Can Independence be achieved without blood shed

[lucky]

Pub debate/argument

Can Scotland achieve independence without blood shed?

In my life time I can only think of Czechoslovakia that has been broken up to go independent.

So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?

The fear I have is that it becomes polarised like Northern Ireland around the one issue rather than policies of the parties.

Will the political parties accept the democratic decision of the people?

[Calvin]

Serbia and Montenegro broke up a few years ago.

Westminster would accept the will of the people with a majority in a referendum, but not just an SNP majority at Holyrood.

I can't see anywhere near a majority in favourite of independence in a referendum though.

[steakbake]

Pub debate/argument

Can Scotland achieve independence without blood shed?

In my life time I can only think of Czechoslovakia that has been broken up to go independent.

So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?

The fear I have is that it becomes polarised like Northern Ireland around the one issue rather than policies of the parties.

Will the political parties accept the democratic decision of the people?

Significant aspects which are totally missing from the Scottish independence question is a polarising ethnic, cultural or social dimension in the same way as were found in Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, the Basque Country etc.

Also, unlike the Basque Country, Kosovo, Ireland etc, there is no history of paramilitary forces at play - there is no credible armed wing which has a history of violence. The Scottish question is different.

I suggest you don´t lose any more sleep over it! :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Significant aspects which are totally missing from the Scottish independence question is a polarising ethnic, cultural or social dimension in the same way as were found in Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, the Basque Country etc.

Also, unlike the Basque Country, Kosovo, Ireland etc, there is no history of paramilitary forces at play - there is no credible armed wing which has a history of violence. The Scottish question is different.

I suggest you don´t lose any more sleep over it! :wink:

My concern is that our friends in the West will pick up on what they have learned from Northern Ireland and try to bring a sectarian aspect to independence. It's already a card that gets played in politics through there.

That said, surely the preservation of the Queen as head of state would be enough to placate the Loyalists. After all, their main concern is a Protestant monarchy, rather than an United Kingdon.

Or am I making the mistake of drifting into logical thinking.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Pub debate/argument

Can Scotland achieve independence without blood shed?

In my life time I can only think of Czechoslovakia that has been broken up to go independent.

So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?

The fear I have is that it becomes polarised like Northern Ireland around the one issue rather than policies of the parties.

Will the political parties accept the democratic decision of the people?

wee eck winning a majority doesn't mean independance though, so are you saying you think there could be a civil war just because the snp win an election:confused:

[Beefster]

Even if the SNP win a majority in the election, they'd lose spectacularly in an independence referendum. Not an issue.

[lucky]

BHF can you read the posts before trying to be smart. You are becoming very tedious with the blatant attempts to wind people up.

[Part/Time Supporter]

There's been no significant violence in Scotland since 1746. A stupid question that only arch-unionists raise as a scare tactic.

[bawheid]

a scare tactic.

:agree:

[Part/Time Supporter]

To give this question some credence it doesn't deserve, how would this "violence" manifest itself? Scotland (or Britain generally) isn't a society with widespread gun ownership. Even if people had the will to resist or support a constitutional change, how would they practically express that will?

[Petrie's Tache]

To give this question some credence it doesn't deserve, how would this "violence" manifest itself? Scotland (or Britain generally) isn't a society with widespread gun ownership. Even if people had the will to resist or support a constitutional change, how would they practically express that will?


They should just let the casuals fight it out!:tin hat:

[JeMeSouviens]

Slovenia and Macedonia left Yugoslavia with very little and no bloodshed, Croatia was a bit worse and Bosnia was obviously a total disaster.

The USSR broke up with only a few skirmishes in Lithuania, the first republic to attempt to leave. There has subsequently been significant fighting in parts of the Russian Federation (Chechnya) that have tried to leave Russia, but the ex-Soviet republics, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, the Baltic states etc. all achieved independence without blood shed.

In terms of independence from Britain, how about Australia, Canada, New Zealand, numerous former African colonies, etc. etc.

In reality, I have never heard any serious UK politician or commentator propose that the UK would attempt to deny Scots their right to self determination.

