Scottish independence

[John_HFC]

A referendum on independence could potentially be just around the corner. How would you vote?

[Hainan Hibs]

Yes from me, as a country we should have full decision making power over our nation, and have the power to say no to nuclear weapons being kept in our country, and also power to say no to sending our troops to their death in unwinnable wars.

[Woody1985]

No. We're stronger as a union IMO.

If you asked 20 years ago, when I was 3 :greengrin, I'd have said yes as we'd at least have a chance of getting the oil / gas money to build our country with.

We've no chance of getting near that if we're independant and could become a lot worse off IMO.

The problem with this referendum is going to be a bunch of people voting yes because they don't want to be part of GB or just think it would be great to be independant without any knowledge of the potential impacts.

I reckon if there was a referendum you'd have a hell of a lot of Glasgow voting yes for the simple fact they hate the protestant monarch with no other thought on the matter.

Edit; another point. Go abroad and ask the local people where Scotland is. Then you'll see how much no one gives a **** about our country.

Let battle commence :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Yes from me, as a country we should have full decision making power over our nation, and have the power to say no to nuclear weapons being kept in our country, and also power to say no to sending our troops to their death in unwinnable wars.

Our geographical position would inevitably mean we'd get dragged into England's wars anyway. Do you think a foreign country would give a **** if we got bombed because of an invisible line across the island?

Would our government be strong enough to tell English patrons to GTF and they're not getting into our country because they got themselves into wars.

Don't be so naive.

Nuclear weapons are also a bargaining tool that acts as a deterent to other nations attacking us. I'm all for them.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------


A referendum on independence could potentially be just around the corner. How would you vote?

New poster.

SNP member trying to guage interest on football fans forums. Smart move. :greengrin

[andrew_dundee]

i voted yes but i dont think we'll see a referendum any time soon. the SNP must know that if they hold one next year they will almost certainly lose... however if they hold one 2 or 3 years in to a second term and 3 or 4 years in to a Tory government then they would have a better chance...

[JimBHibees]

Our geographical position would inevitably mean we'd get dragged into England's wars anyway. Do you think a foreign country would give a **** if we got bombed because of an invisible line across the island?

Would our government be strong enough to tell English patrons to GTF and they're not getting into our country because they got themselves into wars.

Don't be so naive.

Nuclear weapons are also a bargaining tool that acts as a deterent to other nations attacking us. I'm all for them.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------



New poster.

SNP member trying to guage interest on football fans forums. Smart move. :greengrin

What like Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Woody1985]

Interesting that people are voting yes but only two commets on it. Any more reasons for the 'yes' vote?

[Woody1985]

What like Afghanistan and Iraq?

Sorry, I meant if any wars are ever brought to these shores.

How independant would we be anyway? We might be independant on paper. However, sly politicians would ruin it in the end.

No doubt westminster politicians would be underhand and state that unless we assist them in overseas operation then they'd put less trade Scotlands way etc.

There's a magnitude of things that need to be considered. It's not as simple as "Right we're now split and have our own government, cheery bye now England".

[Beefster]

No.

We'd be financially poorer, have an army capable of very little, lose a bundle of major companies and be a complete backwater on the world stage.

That's just for starters.

[Woody1985]

No.

We'd be financially poorer, have an army capable of very little, lose a bundle of major companies and be a complete backwater on the world stage.

That's just for starters.

We'd probably end up as an equivelant of some old USSR country now. No one gives a **** about them but the whole world still sees Russia as a major player on the world stage.

Another thing, if it all starts going tits up in the first 5 years how many people would try and move across the border and possibly be told to GTF.

I wonder what would happen if you were Scottish, moved over the border before the split, declared residency after the split, then move back to Scotland. If it's ****, you could then nip back over.

[Beefster]

What like Afghanistan and Iraq?

Both started and now continued under Prime Ministers born and educated in Scotland so I'm not sure how they can be seen as England's wars.

PS The UK also includes Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Woody1985]

Both started and now continued under Prime Ministers born and educated in Scotland so I'm not sure how they can be seen as England's wars.

PS The UK also includes Wales and Northern Ireland.

:agree:

And we're as equally as guily as not really giving a **** about them as the English are about us.

[CentreLine]

No. We're stronger as a union IMO.

If you asked 20 years ago, when I was 3 :greengrin, I'd have said yes as we'd at least have a chance of getting the oil / gas money to build our country with.

We've no chance of getting near that if we're independant and could become a lot worse off IMO.

The problem with this referendum is going to be a bunch of people voting yes because they don't want to be part of GB or just think it would be great to be independant without any knowledge of the potential impacts.

I reckon if there was a referendum you'd have a hell of a lot of Glasgow voting yes for the simple fact they hate the protestant monarch with no other thought on the matter.

Edit; another point. Go abroad and ask the local people where Scotland is. Then you'll see how much no one gives a **** about our country.

Let battle commence :greengrin

Don't get me started......No, do get me started.
Yes for sure.

It was something that was not on my radar at all but then up came the interesting facts released under the 30 years rule about the lies and deceptions by both Labour and Conservative governments in the 1970's about Scotland's oil and its potential for an independent Scotland. All gone in 30 years my ass.

The tin lid was put on it all for me when it was disclosed that the Westminster Government had discussed putting troops on the streets of Scotland to prevent any move towards independence. Just about the same time as that little bombshell we saw the present administration take 6,000 square miles of Scottish Water under English control by effectively moving the border off shore from Berwick to Dundee. All just weeks before we saw devolution delivered.

The suggestion that there is not another 30 years of oil under the North Sea is frankly daft. There are many millions of pounds being spent right now by oil companies on technology and exploration. They are not doing that because the wells are running dry. The deception and theft of oil over the past 30 years has more than paid any debt we may owe England for being kind enough to exploit our country for 300 years. We will never now catch up with Norway, but we only have to look over the water to see what 30 years of oil would do for the economy in a restored independent Scotland. I concede we could not survive on taxation because the population is too small. However, there is every reason to believe that oil would allow for the industrial development and increase in population that would see Scotland flourish.

All of course IMHO

Yes Vote from me.....Troops on our streets, how dare they!!!!!!!:grr:

[Beefster]

We'd probably end up as an equivelant of some old USSR country now. No one gives a **** about them but the whole world still sees Russia as a major player on the world stage.

Another thing, if it all starts going tits up in the first 5 years how many people would try and get across the border and possibly be told to GTF.

I agree entirely.

One last thing - apart from entirely emotive reasons, are there any real reasons for Scotland to become independent?

Considering the Barnett formula, the combined defence, the disproportionate number of Scots in the UK government, the control of affairs by the Scottish Executive and our position in world affairs (as part of the UK), are we really better off being out of it?

[Woody1985]

Don't get me started......No, do get me started.
Yes for sure.

It was something that was not on my radar at all but then up came the interesting facts released under the 30 years rule about the lies and deceptions by both Labour and Conservative governments in the 1970's about Scotland's oil and its potential for an independent Scotland. All gone in 30 years my ass.

The tin lid was put on it all for me when it was disclosed that the Westminster Government had discussed putting troops on the streets of Scotland to prevent any move towards independence. Just about the same time as that little bombshell we saw the present administration take 60,000 square miles of Scottish Water under English control by effectively moving the border off shore from Berwick to Dundee. All just weeks before we saw devolution delivered.

The suggestion that there is not another 30 years of oil under the North Sea is frankly daft. There are many millions of pounds being spent right now by oil companies on technology and exploration. They are not doing that because the wells are running dry. The deception and theft of oil over the past 30 years has more than paid any debt we may owe England for being kind enough to exploit our country for 300 years. We will never now catch up with Norway, but we only have to look over the water to see what 30 years of oil would do for the economy in a restored independent Scotland. I concede we could not survive on taxation because the population is too small. However, there is every reason to believe that oil would allow for the industrial development and increase in population that would see Scotland flourish.

All of course IMHO

Yes Vote from me.....Troops on our streets, how dare they!!!!!!!:grr:

Even still, if we do split, they'd probably try and share the revenues in proportion of our populations i.e

We'd get about 8% of the revenues based on that. What we gonna do when they tell us to **** off? It's like being that little **** at school who wants to **** the big guy up so much but doesn't have the ability or power to do it.

[Woody1985]

I agree entirely.

One last thing - apart from entirely emotive reasons, are there any real reasons for Scotland to become independent?

Considering the Barnett formula, the combined defence, the disproportionate number of Scots in the UK government, the control of affairs by the Scottish Executive and our position in world affairs (as part of the UK), are we really better off being out of it?

I don't think there are. If there are then I've yet to see them.

Not being involved in their wars is not an arguement IMO. As I say, we'd either get dragged into it or still be a target for countries who would want to attack them in future.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

We'd probably end up as an equivelant of some old USSR country now. No one gives a **** about them but the whole world still sees Russia as a major player on the world stage.

Another thing, if it all starts going tits up in the first 5 years how many people would try and move across the border and possibly be told to GTF.

I wonder what would happen if you were Scottish, moved over the border before the split, declared residency after the split, then move back to Scotland. If it's ****, you could then nip back over.

Scotland would join the EU. The point is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------


No.

We'd be financially poorer, have an army capable of very little, lose a bundle of major companies and be a complete backwater on the world stage.

That's just for starters.

Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Eire. Why would Scotland not follow their lead?

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Don't get me started......No, do get me started.
Yes for sure.

It was something that was not on my radar at all but then up came the interesting facts released under the 30 years rule about the lies and deceptions by both Labour and Conservative governments in the 1970's about Scotland's oil and its potential for an independent Scotland. All gone in 30 years my ass.

The tin lid was put on it all for me when it was disclosed that the Westminster Government had discussed putting troops on the streets of Scotland to prevent any move towards independence. Just about the same time as that little bombshell we saw the present administration take 60,000 square miles of Scottish Water under English control by effectively moving the border off shore from Berwick to Dundee. All just weeks before we saw devolution delivered.

The suggestion that there is not another 30 years of oil under the North Sea is frankly daft. There are many millions of pounds being spent right now by oil companies on technology and exploration. They are not doing that because the wells are running dry. The deception and theft of oil over the past 30 years has more than paid any debt we may owe England for being kind enough to exploit our country for 300 years. We will never now catch up with Norway, but we only have to look over the water to see what 30 years of oil would do for the economy in a restored independent Scotland. I concede we could not survive on taxation because the population is too small. However, there is every reason to believe that oil would allow for the industrial development and increase in population that would see Scotland flourish.

All of course IMHO

Yes Vote from me.....Troops on our streets, how dare they!!!!!!!:grr:

I'm with you brother.

There are many millions of barrels of untapped oil in the North Sea and around the Shetlands and Outer Hebrides - all Scottish wealth.

Scotland is a nation, not a principality. We are a nation in a union; a very one sided union. It's time for change.

Upon achieving independence, Scotland would form a military and economic alliance with England (since a good chunk of the army are Scots regiments). There would not be an immediate noticeable change, in fact the road to independence, if a yes result were announced, would take years.

Don't fear it - we are a hardy wee nation and would do well.

[Woody1985]

Scotland would join the EU. The point is irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Eire. Why would Scotland not follow their lead?

How is it irrelevant?

Unless we can negotiate something (with England's help no doubt), how do you propose a new state/country that is effectively created overnight automatically gets membership?

We'd probably join the back of the queue behind Turkey (FFS) and the like.

Another small point, football related, when since was Uzbekis****ingstan etc in Europe. Countries bordering with China and so on. :grr:

[CentreLine]

How is it irrelevant?

Unless we can negotiate something (with England's help no doubt), how do you propose a new state/country that is effectively created overnight automatically gets membership?

We'd probably join the back of the queue behind Turkey (FFS) and the like.

Another small point, football related, when since was Uzbekis****ingstan etc in Europe. Countries bordering with China and so on. :grr:

Can you really see the EU ignoring the most wealthy country in Europe(because that is what we would be outside of Norway) if they wanted to join. Not a chance. Scotland would be at the very top table in Europe and Westminster knows it

[Beefster]

Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Eire. Why would Scotland not follow their lead?

Why would we follow their lead?

Whether we declare independence or not should be down to us being better off on our own, not because another country did it half a century ago or more.

[Woody1985]

Can you really see the EU ignoring the most wealthy country in Europe(because that is what we would be outside of Norway) if they wanted to join. Not a chance. Scotland would be at the very top table in Europe and Westminster knows it

Assuming we don't have a fight for the oil and get to keep it all. As per the above, we might be 8% of the wealthiest country in Europe.

Unless there is a massive plan put in place to ensure we don't get fleeced of anything then there is simply no point.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

How is it irrelevant?

Unless we can negotiate something (with England's help no doubt), how do you propose a new state/country that is effectively created overnight automatically gets membership?

We'd probably join the back of the queue behind Turkey (FFS) and the like.

Another small point, football related, when since was Uzbekis****ingstan etc in Europe. Countries bordering with China and so on. :grr:

I don't think you should compare Scotland, a Western European country, to a central Asian state.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Scotland would be poor? Do you really believe that we live on handouts?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.0.php

[hibbykeef]

God forbid this ever happens,just look at the mess with the new drinking laws.Give this mob total power and we will be ****ed.

[Gatecrasher]

God forbid this ever happens,just look at the mess with the new drinking laws.Give this mob total power and we will be ****ed.

exactly they are making a mess of it within the union never mind their own

salmond and kenny think they speak for the people of scotland well do they **** speak for me.

[Woody1985]

I don't think you should compare Scotland, a Western European country, to a central Asian state.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Scotland would be poor? Do you really believe that we live on handouts?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.0.php

I don't think we'll be poor. We just won't be as rich as everyone thinks we will "Oh yes, we've got loads of oil so **** England". IT WON'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT.

And I wasn't making a comparison between us and Turkey. I'm saying we'd end up behind them in the queue, assuming they've not fully joined by such time.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Why would we follow their lead?

Whether we declare independence or not should be down to us being better off on our own, not because another country did it half a century ago or more.

I'm not saying copy them, I'm saying why would Scotland with it's service industry sector not do well on its own? Edinburgh is Europe's 5th largest financial centre.

Scotland's annual GDP is around £90bn. This is WITHOUT oil and gas revenues. I think we would undoubtedly be better off.

What were the motives behind the union in the first place? England needed the highly regarded (and wealthy) Stewart dynasty to prop up their failing throne. This agenda continues to this day.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------


i don't think we'll be poor. We just won't be as rich as everyone thinks we will "oh yes, we've got loads of oil so **** england". It won't happen like that.

I'm not saying it will happen like that ffs. We will be better off than we are now, this is my opinion. The union is becoming weaker - the next Tory government will be the straw that broke its back.


The poll suggests a landslide so far for independence - 66% of the vote, yet I am the lone Nationalist here. Oh well.

[GlesgaeHibby]

God forbid this ever happens,just look at the mess with the new drinking laws.Give this mob total power and we will be ****ed.


exactly they are making a mess of it within the union never mind their own

salmond and kenny think they speak for the people of scotland well do they **** speak for me.

Do you guys think labour are doing a better job in westminster than the SNP up here?

For the mistakes the SNP have made they have still made real improvements to the scottish people;

Lowering/removal of prescription charges
Abolition of tolls on Forth and Tay Bridges
Freeze on Council Tax
Abolition of Graduate endowment

Real measures that help real people. That mob in Westminster are pissing our money away.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

I don't think we'll be poor. We just won't be as rich as everyone thinks we will "Oh yes, we've got loads of oil so **** England". IT WON'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT.

And I wasn't making a comparison between us and Turkey. I'm saying we'd end up behind them in the queue, assuming they've not fully joined by such time.

What queue is this? There is no 'queue'. That's not how it works. You are voted into the EU based on humantarian and economic factors. We would steamroller past Turkey in the 'queue'.

[Woody1985]

I'm not saying copy them, I'm saying why would Scotland with it's service industry sector not do well on its own? Edinburgh is Europe's 5th largest financial centre.

Scotland's annual GDP is around £90bn. This is WITHOUT oil and gas revenues. I think we would undoubtedly be better off.

What were the motives behind the union in the first place? England needed the highly regarded (and wealthy) Stewart dynasty to prop up their failing throne. This agenda continues to this day.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------



i'm not saying it will happen like that ffs.

Think before you type.

Who's to say those businesses will stay?

We will have control over our own taxes, business rates etc. If our rosy little plan of keeping all the oil to ourselves doesn't work out then the government will probably be forced to push up taxes and business rates which could lead to them moving elsewhere.

To be honest, if I honestly thought we'd be better off then I'd be all for it. When a referendum does come, trust me, I hope you're right because I reckong a large proportion of people will be voting with blind patrionism because of what they were taught about Scotland Vs England 3/400 years ago and being shown Braveheart in SE.

[richard_pitts]

My objection is this: Scotland - Population 5 million, Greater London: Population 10 million. The reality is that one of the world's largest cities and financial centres at the other end of the island along with the rest of England would continue to exert a colossal influence over Scotland if we declare ourselves independent. At the moment we have a considerable degree of influence over events there that we would not in the event of declaring independence. IMO devolution gives us the best of both worlds.

RBS (Salmond's old bank) is a classic example of this - an independent Scotland could not have bailed it out. Look at what happened in Iceland, that much SNP-vaunted example of a successful independent nation.

Thought for the day: why does nobody ever mention Slovakia anymore?

Also, quite what independence actually means in the context of globalisation has never really been stated.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Don't get me started......No, do get me started.
Yes for sure.

It was something that was not on my radar at all but then up came the interesting facts released under the 30 years rule about the lies and deceptions by both Labour and Conservative governments in the 1970's about Scotland's oil and its potential for an independent Scotland. All gone in 30 years my ass.

The tin lid was put on it all for me when it was disclosed that the Westminster Government had discussed putting troops on the streets of Scotland to prevent any move towards independence. Just about the same time as that little bombshell we saw the present administration take 6,000 square miles of Scottish Water under English control by effectively moving the border off shore from Berwick to Dundee. All just weeks before we saw devolution delivered.

The suggestion that there is not another 30 years of oil under the North Sea is frankly daft. There are many millions of pounds being spent right now by oil companies on technology and exploration. They are not doing that because the wells are running dry. The deception and theft of oil over the past 30 years has more than paid any debt we may owe England for being kind enough to exploit our country for 300 years. We will never now catch up with Norway, but we only have to look over the water to see what 30 years of oil would do for the economy in a restored independent Scotland. I concede we could not survive on taxation because the population is too small. However, there is every reason to believe that oil would allow for the industrial development and increase in population that would see Scotland flourish.

All of course IMHO

Yes Vote from me.....Troops on our streets, how dare they!!!!!!!:grr:

:agree:

The unionist party leaders continue to patronise us in Scotland with nonsense about focussing on fighting the recession.

What about the companies that have decided to shed necessary jobs north of the border to avoid losses down south. What is the Westminster government doing about that?

