As expected, this wasn't much of a news item at the time.

In reply to off-duty:

Please supply me with evidence to support your, and other unionist types, accusations that I'm a racist....my good English friends who I'm presently working with, from Sunderland, Leeds, Newcastle, Red Car, South Shields and Sheffield would piss them selves laughing at your collective accusations that I'm a racist against the English. The four Scots, me included, are all yes voters, we all get on very well and enjoy sharing harmless banter, just like we always have.

In reply to lynx3555:

perhaps that was just off-duty's unionist ? sense of humour !

In reply to lynx3555:
Do you think that saying you have a laugh with some English guys at work means you're not racist?

Sounds like a variation on something Jim Davidson would say in the 80's to justify his routine

Note, i'm not sayiong you are racist, just that your response doesn't really hold much water

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




And accusations that I'm a racist don't hold any water either, particularly since they (the unionist accusers) have no evidence to prove that I'm a nasty anti English Racist....but I guess it helps distract from the conversation....

In reply to lynx3555:

Amongst other things you've made a few previous posts where you have fallen into the trap of suggesting that the pro-independence view is "the Scottish" view, which it clearly isn't.

In reply to lynx3555:

How did I ignore it?

I just said it was better than many..

However Scotland played its role.. you seem to think it was just the english.. so how great was Scotland pre Union? Some peaceful Oasis I guess...

In reply to lynx3555:

>


Yet it made the news,..

In reply to ericinbristol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386
"UK party leaders in No vote trip to Scotland"

That is the YES vote secured then!

In reply to JoshOvki:
Carney says currency union incompatible with sovereignty. Salmond will have to admit now that CU is definitely not happening.
With a banking sector in Scotland at 1000% GDP, this will definitely mean big changes if yes wins.

Plan B is now Plan A ?

In reply to lynx3555:


I can't be bothered really - but you must recall the many occasions when people have made this accusation - this does not happen with the same frequency for most of the other Yes posters.

It way well be your ' harmless banter' is being misinterpreted, very easy to do on the inter web, and certainly stuff I've said as 'banter' to welsh mates over the years would potentially come across very badly on here, to people who do not know me and stripped of many normal social cues.

Given that you clearly feel you are not racist, but people often accuse you of being so - perhaps you need to reconsider how you type stuff?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

And comparing everyone to the BNP or nazi's…

And then coming out with the 'please don't insult me'…

In reply to IainRUK:




I never said it was just the English, infact if you look back a wee bit you'll see that I clearly labeled some Scots as perpetrators of some atrocities.....but not until we became cannon fodder and players in the Union....incidentally, a hell of a lot of Scots lives were wrecked by the union.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I do remember, but I was as perplexed by there reasoning just as I am now.

Maybe they are just a tad sensitive....


Maybe but then i hate censorship and would likely resist such a notion

In reply to JoshOvki:




And the big Orange Lodge march in Edinburgh and a visit from Nigel Farage....bring it on I say

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: I don't blame all the Scaremongering people, who are coming out with loads of stuff, to try to change the minds of the people living in Scotland (is that better )...but Scotland is taking a long journey, the first step of which, it took back in 1979. So why are people surprised that we are were we are today!

I found this an interesting article....

"NEF doesn’t take a position on the Scottish referendum. It’s for the people of Scotland to decide their future. And while the City now appears to have woken up to the possibility of a Yes victory, it’s not uncertainty over Scotland’s future that’s troubling them.

Tucked away in the Financial Times’ report earlier in the week was the giveaway. “Currency investors” would apparently be “particularly concerned by the UK’s persistent current account deficit if this were no longer offset by North Sea oil revenues.”

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

In reply to lynx3555:




Well, people are sensitive, it's incredibly easy to give offence in electronic communication because of the lack of timbre,social cues, facial expressions - I see your point about censorship, but your arguments are likely to be more effective ( on this topic at least) if you can avoid whatever it is that gives the impression to people that you are anti-English.

In reply to lynx3555:


Indeed you did, though from a 'history of atrocities' perspective Scotland plays with England from the Union of the crowns, rather then the Act of Union.

I dare say a lot of lives were wrecked during the Union - I'm not sure you can say they were wrecked by the Union.

In reply to lynx3555:

Strangely they have completely ignored the offsets : remittances abroad of North Sea profits to foreign owners, the existing trade surplus of the RUK with Scotland which will now appear in the RUK numbers, and other non oil profit remittances to RUK owners. These probably cancel approaching 90% or so of the loss North Sea revenues, and more if some large companies relocate .

In reply to lynx3555:



You seem to be confusing "censorship" with "self restraint".

You're just like to find targets for your anger: protestants, unionists, Orangemen, King Billy (seems to be an anti Dutch thing going on), Nigel Farage, English, Tories, English imperialists, Scots imperialists…….

Roll up, roll up, take your pick…..

In reply to Postmanpat:




Apart from "English" you have correctly listed a lot of my pet hates in Britain....you forgot to add the Royal family, most religions and New Labour. Don't mind the Dutch, King Billy was brought over by invitation and unfortunately his legacy lives on here in Scotland and over in Northern Ireland....

In reply to lynx3555:


The list wasn't ,of course, meant to be comprehensive. You're just one of life's natural haters….

In reply to lynx3555:


are you sure?

was it not scotland's spectacularly botched attempt to get in on the whole colonial enterprise that got us into the Union in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

its not that we didnt want to be a colonial power. more that we were rubbish at actually doing it...

In reply to lynx3555:


Do you try to spout a lie in every post on purpose... Or is it just by luck?

I think you should read some history on massacres by scots.. Not many if any countries have peaceful histories..