[khib70]

There's been no significant violence in Scotland since 1746. A stupid question that only arch-unionists raise as a scare tactic.
:agree::applause: having failed to produce a single policy that anyone would vote for, or a leader of any substance, the Labour party has fallen back on its seventies tactic of scaremongering about independence. Losers.:taxi

[lucky]

:agree::applause: having failed to produce a single policy that anyone would vote for, or a leader of any substance, the Labour party has fallen back on its seventies tactic of scaremongering about independence. Losers.:taxi

Where have the Labour party said any of this?

I ask the question can it be achieved without blood shed. Scotland's sectarian problems are getting worse so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that conflict could rise out of separation.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Where have the Labour party said any of this?

I ask the question can it be achieved without blood shed. Scotland's sectarian problems are getting worse so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that conflict could rise out of separation.

By what metric? I think you are also making the mistake of confusing and conflating the OF rivalry with the real, hurtful bigotry which existed in the period when Hibs and Celtc were founded and the 50 years or so after that. I also don't see any reason why that rivalry would be any better or worse in an independent Scotland.

Presumably any resistance to independence would come from Orange loyalists. Another flaw in the logic of this suggestion is that it is not as if Scottish nationalism is being driven by Catholic resistance to the Protestant state, as it has been in Ireland. In fact, Catholics in Scotland have disproportionately voted Labour in recent decades. An independent Scotland would almost certainly retain the Windsor monarchy. So what exactly would these loyalists be fighting for? It doesn't add up.

Where an independent Scotland would more likely have implications in terms of violence is Ireland. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is thrown in a very different light indeed if Britain itself is split into more than one state, particularly as Northern Ireland would then be physically surrounded by two independent states (Scotland and the Irish Republic), while presumably remaining part of a rump UK with England and Wales.

[ancienthibby]

Where have the Labour party said any of this?

I ask the question can it be achieved without blood shed. Scotland's sectarian problems are getting worse so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that conflict could rise out of separation.

Your OP and continuing posts just show how absolutely desperate, the supporters of the LPoWiS under the weegreychickencarcrash, have become.:greengrin

You should hang your head in shame and have a strong word with yourself!:agree:

Independence will be won or lost at the ballot box AND IN NO OTHER WAY!!

[lucky]

Hang my head in shame for asking the question. It appears wee ecks gang are getting rattled.
Yes independence will be lost at the ballot box as around 65% of Scots don't want it

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hang my head in shame for asking the question. It appears wee ecks gang are getting rattled.
Yes independence will be lost at the ballot box as around 65% of Scots don't want it

Matbe 4 years of fighting a Tory government at Westminster will change their minds.

[lucky]

Doubt that very much. Wee eck will have to have the bottle to bring a referendum first. It's just not happening. Most Scots know we are better of within the UK

[bighairyfaeleith]

BHF can you read the posts before trying to be smart. You are becoming very tedious with the blatant attempts to wind people up.

would you like to explain what it is I misread

you said

"So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?"

So, you are asking if the SNP get elected will this cause a civil war in scotland?

If so it's a ridiculous post, and frankly just desperate scaremongering, or did you mean something else?

[CropleyWasGod]

Doubt that very much. Wee eck will have to have the bottle to bring a referendum first. It's just not happening. Most Scots know we are better of within the UK

Where do you get that from? The Scottish Government's own statistics, as shown on the Election thread, would suggest that isn't the case.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Doubt that very much. Wee eck will have to have the bottle to bring a referendum first. It's just not happening. Most Scots know we are better of within the UK

I honestly don'y know what the percentage has been in polls.

As for bottle, El Presidente has that in spades compared to that coat hanger McConnel he replaced. I'm not going to slag Iain Gray, but I would say that Scottish Labour have yet to get to grips with what Scottish people want.

They seem to be lost in their fiefdoms in the West, and Fife IMO, and unable to grasp the bigger picture of what Scotland as a nation distinct from the UK needs.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Hang my head in shame for asking the question. It appears wee ecks gang are getting rattled.
Yes independence will be lost at the ballot box as around 65% of Scots don't want it

You must be rattled to post drivel like this.