For all those that think we would be worse off independent, time for a reality check. There is absolutely no chance MP's at Westminster would fight so passionately to save the union if we weren't paying our way. We send more money down to London per head than any other country in GB, yet we see the majority of Jobs down in London and the south of England.

[CentreLine]

God forbid this ever happens,just look at the mess with the new drinking laws.Give this mob total power and we will be ****ed.

Are you suggesting that an independent Scotland would be a single party state? What would happen to all the other parties?

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Who's to say those businesses will stay?

We will have control over our own taxes, business rates etc. If our rosy little plan of keeping all the oil to ourselves doesn't work out then the government will probably be forced to push up taxes and business rates which could lead to them moving elsewhere.

To be honest, if I honestly thought we'd be better off then I'd be all for it. When a referendum does come, trust me, I hope you're right because I reckong a large proportion of people will be voting with blind patrionism because of what they were taught about Scotland Vs England 3/400 years ago and being shown Braveheart in SE.

I think you underestimate the Scottish People, Woodie. There will be some who vote blindly yes, but those votes will be offset by the votes of the Glasgow Rangers brigade.

I hope one day Scotland sees through the mist of fear and we decide to be brave again. Then we can go 'abroad' to England for the Summer. :wink:

[hibbykeef]

Never gonna happen the west coast brigade will make sure the union is never broken.It could bring civil war to our country,

[Woody1985]

I think you underestimate the Scottish People, Woodie. There will be some who vote blindly yes, but those votes will be offset by the votes of the Glasgow Rangers brigade.

I hope one day Scotland sees through the mist of fear and we decide to be brave again. Then we can go 'abroad' to England for the Summer. :wink:

TBH, the Scottish people aren't really my main worry. Fair enough, people can vote how they like with or without any understanding of the situation. But I do largely believe that some people on here have voted yes purely because they don't want to be a part of the UK rather than what it would mean to be independant.

My biggest fear is that slimy politicians up and down the country will **** us over, Scottish politicians included.

The idiots don't have the mental capacity or the work ethic that would see a robust plan put in place to have an effective breakaway and secure a brighter future for the country. Too much self interest and outside influence.

Another point, what do you think would be the cost to us to enter the EU. As I understand coutries usually need a few billion to invest before they can be accepted. Assuming everything stayed in Scotland, do you think that we'd get into the EU for a few billion quid? I suspect they'd have us over a barrel. Give us tens of billions and we'll let you in otherwise trade will be difficult etc etc.

I see too many obstacles for it to become a reality.

[Killiehibbie]

Who's to say the anti unionist/monarchy brigade would vote for independence I seem to remember the last time a referendum took place pupils at Holyrood sporting badges with 'it's no for me' on them. When I asked one of them why? His answer was do you want to live in a country run by these orange *******s.

[Mibbes Aye]

Nation states are old hat. The liberal democracy we would claim for Scotland is a relatively recent construct and not one I would anticipate surviving the forces of globalisation.

Surely the important thing is what level of government is most effective and efficient for the people it serves?

To my mind that means something smaller than Scottish government - so for Edinburgh etc that suggests something either based on the old Lothian region, or perhaps incorporating Scottish Borders (as per the police area). Closer to the people, easier to attune to the actual public services that are needed and delivered. And preferably sitting in some sort of federalist structure (either UK or European)

To me, that's the most pragmatic response and I think it would make for better public services. And that's more important to me than deciding the scope of government on emotional responses and skewed historical constructs, often dependent on no more than an arbitrary line on a map.

[Woody1985]

Nation states are old hat. The liberal democracy we would claim for Scotland is a relatively recent construct and not one I would anticipate surviving the forces of globalisation.

Surely the important thing is what level of government is most effective and efficient for the people it serves?

To my mind that means something smaller than Scottish government - so for Edinburgh etc that suggests something either based on the old Lothian region, or perhaps incorporating Scottish Borders (as per the police area). Closer to the people, easier to attune to the actual public services that are needed and delivered. And preferably sitting in some sort of federalist structure (either UK or European)

To me, that's the most pragmatic response and I think it would make for better public services. And that's more important to me than deciding the scope of government on emotional responses and skewed historical constructs, often dependent on no more than an arbitrary line on a map.

So would that just be like a bigger council?

[lyonhibs]

One quick question - taking aside all the flag waving, chest thumping patriotism for a minute. Who ACTUALLY legally owns the oil rigs and pipelines that pipe the North Sea Black Gold from sea to shore??

A serious question - is it BP, Shell or "The Scottish Petroleum Company" or something??

It just be interested if the current owners would readily give up their access rights (I'm slightly shaky on the particulars, but I'm relatively sure you can't just painted a oil rig tartan and pitch up to drill some oil) so that a newly independent Scotland could have unfettered access to the - finite in any case - source of wealth that a good deal of the "Yes" voters on here appear to be banking on to make a newly Independent Scotland the second wealthiest nation in Europe - if that's actually true or not.

[Mibbes Aye]

So would that just be like a bigger council?

Or a smaller Scottish Government, dispersed.

Whichever way you look at it, and whichever model one chooses, most people seem to be comfortable with some form of democratic model, where there's an executive and a legislature, or where they overlap.

The question becomes one of scale for me - what's the best size (or the least worst perhaps).

[Woody1985]

Or a smaller Scottish Government, dispersed.

Whichever way you look at it, and whichever model one chooses, most people seem to be comfortable with some form of democratic model, where there's an executive and a legislature, or where they overlap.

The question becomes one of scale for me - what's the best size (or the least worst perhaps).

Would that not just become extremely difficult to manage? Would this model have different laws etc or would it still have one main law that everyone adheres to? You could commit a crime in Corstophine that wouldn't be a crime/different punishment in uphall etc.

It may be a perfectly valid idea but I'm not sure if it would bring any real benefits. Can you imagine a bigger council? Next thing they'll be looking at building a waste disposal network under main streets in town through solid rock with a massive expense that will quadruple, at least. Oh, wait a minute. :greengrin

[Speedy]

I voted NO for a couple of reasons.

1. I don't have any major problem with things the way they are

2. Staying as we are can't make things any worse and I don't know whether we would be any better or worse off so wouldn't want to risk it, especially given point 1

3. The new licensing laws have p'd me off and I'm quite bitter about not getting student discount on booze :grr:

[Mibbes Aye]

Would that not just become extremely difficult to manage? Would this model have different laws etc or would it still have one main law that everyone adheres to? You could commit a crime in Corstophine that wouldn't be a crime/different punishment in uphall etc.

It may be a perfectly valid idea but I'm not sure if it would bring any real benefits. Can you imagine a bigger council? Next thing they'll be looking at building a waste disposal network under main streets in town through solid rock with a massive expense that will quadruple, at least. Oh, wait a minute. :greengrin

It's not about legislative powers, it is about executing them. Hence the point about it being within a federalist structure - we operate a common and civil law system that differs but we also have a great deal of legislation that applies throughout the UK. Are there any good reasons why such a structure couldn't accommodate the current variations in Scottish and English law? Either harmonise them or make allowances for the differential - it's a debate that's been around as long as the whole devolution argument anyway. We've also arguably been in a gradual process of harmonisation within Europe as it is since EEC entry and that's accelerated in the last two decades.

Re your second point, we have 32 local authorities in Scotland. They all have to provide a certain level and nature of services by law. That's why bins get lifted (mostly :greengrin) and children have schools to go to and a whole bunch of other things. A lot of what goes on would easily be made more effective and cheaper by being done on a joint basis, where it suits. The kind of aggregation that I was talking about provides a natural fit IMO. It still gives enough flexibility to accommodate local/regional variation. What it also does though is make for powerful regional bodies and that's too close to a Scottish government. Having both creates duplication and conflict. So something has to give.

Which raises the question - what would you rather have? Something that works but does away with any ideas of being Scottish or British?

Or something that maybe doesn't work as well but allows you to say "I'm Scottish"?

That's over-simplifying it I know, and it's very much just my opinion.

Nevertheless, making the best of public services seems more important to me than what colour my flag is :dunno:

[Dashing Bob S]

Can't really say whether or not it would be better or worse off. It all really depends on the global economic situation and, to a lesser extent, the policies followed by future Government here and the future Government in the rest of UK. Can't see those being radically different to be honest.

Think there would be a lot of legal wrangling over the terms of independence, which would stifle enthusiasm, but once it happened their would be spurt of national pride and can-do spirit, which would give us a shot in the arm.

Then it would settle down and be pretty much like it is now.

[Beefster]

Do you guys think labour are doing a better job in westminster than the SNP up here?

For the mistakes the SNP have made they have still made real improvements to the scottish people;

Lowering/removal of prescription charges
Abolition of tolls on Forth and Tay Bridges
Freeze on Council Tax
Abolition of Graduate endowment

Real measures that help real people. That mob in Westminster are pissing our money away.

I don't want to piss on your chips and some good things have been done but:


90% of prescription charges were free already. In general, if you needed free prescriptions, you got them.
What percentage of the population does the abolition of bridge tolls benefit?
And a similar freeze on Council services surely?
The student one - fine.


Any cuts in costs/tax to the public has to be cut or taxed from elsewhere?

[lyonhibs]

I suspect this post got overlooked as it was the last one on page 1 and a lot of folk probably don't scroll down that far.

So here goes again. Answers to the principal question SVP "Yes" voters :greengrin

Taking aside all the flag waving, chest thumping patriotism for a minute. Who ACTUALLY legally owns the oil rigs and pipelines that pipe the North Sea Black Gold from sea to shore??

A serious question - is it BP, Shell or "The Scottish Petroleum Company" or something??

It just be interested if the current owners would readily give up their access rights (I'm slightly shaky on the particulars, but I'm relatively sure you can't just painted a oil rig tartan and pitch up to drill some oil) so that a newly independent Scotland could have unfettered access to the - finite in any case - source of wealth that a good deal of the "Yes" voters on here appear to be banking on to make a newly Independent Scotland the second wealthiest nation in Europe - if that's actually true or not.

[Sir David Gray]

Yes from me, as a country we should have full decision making power over our nation, and have the power to say no to nuclear weapons being kept in our country, and also power to say no to sending our troops to their death in unwinnable wars.

You're absolutely right, we should have "full decision making power over our nation".

But that is impossible under an SNP government. The first thing they would do, after having pulled us out of Westminster, would be to sign us up as the next full member state of the European Union.

So instead of London telling us what we can and can't do, we'll be getting all our laws from Brussels.

We would also be swamped with hideous wind farms being erected left, right and centre and we'll all be encouraged to take up Gaelic lessons. Kenny MacAskill's recent decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi must also call into question the seriousness of their commitment to tackle crime.

I am a supporter of Scottish independence but not under an SNP government. So since they are the only pro-independence party in Scotland, if a referendum is put in place, my cross would be placed firmly in the "no" box.


Do you guys think labour are doing a better job in westminster than the SNP up here?

For the mistakes the SNP have made they have still made real improvements to the scottish people;

Lowering/removal of prescription charges
Abolition of tolls on Forth and Tay Bridges
Freeze on Council Tax
Abolition of Graduate endowment

Real measures that help real people. That mob in Westminster are pissing our money away.

Do you really think they would be able to afford to implement those sorts of measures if we were an independent nation and therefore no longer receiving handouts from Westminster?

[Hainan Hibs]

Our geographical position would inevitably mean we'd get dragged into England's wars anyway. Do you think a foreign country would give a **** if we got bombed because of an invisible line across the island?

The point I was making was about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't like seeing Scottish troops going off there to be killed in 1 war which is considered illegal and another one which is nearly unwinnable.


Would our government be strong enough to tell English patrons to GTF and they're not getting into our country because they got themselves into wars.

Getting into our country? I didn't know independence was turning the world into a board game like Risk. And yes, I think our government would be strong enough to tell them to GTF.


Don't be so naive.

What's that? Your horse is too high I can't hear you.


Nuclear weapons are also a bargaining tool that acts as a deterent to other nations attacking us. I'm all for them

Good for you, but I'm allowed a different opinion I'm afraid. By not going around the world telling people how to act I would doubt we would need a deterrent as an independent country.

[Hainan Hibs]

I am a supporter of Scottish independence but not under an SNP government. So since they are the only pro-independence party in Scotland, if a referendum is put in place, my cross would be placed firmly in the "no" box.

Well it's simple, get voting yes on the referendum and then vote the SNP out:greengrin

[McHibby]

One quick question - taking aside all the flag waving, chest thumping patriotism for a minute. Who ACTUALLY legally owns the oil rigs and pipelines that pipe the North Sea Black Gold from sea to shore??

A serious question - is it BP, Shell or "The Scottish Petroleum Company" or something??



Spot on!! I have said this for years. We don't own the rights to the North Sea oil/gas fields - the petroleum companies do, the contracts were tendered out by Westminster years ago. We could not just nullify those contacts just because it suits us. We would not be able to negotiate our own deals, or gain anymore wealth than London receives (via vat or tax) at the moment.

[steakbake]

Who's to say those businesses will stay?

We will have control over our own taxes, business rates etc. If our rosy little plan of keeping all the oil to ourselves doesn't work out then the government will probably be forced to push up taxes and business rates which could lead to them moving elsewhere.

To be honest, if I honestly thought we'd be better off then I'd be all for it. When a referendum does come, trust me, I hope you're right because I reckong a large proportion of people will be voting with blind patrionism because of what they were taught about Scotland Vs England 3/400 years ago and being shown Braveheart in SE.

Aye right. A traditional labour line. Orwellian. Doesn't bother labour supporters when voters flock to the polls to tick the labour box "because ma faither voted labour" so I'm not sure why "blind patriotism" should be seen as any less valid. People vote for all kinds of reasons. Some with the backing of facts or after a long process of consideration, some on party loyalty and some on perhaps less informed choices, but whatever the reason, it's their vote.

I think if faced with a referendum and a choice and a chance to really take control of our own affairs, the people would probably vote yes. If offered the chance of change, people more often than not take it.

That said, the referendum should be a two stage process. The only question which can be asked within the remit of the scotland act is whether you agree or do not agree to negotiations commencing to establish a fully independant scottish state. I think there should then be a second referendum on the conclusion of those negotiations, should the first referendum be voted through.

[Lucius Apuleius]

We will never know unless we try. Of course there are arguments for and arguments against.

Europe? Why would they not take us. If we get independence it will obviously be mutually agreed and negotiated with engerland. Who says Europe would let engerland straight in? Would they have to join the queue as well?

Oil? Of course we would not own the equipment, we would however own the oil. I would be pretty damn happy to accept the same levels of taxation from the oil companies as Westminster does now. Look at what the oil companies do in virtually every other oil producing country. Kifkif.

SNP? The SNP should have one line in their manifesto, independence for Scotland. Once that is achieved the SNP should have no significance to Scottish politics.

Nuclear weapons? get them to hell off our land.

Being invaded by another country? Why?

All IMHO of course.

[Beefster]

Europe? Why would they not take us. If we get independence it will obviously be mutually agreed and negotiated with engerland. Who says Europe would let engerland straight in? Would they have to join the queue as well?

You're forgetting the UK would still exist - remember Wales and Northern Ireland - just without Scotland?

The UK wouldn't be made to reapply.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I don't want to piss on your chips and some good things have been done but:


90% of prescription charges were free already. In general, if you needed free prescriptions, you got them.
What percentage of the population does the abolition of bridge tolls benefit?
And a similar freeze on Council services surely?
The student one - fine.


Any cuts in costs/tax to the public has to be cut or taxed from elsewhere?

Where did you get that info from? Elderly and kids get them already, I know that much. People that needed regular prescriptions could apply for a yearly pass to save them money as they needed regular prescriptions. I don't see that making 90%.

I'm not saying the SNP are a fantastic party, they have made plenty mistakes during their time too. I still think they are light years ahead of new labour though, and that is worrying. I had thought after this period of opposition would have allowed them to regroup and get a decent leader and realise what matters to the Scottish people. Sadly it's the same old crap with that lot.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Do you really think they would be able to afford to implement those sorts of measures if we were an independent nation and therefore no longer receiving handouts from Westminster?

Handouts? We send more money down per head than the rest of the UK. Westminster gives us a chunk of that money back, but not it all. The rest is spent how they see fit, and they seem to prioritise keeping jobs in London and the very south of England (North England/Scotland are shafted by Westminster).

[Hibrandenburg]

No. We're stronger as a union IMO.

If you asked 20 years ago, when I was 3 :greengrin, I'd have said yes as we'd at least have a chance of getting the oil / gas money to build our country with.

We've no chance of getting near that if we're independant and could become a lot worse off IMO.
The problem with this referendum is going to be a bunch of people voting yes because they don't want to be part of GB or just think it would be great to be independant without any knowledge of the potential impacts.

I reckon if there was a referendum you'd have a hell of a lot of Glasgow voting yes for the simple fact they hate the protestant monarch with no other thought on the matter.

Edit; another point. Go abroad and ask the local people where Scotland is. Then you'll see how much no one gives a **** about our country.

Let battle commence :greengrin

It's a bit like leaving home really. You can opt to stay with mum and let her slowly but surely turn you into a big dependant Jessy or you can fly the nest and increase your chances incredibly of getting laid on a regular basis.

My head says never but my heart says go for it.

[Betty Boop]

Where did you get that info from? Elderly and kids get them already, I know that much. People that needed regular prescriptions could apply for a yearly pass to save them money as they needed regular prescriptions. I don't see that making 90%.

I'm not saying the SNP are a fantastic party, they have made plenty mistakes during their time too. I still think they are light years ahead of new labour though, and that is worrying. I had thought after this period of opposition would have allowed them to regroup and get a decent leader and realise what matters to the Scottish people. Sadly it's the same old crap with that lot.

Those in receipt of Tax credits also receive free prescriptions, and also those on Income Support.

[Woody1985]

The point I was making was about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't like seeing Scottish troops going off there to be killed in 1 war which is considered illegal and another one which is nearly unwinnable.

I know, and I think I mentioned that I was referring to any potential war on these shores in a later post.



Getting into our country? I didn't know independence was turning the world into a board game like Risk. And yes, I think our government would be strong enough to tell them to GTF.

We'd be two separate countries. Should there be a war on England's land then I don't think we would tell them to GTF. After all, we're compassionate :wink:



What's that? Your horse is too high I can't hear you.

Get your head out the sand then and clear yer ears. If you think that any war that they get involved in won't involve us to some extent I think that would be wrong.

The English government would drag us into their wars due to our geographical location. We'd have a lot of pressure on us even if their wars were overseas IMHO. Only time will tell.



Good for you, but I'm allowed a different opinion I'm afraid. By not going around the world telling people how to act I would doubt we would need a deterrent as an independent country.

I never said you weren't. Depending on how the split occurred and the polital situation I reckon we'd probably keep their weapons here in return for a shed load of cash. Also, their deterrent would be ours. Again, due to location.