[lucky]

You must be rattled to post drivel like this.

More crap again. I have asked a question yet it appears if you are not pro nat you get a slagging. Very boring.

[Beefster]

More crap again. I have asked a question yet it appears if you are not pro nat you get a slagging. Very boring.

This forum is almost as partisan now as it was before the last General Election so I sort of know how you feel. I couldn't post last year without someone posting "Aye but Thatcher destroyed......".

[bighairyfaeleith]

This forum is almost as partisan now as it was before the last General Election so I sort of know how you feel. I couldn't post last year without someone posting "Aye but Thatcher destroyed......".

aye but she did:greengrin

[hibsdaft]

lol at this thread. so transparent.

[Part/Time Supporter]

More crap again. I have asked a question yet it appears if you are not pro nat you get a slagging. Very boring.

I answered your "question" in three posts above.

You haven't offered any response to any of the reasoning why it wouldn't happen.

[heretoday]

We're not exactly marching in the streets demanding independence, are we?

I think we should be if we really cared about it.

I wouldn't like the thing to go through on a 30% referendum turnout or whatever.

For something as important as this voting should be compulsory like completing the Census form.

[hibsbollah]

Its an interesting question the OP raises. Shame its been drowned out by the usual dull bickering.

[RyeSloan]

Its an interesting question the OP raises. Shame its been drowned out by the usual dull bickering.

Is it? Has there been ANY indication that a positive vote in referendum for Independence would cause bloodshed (I assume he was meaning something more than the odd isolated street discussion that may get out of hand)?

Seems like a bizzare question to me...how much bloodshed did devolution cause?

[lucky]

Massive difference between separation and devolution. Less than 3 in 10 want separation. Will fundamentalist within the SNP allow wee eck to continue to blank them. Will unionist accept separation.

[RyeSloan]

Massive difference between separation and devolution. Less than 3 in 10 want separation. Will fundamentalist within the SNP allow wee eck to continue to blank them. Will unionist accept separation.

Are you seriously suggesting that Annabele Goldie would take to arms if Scotland voted for independence?

Or a SNP faction will turn into a Scottish version of the IRA to force independence if "wee eck" continues to lack the baws to clarify for a generation Scotlands feeling on independence....although this would never acheive the independence your OP talks about so is not really relevant.

To even suggest a vote for independence in a referendum would actaully cause a civil war in the UK is to my mind quite bizzare...are you envisaging unionist v SNP military faction battles across the country?

Of course separation is differnet from devolution but the principle is the same..ceding power from London to Edinburgh. The unionists were completely opposed to devolution yet the Tories have been one of the more active deal makers in the Scottish Parliament...i.e the accepted the decision of the YES YES vote and got on with it and not a kalishnikov in sight.

[hibsbollah]

Is it? Has there been ANY indication that a positive vote in referendum for Independence would cause bloodshed (I assume he was meaning something more than the odd isolated street discussion that may get out of hand)?

Seems like a bizzare question to me...how much bloodshed did devolution cause?

Its an interesting question why some countries have the ability to transfer power peaceably and some don't. Obviously a history of public elections and civil society helps, as does an absence of ethnic strife. How scottish independence fits into this wider picture of power transfer is worth discussing.

But at the moment it seems as if rational objective debate went out the window as the purdah veil came down. Nats v Labs is the only bunfight in town.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Pub debate/argument

Can Scotland achieve independence without blood shed?

In my life time I can only think of Czechoslovakia that has been broken up to go independent.

So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?

The fear I have is that it becomes polarised like Northern Ireland around the one issue rather than policies of the parties.

Will the political parties accept the democratic decision of the people?


An interesting question, if we were living in the 18th century!

Simple answer - yes.

Independence will, IMO, not just happen, but is instead a process, and one that IMO has already begun.

In 15 years we have gone from complete direct rule from London, to having our own parliament, and in the 10 years of having that parliament, the Unionist parties (not the Nationalists) have alredy started asking for, and are about to receive, more powers.

Even before Calman, Holyrood is responsible for around 70% ish of Scottish legislation - the principle that Scots are best to make their own decisions free from London influence has been conceded, and is now accepted by everyone.

Then, we have Calman, pushed for by the Unionist parties, conceding the principle of fiscal autonomy - if it is right for Scotland to collect and spend one-third of its tax, why not it all?

All of htis just ten years after the creation of an institution that was, according to one Labour grandee, designed to 'kill nationalism stone dead'.

I think we will see the gradual leaking of powers to Scotland over a period of years and probably decades, before some time in the future, a UK government will try to do something (another Iraq or somehting of that ilk) that is unpopular that we will eventually take control over our foreign policy as well (If the EU hasnt already done so, somehting i htink will probably happen).

Hisotry shows us that the UK is a country in terminal decline, and has been since the war - and we remain getting poorer and less powerful relative to our rivals - and just as the Union was the essential first-step in England building it's empire, so i think the disintegration of the UK is a logical end-point for its slow, inexorable decline.

As the PM of the UK stated fairly recently, 'Britain is broken' - why anyone would want to cling on to the crumbling edifice of a lagging great power like a scared teenager who cant quite bring himself to leave home to make his own life, is a mystery to me.

[RyeSloan]

Its an interesting question why some countries have the ability to transfer power peaceably and some don't. Obviously a history of public elections and civil society helps, as does an absence of ethnic strife. How scottish independence fits into this wider picture of power transfer is worth discussing.

But at the moment it seems as if rational objective debate went out the window as the purdah veil came down. Nats v Labs is the only bunfight in town.

Aye possibly but I really don't see Civil War on the horizon do you?

I agree with your last sentannce though! I was hoping for some reasonably summarised reasons for voting for either of them but after 20+ pages on the other thread I am none the wiser why anyone would support one party over the other in terms of policy or acheivement.

[One Day Soon]

An interesting question, if we were living in the 18th century!

Simple answer - yes.

Independence will, IMO, not just happen, but is instead a process, and one that IMO has already begun.

In 15 years we have gone from complete direct rule from London, to having our own parliament, and in the 10 years of having that parliament, the Unionist parties (not the Nationalists) have alredy started asking for, and are about to receive, more powers.

Even before Calman, Holyrood is responsible for around 70% ish of Scottish legislation - the principle that Scots are best to make their own decisions free from London influence has been conceded, and is now accepted by everyone.

Then, we have Calman, pushed for by the Unionist parties, conceding the principle of fiscal autonomy - if it is right for Scotland to collect and spend one-third of its tax, why not it all?

All of htis just ten years after the creation of an institution that was, according to one Labour grandee, designed to 'kill nationalism stone dead'.

I think we will see the gradual leaking of powers to Scotland over a period of years and probably decades, before some time in the future, a UK government will try to do something (another Iraq or somehting of that ilk) that is unpopular that we will eventually take control over our foreign policy as well (If the EU hasnt already done so, somehting i htink will probably happen).

Hisotry shows us that the UK is a country in terminal decline, and has been since the war - and we remain getting poorer and less powerful relative to our rivals - and just as the Union was the essential first-step in England building it's empire, so i think the disintegration of the UK is a logical end-point for its slow, inexorable decline.

As the PM of the UK stated fairly recently, 'Britain is broken' - why anyone would want to cling on to the crumbling edifice of a lagging great power like a scared teenager who cant quite bring himself to leave home to make his own life, is a mystery to me.

So that's what a Nat wet dream looks like.

[One Day Soon]

Aye possibly but I really don't see Civil War on the horizon do you?

I agree with your last sentannce though! I was hoping for some reasonably summarised reasons for voting for either of them but after 20+ pages on the other thread I am none the wiser why anyone would support one party over the other in terms of policy or acheivement.

That's because there is little policy difference. The real question is who do you think will be better at implementing the budget cuts?

[One Day Soon]

There will be no independence and therefore no bloodshed.