[Woody1985]

Aye right. A traditional labour line. Orwellian. Doesn't bother labour supporters when voters flock to the polls to tick the labour box "because ma faither voted labour" so I'm not sure why "blind patriotism" should be seen as any less valid. People vote for all kinds of reasons. Some with the backing of facts or after a long process of consideration, some on party loyalty and some on perhaps less informed choices, but whatever the reason, it's their vote.

I think if faced with a referendum and a choice and a chance to really take control of our own affairs, the people would probably vote yes. If offered the chance of change, people more often than not take it.

That said, the referendum should be a two stage process. The only question which can be asked within the remit of the scotland act is whether you agree or do not agree to negotiations commencing to establish a fully independant scottish state. I think there should then be a second referendum on the conclusion of those negotiations, should the first referendum be voted through.

Maybe if you read the rest of the thread before quoting. My main problem isn't why people choose to vote, however ill informed it may be. I honestly believe that people will vote based on the reasons above without giving two ****s for the country.

I don't have the belief that politicians are strong enough to make key decisions and choices that will benefit us as a nation.

P.S Re your labour comment, I've never voted for anyone. I make judgements based on each situation as it comes. Ironically based on one of those tests to gauge your political leanings, I was almost bang in the centre. Perhaps that's because the left and right have valid points but none of them are right all of the time.

[Woody1985]

It's a bit like leaving home really. You can opt to stay with mum and let her slowly but surely turn you into a big dependant Jessy or you can fly the nest and increase your chances incredibly of getting laid on a regular basis.

My head says never but my heart says go for it.

Nice way of putting it.

Currently I live at home and have enough money to have a good social life, a car and general day to day living. If I moved out I wouldn't be able to do all those things.

If I decide to move out and get my own place and hedge all my bets of me getting a big bonus or pay rise in the next few months to make the new place / lifestyle sustainable the decision would be much harder.

In reality, I know I'm not getting a massive pay rise or bonus. One day I might say '**** it, I'll take a chance'. However, I'd like to lay out some key plans first, research a place to say, look at my budgets should the worse come to worse.

I don't have the confidence that our politicians can lay out those plans or guarentee us a decent share of the oil revenue.


Also, someone made a valid point earlier. Who actually owns the oil fields etc. I was hoping someone could provide an answer before commenting.

Could it be that they own them, and their contents until the oil/gas is extracted whilst paying the tax to the country who own the land/area of sea?

Therefore, we'd no doubt have a fight on our hands to declare them all ours.

[New Corrie]

Do you guys think labour are doing a better job in westminster than the SNP up here?

For the mistakes the SNP have made they have still made real improvements to the scottish people;

Lowering/removal of prescription charges
Abolition of tolls on Forth and Tay Bridges
Freeze on Council Tax
Abolition of Graduate endowment

Real measures that help real people. That mob in Westminster are pissing our money away.


Removing the tolls has done what? removed an opportunity to raise much needed revenue, has anyone had any life changing benefits from the removal of the tolls? No!

Prescription charges, provision was already in place for those who couldn't afford them. Another much needed revenue earning stream closed off.

The people who need the help the most don't benefit from these gimmick policies. Fortunately, I can afford bridge tolls and prescription charges therefore I should be paying them.

[Lucius Apuleius]

You're forgetting the UK would still exist - remember Wales and Northern Ireland - just without Scotland?

The UK wouldn't be made to reapply.

I don't think so mate to be honest. The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Would Great Britain exist without Scotland? I don't think it would. It would and should be a different entity.

I have reservations about the quality of our politicians to be honest, but my heart certainly says go for it.

PS Were the rest of my points valid?:greengrin

[marinello59]

Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Eire. Why would Scotland not follow their lead?
I get your point but Iceland may not be the best example to use.:wink:

[steakbake]

Maybe if you read the rest of the thread before quoting. My main problem isn't why people choose to vote, however ill informed it may be. I honestly believe that people will vote based on the reasons above without giving two ****s for the country.

I don't have the belief that politicians are strong enough to make key decisions and choices that will benefit us as a nation.

P.S Re your labour comment, I've never voted for anyone. I make judgements based on each situation as it comes. Ironically based on one of those tests to gauge your political leanings, I was almost bang in the centre. Perhaps that's because the left and right have valid points but none of them are right all of the time.

So we're best of leaving it to others to make decisions for us?

[khib70]

You're absolutely right, we should have "full decision making power over our nation".

But that is impossible under an SNP government. The first thing they would do, after having pulled us out of Westminster, would be to sign us up as the next full member state of the European Union.

So instead of London telling us what we can and can't do, we'll be getting all our laws from Brussels.

We would also be swamped with hideous wind farms being erected left, right and centre and we'll all be encouraged to take up Gaelic lessons. Kenny MacAskill's recent decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi must also call into question the seriousness of their commitment to tackle crime.

I am a supporter of Scottish independence but not under an SNP government. So since they are the only pro-independence party in Scotland, if a referendum is put in place, my cross would be placed firmly in the "no" box.



Do you really think they would be able to afford to implement those sorts of measures if we were an independent nation and therefore no longer receiving handouts from Westminster?
Spot on. I'm with you on this one. Like you I support the concept of independence, but there's no chance of me ever voting SNP again after the Al Megrahi fiasco. (Which now seems to be the result of some tawdry backroom deal to get hold of money from the Arab League).

I have always wanted to live in an independent Scotland, but I'd rather have the UK than live in a quasi-socialist nanny state powered (or mainly not powered) by wind turbines and bankrolled by sheikhs.

I will vote yes in any referendum on independence, as long as it in no way implies support for the SNP.

[Woody1985]

So we're best of leaving it to others to make decisions for us?

What?!?

Do you think that any potential new government are going to hold referendum after referendum until we get everything we want?

Maybe they will, I honestly don't know. But I suspect that once a yes vote is declared politicians will be doing the vast majority of the decision making. After all, that's what they're elected for and paid to do.

[Lucius Apuleius]

After all, that's what they're elected for and paid to do.

Nail on head Woody. Whether we vote or not, whether we agree or not, these politicians are the people WE elected (the royal we as in we the electorate). We live in a democracy and as someone once said, not a clue who, a democracy deserves the government it has. Politicians DO speak for us because we elected them to do so.

[JimBHibees]

Both started and now continued under Prime Ministers born and educated in Scotland so I'm not sure how they can be seen as England's wars.

PS The UK also includes Wales and Northern Ireland.

Voted for by the UK government. Do you think the present Scottish government would have voted for it?

[Jack]

As far as I understand it the SNP want to go for a referendum basically saying ‘Do you want an independent Scotland?

If the answer to that is yes then they will start negotiating with Westminster about the terms.

Now what gets me is that no matter what these terms are the Scottish electorate will not get the chance to say ‘Aye, that’s no bad, we’ll have a bit of that’ or ‘No way, your pulling ma leg if you think I would accept that!’

I don’t think the SNP would deliberately accept a poor deal just to get independence but they might (basically I don’t trust any politicians).

So while I would like independence as it stands at the moment I would vote no.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Unlike previous generations, the younger voters today probably will see no relevance in the London Parliament as they will have had 10 years of seeing a Scottish Parliament and IMO that will go a long way to deciding whether we will be independent :agree:

There is also the European Parliament, which many will also see as more relevant to them also.

I am firmly in the Yes camp, and always have been :agree:

Like a few other posters have said, Westminster has long tried to spread the word that the oil is running out, I have my doubts about that.

They also hoped that giving us devolution would put the issue of independence on the back burner, as IMO they did not think that predominately 'Labour' voting Scotland would turn it's back oan them and vote in an SNP majority.

[steakbake]

As far as I understand it the SNP want to go for a referendum basically saying ‘Do you want an independent Scotland?

If the answer to that is yes then they will start negotiating with Westminster about the terms.

Now what gets me is that no matter what these terms are the Scottish electorate will not get the chance to say ‘Aye, that’s no bad, we’ll have a bit of that’ or ‘No way, your pulling ma leg if you think I would accept that!’

I don’t think the SNP would deliberately accept a poor deal just to get independence but they might (basically I don’t trust any politicians).

So while I would like independence as it stands at the moment I would vote no.

For that reason, I think it is in the interests of those who support independence that this referendum is a two stage process.

[Hainan Hibs]

We'd be two separate countries. Should there be a war on England's land then I don't think we would tell them to GTF. After all, we're compassionate :wink:

A war on Englands land? Who is going to invade England? That kind of conflict is well in the past.




Get your head out the sand then and clear yer ears. If you think that any war that they get involved in won't involve us to some extent I think that would be wrong.

Why the angry tone? My opinion is at least we would be able to say no to sending troops off to wars we don't want to be in and even if we did want to be involved we would be able to dictate how many troops we sent over. We'll have to agree to disagree as we believe differently on the attitudes of the people who would run an Independent Scotland.


The English government would drag us into their wars due to our geographical location. We'd have a lot of pressure on us even if their wars were overseas IMHO. Only time will tell.

No, they wouldn't, but then we'll have to agree to disagree again. Canada is bordering the USA, a far more important country than England, but isn't forced or bullied into anything it doesn't want to do by them.


I never said you weren't. Depending on how the split occurred and the polital situation I reckon we'd probably keep their weapons here in return for a shed load of cash. Also, their deterrent would be ours. Again, due to location.

But again, we wouldn't need a deterrent if we didn't run around the world like the USA and Britian telling everyone how to act. I'll just agree to disagree.


To be honest, I'm just sick of the "oh we're crap, we cannae dae anything" attitudes. Some opinions of an independent Scotland are like reading the DAily Mail, oh help us, every business will leave, the oil under the ground will stop as soon as we are independent, everyone is going to lose their jobs, England will bully us, we will be invaded, we won't be able to pay for anything, we'll be bankrupt, oh if only Diana was here.


My last word to Unionists, grow a set of baws and use them:bye::greengrin

[RyeSloan]

For that reason, I think it is in the interests of those who support independence that this referendum is a two stage process.

This is my main problem with the whole process though. I have little faith that after the first vote being a YES that the train would be stopped no matter what the actual 'deal' was we were voting for the second time around.

We are being asked to vote for 'Independence' although even the SNP have very little idea or have very little desire to even indicate what this actually means.

So basically I'm being asked if I want something even though I have no idea what it actaully is. IF and it's a big IF because there is so little detail or desire to provide it there was some sort of indication as to what Independence might mean then I would be all for a vote, as it stands I just have too little an idea as to what Independence might mean for me to even consider it in any rational way.

For starters I would like to have some idea on:

What would our constitution be like (would we have one?)

What rights would I have as a new Scottish citizen and how would they be protected at home and abroad

How would we be governed, would we use a two house structure?

Would we have a President type figure ala the US

Would we use a federal system or a centralised one

What would the tax regime be? Corporation and Personal taxation.

What currency would we use?

Would we have our own Central bank and set our own interest rates.

Would we be accepted to the EU and if so what would be the requirements

What would happen to the armed forces

How would tax and other revenues be collected

What would our Social Secuirty program be and how would it compare to the current set up

What would be the national stretegy on health and education and how do we propose to fund it

What would be the impact on companies and peoples job security

What legal system would we use and what would be the route of appeal and to what courts

What functions currently done centrally in government in the UK would need replicated here and what would be the cost


So many questions and implications of Independence just swept under the carpet....a very real case of buy now and see what you get later....with my Country and my own future existance at stake I find it very hard to accept that it's fine to worry about the details after and get down to voting for it now.

[ancienthibby]

This is my main problem with the whole process though. I have little faith that after the first vote being a YES that the train would be stopped no matter what the actual 'deal' was we were voting for the second time around.

We are being asked to vote for 'Independence' although even the SNP have very little idea or have very little desire to even indicate what this actually means.

So basically I'm being asked if I want something even though I have no idea what it actaully is. IF and it's a big IF because there is so little detail or desire to provide it there was some sort of indication as to what Independence might mean then I would be all for a vote, as it stands I just have too little an idea as to what Independence might mean for me to even consider it in any rational way.

For starters I would like to have some idea on:

What would our constitution be like (would we have one?)

What rights would I have as a new Scottish citizen and how would they be protected at home and abroad

How would we be governed, would we use a two house structure?

Would we have a President type figure ala the US

Would we use a federal system or a centralised one

What would the tax regime be? Corporation and Personal taxation.

What currency would we use?

Would we have our own Central bank and set our own interest rates.

Would we be accepted to the EU and if so what would be the requirements

What would happen to the armed forces

How would tax and other revenues be collected

What would our Social Secuirty program be and how would it compare to the current set up

What would be the national stretegy on health and education and how do we propose to fund it

What would be the impact on companies and peoples job security

What legal system would we use and what would be the route of appeal and to what courts

What functions currently done centrally in government in the UK would need replicated here and what would be the cost


So many questions and implications of Independence just swept under the carpet....a very real case of buy now and see what you get later....with my Country and my own future existance at stake I find it very hard to accept that it's fine to worry about the details after and get down to voting for it now.

So why don't you and Falkirk Hibee join the SNP and advance your case from the inside??

I really cannot understand people who support independence in principle and yet sit on the sidelines hugging their ba' and refusing to participate - you maybe are too young to understand what a gilt-edged opportunity this generation has been given!!:agree::agree::agree:

[Betty Boop]

You're absolutely right, we should have "full decision making power over our nation".

But that is impossible under an SNP government. The first thing they would do, after having pulled us out of Westminster, would be to sign us up as the next full member state of the European Union.

So instead of London telling us what we can and can't do, we'll be getting all our laws from Brussels.

We would also be swamped with hideous wind farms being erected left, right and centre and we'll all be encouraged to take up Gaelic lessons. Kenny MacAskill's recent decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi must also call into question the seriousness of their commitment to tackle crime.

I am a supporter of Scottish independence but not under an SNP government. So since they are the only pro-independence party in Scotland, if a referendum is put in place, my cross would be placed firmly in the "no" box.



Do you really think they would be able to afford to implement those sorts of measures if we were an independent nation and therefore no longer receiving handouts from Westminster?

Not true! You could always vote for the Scottish Socialists who are in favour of an Independent Scotland. :duck:

[steakbake]

Not true! You could always vote for the Scottish Socialists who are in favour of an Independent Scotland. :duck:

... and the Green Party.

[ancienthibby]

... and the Green Party.

(And Betty's post 76).

If I recall Falkirk Hibee's much earlier posts on a previous thread, he set so many pre-conditions for his support that no current party could suffice!!:devil:

[Betty Boop]

(And Betty's post 76).

If I recall Falkirk Hibee's much earlier posts on a previous thread, he set so many pre-conditions for his support that no current party could suffice!!:devil:

Maybe he could set up his own party then? :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Maybe he could set up his own party then? :greengrin

The Independence for Falkirk's Eric Joyce Party, maybe,:devil:

[Gatecrasher]

Do you guys think labour are doing a better job in westminster than the SNP up here?

For the mistakes the SNP have made they have still made real improvements to the scottish people;

Lowering/removal of prescription charges
Abolition of tolls on Forth and Tay Bridges
Freeze on Council Tax
Abolition of Graduate endowment

Real measures that help real people. That mob in Westminster are pissing our money away.


as corrie already stated perscriptions were already free to those who couldnt afford them.
the tolls could have helped with the funding of a badly needed new bridge.
councils will be going on non stop strikes because councils cant afford to pay their staff - they have been offered a 5 year pay freeze
Abolition of Graduate endowment - fair doo's on that one but they havent done much else IMO.

i think its too much risk involved in sperating from the UK, within the union we are less vurnable to economic downturns IMO

labour aint great at the moment and i will not be voting them in at the next election but if scotland were to sperate we can say bye to things like the NHS, a lot of the benefits availible like tax credits housing benefit child benefit because thing like that wont be sustainable with a country of our size, also with around 1/3 of the population working for the uk goverment, i dont think scotland could take that much of a hit for unemployemnt

im not totally against it, if someone could prove to me scotland would be better off then go for it, but the arguments for just dont convince me, and i think the union make scotland stronger

[Woody1985]

A war on Englands land? Who is going to invade England? That kind of conflict is well in the past.

Perhaps not invade them but it is conceiveable that they could come under attack from offshore.

Especially if America tell them to GTF.



Why the angry tone? My opinion is at least we would be able to say no to sending troops off to wars we don't want to be in and even if we did want to be involved we would be able to dictate how many troops we sent over. We'll have to agree to disagree as we believe differently on the attitudes of the people who would run an Independent Scotland.

Wasn't angry. You thought I was on my high horse. I thought you were at the opposite end of the scale. :greengrin Agree to disagree.



No, they wouldn't, but then we'll have to agree to disagree again. Canada is bordering the USA, a far more important country than England, but isn't forced or bullied into anything it doesn't want to do by them.

America have enough forces on their own and don't really need to go to Canada for assistance.

If America were to tell England to GTF and or these shores were attacked then they'd want / need our help.

Also, our relationship with England / UK is different from America and Canada.

Also, on the international stage, why is Canada more important than England? Not a dig, just interested. Obviosuly our media is biased towards the UK being some kind of high and mighty place even if we know that's not the case.



But again, we wouldn't need a deterrent if we didn't run around the world like the USA and Britian telling everyone how to act. I'll just agree to disagree.

England would still need a deterrent. Any nuclear attack or otherwise would affect us. If the nukes were moved out of Scotland they'd still only be a couple of hundred miles away. But agree to disagree.



To be honest, I'm just sick of the "oh we're crap, we cannae dae anything" attitudes. Some opinions of an independent Scotland are like reading the DAily Mail, oh help us, every business will leave, the oil under the ground will stop as soon as we are independent, everyone is going to lose their jobs, England will bully us, we will be invaded, we won't be able to pay for anything, we'll be bankrupt, oh if only Diana was here.

Those arguements are to be had because no one has produced any evidence to the contrary. If someone comes up with a fully documentated plan of what independance would mean then there would be something to base a rational decision on. At the moment we are a million miles away from that.

Oh, and too much MTW for you :greengrin



My last word to Unionists, grow a set of baws and use them:bye::greengrin

And to all those people who live in a fairy tale world of let's just split the union and worry about the detail later. :bye: :greengrin

[CentreLine]

as corrie already stated perscriptions were already free to those who couldnt afford them.
the tolls could have helped with the funding of a badly needed new bridge.
councils will be going on non stop strikes because councils cant afford to pay their staff - they have been offered a 5 year pay freeze
Abolition of Graduate endowment - fair doo's on that one but they havent done much else IMO.

i think its too much risk involved in sperating from the UK, within the union we are less vurnable to economic downturns IMO

labour aint great at the moment and i will not be voting them in at the next election but if scotland were to sperate we can say bye to things like the NHS, a lot of the benefits availible like tax credits housing benefit child benefit because thing like that wont be sustainable with a country of our size, also with around 1/3 of the population working for the uk goverment, i dont think scotland could take that much of a hit for unemployemnt

im not totally against it, if someone could prove to me scotland would be better off then go for it, but the arguments for just dont convince me, and i think the union make scotland stronger

Why on earth would that be the case. IMHO, if anything, the relative size of the population would make it easier to sustain no harder. We have been robbed of the opportunity over the past 300 years by lies and deception. We have another 30 years in which we can get it abolutely right. Or of course we can plod along as second best in a relationship that was bad at the start and has amounted to marital abuse ever since.