If there was independence there would still be no bloodshed. What are we going to shoot each other over, the right to be McPresident of McBrigadoon?

A Justin Bieber gig in downtown Perth is a bigger danger to public order.

[Bishop Hibee]

An interesting question, if we were living in the 18th century!

Simple answer - yes.

Independence will, IMO, not just happen, but is instead a process, and one that IMO has already begun.

In 15 years we have gone from complete direct rule from London, to having our own parliament, and in the 10 years of having that parliament, the Unionist parties (not the Nationalists) have alredy started asking for, and are about to receive, more powers.

Even before Calman, Holyrood is responsible for around 70% ish of Scottish legislation - the principle that Scots are best to make their own decisions free from London influence has been conceded, and is now accepted by everyone.

Then, we have Calman, pushed for by the Unionist parties, conceding the principle of fiscal autonomy - if it is right for Scotland to collect and spend one-third of its tax, why not it all?

All of htis just ten years after the creation of an institution that was, according to one Labour grandee, designed to 'kill nationalism stone dead'.

I think we will see the gradual leaking of powers to Scotland over a period of years and probably decades, before some time in the future, a UK government will try to do something (another Iraq or somehting of that ilk) that is unpopular that we will eventually take control over our foreign policy as well (If the EU hasnt already done so, somehting i htink will probably happen).

Hisotry shows us that the UK is a country in terminal decline, and has been since the war - and we remain getting poorer and less powerful relative to our rivals - and just as the Union was the essential first-step in England building it's empire, so i think the disintegration of the UK is a logical end-point for its slow, inexorable decline.

As the PM of the UK stated fairly recently, 'Britain is broken' - why anyone would want to cling on to the crumbling edifice of a lagging great power like a scared teenager who cant quite bring himself to leave home to make his own life, is a mystery to me.

A credible post. It will take a long time, maybe up to 50 years, but independence is the inevitable outcome of the slow transfer of power from Westminster to Holyrood.

I don't think there is any chance of violence to achieve independence unless the rest of the UK tried to enforce the union on a Scottish nation who had voted for independence. More likely the English, many of whom see themselves as English first and British second, would be happy to see us go.

[One Day Soon]

A credible post. It will take a long time, maybe up to 50 years, but independence is the inevitable outcome of the slow transfer of power from Westminster to Holyrood.

I don't think there is any chance of violence to achieve independence unless the rest of the UK tried to enforce the union on a Scottish nation who had voted for independence. More likely the English, many of whom see themselves as English first and British second, would be happy to see us go.

Not really. It doesn't coherently define independence.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not really. It doesn't coherently define independence.

Why should it?

[bighairyfaeleith]

So that's what a Nat wet dream looks like.

Honestly, give it up.

[RyeSloan]

That's because there is little policy difference. The real question is who do you think will be better at implementing the budget cuts?

That was my initial thoughts but the gusto of exchanges made me think there must be significant differences. Thanks for clarifying.

As for who I trust to implement cuts....urmm neither Labour not SNP I would say.

Labour have spent the last while pretending the UK deficit is not that bad and trying to pretend there isn't really an issue to worry about.

The SNP delayed reduced spending last year to make it to this election, only to store up bigger pain for after.

Neither of their manifesto's have anything like a serious commitment to reduce central government in terms of size nor scope..sounds like we saying they are two sides of the same coin? :devil:

[Part/Time Supporter]

That was my initial thoughts but the gusto of exchanges made me think there must be significant differences. Thanks for clarifying.

As for who I trust to implement cuts....urmm neither Labour not SNP I would say.

Labour have spent the last while pretending the UK deficit is not that bad and trying to pretend there isn't really an issue to worry about.

The SNP delayed reduced spending last year to make it to this election, only to store up bigger pain for after.

Neither of their manifesto's have anything like a serious commitment to reduce central government in terms of size nor scope..sounds like we saying they are two sides of the same coin? :devil:

The reason the SNP / Labour battle is hostile is because there isn't really that much between them other than the obvious.

An interesting parallel is the situation in Canada where the Quebecois parties have mostly controlled the provincial level (and nearly won a referendum on secession in 1995) and have sent a lot of MPs to Ottawa. In the federal election yesterday, however, the Bloc Quebecois were almost wiped out as most Quebecers switched to a left-wing federal party (New Democrats) on the promise that they would be able to challenge the Canadian Tories as a possible party of government (the Tories having won the previous two elections but in a minority overall).

Only problem was that the Tories pretty much cleaned up in English-speaking Canada and have won an overall majority. The bulk of the opposition MPs will now come from Quebec, mostly in the NDP rather than the nationalist group. So now the Quebecers will have the dilemma of whether to keep backing the NDP in the hope they can beat the Tories elsewhere in Canada, or go back to the nationalist route.

[Dashing Bob S]

Bloodshed, yes, boredom, no, sadly.

[One Day Soon]

Honestly, give it up.

Away back to your Christian Nade chants.

[CropleyWasGod]

So that's what a Nat wet dream looks like.

No need.

As one who is a radical cynic, with no particular political axe to grind, I find that scenario pretty rational and, indeed, likely.

Scotland, a nation of only 5m people, is probably the most over-governed country in the developed world. By the time my kids' generation is in positions of influence, they will be asking the question "just exactly what is Westminster for?". It's organic, and almost unavoidable.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Away back to your Christian Nade chants.

oh the wit, how you must have been the darling of your debating team:greengrin

[The Harp Awakes]

Massive difference between separation and devolution. Less than 3 in 10 want separation. Will fundamentalist within the SNP allow wee eck to continue to blank them. Will unionist accept separation.

You are wrong to take too much satisfaction from the stats you quote on independence. Statistics can be used to paint any picture you want and politicians are the main offenders.

A December 2010 face-to-face poll by TNS-BMRB, showed 40% supporting independence, 44% opposing, and 16% unsure. On the basis of that poll, which is considered to be one of the most reliable recent assessments of voting intentions, it can be said that only 4 out of 10 people want to stay in the Union.

I think all you can take from recent opinion polls on independence is that there is a small % of people in Scotland who favour staying in the Union over independence and a significant % of people undecided.

If the SNP do get returned on Thursday and an independence referendum is held 4years down the line, I certainly wouldn't hang my hat on a 'No' vote in a referendum, particularly if the SNP have enjoyed another period of effective governance.

[The Baldmans Comb]

An interesting question, if we were living in the 18th century!

Simple answer - yes.

Independence will, IMO, not just happen, but is instead a process, and one that IMO has already begun.

In 15 years we have gone from complete direct rule from London, to having our own parliament, and in the 10 years of having that parliament, the Unionist parties (not the Nationalists) have alredy started asking for, and are about to receive, more powers.

Even before Calman, Holyrood is responsible for around 70% ish of Scottish legislation - the principle that Scots are best to make their own decisions free from London influence has been conceded, and is now accepted by everyone.

Then, we have Calman, pushed for by the Unionist parties, conceding the principle of fiscal autonomy - if it is right for Scotland to collect and spend one-third of its tax, why not it all?

All of htis just ten years after the creation of an institution that was, according to one Labour grandee, designed to 'kill nationalism stone dead'.

I think we will see the gradual leaking of powers to Scotland over a period of years and probably decades, before some time in the future, a UK government will try to do something (another Iraq or somehting of that ilk) that is unpopular that we will eventually take control over our foreign policy as well (If the EU hasnt already done so, somehting i htink will probably happen).

Hisotry shows us that the UK is a country in terminal decline, and has been since the war - and we remain getting poorer and less powerful relative to our rivals - and just as the Union was the essential first-step in England building it's empire, so i think the disintegration of the UK is a logical end-point for its slow, inexorable decline.

As the PM of the UK stated fairly recently, 'Britain is broken' - why anyone would want to cling on to the crumbling edifice of a lagging great power like a scared teenager who cant quite bring himself to leave home to make his own life, is a mystery to me.