[steakbake]

Perhaps not invade them but it is conceiveable that they could come under attack from offshore.


The Talebs are on their way, via Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Germany, France and they've got tickets booked for the Channel Tunnel.

[RyeSloan]

So why don't you and Falkirk Hibee join the SNP and advance your case from the inside??

I really cannot understand people who support independence in principle and yet sit on the sidelines hugging their ba' and refusing to participate - you maybe are too young to understand what a gilt-edged opportunity this generation has been given!!:agree::agree::agree:

Why would i want to join the SNP...it is their policy, one that is fundamental to the future of our Country so why don't they take the time to explain what it actually entails?

Sorry who is sitting on the sidelines, all people who aren't members of the SNP???

As for my age, well I am well old enough to have seen plenty of UK and Scottish politics including the introduction of the Poll Tax etc so maybe I'm not too young at all, maybe I'm just asking for some clarity on what 'Vote for Independence' actually means.......

[The_Todd]

How is it irrelevant?

Unless we can negotiate something (with England's help no doubt), how do you propose a new state/country that is effectively created overnight automatically gets membership?

We'd probably join the back of the queue behind Turkey (FFS) and the like.

Another small point, football related, when since was Uzbekis****ingstan etc in Europe. Countries bordering with China and so on. :grr:

Not entirely true. There's plenty blocking Turkey's membership at the moment (the Cyprus problem being one thing), so who's to say how quickly a Scottish application would be processed.

It's not first come, first served - it's based on merit.

If a wee country with a large tourism industry like Malta can be EU members, I think a wee country with a large tourism industry like Scotland can be too.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Righty ho!, I have a go and try and answer this :greengrin



This is my main problem with the whole process though. I have little faith that after the first vote being a YES that the train would be stopped no matter what the actual 'deal' was we were voting for the second time around.

I would not have a 2nd vote.

We are being asked to vote for 'Independence' although even the SNP have very little idea or have very little desire to even indicate what this actually means.

Neither do any of us as we havnae had it for over 300 years, but if the will of the people is for it then they have to get oan with it.

So basically I'm being asked if I want something even though I have no idea what it actaully is. IF and it's a big IF because there is so little detail or desire to provide it there was some sort of indication as to what Independence might mean then I would be all for a vote, as it stands I just have too little an idea as to what Independence might mean for me to even consider it in any rational way.

For starters I would like to have some idea on:

What would our constitution be like (would we have one?) - Would we need one?

What rights would I have as a new Scottish citizen and how would they be protected at home and abroad - I would imagine that they would be much as they are now, whether we join the EU or not, why would they suddenly lessen, it might mean getting visa's to work in some places but we have to do that already in a lot of places.
How would we be governed, would we use a two house structure? - Why would we have a two house structure? That bunch of charlatans in the 'Lords' are an English institution and one would be enough and we have councils for other things.
Would we have a President type figure ala the US - Does that really matter, we have a head of government as we do at the moment surely?

Would we use a federal system or a centralised one - That would evolve over time to suit the needs of the people surely, as we will be voting for parties who take whatever viewpoint.
What would the tax regime be? Corporation and Personal taxation. - Don't know enough about this issue, but surely it willnae be too different from what we have initially and then evolve as we need it.
What currency would we use? - I would imagine that we would continue to use Sterling unless we were in the EU and decided/voted to adopt the Euro. Is there any reason for us to change our currency as we have always used our own banknotes, in fact a fair few English dinnae actually treat them as 'real' :rolleyes:

Would we have our own Central bank and set our own interest rates - I would imagine that we would, mind you it's gonna be difficult given we dinnae actually have any :bitchy: Given that RBS has been almost nationalised, we can maybe get it bank under Scottish control in any deal.
Would we be accepted to the EU and if so what would be the requirements - I would imagine we will and as current requirements stands I think we would pass the entry exam. If not, they'll not be fishing in our waters.
What would happen to the armed forces - We would continue to have armed forces, and no doubt they contunue to be deployed in various overseas 'issues' though not areas we do not agree with, as a nation, which will be dependent on which party is in power.How would tax and other revenues be collected - The same way the are now, only it would centralised in Scotland, with more local offices.
What would our Social Secuirty program be and how would it compare to the current set up - I would imagine it will be much the same and, dependent on who's in power, will be improved upon as they people decide.
What would be the national stretegy on health and education and how do we propose to fund it - The same as now, but hopefully with the revenues that will increase over the years and with policies from the politicians that will meet our needs.

What would be the impact on companies and peoples job security - There should be very little IMO, as there is no reason to suggest that suddenly every non-scottish outfit will suddenly up-sticks. There is good reason to believe that we might be able to attract inward investment on a better scale than using the UK government.
What legal system would we use and what would be the route of appeal and to what courts - That's always been different from the UK, so no change there.
What functions currently done centrally in government in the UK would need replicated here and what would be the cost - Immigration and foreign policy are the main two contentious ones, defence would also be another one but lesser in cost IMO.
So many questions and implications of Independence just swept under the carpet....a very real case of buy now and see what you get later....with my Country and my own future existance at stake I find it very hard to accept that it's fine to worry about the details after and get down to voting for it now.

I happen to trust 'my people' and that actually includes politicians to meet the needs of the Scottish people and knowing that if they don't they will be voted out, unlike the 'Thatcher' years :greengrin

They'll all have to work a lot harder for their pennies but maybe that's a good thing :agree:

[lyonhibs]

Spot on!! I have said this for years. We don't own the rights to the North Sea oil/gas fields - the petroleum companies do, the contracts were tendered out by Westminster years ago. We could not just nullify those contacts just because it suits us. We would not be able to negotiate our own deals, or gain anymore wealth than London receives (via vat or tax) at the moment.

:agree:

This minor stumbling block seems to have evaded a lot of people.

Self-determination, "Control over our own destiny" "an Independent, vibrant voice in Europe" are all great taglines for the SNP to bandy about, but are all stymied by the fact that - wait for it..........................

The North Sea Oil isn't ours. BP, Shell, whoever it is that owns it isn't a Scottish company, thus, unless the piping contract are up for tender on the open market soon, which I very much doubt (and even if they were, how would the SNP cobble together a bid with the experience and expertise to win the contracts) how do "Yes" voters propose we cream off the value from North Sea Oil into Scottish coffers??

Independence doesn't make financial sense and never has - a great chunk of a Independent Scotland's percieved wealth is tied up in the North Sea oil which, unless I'm way off the mark, is wealth a Scottish government couldn't possibly hope to appropriate to Scotland anytime in the near or even medium term future.

Seems such a simple, logical hole in this debate that I've almost convinced myself I'm missing some fundemental truth re: ownership of this oil, but I genuinely don't think I am.

[ancienthibby]

:agree:

This minor stumbling block seems to have evaded a lot of people.

Self-determination, "Control over our own destiny" "an Independent, vibrant voice in Europe" are all great taglines for the SNP to bandy about, but are all stymied by the fact that - wait for it..........................

The North Sea Oil isn't ours. BP, Shell, whoever it is that owns it isn't a Scottish company, thus, unless the piping contract are up for tender on the open market soon, which I very much doubt (and even if they were, how would the SNP cobble together a bid with the experience and expertise to win the contracts) how do "Yes" voters propose we cream off the value from North Sea Oil into Scottish coffers??

Independence doesn't make financial sense and never has - a great chunk of a Independent Scotland's percieved wealth is tied up in the North Sea oil which, unless I'm way off the mark, is wealth a Scottish government couldn't possibly hope to appropriate to Scotland anytime in the near or even medium term future.

Seems such a simple, logical hole in this debate that I've almost convinced myself I'm missing some fundemental truth re: ownership of this oil, but I genuinely don't think I am.

All oil that is extracted from the NS is subject to at least two taxes. The first is a fundamental that applies to all companies and that's called the PRT - Petroleum Revenue Tax. Last I knew of it it was set at 12.5% of the invoiced value of each barrel of oil. The second is general Corporation Tax which each operating company is liable for.

It is these taxes aggregated that form the basis for all NS revenue transactions that the SNP or any other body (manipulator:devil:) calculates.

In addition, if the country did have independence I would suspect they're would quickly be a whole batch of legislation which would be designed to encourage Scottish companies to participate and therefore, hopefully, somewhere along the way become generators of tax revenue for the government!:greengrin

[da-robster]

I think the view that we should leave the union because of Gordon Brown's incompetence is about as valid as saying you won't vote for independance because of the SNP, it's a bit like saying the BNP want the NHS therefore I don't.I reckon that the main obstacle would be the resources split, would we keep all our NHS hospitals, what would happen to the BBC would we get 8% of our stakes in the banks and therefore 8% of the national debt.I think this is where westminster could trick us into a bad deal as has happened before.In principle a good settlement would make me back independance but not being a particulary fervent nationalist my view could easily change.I can also see Mibbes Ayes point of view but I think that proposal to some extent already exists and is not that helpful I think givng the councils anymore power or land would lead to disaster imagine 10 holyroods with one westminster all arguing over weather falkirk or kirkaldy was worth more money.In conclusion I think both sides are wrong but are far to entrenched to change thier views and unless independance happens this argument will continue for ever.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

:agree:

This minor stumbling block seems to have evaded a lot of people.

Self-determination, "Control over our own destiny" "an Independent, vibrant voice in Europe" are all great taglines for the SNP to bandy about, but are all stymied by the fact that - wait for it..........................

The North Sea Oil isn't ours. BP, Shell, whoever it is that owns it isn't a Scottish company, thus, unless the piping contract are up for tender on the open market soon, which I very much doubt (and even if they were, how would the SNP cobble together a bid with the experience and expertise to win the contracts) how do "Yes" voters propose we cream off the value from North Sea Oil into Scottish coffers??

Independence doesn't make financial sense and never has - a great chunk of a Independent Scotland's percieved wealth is tied up in the North Sea oil which, unless I'm way off the mark, is wealth a Scottish government couldn't possibly hope to appropriate to Scotland anytime in the near or even medium term future.

Seems such a simple, logical hole in this debate that I've almost convinced myself I'm missing some fundemental truth re: ownership of this oil, but I genuinely don't think I am.

I think you are wrong, that oil is OUR'S and they are allowed to drill for it by licences and they have to be renewed, like most licences, and if we get Independence WE will get the right to negociate these in the future :agree:

[Beefster]

Voted for by the UK government. Do you think the present Scottish government would have voted for it?

The UK government headed by Scots. Folk seem to see the UK Government as exclusively English - it's not.

No, the SNP probably wouldn't have voted to support the wars but Scottish Labour were in power at the time so they probably would have.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

The UK government headed by Scots. Folk seem to see the UK Government as exclusively English - it's not.

No, the SNP probably wouldn't have voted to support the wars but Scottish Labour were in power at the time so they probably would have.

That will be the case under independence, the government of the day will judge what is right, hopefully :agree:

[AndyP]

I don't think we'll be poor. We just won't be as rich as everyone thinks we will "Oh yes, we've got loads of oil so **** England". IT WON'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT.

And I wasn't making a comparison between us and Turkey. I'm saying we'd end up behind them in the queue, assuming they've not fully joined by such time.

Turkeys refusal to either accept blame or apologise for the 1915 Armenian Genocide will hold them out of the EU for at least the next 10 years, oh and lets not forget their history with Greece and Cyprus :rolleyes:

An independant Scotland however would be accepted in, EU constitution permits that should member countries split then the component nations would receive membership if they so wish.

There was a very good set of articles in the Herald about 2 years ago which dispelled a lot of the myths about Scotlands failing should they leave the union, certainly puts a different light on the subject rather than the usual doom laden writings that pass as impartial journalism within Scotlands Fourth Estate.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Turkeys refusal to either accept blame or apologise for the 1915 Armenian Genocide will hold them out of the EU for at least the next 10 years, oh and lets not forget their history with Greece and Cyprus :rolleyes:

An independant Scotland however would be accepted in, EU constitution permits that should member countries split then the component nations would receive membership if they so wish.

There was a very good set of articles in the Herald about 2 years ago which dispelled a lot of the myths about Scotlands failing should they leave the union, certainly puts a different light on the subject rather than the usual doom laden writings that pass as impartial journalism within Scotlands Fourth Estate.

Posted oan the first page :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1804171.0.0.php

Don't believe the gutter press as it suits them to have a land mass to publish to :bitchy:

Try and find the others soon :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Handouts? We send more money down per head than the rest of the UK. Westminster gives us a chunk of that money back, but not it all. The rest is spent how they see fit, and they seem to prioritise keeping jobs in London and the very south of England (North England/Scotland are shafted by Westminster).

We still could not afford the privileges that we currently enjoy, if Scotland was an independent nation. Unless, of course, taxes went through the roof.


So why don't you and Falkirk Hibee join the SNP and advance your case from the inside??

I really cannot understand people who support independence in principle and yet sit on the sidelines hugging their ba' and refusing to participate - you maybe are too young to understand what a gilt-edged opportunity this generation has been given!!:agree::agree::agree:

Being in favour of independence does not necessarily mean that you must also support the SNP. I think we should be a separate nation, but I don't agree with the SNP's vision of what an independent Scotland should be like.


Not true! You could always vote for the Scottish Socialists who are in favour of an Independent Scotland. :duck:

Think I'll pass, ta. :wink:

I would rather vote SNP, so that's saying something. :greengrin


(And Betty's post 76).

If I recall Falkirk Hibee's much earlier posts on a previous thread, he set so many pre-conditions for his support that no current party could suffice!!:devil:

Not at all. If there was a 'right of centre' party who pledged to make Scotland truly independent (free of the UK AND EU) and promised to be tough on issues like crime and immigration then they would get my vote every single time.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

]We still could not afford the privileges that we currently enjoy, if Scotland was an independent nation. Unless, of course, taxes went through the roof.[/B]
Being in favour of independence does not necessarily mean that you must also support the SNP. I think we should be a separate nation, but I don't agree with the SNP's vision of what an independent Scotland should be like.

Think I'll pass, ta. :wink:

I would rather vote SNP, so that's saying something. :greengrin

Not at all. If there was a 'right of centre' party who pledged to make Scotland truly independent (free of the UK AND EU) and promised to be tough on issues like crime and immigration then they would get my vote every single time.


Can you justify any of this :bitchy:

Let's have this debate :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Can you justify any of this :bitchy:

Let's have this debate :agree:

I don't have the figures to hand but I just don't believe that we could afford some of the privileges that we have at the moment, if we were an independent country.

Maybe someone who does have some figures might end up proving me wrong, it's just a personal opinion.

[Pete]

I don't have the figures to hand but I just don't believe that we could afford some of the privileges that we have at the moment, if we were an independent country.

Maybe someone who does have some figures might end up proving me wrong, it's just a personal opinion.


I don't believe it either...but I don't believe the other "Londonish" viewpoint that says we are subsidised by the English taxpayer.

I just don't understand the the motivation of Nationalists to break away from the Union entirely.

Are their lives that miserable just now and will their lives be made that much better by having an independant Scotland?

Surely it's better to concentrate on real matters like social housing, the NHS and our public services and utilities and their ownership before petty things like national identity?

It's as if these big parties have these big banner core ideas....but all the real people care about is putting food on the table and living a life that isn't undearable.

If a party came along that promised to make my families life better than it was and I had to consider myself Argentinian to do so I'd sign up at the drop of a hat. It's called the real world.

[Gatecrasher]

I don't believe it either...but I don't believe the other "Londonish" viewpoint that says we are subsidised by the English taxpayer.

I just don't understand the the motivation of Nationalists to break away from the Union entirely.

Are their lives that miserable just now and will their lives be made that much better by having an independant Scotland?

Surely it's better to concentrate on real matters like social housing, the NHS and our public services and utilities and their ownership before petty things like national identity?

It's as if these big parties have these big banner core ideas....but all the real people care about is putting food on the table and living a life that isn't undearable.

If a party came along that promised to make my families life better than it was and I had to consider myself Argentinian to do so I'd sign up at the drop of a hat. It's called the real world.


well said and thats the point i was trying to make in my previous post :agree:

nice avatar BTW :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

We still could not afford the privileges that we currently enjoy, if Scotland was an independent nation. Unless, of course, taxes went through the roof.



Being in favour of independence does not necessarily mean that you must also support the SNP. I think we should be a separate nation, but I don't agree with the SNP's vision of what an independent Scotland should be like.



Think I'll pass, ta. :wink:

I would rather vote SNP, so that's saying something. :greengrin



Not at all. If there was a 'right of centre' party who pledged to make Scotland truly independent (free of the UK AND EU) and promised to be tough on issues like crime and immigration then they would get my vote every single time.

Yes at all!!

I doubt if such a thing as 'true independence' exists in this modern world in which we live and certainly NOT where Scotland is located!!

If you want your version of 'true independence' then we'd sit outside of Europe, have no place in the legislature and watch other countries make decision after decision on our key industries such as fishing, farming and whisky.

I'd far rather see us at the top table, amybe with limited input and powers, but at least there!!

[lyonhibs]

I think you are wrong, that oil is OUR'S and they are allowed to drill for it by licences and they have to be renewed, like most licences, and if we get Independence WE will get the right to negociate these in the future :agree:

who is "We" and who is "They" here??

I'll bet a million penny chews that at current the drilling licences are not negociated by "US" but by "THEM" down in Westminster (Scotland still being part of the UK and all that jazz) This state of affairs is HIGHLY unlikely to change after any move for Independence by Scotland.

I'll also bet a million penny chews that the duration of these drilling contracts are not short term a la football players. I'm completely guessing here, but it wouldn't surprise me if the contracts were awarded for a term of something like 7-10 years at a time. Does anyone - most of all the SNP - know when these contracts would be up for renewal, and therefore when a Scottish bid could be tendered??? (not that we would necessarily win said bid). An opportunity may well come for Scotland to get its hands on the North Sea pipeline, but what if that chance isn't afforded to us for several years after Independence, as per the terms of contracts agreed between BP/Shell and the UK Government??

Scotland, without the Barnett Formula and the billions that gives us, would not be a financially viable independent nation without the North Sea oil money IMO, and I fail to see (being aware that you can't just rip up legal contracts because you think that would be "patriotic") how an Independent Scotland would realistically appropriate that wealth to our coffers, in the short-medium term future, if ever.

Then there comes the entirely seperate issue of would I trust Mr Salmond with 50p from my back pocket, let alone billions of pounds of oil money, but that's an entirely different thread.

Scottish Independence will never be - financially - the best thing for Scotland until this anomaly re: North Sea Oil Ownership is sorted out in "our" favour, and I don't think that will ever happen, ergo I don't think Scottish Independence will ever see the light of day, and no number of "Braveheart" viewings will change that :agree:

[Woody1985]

who is "We" and who is "They" here??

I'll bet a million penny chews that at current the drilling licences are not negociated by "US" but by "THEM" down in Westminster (Scotland still being part of the UK and all that jazz) This state of affairs is HIGHLY unlikely to change after any move for Independence by Scotland.

I'll also but a million penny chews that the duration of these drilling contracts are not short term a la football players. I'm completely guessing here, but it wouldn't surprise me if the contracts were awarded for a term of something like 7-10 years at a time. Does anyone - most of all the SNP - know when these contracts would be up for renewal, and therefore when a Scottish bid could be tendered??? (not that we would necessarily win said bid). An opportunity may well come for Scotland to get its hands on the North Sea pipeline, but what if that chance isn't afforded to us for several years after Independence, as per the terms of contracts agreed between BP/Shell and the UK Government??

Scotland, without the Barnett Formula and the billions that gives us, would not be a financially viable independent nation without the North Sea oil money IMO, and I fail to see (being aware that you can't just rip up legal contracts because you think that would be "patriotic") how an Independent Scotland would realistically appropriate that wealth to our coffers, in the short-medium term future, if ever.

Then there comes the entirely seperate issue of what I trust Mr Salmond with 50p from my back pocket, let alone billions of pounds of oil money, but that's an entirely different thread.

Scottish Independence will never be - financially - the best thing for Scotland until this anomaly re: North Sea Oil Ownership is sorted out in "our" favour, and I don't think that will ever happen, ergo I don't think Scottish Independence will ever see the light of day, and no number of "Braveheart" viewings will change that :agree:

How dare you analyse the situation and post a reasonable comment.

Unfortunately, the Braveheart mentallity may not alter the reality but it will change the status of our country. The poll gives an indication of that.

[CentreLine]

who is "We" and who is "They" here??

I'll bet a million penny chews that at current the drilling licences are not negociated by "US" but by "THEM" down in Westminster (Scotland still being part of the UK and all that jazz) This state of affairs is HIGHLY unlikely to change after any move for Independence by Scotland.

I'll also but a million penny chews that the duration of these drilling contracts are not short term a la football players. I'm completely guessing here, but it wouldn't surprise me if the contracts were awarded for a term of something like 7-10 years at a time. Does anyone - most of all the SNP - know when these contracts would be up for renewal, and therefore when a Scottish bid could be tendered??? (not that we would necessarily win said bid). An opportunity may well come for Scotland to get its hands on the North Sea pipeline, but what if that chance isn't afforded to us for several years after Independence, as per the terms of contracts agreed between BP/Shell and the UK Government??

Scotland, without the Barnett Formula and the billions that gives us, would not be a financially viable independent nation without the North Sea oil money IMO, and I fail to see (being aware that you can't just rip up legal contracts because you think that would be "patriotic") how an Independent Scotland would realistically appropriate that wealth to our coffers, in the short-medium term future, if ever.

Then there comes the entirely seperate issue of what I trust Mr Salmond with 50p from my back pocket, let alone billions of pounds of oil money, but that's an entirely different thread.

Scottish Independence will never be - financially - the best thing for Scotland until this anomaly re: North Sea Oil Ownership is sorted out in "our" favour, and I don't think that will ever happen, ergo I don't think Scottish Independence will ever see the light of day, and no number of "Braveheart" viewings will change that :agree:

Britain, without our oil would not be fiancially viable which is why Harold Wilson discussed putting troops in to Scotland to suppress any independence movement in the 1970's. Now they may not have materialised but that is how seriously they took it in Westminster. Just as they did in 1707 when forcing the Scots in to signing the Union.

[lyonhibs]

Britain, without our oil would not be fiancially viable which is why Harold Wilson discussed putting troops in to Scotland to suppress any independence movement in the 1970's. Now they may not have materialised but that is how seriously they took it in Westminster. Just as they did in 1707 when forcing the Scots in to signing the Union.

I'm not doubting the importance of North Sea oil to the UK Exchequer (it's not "Our" oil because, as mentioned above, "we" don't own it. Its geographical location happens to be off the Scottish coast - that does not inherently make it Scottish, sorry and all that)

I'm merely commenting on the reality that the UK Government based in Westminster has a great deal more power over who gets the drilling contracts for North Sea Oil than any independent Scottish Government would ever have, because (again I'm far from an expert on this one) I'd imagine legally binding contracts have been signed, and becoming independent does not give Scotland the power to become some radge "Rogue" state and go disregarding legal contracts and piping rights just because "We" want "our" oil.

[Sir David Gray]

Yes at all!!

I doubt if such a thing as 'true independence' exists in this modern world in which we live and certainly NOT where Scotland is located!!

If you want your version of 'true independence' then we'd sit outside of Europe, have no place in the legislature and watch other countries make decision after decision on our key industries such as fishing, farming and whisky.

I'd far rather see us at the top table, amybe with limited input and powers, but at least there!!

I don't have a problem in the slightest with us having certain agreements relating to trade etc. with other European countries but I believe that it should be done only when it suits us and it should be on the terms agreed between ourselves and the particular country that we are doing the deal with and no-one else.

I don't think it's right that we are dictated to all the time by Brussels and we have to adopt all the laws that they pass. I believe that we should set our own terms and conditions and we should also make our own laws, as should the French, the Spanish, the Germans and every other country that currently makes up the EU.

You might not think that 'true independence' exists but I just cannot fathom out why most anti-unionists in Scotland would split with Westminster at the drop of a hat but at the same time, they would quite happily be under the thumb of Brussels. That is not independence in any way, shape or form, in my book.

Perhaps true independence doesn't exist but I would say that my kind of Scottish independence is a lot more independent than how the SNP views it.

[J-C]

I think a lot of people get carried away with independance and think that Scotland will have border police, a total seperation from England etc. This will not be the case.

Many of our major companies and banking institutes are interlinked with their English counterparts, The main difference being is we'll have more say as to where the taxes are spent, how much taxes are collected and the revenue from major corporations will stay in Scotland, rather than disappearing down to Westminter first and then as we usually do, hold out our hand and ask for a wee bit more.

I think the biggest gripe was back in the late sixties/early seventies when the then Labour party lost control and ran up huge debts around the world. When Thatcher came in, she used the revenue from our oil to pay of these debts and the only place in Scotland who benefitted was Aberdeen and surrounding areas.

I think it's amazing that to this day Scotland only has 1 major motorway going south towards England ( M74 ), while Enland enjoys a rich number of said motorways travelling in whatever direction possible.

We have been treated as second class citizens for the past 3-4 hundred years and I can understand why people in Scotland think it's time to ge our country back. Remember, this is only a union of countries, not a joining, we had no say in this act of union in 1707 but we as Scots can have a say now.

[RyeSloan]

Righty ho!, I have a go and try and answer this :greengrin




I happen to trust 'my people' and that actually includes politicians to meet the needs of the Scottish people and knowing that if they don't they will be voted out, unlike the 'Thatcher' years :greengrin

They'll all have to work a lot harder for their pennies but maybe that's a good thing :agree:

Well it was a worthy effort but sadly your answers seem to indicate that Independence would look pretty much like our status quo.....how depressing.

Personally if I was to be won over by an Independence arguement it would need to be a much more radical vision.....sadly it seems Indepence would simply mean more government (albeit slighty closer to home), more influence from Brussles, higher taxes and little or no real idea of how or what a small, modern independent nation could or should look like.

[joe breezy]

I voted yes.

The SNP's record is pretty much irrelevant in this vote as if Scotland became independent there would be left, centre and right wing parties (I imagine they would pretty much be the same parties we have now, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens etc).

I'm not totally sure to be honest - I live in London and not sure I'll move back. I think there's more chance I'd move back to an independent Scotland though.

[Sir David Gray]

I voted yes.

The SNP's record is pretty much irrelevant in this vote as if Scotland became independent there would be left, centre and right wing parties (I imagine they would pretty much be the same parties we have now, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens etc).

I'm not totally sure to be honest - I live in London and not sure I'll move back. I think there's more chance I'd move back to an independent Scotland though.

I see what you are saying here but would the Scottish Tories not just campaign on getting us immediately back into the UK? Apart from the SNP, all the other parties in Scotland seem to be closely affiliated to their UK party.

I know all the mainstream parties (apart from the SNP) are pro-Union but the Tories are probably the most supportive of it so would they not be passionately campaigning for us to rejoin it, if they get into power?

I genuinely don't know how this would work so could anyone shed some light on it?

[The_Todd]

I see what you are saying here but would the Scottish Tories not just campaign on getting us immediately back into the UK? Apart from the SNP, all the other parties in Scotland seem to be closely affiliated to their UK party.

I know all the mainstream parties (apart from the SNP) are pro-Union but the Tories are probably the most supportive of it so would they not be passionately campaigning for us to rejoin it, if they get into power?

I genuinely don't know how this would work so could anyone shed some light on it?


Given the current irrelevance of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, they could campaign for free ice cream and lapdances and nobody would pay them much more attention than they do now.

[Dashing Bob S]

The independence vote should increase over the summer after the media propaganda about England in the World Cup. Following on from the guff about the cricket from our 'national' broadcast media, if that doesn't encourage pro-independence, nothing will.

[EuanH78]

It's a bit like leaving home really. You can opt to stay with mum and let her slowly but surely turn you into a big dependant Jessy or you can fly the nest and increase your chances incredibly of getting laid on a regular basis.

My head says never but my heart says go for it.

This is exactly how I see it. Never know if we can succeed as a people unless we try.

Sometimes it seems to me the people of Scotland act like a battered housewife. Accepting less than we deserve and too scared to go it alone.

This union does nothing for us except drain away our confidence as a nation and damage our self esteem.

To me the practicalities are largley irrelevent, without question things would be difficult, at least initially anyway.

People of Scotland are there own people, as are people of England. There's no right or wrong in that, it's just the way it is. It's not anti-english to be pro-scottish. We have different cultural and social values, though we also share many values too.

To me, It's time we stood on our own feet. Went out there and got ourselves a regular **** (to continue the analogy above)

[Hainan Hibs]

I genuinely don't know how this would work so could anyone shed some light on it?

They campaigned for a No vote on devolution but worked with it when it came, so I'd think they would do the same in Independence happened.

[Woody1985]

This is exactly how I see it. Never know if we can succeed as a people unless we try.

Sometimes it seems to me the people of Scotland act like a battered housewife. Accepting less than we deserve and too scared to go it alone.

This union does nothing for us except drain away our confidence as a nation and damage our self esteem.

To me the practicalities are largley irrelevent, without question things would be difficult, at least initially anyway.

People of Scotland are there own people, as are people of England. There's no right or wrong in that, it's just the way it is. It's not anti-english to be pro-scottish. We have different cultural and social values, though we also share many values too.

To me, It's time we stood on our own feet. Went out there and got ourselves a regular **** (to continue the analogy above)

Allriiiighty then. :faf:

[EuanH78]

Allriiiighty then. :faf:

What I mean is,

when I left home, I had no money, no job, nowhere to stay etc..

All I did have, was the belief I could make it on my own. And I have.

I see Scottish independance as an extension of the same thing.

No point worrying about what might happen, deal with it as it arrives.

[Woody1985]

What I mean is,

when I left home, I had no money, no job, nowhere to stay etc..

All I did have, was the belief I could make it on my own. And I have.

I see Scottish independance as an extension of the same thing.

No point worrying about what might happen, deal with it as it arrives.

Fair enough. I see your logic in that you can leave home, probably be skint for a few months until you find your feet.

IMO if you replicated that to a country those months would be years / decades. Without the right provisions in place it's not viable.

Also, you can go home to mum and dad if it doesn't quite work out. We can't just go back to the rest of the UK and say 'We ****ed up. You got a sub or let me stay at yours'.

If all the plans were in place and fully documented then I'd be all for it. Get a watertight legal agreement on our share of the tax revenues then there is a possibility.

Your method would simply be gambling with 5 million peoples quality of life. If independance is not managed properly and we don't get our rightful share of oil revenues parts of Scotland will become even poorer than they are now.

[ancienthibby]

Fair enough. I see your logic in that you can leave home, probably be skint for a few months until you find your feet.

IMO if you replicated that to a country those months would be years / decades. Without the right provisions in place it's not viable.

Also, you can go home to mum and dad if it doesn't quite work out. We can't just go back to the rest of the UK and say 'We ****ed up. You got a sub or let me stay at yours'.

If all the plans were in place and fully documented then I'd be all for it. Get a watertight legal agreement on our share of the tax revenues then there is a possibility.

Your method would simply be gambling with 5 million peoples quality of life. If independance is not managed properly and we don't get our rightful share of oil revenues parts of Scotland will become even poorer than they are now.

Oh Woody Woody!

What on earth are we going to do with you??

You are utterly bereft of vision!!

Independence is not about figures on a bit of paper - it's about freedom inside you, about hopes and aspirations - nothing to do with the fixed boredom of economic statistics!!

You want it all written out on a tablet of stone before you will bite - but then you will find (as predicted) that it's not for you!! Well, well, who would have believed that!!??

Open up your whole being man, and as Winnie Ewing once said - 'stop the world I (we) want to get on'!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Sir David Gray]

Oh Woody Woody!

What on earth are we going to do with you??

You are utterly bereft of vision!!

Independence is not about figures on a bit of paper - it's about freedom inside you, about hopes and aspirations - nothing to do with the fixed boredom of economic statistics!!

You want it all written out on a tablet of stone before you will bite - but then you will find (as predicted) that it's not for you!! Well, well, who would have believed that!!??

Open up your whole being man, and as Winnie Ewing once said - 'stop the world I (we) want to get on'!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

As I have said before, I am in favour of independence but could you explain to me what "hopes and aspirations" we can look to achieve by being an independent nation, that we can't achieve whilst we are a part of the United Kingdom?

[lyonhibs]

Oh Woody Woody!

What on earth are we going to do with you??

You are utterly bereft of vision!!

Independence is not about figures on a bit of paper - it's about freedom inside you, about hopes and aspirations - nothing to do with the fixed boredom of economic statistics!!

You want it all written out on a tablet of stone before you will bite - but then you will find (as predicted) that it's not for you!! Well, well, who would have believed that!!??

Open up your whole being man, and as Winnie Ewing once said - 'stop the world I (we) want to get on'!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Quite - it all sounds lovely and cuddly.

But could somebody - anybody!!! - tell me who actually owns the rights to extract the oil and quite why they are liable to meekly surrender this legally enforcible right when (if) the Scottish public vote "Yes" to full Independence - (which one hopes they never will but these days - jings- who knows!!!!!)

As many holes as a block of Swiss cheese........................

[Woody1985]

Quite - it all sounds lovely and cuddly.

But could somebody - anybody!!! - tell me who actually owns the rights to extract the oil and quite why they are liable to meekly surrender this legally enforcible right when (if) the Scottish public vote "Yes" to full Independence - (which one hopes they never will but these days - jings- who knows!!!!!)

As many holes as a block of Swiss cheese........................

No, no they can't.

[lyonhibs]

No, no they can't.

Thought as much.

But then, if we can just dispose of the practicalities as "irrelevant" I think I might get a hovercraft to Mars and be back in time for MoTD 2

Yippee!!!!!

[Betty Boop]

Quite - it all sounds lovely and cuddly.

But could somebody - anybody!!! - tell me who actually owns the rights to extract the oil and quite why they are liable to meekly surrender this legally enforcible right when (if) the Scottish public vote "Yes" to full Independence - (which one hopes they never will but these days - jings- who knows!!!!!)

As many holes as a block of Swiss cheese........................

Does the oil not belong to whoever finds it, unless it is in the territorial limits of a nation? :dunno:

[Woody1985]

Thought as much.

But then, if we can just dispose of the practicalities as "irrelevant" I think I might get a hovercraft to Mars and be back in time for MoTD 2

Yippee!!!!!

Can I come? :LOL:

[J-C]

Does the oil not belong to whoever finds it, unless it is in the territorial limits of a nation? :dunno:


The oil was found off the coast of Scotland in Scottish waters, so yes it belongs to Scotland, unfortunately we are joined by a union to England and the monies from the oil goes to Westminster to be squandered away.

[Beefster]

The oil was found off the coast of Scotland in Scottish waters, so yes it belongs to Scotland, unfortunately we are joined by a union to England and the monies from the oil goes to Westminster to be squandered away.

How is it 'squandered away'? What does it fund?

[steakbake]

How is it 'squandered away'? What does it fund?

1 illegal invasion in iraq
1 expensive ID card scheme which looks set to be scrapped (hopefully)
1 enourmous public sector, including at least 500 government funded quangos
1 inflated military force" which has only had 2 years of peace since WW2
659 MPs inflated expenses
1 Millenium Dome
1 London Cross-rail project.....

A small list, but I'm sure given time I could think of other items for it.

[Woody1985]

How is it 'squandered away'? What does it fund?


1 illegal invasion in iraq
1 expensive ID card scheme which looks set to be scrapped (hopefully)
1 enourmous public sector, including at least 500 government funded quangos
1 inflated military force" which has only had 2 years of peace since WW2
659 MPs inflated expenses
1 Millenium Dome
1 London Cross-rail project.....

A small list, but I'm sure given time I could think of other items for it.

:faf:

Add one 12 billion IT system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3274703/NHS-IT-system-at-a-standstill.html

Found this site, don't know about the validity of it but it mentions the above.

http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/how-they-squander-our-billions

[Mibbes Aye]

1 illegal invasion in iraq
1 expensive ID card scheme which looks set to be scrapped (hopefully)
1 enourmous public sector, including at least 500 government funded quangos
1 inflated military force" which has only had 2 years of peace since WW2
659 MPs inflated expenses
1 Millenium Dome
1 London Cross-rail project.....

A small list, but I'm sure given time I could think of other items for it.

To take just that point, you seem to be relying on the word 'quango' being pejorative.

Which 'quangos' should we get rid of?

The Scottish Ambulance Service? The Environment Protection Agency? The Children's Reporter? Maybe the National Museum or the Royal Botanic Garden?

Most bodies of this nature are under constant review and re-organisation TBH and serve a purpose that would have to be met from somewhere if they weren't doing it.

[J-C]

How is it 'squandered away'? What does it fund?


Used by Maggie Thatcher to pay off the astronomical debts ran up by previous Labour govrnments. Does anyone else remember the 3 day working week, power cuts and people striking all the time.

The only part of Scotland that really prospered was Aberdeen and surrouding area, the rest of us got diddly squat.

Is no one else pissed off that a country that is self sufficient in oil has to pay £1.14 per litre when every where else in Europe it's about half that price.

[Mibbes Aye]

Used by Maggie Thatcher to pay off the astronomical debts ran up by previous Labour govrnments. Does anyone else remember the 3 day working week, power cuts and people striking all the time.

The only part of Scotland that really prospered was Aberdeen and surrouding area, the rest of us got diddly squat.

The three-day week was under Heath's Conservative government I think.

Regardless of who was in power Britan stumbled economically for much of the 1960s and 1970s, for a variety of reasons including an inability to adapt to a changing global economic climate and the difficulties in relinquishing what we perceived as a 'major player' status.

I don't think anyone had anywhere near the answers back then as the problems were so fundamental that they went beyond the parameters of the rough consensus that existed in British politics at that time.

[Mibbes Aye]

Used by Maggie Thatcher to pay off the astronomical debts ran up by previous Labour govrnments. Does anyone else remember the 3 day working week, power cuts and people striking all the time.

The only part of Scotland that really prospered was Aberdeen and surrouding area, the rest of us got diddly squat.

Is no one else pissed off that a country that is self sufficient in oil has to pay £1.14 per litre when every where else in Europe it's about half that price.

Is that true?

The AA Fuel Price Report for August seems to suggest that Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Sweden all pay more for unleaded than we do.

(Incidentally I think Norway produces 50% again more oil than we do)

[J-C]

Is that true?

The AA Fuel Price Report for August seems to suggest that Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Sweden all pay more for unleaded than we do.

(Incidentally I think Norway produces 50% again more oil than we do)


http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/

Can't understand why these countries are getting more expensive, maybe due to sign of the times and taxes to increase revenue but few are oil producing countries. Having looked back 2/3 years it is noticable that these countries were 10-15 cents a litre cheaper ( prices are in Euros )

Funny how Estonia, Poland, Latvia,Hungary and Lithuania are all 6-10 cents a litre cheaper.:confused:


Remember approx 70p in the £1 goes to the chancellor in Westminster.

[Woody1985]

http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/

Can't understand why these countries are getting more expensive, maybe due to sign of the times and taxes to increase revenue but few are oil producing countries. Having looked back 2/3 years it is noticable that these countries were 10-15 cents a litre cheaper ( prices are in Euros )

Funny how Estonia, Poland, Latvia,Hungary and Lithuania are all 6-10 cents a litre cheaper.:confused:


Remember approx 70p in the £1 goes to the chancellor in Westminster.

Some stats on other countries ratios of tax to cost would be good. Ours is around 70%.

Could it be that some countries are less dependant on oil - less bought = higher price.

How do the stats look from 5/10 years ago? Are other countries increasing their tax because we, previously one of the richest countries in Europe were able to do it and be seen as a wealthy nation.

Could policies have been built on increase in fuel tax to provide better infrastructures? Would people vote for that type of policy?

[AndyP]

Thought as much.

But then, if we can just dispose of the practicalities as "irrelevant" I think I might get a hovercraft to Mars and be back in time for MoTD 2

Yippee!!!!!

ACtually you need to look at the national maritime demarcation lines, should Scotland gain independence then the waters are already marked out, all that would happen is A N Drilling Corp would change the payment details for the licences and per barrel amounts to Edinburgh instead of London. Considering that it wouldn't be an overnight thing, the decision would be but the preperational work would have been done months before, then the transition would be pretty seemless

Why do Unionists always try and complicate things:confused:

[sleeping giant]

All i can glean from this thread are that folk are worried about how much more or less money they will have at the end of the month.

Shocking !!

Why should it all be about money ?

Give me my country please ! I'm sure we could manage just fine.

[RyeSloan]

All i can glean from this thread are that folk are worried about how much more or less money they will have at the end of the month.

Shocking !!

Why should it all be about money ?

Give me my country please ! I'm sure we could manage just fine.

What makes you so sure?

As for 'it's all about money' how else do you think the countries two largest expenditures in Health and Education are maintained, on chocolate biscuits???

You countries and it's citizens health and well being is directly linked to its ability to generate money...remove this and you have untreated patients, uneducated children and a host of other problems....still why bother working out the details to ensure we will not be sleep walking into such a scenario, lets just do it I'm sure we will be fine! :bitchy:

Yet another Independence thread peters out without even a rough outline no matter some clear information on what an Independent Scotland may look like, the SNP must be laughing at gettign away with beating a drum and getting support for a cause even they can't be bothered explaining to the nation.

Maybe I'm just asking the question round the wrong way and in too much detail as it's clear there is none available.....so I will try again, this time in a positive way and hopefully one that might just shed a little light on why Independence is so sought after by some:

What will be the main benefits of an Independent Scotland and when will these be realised after Independence is granted?

[1two]

All i can glean from this thread are that folk are worried about how much more or less money they will have at the end of the month.

Shocking !!

Why should it all be about money ?

Give me my country please ! I'm sure we could manage just fine.

I thought the whole point in an independant Scotland would be because we would be better off without the union?

So your arguement is, 'We might not be better off, but we might as well go for it because we'll manage?'

If we are not going to be better off, whats the point?

So we can all where our kilts and thump our chests at the englishman?:rolleyes:

[sleeping giant]

I thought the whole point in an independant Scotland would be because we would be better off without the union?
So your arguement is, 'We might not be better off, but we might as well go for it because we'll manage?'

If we are not going to be better off, whats the point?

So we can all where our kilts and thump our chests at the englishman?:rolleyes:

The whole point for me is Scotland governing ourselves.
Nowt to do with money or thumping of chests on my part:rolleyes:

How much money the people have and how much money the country will have should not be the main point for Independence .

[sleeping giant]

What makes you so sure?

As for 'it's all about money' how else do you think the countries two largest expenditures in Health and Education are maintained, on chocolate biscuits???

You countries and it's citizens health and well being is directly linked to its ability to generate money...remove this and you have untreated patients, uneducated children and a host of other problems....still why bother working out the details to ensure we will not be sleep walking into such a scenario, lets just do it I'm sure we will be fine! :bitchy:

Yet another Independence thread peters out without even a rough outline no matter some clear information on what an Independent Scotland may look like, the SNP must be laughing at gettign away with beating a drum and getting support for a cause even they can't be bothered explaining to the nation.

Maybe I'm just asking the question round the wrong way and in too much detail as it's clear there is none available.....so I will try again, this time in a positive way and hopefully one that might just shed a little light on why Independence is so sought after by some:

What will be the main benefits of an Independent Scotland and when will these be realised after Independence is granted?

Governing ourselves will be the main benefit.
Why do want other benefits ?



Do you really think Scotlands education and health systems would crumble if we "sleepwalk" into Independence ?

[1two]

The whole point for me is Scotland governing ourselves.
Nowt to do with money or thumping of chests on my part:rolleyes:

How much money the people have and how much money the country will have should not be the main point for Independence .

But surely thats what we are currently doing right now down at holyrood (albeit not very well:devil:) within the union?

Why don't we just go the whole way and become independant from the EU and their governing rules? I'm sure we could survive.
We all know the answer to that though........ its because we would be a lot worse off!:dizzy:

I agree their are a lot of good things that the Scot Parl have put in place for scotland. But what could we possibly change in an Independant Scotland which we couldn't change as a scottish parliament working within the union

[sleeping giant]

But surely thats what we are currently doing down right now down at holyrood (albeit not very well:devil:) within the union?

Why don't we just go the whole way and become independant from the EU and their governing rules? I'm sure we could survive.
We all know the answer to that though........ its because we would be a lot worse off!:dizzy:

We don't Govern ourselves as well you know !

And please don't expand my Independence requirements:greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Are people happy to exist as England's beggars?

[IndieHibby]

Are people happy to exist as England's beggars?

Speak for yourself......

[(((Fergus)))]

Speak for yourself......

I'd vote for independence.

My question is to those who wouldn't because of handouts from the UK treasury.

[Green Mikey]

Are people happy to exist as England's beggars?

Do you have any basis for us being England's beggars? Or is this another emotive argument for indepedence that relies on anti-English sentiment in the place of rationalality?

[(((Fergus)))]

Do you have any basis for us being England's beggars? Or is this another emotive argument for indepedence that relies on anti-English sentiment in the place of rationalality?

I don't think Scotland would lose out financially at all from independence - opposite in fact, if managed with sufficient canniness - however, as we've seen throughout this thread, fear of poverty is always used as a reason for remaining within the union.

What I want to know is whether those people who believe in and peddle this fear are happy to be seen as sponging off of England -as England's beggars.

Take it further: if Scotland really is a financial burden on England, then I'm sure the English will be only too pleased to be rid of us. Surely there must be at least one English party that wants to rid the UK of the financial black hole that is Scotland.

[Green Mikey]

I don't think Scotland would lose out financially at all from independence - opposite in fact, if managed with sufficient canniness - however, as we've seen throughout this thread, fear of poverty is always used as a reason for remaining within the union.

What I want to know is whether those people who believe in and peddle this fear are happy to be seen as sponging off of England -as England's beggars.

Take it further: if Scotland really is a financial burden on England, then I'm sure the English will be only too pleased to be rid of us. Surely there must be at least one English party that wants to rid the UK of the financial black hole that is Scotland.

Canniness must be one of the least compelling arguments I have heard for independence:faf:

What reasons do you have to support the statement that we would not lose out financially?

[sleeping giant]

Canniness must be one of the least compelling arguments I have heard for independence:faf:

What reasons do you have to support the statement that we would not lose out financially?

Thats just rude and detracts from your usual decent arguement !

[Green Mikey]

Thats just rude and detracts from your usual decent arguement !

Sorry, I don't think this is rude:confused: It wasn't intended to cause affront to you, Fergus or anyone reading this thread.

After all the debate on this subject I thought it was funny that financial canniness would be proffered as a way for Scotland to become successful post-independence.

[(((Fergus)))]

Obviously if you invest your resources wisely, your enterprise is sustainable. Scotland has plentiful resources in the north sea that are currently being pissed away on a madly inefficient UK NHS (among other things).

If that revenue was invested in creating the type of industry that Scots are naturally good at - e.g., engineering (wind/wave power for example) - then the country (and wider world) would be better for it.

Scots clearly have a tendency to be dependent on stuff, e.g., drink, drugs, but it is something we should be working to rid ourselves of.

I don't believe for one minute we are dependent on England financially. We are dependent on them emotionally.

[J-C]

Sorry, I don't think this is rude:confused: It wasn't intended to cause affront to you, Fergus or anyone reading this thread.

After all the debate on this subject I thought it was funny that financial canniness would be proffered as a way for Scotland to become successful post-independence.


Scottish canniness gave us 2 huge funancial institutes until they got involved with English counterparts and the greed set in, the rest as we know is history. I find it amazing 2 of the most secure financial institues were nearly eradicated because of the recent troubles.

We pride ourselves on canniness and astuteness.

We have our own school system which is one of the best in the world, which produces some of the best engineers, scientists, etc. in the world, just look back at our history and see our achievements.

We also have our own legal system which I think is also highly thought of world wide.

The Scottish parliament is basically a grand debating chamber
with powers over very little which concerns Scotland.

In all this debate has some of you anti nationalists forgotten our history ans what happened at Stirling and Bannockburn. The English moved in forfully and took Scotland from us while we were deciding who the next king/queen would be, Edward was meant to be here as an arbiter, making sure Scotland got it's future ruler. Instead he spotted an opening brought up thousands of troups and literally tokk over and we've been fighting for our land ever since.
Why do you think we have this animosity towards the English ?

[Green Mikey]

Scottish canniness gave us 2 huge funancial institutes until they got involved with English counterparts and the greed set in, the rest as we know is history. I find it amazing 2 of the most secure financial institues were nearly eradicated because of the recent troubles.

We pride ourselves on canniness and astuteness.

We have our own school system which is one of the best in the world, which produces some of the best engineers, scientists, etc. in the world, just look back at our history and see our achievements.

We also have our own legal system which I think is also highly thought of world wide.

The Scottish parliament is basically a grand debating chamber
with powers over very little which concerns Scotland.

In all this debate has some of you anti nationalists forgotten our history ans what happened at Stirling and Bannockburn. The English moved in forfully and took Scotland from us while we were deciding who the next king/queen would be, Edward was meant to be here as an arbiter, making sure Scotland got it's future ruler. Instead he spotted an opening brought up thousands of troups and literally tokk over and we've been fighting for our land ever since.
Why do you think we have this animosity towards the English ?

HBOS was controlled in England however RBS have their headquarters and boardroom in Edinburgh. RBS were even accused of being too Scottish at one point! You are insinuating that it was English greed that has caused the Scottish banks to almost collapse. What about Lehman Bothers, Bear Sterns, AIG, Citi, Freddie Mac, Fannie May and the Dunfermline Building Society:wink: were their financial issues caused by English greed?

Surely, the development of our world renowned education and legal systems during our time in the union provide a compelling argument for the continuation of the union.

Bannockburn and Stirling...battles that happened hundreds of years ago being used as an emotive argument in favour of independence. How are these historic events relevant to a 21st century debate on independence?

A good portion of your argument is anti-English not pro-Scottish. You focus what we will get rid off instead through independence instead of what we can achieve.

[Green Mikey]

Obviously if you invest your resources wisely, your enterprise is sustainable. Scotland has plentiful resources in the north sea that are currently being pissed away on a madly inefficient UK NHS (among other things).

If that revenue was invested in creating the type of industry that Scots are naturally good at - e.g., engineering (wind/wave power for example) - then the country (and wider world) would be better for it.

Scots clearly have a tendency to be dependent on stuff, e.g., drink, drugs, but it is something we should be working to rid ourselves of.

I don't believe for one minute we are dependent on England financially. We are dependent on them emotionally.

Your argument is completely redundant if it is based on future North Sea oil revenues belonging to Scotland. The oil doesn't belong to Scotland it belongs to the UK. If independence happens there is no gaurantee that Westminster will hand over the oil to us since they will be under no obligation to do so.

Is there a non-emotive pro-independence argument that doesn't include the phrase 'North Sea oil revenues'?

[Ed De Gramo]

I'd vote against independence...happy with life at moment...

[ancienthibby]

Your argument is completely redundant if it is based on future North Sea oil revenues belonging to Scotland. The oil doesn't belong to Scotland it belongs to the UK. If independence happens there is no gaurantee that Westminster will hand over the oil to us since they will be under no obligation to do so.

Is there a non-emotive pro-independence argument that doesn't include the phrase 'North Sea oil revenues'?

Think you are quite wrong in these assertions, GM!

(And this in part is also a response to posts 121 and 123 which I have not answered as I have been a but diverted over the past 10 days!)

The Legal jurisdiction for the North Sea is the 1958 Geneva Convention which quite clearly defined all areas of the North Sea (UK, Norway, Netherlands et al) and it was very clear then that there was a Scottish Sector and an English sector that became enshrined in international law. The well-known SNP claim that 'It's Scotland's Oil' is therefore well-founded on these principles. The defining line became known as 55N (imagine a line heading east from Berwick) and, at the time, the UK's share of the N Sea was estimated at 95k sq miles, with the actual acreage falling into Scottish territorial waters on a 2:1 ratio.

Then along comes devolution and as part of the 'pre-devolution settlement', the UK Labour Government changes the goal posts and moves that 'Berwick 55N' line dramatically to the left so that (surprise, surprise) the new dividing line between Scotland and England transfers a large part of Scotland's N Sea acreage to England!!

I do not have an accurate definition of where the new line falls, but a number of NS oilfields far east of Aberdeen now belong to England in international law. However, I believe all of the close to shore fields (such as in the Moray Firth) remain Scotland's and, more importantly, so do all the fields east and west of the Orkneys and Shetlands.

Be clear about this, there are still vast swathes of the N Sea which belong to Scotland and, as the Labour Party treachery was done some 10-12 years ago, all SNP calculations about the benefits of N Sea oil to an independent Scotland will be done on the current boundaries.

[Green Mikey]

Think you are quite wrong in these assertions, GM!

(And this in part is also a response to posts 121 and 123 which I have not answered as I have been a but diverted over the past 10 days!)

The Legal jurisdiction for the North Sea is the 1958 Geneva Convention which quite clearly defined all areas of the North Sea (UK, Norway, Netherlands et al) and it was very clear then that there was a Scottish Sector and an English sector that became enshrined in international law. The well-known SNP claim that 'It's Scotland's Oil' is therefore well-founded on these principles. The defining line became known as 55N (imagine a line heading east from Berwick) and, at the time, the UK's share of the N Sea was estimated at 95k sq miles, with the actual acreage falling into Scottish territorial waters on a 2:1 ratio.

Then along comes devolution and as part of the 'pre-devolution settlement', the UK Labour Government changes the goal posts and moves that 'Berwick 55N' line dramatically to the left so that (surprise, surprise) the new dividing line between Scotland and England transfers a large part of Scotland's N Sea acreage to England!!

I do not have an accurate definition of where the new line falls, but a number of NS oilfields far east of Aberdeen now belong to England in international law. However, I believe all of the close to shore fields (such as in the Moray Firth) remain Scotland's and, more importantly, so do all the fields east and west of the Orkneys and Shetlands.

Be clear about this, there are still vast swathes of the N Sea which belong to Scotland and, as the Labour Party treachery was done some 10-12 years ago, all SNP calculations about the benefits of N Sea oil to an independent Scotland will be done on the current boundaries.


The 1958 Geneva convention was a treaty signed by soveriegn states regarding international water jurisdiction. This treaty was incorporated into UK law through the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and then the Continental Shelf Juristiction Order 1968. These two laws are where the 55n seperation was outlined.

The 55n denotes the area of the UK territorial waters that are under either English or Scots law. 55n is not a a demarcation of ownership it relates solely to legal system jurisdiction. This is where the problem of owership arises. If Scotland was to begin seccession negotiations with the UK the claim to own certain portions of the North Sea is not entirely correct. It is not a certainty that these waters would pass into Scottish ownership because they are UK territorial waters under the 1958 Geneva Convention that are under Scots Law by our own laws.

IMO due to the complicated nature of this issue nobody can be sure what will happen to the North Sea oil revenues if independence happened. There seems to be no contingency plans in place if we got less oil than we expect or none at all.

[ancienthibby]

The 1958 Geneva convention was a treaty signed by soveriegn states regarding international water jurisdiction. This treaty was incorporated into UK law through the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and then the Continental Shelf Juristiction Order 1968. These two laws are where the 55n seperation was outlined.

The 55n denotes the area of the UK territorial waters that are under either English or Scots law. 55n is not a a demarcation of ownership it relates solely to legal system jurisdiction. This is where the problem of owership arises. If Scotland was to begin seccession negotiations with the UK the claim to own certain portions of the North Sea is not entirely correct. It is not a certainty that these waters would pass into Scottish ownership because they are UK territorial waters under the 1958 Geneva Convention that are under Scots Law by our own laws.

IMO due to the complicated nature of this issue nobody can be sure what will happen to the North Sea oil revenues if independence happened. There seems to be no contingency plans in place if we got less oil than we expect or none at all.

You are quite right in what you say but, unfortunately you do not go far enough!! The Geneva Convention confirms the then existing boundary lines as including the right to the respective jurisdictions to 'exploit the oil and gas fields thus far established'. If this principle fails in the first instance between the disputing parties (in this case the government of and independant Scotland and that of England (ie the UK Govt), then the principle of equidistance is to be applied. If this was applied to the pre-devolution settlement boundaries, then an independent Scotland would have rights over a greater area that I outlined in the previous post. Either way, the provisions of the Geneva Convention clearly 'deed' ownership to Scotland in the first instance. In the event of independence, I have no doubt that would be disputed by 'the other side'!

[RyeSloan]

Is there a non-emotive pro-independence argument that doesn't include the phrase 'North Sea oil revenues'?

Sadly it doesn't seem so!

Using Bannockburn as a reson for Independence is just daft, as is using two examples of where Scotland has (better?) differing systems and rules to England when they were developed quite freely inside the Union! Not quite as daft though as saying 'look at our past acheivements, why can't we be Independent' when a huge portion of those acheivements were actually off the back of the Union. The Scottish Enlightenment and the massive strides in indusry and medicine etc all happened prety much beacause of not despite of the Union so the implications that England and the Union is now to blame for holding Scotland back from a new period of greatness is somewhat flawed.

Also a lot of people seem to brand folk who ask some perfectly sensible and stright forward questions as 'anti-independence'...this is quite wrong.

Despite all of the above I am more than happy to vote for an Independent Scotland but despite numerous threads on here, much internet research, looking directly at the SNP website there continues to be a total void when it comes to anything approaching detail. Some people seem happy enough to vote for independence just because it sounds good, I'm defo not one of them and will await (very) patiently for the SNP or others to finally start providing a vision for what an Independent Scotland would be like before I can contemplate voting for such a thing.

Finally surely the easiest and most sensible route to independence is through the existing Scottish Parliament.....incrementally increasing the powers available as and when we are ready to take them on, show we are capable and have the infrastructure to support them, the where with all to carry them out then move on to the next set of powers. It doesn't involve any votes, no massive overnight change, proves we are capable and have the ability to carry out those powers as and when they are transferred until there comes a point where Independence would be a much smaller and probalby much more obviously sensible step than the great leap into the unknown it is now.

Still not much chance of that considering the SNP's very luke warm efforts so far to support the cross part process set up to expand the SP's powers and of course not as much political and emotional milage to be had either!

[Green Mikey]

You are quite right in what you say but, unfortunately you do not go far enough!! The Geneva Convention confirms the then existing boundary lines as including the right to the respective jurisdictions to 'exploit the oil and gas fields thus far established'. If this principle fails in the first instance between the disputing parties (in this case the government of and independant Scotland and that of England (ie the UK Govt), then the principle of equidistance is to be applied. If this was applied to the pre-devolution settlement boundaries, then an independent Scotland would have rights over a greater area that I outlined in the previous post. Either way, the provisions of the Geneva Convention clearly 'deed' ownership to Scotland in the first instance. In the event of independence, I have no doubt that would be disputed by 'the other side'!

Excellent post!

The bit I have highlighted is the real problem. Westminster have control over these waters now and will have until any claim by Scotland. They have retain the ability to change the boundaries and laws regarding the North Sea. With the great likelihood of a Tory government next year coupled with a vote on independence this ability might be exercised sooner rather than later.

In reality there is a significant chance that an independent Scotland may have access to a vastly reduced or non-existent amount of oil, is there any independence argument that has at least a contingency plan for this?

[Green Mikey]

Sadly it doesn't seem so!

Using Bannockburn as a reson for Independence is just daft, as is using two examples of where Scotland has (better?) differing systems and rules to England when they were developed quite freely inside the Union! Not quite as daft though as saying 'look at our past acheivements, why can't we be Independent' when a huge portion of those acheivements were actually off the back of the Union. The Scottish Enlightenment and the massive strides in indusry and medicine etc all happened prety much beacause of not despite of the Union so the implications that England and the Union is now to blame for holding Scotland back from a new period of greatness is somewhat flawed.

Also a lot of people seem to brand folk who ask some perfectly sensible and stright forward questions as 'anti-independence'...this is quite wrong.

Despite all of the above I am more than happy to vote for an Independent Scotland but despite numerous threads on here, much internet research, looking directly at the SNP website there continues to be a total void when it comes to anything approaching detail. Some people seem happy enough to vote for independence just because it sounds good, I'm defo not one of them and will await (very) patiently for the SNP or others to finally start providing a vision for what an Independent Scotland would be like before I can contemplate voting for such a thing.

Finally surely the easiest and most sensible route to independence is through the existing Scottish Parliament.....incrementally increasing the powers available as and when we are ready to take them on, show we are capable and have the infrastructure to support them, the where with all to carry them out then move on to the next set of powers. It doesn't involve any votes, no massive overnight change, proves we are capable and have the ability to carry out those powers as and when they are transferred until there comes a point where Independence would be a much smaller and probalby much more obviously sensible step than the great leap into the unknown it is now.

Still not much chance of that considering the SNP's very luke warm efforts so far to support the cross part process set up to expand the SP's powers and of course not as much political and emotional milage to be had either!

:agree:

Couldn't agree more with the bit in bold.

Rational thought and being pro-independence don't have to be mutually exclusive:devil:

[sleeping giant]

Sorry, I don't think this is rude:confused: It wasn't intended to cause affront to you, Fergus or anyone reading this thread.

After all the debate on this subject I thought it was funny that financial canniness would be proffered as a way for Scotland to become successful post-independence.

I happen to think using the (:faf:)smiley to end a post when having a mature discussion with someone is very rude.
But there you go eh. Opinions:rolleyes:

[J-C]

HBOS was controlled in England however RBS have their headquarters and boardroom in Edinburgh. RBS were even accused of being too Scottish at one point! You are insinuating that it was English greed that has caused the Scottish banks to almost collapse. What about Lehman Bothers, Bear Sterns, AIG, Citi, Freddie Mac, Fannie May and the Dunfermline Building Society:wink: were their financial issues caused by English greed?

Surely, the development of our world renowned education and legal systems during our time in the union provide a compelling argument for the continuation of the union.

Bannockburn and Stirling...battles that happened hundreds of years ago being used as an emotive argument in favour of independence. How are these historic events relevant to a 21st century debate on independence?

A good portion of your argument is anti-English not pro-Scottish. You focus what we will get rid off instead through independence instead of what we can achieve.


I didn't mean English greed, I meant that since their involvement with these English companies and with these same companies tied up with the American markets, greed set in over the past 15-20 years and 2 long standing institutions almost disappeared from our country.

Finally, I'm not anti English, you cannot change history and history tells us that during these times the English were terrible towards the Scottish people. Taking away our right to rule our lands and forcing their language upon us without our say. Tell me, back in 1707, did the common Scot have any say in this union of countries or was it the higher archy that decided for us.
We now have right to decide if we want to have the power in our country re instated by a vote.
Scotland historically has always been a seperate nation from England, we have a different culture and mind set, which makes us very patriotic, of this I cannot apologise for.

[Green Mikey]

I didn't mean English greed, I meant that since their involvement with these English companies and with these same companies tied up with the American markets, greed set in over the past 15-20 years and 2 long standing institutions almost disappeared from our country.

Finally, I'm not anti English, you cannot change history and history tells us that during these times the English were terrible towards the Scottish people. Taking away our right to rule our lands and forcing their language upon us without our say. Tell me, back in 1707, did the common Scot have any say in this union of countries or was it the higher archy that decided for us.
We now have right to decide if we want to have the power in our country re instated by a vote.
Scotland historically has always been a seperate nation from England, we have a different culture and mind set, which makes us very patriotic, of this I cannot apologise for.

Greed in the financial sector is not restricted by geography and certainly not by time.

I not sure how the credit crunch can be used as pro-independence argument. Firstly, Scottish banks could still have been involved with 'these English companies' regardless of independence or not. Independence won't be able to stop international business and certainty won't stop greed. Secondly, would an independent Scotland have the ability to bail out the failing banks (have a look at the the plight of Iceland)?

You are using incidents that happened hundreds of years ago a justification for independence, are these really relevant in the 21st century? Again you have focussed on the negative...we should leave the union for what was done to us in the past instead of what we can do for oursleves in the future.

If our culture, mind set and patiotism have survived for 300 years in the union why is this a reason for independence?

[ancienthibby]

Excellent post!

The bit I have highlighted is the real problem. Westminster have control over these waters now and will have until any claim by Scotland. They have retain the ability to change the boundaries and laws regarding the North Sea. With the great likelihood of a Tory government next year coupled with a vote on independence this ability might be exercised sooner rather than later.

In reality there is a significant chance that an independent Scotland may have access to a vastly reduced or non-existent amount of oil, is there any independence argument that has at least a contingency plan for this?

Most interesting aspect of this debate is just how much the argument has swung against the UK and in favour of Scotland in the last two years. And the answer, of course, is the emergence of the SNP as a government in Scotland. This blows apart the political rationale of the late D Dewar, 'weebendy' et al whose entire raison d'etre for establishing the Scottish Parliament was to commit the SNP to eternal political oblivion.

I cannot remember the exact words, but the now Lord Georgie Woberson opined at the time that the creation of the new Scottish Patliament would 'burst the SMP bubble for ever'. Or some equally sagacious words! Just how wrong was he and all the Labour Party acolytes!

But much more than that - for now all the parties at Holyrood have become supporters of acquiring even more powers for the SP - even the died-in-the-wool Tory unionists.

What this suggests to me is that come the next UK elections bringing the Tories into Westminster (which seems most likely) while the SNP are still in power in Holyrood, the recent swings of history will be solidly behind the SNP (ahead of the time of any referendum) and I would suspect they will get a the finest result out of any 'divving-up' of N Sea oil and gas assets.

That result would make your last point redundant, but I am a firm believer that the economic case for independence needs to be made without N Sea oil! That said, I do not think that economics should be the most important element!:greengrin

[Green Mikey]

You're spot on, the parliament has increased the SNP's support instead of reducing it as Labour thought at the time.


...I am a firm believer that the economic case for independence needs to be made without N Sea oil!

I couldn't agree more:greengrin



That said, I do not think that economics should be the most important element!:greengrin

I couldn't agree less:greengrin

Everyone has different opinions on how and why we should be independent...makes for a good debate!

[Mibbes Aye]

Most interesting aspect of this debate is just how much the argument has swung against the UK and in favour of Scotland in the last two years. And the answer, of course, is the emergence of the SNP as a government in Scotland. This blows apart the political rationale of the late D Dewar, 'weebendy' et al whose entire raison d'etre for establishing the Scottish Parliament was to commit the SNP to eternal political oblivion.

I cannot remember the exact words, but the now Lord Georgie Woberson opined at the time that the creation of the new Scottish Patliament would 'burst the SMP bubble for ever'. Or some equally sagacious words! Just how wrong was he and all the Labour Party acolytes!

But much more than that - for now all the parties at Holyrood have become supporters of acquiring even more powers for the SP - even the died-in-the-wool Tory unionists.

What this suggests to me is that come the next UK elections bringing the Tories into Westminster (which seems most likely) while the SNP are still in power in Holyrood, the recent swings of history will be solidly behind the SNP (ahead of the time of any referendum) and I would suspect they will get a the finest result out of any 'divving-up' of N Sea oil and gas assets.

That result would make your last point redundant, but I am a firm believer that the economic case for independence needs to be made without N Sea oil! That said, I do not think that economics should be the most important element!:greengrin

I was born in Scotland, of parents who were born in Scotland. But TBH I don't particularly care whether my passport says 'Scottish', 'British', 'UK' or 'European'.

What I do care about is that whatever settlement exists around government, it offers the most effective, efficient, equitable and economic solution to the needs of the people it serves.

The colour of the flag, or where the borderline is drawn are frivolities, romantic notions of the nation-state that are out-dated and ever-increasingly less credible.

[puff the dragon]

RBS bailout killed independance.

The SNP should realise this and wind up their one policy party now.

[ancienthibby]

RBS bailout killed independance.

The SNP should realise this and wind up their one policy party now.

No wonder you call yourself 'Puff' - one blow and you are out!

Whatever party you might support, the SNP have survived every piece of chicanery that the opposition parties have woefully tried to muster for the last two years!!:thumbsup:

[Mibbes Aye]

No wonder you call yourself 'Puff' - one blow and you are out!

Whatever party you might support, the SNP have survived every piece of chicanery that the opposition parties have woefully tried to muster for the last two years!!:thumbsup:

They certainly sold local income tax :thumbsup:

[shamo9]

Independence? What does that even entail? How is one supposed to have independence in wake of globalisation? It's nothing more than a publicity stunt.

[ancienthibby]

Independence? What does that even entail? How is one supposed to have independence in wake of globalisation? It's nothing more than a publicity stunt.

So why don't yo go and try and sell this concept to all these peoples of former socialist (and other) regimes that have won independence in the last twenty years??:greengrin

[shamo9]

[/B]

So why don't yo go and try and sell this concept to all these peoples of former socialist (and other) regimes that have won independence in the last twenty years??:greengrin

They like to think they're independent, but if Russia/America ask them to jump then they ask how high.

And anyway, we're certainly not in a position where we need to 'win' independence - therefore unnecessary. Nationalism is on its knees anyway.

[steakbake]

Independence? What does that even entail? How is one supposed to have independence in wake of globalisation? It's nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Ridiculous.

Globalisation is a factor in the modern world but it's not leading to a world government. We should be trying to get whatever powers we can so that we can influence the way globalisation influences us. I would even take that as far to local level for decisions on public services.

By extension of your logic, the UK should throw it's lot fully in with the EU (a force of globalisation) and give our defence strategy up to NATO, scrap the UK parliament, close the government departments and ship all our decision making powers overseas.

[J-C]

Greed in the financial sector is not restricted by geography and certainly not by time.

I not sure how the credit crunch can be used as pro-independence argument. Firstly, Scottish banks could still have been involved with 'these English companies' regardless of independence or not. Independence won't be able to stop international business and certainty won't stop greed. Secondly, would an independent Scotland have the ability to bail out the failing banks (have a look at the the plight of Iceland)?

You are using incidents that happened hundreds of years ago a justification for independence, are these really relevant in the 21st century? Again you have focussed on the negative...we should leave the union for what was done to us in the past instead of what we can do for oursleves in the future.

If our culture, mind set and patiotism have survived for 300 years in the union why is this a reason for independence?


We will never know about the banks because they have been joined to their English counterparts for a good 15-20 years now. Funny how Santander the Spanish banking giants are still very stable mainly because they never got involved in all the huge lending the American and British banks were doing, which caused the crash.

I'm not using our past history as my argument for independence, I was using this to show I wasn't anti English which you in a previous post accused me off and to be honest I didn't appreciate that part of you post.
If you read it properly I was trying to explain the reason we have this animosity towards the English, it is deep rooted through the injustices of the past.

We had our own country, we had our own kings and queens, these were taken away from us and unbelievable as it may sound to you, some of us would like our country back again.

[ancienthibby]

We will never know about the banks because they have been joined to their English counterparts for a good 15-20 years now. Funny how Santander the Spanish banking giants are still very stable mainly because they never got involved in all the huge lending the American and British banks were doing, which caused the crash.

I'm not using our past history as my argument for independence, I was using this to show I wasn't anti English which you in a previous post accused me off and to be honest I didn't appreciate that part of you post.
If you read it properly I was trying to explain the reason we have this animosity towards the English, it is deep rooted through the injustices of the past.

We had our own country, we had our own kings and queens, these were taken away from us and unbelievable as it may sound to you, some of us would like our country back again.

Key point, JC!

The appropriate words for that are 'bought and sold for English gold'!

There was no vote/poll of the people three hundred years ago. Many people feel that makes the union a complete fraud - and the SNP in power in Edinburgh is a huge step towards rectifying that treachery!:agree:

[ancienthibby]

They like to think they're independent, but if Russia/America ask them to jump then they ask how high.

And anyway, we're certainly not in a position where we need to 'win' independence - therefore unnecessary. Nationalism is on its knees anyway.

And quite how do you reckon that to be the case??

Even the poll on here has consistently shown an overwhelming majority (2:1 in fact) in favour of independence!!:devil:

[Green Mikey]

We will never know about the banks because they have been joined to their English counterparts for a good 15-20 years now. Funny how Santander the Spanish banking giants are still very stable mainly because they never got involved in all the huge lending the American and British banks were doing, which caused the crash.

I'm not using our past history as my argument for independence, I was using this to show I wasn't anti English which you in a previous post accused me off and to be honest I didn't appreciate that part of you post.
If you read it properly I was trying to explain the reason we have this animosity towards the English, it is deep rooted through the injustices of the past.
We had our own country, we had our own kings and queens, these were taken away from us and unbelievable as it may sound to you, some of us would like our country back again.

You don't appreciate me calling you anti-English however you admit to feeling animosity towards the English. IMO you have contradicted yourself here and have confirmed my assesment of your views regarding the English.

I feel no animosity towards the English and I don't want to be associated with the brand of Scottish patriotism that is based on animosity towards the English.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter:wink: I personally don't think that 300yr old injustices and the bizarre notion that English banks corrupted Scottish banks is a compelling argument for independence.

[J-C]

You don't appreciate me calling you anti-English however you admit to feeling animosity towards the English. IMO you have contradicted yourself here and have confirmed my assesment of your views regarding the English.

I feel no animosity towards the English and I don't want to be associated with the brand of Scottish patriotism that is based on animosity towards the English.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter:wink: I personally don't think that 300yr old injustices and the bizarre notion that English banks corrupted Scottish banks is a compelling argument for independence.


Once again putting words into my mouth, I said we as a nation not myself in particular, I wish you'd read the post properly :confused:

I take exception to your posts regarding my feelings towards English, I have many, many friends and relatives who are English and I myself have nothing against them whatsoever.

My post was to show why so many people may have bad feelings and animosity towards the English, please try to read carefully next time.

Obviously the banking collapse isn't a reason why we should have independence, whether or not we were involved with English banks or not.
My point was to show that if the Scottish banks hadn't been linked to their English counterparts, then they might not have been is such deep financial trouble. Santander was an example of a bank not involved in giving huge loans and mortgages, they are one of the strongest banks around at the moment, our banks, if not joined to English banking might well have been in the same strong position.

If you're going to reply with the same argument as the 3 previous posts, don't bother as it's getting a bit tedious.

[Scotsman]

I believe in Independence for Scotland for a few reasons

Why should Scotland be any different from any other normal country by running its own affairs- its the most natural desire for any country

Its often said that Scotland would run a deficit- The UK now has a debt of approaching £175bn . With the bank bail out and Gordon Browns handling of the economy- its out of control

Its said that Scotland wouldnt have survived the Bank Crisis- we would have never been in the situation in the first place- Gordon Brown was to blame to lack of financial controls over the banks

An independent Scotland would rid us of Nuclear weapons, and a Scotland that wouldn`t take part in illegal wars

My desire for independence has nothing to with how I feel about England or the rest of the UK- I have many friends and family throughout the UK - that wouldn`t change

Its all about Scotland becoming a nation in its own right, deciding on its future, by people in Scotland, whether they are Scottish, English, Pakistani or Polish

Unionist Parties have peddled fear of independence for 300 years, with a popular successful SNP Government, this fear is being broken down

In the immortal words of Rabbie Burns - "Its coming yet for a that"

[RyeSloan]

Once again putting words into my mouth, I said we as a nation not myself in particular, I wish you'd read the post properly :confused:

I take exception to your posts regarding my feelings towards English, I have many, many friends and relatives who are English and I myself have nothing against them whatsoever.

My post was to show why so many people may have bad feelings and animosity towards the English, please try to read carefully next time.

Obviously the banking collapse isn't a reason why we should have independence, whether or not we were involved with English banks or not.
My point was to show that if the Scottish banks hadn't been linked to their English counterparts, then they might not have been is such deep financial trouble. Santander was an example of a bank not involved in giving huge loans and mortgages, they are one of the strongest banks around at the moment, our banks, if not joined to English banking might well have been in the same strong position.

If you're going to reply with the same argument as the 3 previous posts, don't bother as it's getting a bit tedious.

I'll save him the bother....trying to 'blame' English Banks for the demise of the Scottish ones is really a non arguement when you consider one of the biggest offenders of the all was RBS...the only real Scottish bank that has existed for quite a while, the others were simply not capable of competing in the global market place.

NONE of that had anything to do with the English...it was simply market forces and bad management!!

Santander which you seem so fond of is of course Spanish in origin and has survived the downturn better than most due to it's expansion in S America....it had a different growth strategy so missed a lot of the turmoil but was still very aggressive in buying other local based banks...in that sense are no different to say Lloyds or NAB and certianly no respector of geographic boundaries (or for companies like A&L/B&B or even Abbey which are soon to become simply Santander)

So using English Banks destroyed Scottish Banks as any sort of arguement is seriously wide of the mark.

I take your point that you personally don't have anti English views but you show the point well in that a lot of the Independence debate IS based on such sentiment and of course your 300 year old wars.

Fact is though that Scottish history is seen through tartan specs and that the Jacobites and the Clans were not the only Scotland that existed and even the battle of Culloden saw a significant portion of Scotland fight against the Jacobites...this of course doesn't fit with our 'poor us' image that we like to peddle or do we discuss the vast benefits the Union brought Scotland.

What gets me is that the romantic Scottish history of England stealing Scotland from it's people is not entirely true but yet somehow that still seems to be the main driver for Independence. Personally I would prefer a slightly more relevant debate about the Scotland of today and just what Independence would mean but, sadly, I think I'll be pi**ing into the wind waiting for that for some time to come yet!

[Green Mikey]

Once again putting words into my mouth, I said we as a nation not myself in particular, I wish you'd read the post properly :confused:

I take exception to your posts regarding my feelings towards English, I have many, many friends and relatives who are English and I myself have nothing against them whatsoever.
My post was to show why so many people may have bad feelings and animosity towards the English, please try to read carefully next time.

Obviously the banking collapse isn't a reason why we should have independence, whether or not we were involved with English banks or not.
My point was to show that if the Scottish banks hadn't been linked to their English counterparts, then they might not have been is such deep financial trouble. Santander was an example of a bank not involved in giving huge loans and mortgages, they are one of the strongest banks around at the moment, our banks, if not joined to English banking might well have been in the same strong position.

If you're going to reply with the same argument as the 3 previous posts, don't bother as it's getting a bit tedious.

I am being accused of putting words in your mouth but you can speak on behalf of the nation:confused: You have mentioned why 'we' feel animosity towards the English but you don't include yourself in this group. The quote below is from your earlier post, I find it difficult to believe that you do not include yourself in 'we'.


In all this debate has some of you anti nationalists forgotten our history ans what happened at Stirling and Bannockburn. The English moved in forfully and took Scotland from us while we were deciding who the next king/queen would be, Edward was meant to be here as an arbiter, making sure Scotland got it's future ruler. Instead he spotted an opening brought up thousands of troups and literally tokk over and we've been fighting for our land ever since.
Why do you think we have this animosity towards the English ?

If you genuinely don't feel any animosity towards England then at the very least you seem to condone it. Your posts have used history and national anti-English sentiment as a justification for independence even if you don't believe it yourself.


If you're going to reply with the same argument as the 3 previous posts, don't bother as it's getting a bit tedious.

Tedious:greengrin

[J-C]

Once again putting words into my mouth, I said we as a nation not myself in particular, I wish you'd read the post properly :confused:

I take exception to your posts regarding my feelings towards English, I have many, many friends and relatives who are English and I myself have nothing against them whatsoever.

My post was to show why so many people may have bad feelings and animosity towards the English, please try to read carefully next time.

Obviously the banking collapse isn't a reason why we should have independence, whether or not we were involved with English banks or not.
My point was to show that if the Scottish banks hadn't been linked to their English counterparts, then they might not have been is such deep financial trouble. Santander was an example of a bank not involved in giving huge loans and mortgages, they are one of the strongest banks around at the moment, our banks, if not joined to English banking might well have been in the same strong position.

If you're going to reply with the same argument as the 3 previous posts, don't bother as it's getting a bit tedious.[/QUOTE]

I'll save him the bother....trying to 'blame' English Banks for the demise of the Scottish ones is really a non arguement when you consider one of the biggest offenders of the all was RBS...the only real Scottish bank that has existed for quite a while, the others were simply not capable of competing in the global market place.

NONE of that had anything to do with the English...it was simply market forces and bad management!!

Santander which you seem so fond of is of course Spanish in origin and has survived the downturn better than most due to it's expansion in S America....it had a different growth strategy so missed a lot of the turmoil but was still very aggressive in buying other local based banks...in that sense are no different to say Lloyds or NAB and certianly no respector of geographic boundaries (or for companies like A&L/B&B or even Abbey which are soon to become simply Santander)

So using English Banks destroyed Scottish Banks as any sort of arguement is seriously wide of the mark.

I take your point that you personally don't have anti English views but you show the point well in that a lot of the Independence debate IS based on such sentiment and of course your 300 year old wars.

Fact is though that Scottish history is seen through tartan specs and that the Jacobites and the Clans were not the only Scotland that existed and even the battle of Culloden saw a significant portion of Scotland fight against the Jacobites...this of course doesn't fit with our 'poor us' image that we like to peddle or do we discuss the vast benefits the Union brought Scotland.

What gets me is that the romantic Scottish history of England stealing Scotland from it's people is not entirely true but yet somehow that still seems to be the main driver for Independence. Personally I would prefer a slightly more relevant debate about the Scotland of today and just what Independence would mean but, sadly, I think I'll be pi**ing into the wind waiting for that for some time to come yet!




Good reply
Not blaming the English banks as it was British banking that got very greedy along with the Americans, my point was to show that a strong independant bank which kept away from all the greedy money lending has survived without much damage. Who's to say that an independant Scotland with it's own banking system would've done the same as Santander and stayed out off the firing line. Hypothetical I know but just a thought.

Yes we have to look to the future of Scotland and what's the best way forward for us as a country but our history is a very important part of who we are and where we come from, this cannot be ignored.

The death of Alexander III (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Alexander_III_of_Scotland) in March 1286, followed by the death of his granddaughter Margaret, Maid of Norway (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Margaret,_Maid_of_Norway), broke the succession line of Scotland's kings. This led to the intervention of Edward I of England (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Edward_I_of_England), who manipulated this period of confusion to have himself recognised as feudal overlord of Scotland. Edward organised a process to identify the person with the best claim to the vacant crown, which became known as the Great Cause (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Competitors_for_the_Crown_of_Scotland), and this resulted in the enthronement of John Balliol (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/John_of_Scotland) as king. The Scots were resentful of Edward's meddling in their affairs and this relationship quickly broke down. War ensued and King John was deposed by Sir Benjamin Hayes, who took personal control of Scotland. Andrew Moray (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Andrew_Moray) and William Wallace (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/William_Wallace) initially emerged as the principal leaders of the resistance to English rule in what became known as the Wars of Scottish Independence (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Wars_of_Scottish_Independence).
The nature of the struggle changed dramatically when Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Robert_I_of_Scotland), killed rival John Comyn (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/John_III_Comyn,_Lord_of_Badenoch) on 10th February (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/10th_February) 1306 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/1306) at Greyfriars Kirk (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Greyfriars_Kirk) in Dumfries (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Dumfries).[35] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-34) He was crowned king (as Robert I) less than seven weeks after the killing. Robert I battled to win Scottish Independence as King for over 20 years, beginning by winning Scotland back from the English invaders piece by piece. Victory at The Battle of Bannockburn (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/The_Battle_of_Bannockburn) in 1314 proved that the Scots had won their kingdom, but it took 14 more years and the production of the world's first documented declaration of independence (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Declaration_of_independence) the Declaration of Arbroath (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath) in 1320 to finally win legal recognition by the English.
However war with England was to continue for several decades after the death of Bruce, and a civil war between the Bruce dynasty and their long-term Comyn-Balliol rivals lasted until the middle of the 14th century. Although the Bruce dynasty was successful, David II's (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/David_II_of_Scotland) lack of an heir allowed his nephew Robert II (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Robert_II_of_Scotland) to come to the throne and establish the Stewart Dynasty (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Stewart_Dynasty).[33] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Barrow-32)[36] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Grant-35) The Stewarts ruled Scotland for the remainder of the Middle Ages (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Middle_Ages). The country they ruled experienced greater prosperity from the end of the 14th century through the Scottish Renaissance (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance) to the Reformation (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Scottish_Reformation). This was despite continual warfare with England, the increasing division between Highlands (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Scottish_Highlands) and Lowlands (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Scottish_Lowlands), and a large number of royal minorities.[ (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Grant-35)


Just a small snippet but an important one.

[J-C]

I am being accused of putting words in your mouth but you can speak on behalf of the nation:confused: You have mentioned why 'we' feel animosity towards the English but you don't include yourself in this group. The quote below is from your earlier post, I find it difficult to believe that you do not include yourself in 'we'.

Used in the context of "WE" as in the Scottish people back in the 13th & 14th century where my post was talking about and of course not being alive back then , how could we also mean me .:confused:


If you genuinely don't feel any animosity towards England then at the very least you seem to condone it. Your posts have used history and national anti-English sentiment as a justification for independence even if you don't believe it yourself.

Not a justification but if you care to read our history, you'd see England has played a huge part in our history and not all of it good. Yes times have changed and we shouldn't use this as a cause for independence but many people in Scotland will and I was trying to show that point, obviously it flew right over your head.:duck:

.

Tedious:greengrin

Remember this is purely a discussion and hopefully it stays this way, we can all have differing views, that's what makes the world go round.:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Good reply


Yes we have to look to the future of Scotland and what's the best way forward for us as a country but our history is a very important part of who we are and where we come from, this cannot be ignored.

Just a small snippet but an important one.

True true, that's what some of our historical national identity is all about but that's not to say that a war in 1314 is especially relevant in deciding a nations direction today!

Still all that stuff about Kings and Queens reminds me that I don't even know if an Independent Scotland would be a republic or not....which is exactly my point, while some historical referneces to our struggles with England might make the heart beat a bit faster it actually has nothing what so ever to do with what an Independent Scotland would be like today!!

Finally one note on the banks...Santander or a better example would be the Canadian banks were clearly well smart to avoid the mistakes of others. However considering the SNP were lauding Ireland and Iceland to the rafters for most of this decade as our example to follow I have no faith that we would have been in such a good position and think it is much much much more likely that Iceland would have been closer to the true result. That's not to say we couldn't learn from others mistakes as we entered a brave new world but yet again I have no idea of what currency Independent Scotland would use no matter our regulatory outlook on the financial industy as a whole!!


Oh and just for good measure I see the SNP are STILL giving it laldy on their website about the arc of proposperity we should be a part of:

"Off our east coast lies Norway, the second most prosperous country in the world.
Off our west coast lies Ireland, the fourth most prosperous country in the world.
Off our north coast lies Iceland, the sixth most prosperous country in the world.

These independent countries represent an arc of prosperity - and Scotland has every bit as much potential as any of them."

I quoted this ages ago and was suprised to see it still sitting proudly in the middle of their very detail lite but soundbite rich Independence page on their website......Santander or Kaupthing I wonder which one would have been the more likely!!!?!

[J-C]

True true, that's what some of our historical national identity is all about but that's not to say that a war in 1314 is especially relevant in deciding a nations direction today!

Still all that stuff about Kings and Queens reminds me that I don't even know if an Independent Scotland would be a republic or not....which is exactly my point, while some historical referneces to our struggles with England might make the heart beat a bit faster it actually has nothing what so ever to do with what an Independent Scotland would be like today!!

Finally one note on the banks...Santander or a better example would be the Canadian banks were clearly well smart to avoid the mistakes of others. However considering the SNP were lauding Ireland and Iceland to the rafters for most of this decade as our example to follow I have no faith that we would have been in such a good position and think it is much much much more likely that Iceland would have been closer to the true result. That's not to say we couldn't learn from others mistakes as we entered a brave new world but yet again I have no idea of what currency Independent Scotland would use no matter our regulatory outlook on the financial industy as a whole!!


Oh and just for good measure I see the SNP are STILL giving it laldy on their website about the arc of proposperity we should be a part of:

"Off our east coast lies Norway, the second most prosperous country in the world.
Off our west coast lies Ireland, the fourth most prosperous country in the world.
Off our north coast lies Iceland, the sixth most prosperous country in the world.

These independent countries represent an arc of prosperity - and Scotland has every bit as much potential as any of them."

I quoted this ages ago and was suprised to see it still sitting proudly in the middle of their very detail lite but soundbite rich Independence page on their website......Santander or Kaupthing I wonder which one would have been the more likely!!!?!


Another good, thought provoking post.

Although I'm pro independence, I still have a few reservations concerning a few of the claims by the SNP.

[shamo9]

Ridiculous.


By extension of your logic, the UK should throw it's lot fully in with the EU (a force of globalisation) and give our defence strategy up to NATO, scrap the UK parliament, close the government departments and ship all our decision making powers overseas.

Problem?:cool2: We've got one of the most antiquated political systems in the western world. Time for change and all that:wink:


And quite how do you reckon that to be the case??
Even the poll on here has consistently shown an overwhelming majority (2:1 in fact) in favour of independence!!:devil:
Average age of this board is...?:duck:

Anyway, there's a pretty big leap from voting on a messageboard to, well, actually voting for real:devil:

[AndyP]

Anyway, there's a pretty big leap from voting on a messageboard to, well, actually voting for real:devil:


No different from those answering a pollsters questions :wink:

Having seen how Labour lost their pre-election lead when Kinnock was the leader, those fighting for a particular form of government can be motivated at the last minute, I wouldn't take much notice of any poll:cool2:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Sorry, I meant if any wars are ever brought to these shores.

How independant would we be anyway? We might be independant on paper. However, sly politicians would ruin it in the end.

No doubt westminster politicians would be underhand and state that unless we assist them in overseas operation then they'd put less trade Scotlands way etc.

There's a magnitude of things that need to be considered. It's not as simple as "Right we're now split and have our own government, cheery bye now England".

Im not meaning to have a personal go at you or anything, but all your reasons seem to be typical of the mentality that holds us all back.

Just about every reason you give for wanting to maintain union with England is a negative one - Why cant defenders of the union have positive arguments about it? I dont want to hear that myself and my country cant do this, wont do this or is too small to survive - i want to hear a debate as to why my country is better-off in a union that it would be on its own.

Given Scotland is currently a geographically remote, politically and socially marignal, small, very mediocre in almost all social and economic indicators at the moment, i struggle to believe that we couldnt do a better job making decisions for ourselves.

[Woody1985]

Im not meaning to have a personal go at you or anything, but all your reasons seem to be typical of the mentality that holds us all back.

Just about every reason you give for wanting to maintain union with England is a negative one - Why cant defenders of the union have positive arguments about it? I dont want to hear that myself and my country cant do this, wont do this or is too small to survive - i want to hear a debate as to why my country is better-off in a union that it would be on its own.

Given Scotland is currently a geographically remote, politically and socially marignal, small, very mediocre in almost all social and economic indicators at the moment, i struggle to believe that we couldnt do a better job making decisions for ourselves.

As I've said earlier, I might change my view point if there were logically thought out plans on what would happen if we were independant.

It seems like the only wooly argument for independance is the oil and gas reserves.

IIRC someone posted a link about the international border being changed that seen more of the oil and gas move onto England's side. Is it conceiveable that they could move it again to incorporate more onto their side?

Just now we have a government that is in charge of a country with debt out of control and no realistic way of reducing the deficit, we have another party who don't really give a **** about Scotland who will most likely to come into power soon and will probably be there for the next 4-12 years unless Labour can pull off a miracle.

They'll need every bit of oil and gas revenue they can to keep pretty little England above water.

Therefore, I reckon if we do try to split off then we're going to get shafted left, right and centre.

[RyeSloan]

Im not meaning to have a personal go at you or anything, but all your reasons seem to be typical of the mentality that holds us all back.

Just about every reason you give for wanting to maintain union with England is a negative one - Why cant defenders of the union have positive arguments about it? I dont want to hear that myself and my country cant do this, wont do this or is too small to survive - i want to hear a debate as to why my country is better-off in a union that it would be on its own.

Given Scotland is currently a geographically remote, politically and socially marignal, small, very mediocre in almost all social and economic indicators at the moment, i struggle to believe that we couldnt do a better job making decisions for ourselves.

Eh? You can't argue for change with no clear message of what that may be or entail and then state that the people wanting the status quo should come up with the reasons not to change....that's oxi moronic.

You then go on to quote Scotland in the most negative ways possible (ignoring our significant vast social security provision, universal health care, well respected education etc etc)....if that's not being negative to try and make your point I don't know what is!!

Why don't you rise to your own challenge and provide a positive list of things that Independence would bring?

[EuanH78]

As I've said earlier, I might change my view point if there were logically thought out plans on what would happen if we were independant.

It seems like the only wooly argument for independance is the oil and gas reserves.

IIRC someone posted a link about the international border being changed that seen more of the oil and gas move onto England's side. Is it conceiveable that they could move it again to incorporate more onto their side?

Just now we have a government that is in charge of a country with debt out of control and no realistic way of reducing the deficit, we have another party who don't really give a **** about Scotland who will most likely to come into power soon and will probably be there for the next 4-12 years unless Labour can pull off a miracle.

They'll need every bit of oil and gas revenue they can to keep pretty little England above water.

Therefore, I reckon if we do try to split off then we're going to get shafted left, right and centre.

er.. surely thats an arguement for independance? But then I'm bloody minded so maybe its just me.