That was a very perceptive post and summed up my thoughts entirely.:thumbsup:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

There will be no independence and therefore no bloodshed.

If there was independence there would still be no bloodshed. What are we going to shoot each other over, the right to be McPresident of McBrigadoon?
A Justin Bieber gig in downtown Perth is a bigger danger to public order.

Typical response. Negative, insulting, doing down our people and our nation. Why not make a positive case for your preferred option?

Posts like that only reaffirm my belief that nationalism is becoming generally synonomous with optimism and ambition - but of course we aren't allowed to have ambition, we are Scots, too small, too stupid and too poor.

best just to let other people decide our futures. Honestly, i wonder how people like you even got up the guts to leave home and make a life for yourself, what if you had failed??

[J-C]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707




I think many on here should read this and get a better understanding as to why Independence is the way forward, the higherarchy in Scotland at that time where purely driven by personal gain, hence they voted for the Union, we as the minions in Scotland had no say in the matter whatsoever. James VI took over in England due to a distant relationship to the late Elizabeth 1, the Union was money driven and aided Scotland at that time, this may not be the case now though.

[RyeSloan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707




I think many on here should read this and get a better understanding as to why Independence is the way forward, the higherarchy in Scotland at that time where purely driven by personal gain, hence they voted for the Union, we as the minions in Scotland had no say in the matter whatsoever. James VI took over in England due to a distant relationship to the late Elizabeth 1, the Union was money driven and aided Scotland at that time, this may not be the case now though.

You've lost me...why would a union that was clearly beneficial to Scotland give me a better understanding at to why Independence is the way forward?

[One Day Soon]

You've lost me...why would a union that was clearly beneficial to Scotland give me a better understanding at to why Independence is the way forward?

You quisling unionist questioning turncoat. Why are you "doing down our people and our nation"?

[J-C]

You've lost me...why would a union that was clearly beneficial to Scotland give me a better understanding at to why Independence is the way forward?

We were an independant country but then(300yrs ago) the big wigs of Scotland got into financial problems, hence the Union. This is now and Scotland is in a hellova lot stronger position than then, we are part of a greater union, the union of Europe, the EEC. Our country was never taken over persay, it was joined in a union with England and Wales for financial gain after Scotland attempted to be a more world wide trading countryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme.


Personal financial interests were also allegedly involved. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 15, the Equivalent granted £ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling)398,085 10s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilling) sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Darien Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_Scheme).
Even more direct bribery was also said to be a factor.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#cite_note-20) £20,000 (£240,000 Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Scots)) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Glasgow). James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas,_2nd_Duke_of_Queensberry), the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Commissioner_in_Parliament), received £12,325, the majority of the funding. (Some contend that all of this money was properly accounted for as compensation for loss of office, pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government. It is perhaps a debate that will never be set to rest. However, modern research has shown that payments were made to supporters of union that appear not to have been overdue salaries. At least four payments were made to people who were not even members of the Scottish Parliament.) Robert Burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burns) referred to this:
We were bought and sold for English Gold, Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation. Some of the money was used to hire spies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage), such as Daniel Defoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Defoe); his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against". Years later John Clerk of Penicuik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clerk_of_Penicuik), originally a leading Unionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_(Scotland)), wrote in his memoirs that,
(Defoe) was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would pull him to pieces. Defoe recalls that he was hired by Robert Harley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Harley,_1st_Earl_of_Oxford_and_Mortimer).
The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lockhart), the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that `The whole nation appears against the Union' and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clerk_of_Penicuik), an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was `contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom'. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition) from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Convention_of_Royal_Burghs&action=edit&redlink=1) also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carillon) in St Giles Cathedral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Giles_Cathedral), Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#cite_note-21) There were also massive protests in Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh) and several other Scottish burghs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgh) on the day it was passed by Parliament,[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law).

[--------]

A credible post. It will take a long time, maybe up to 50 years, but independence is the inevitable outcome of the slow transfer of power from Westminster to Holyrood.

I don't think there is any chance of violence to achieve independence unless the rest of the UK tried to enforce the union on a Scottish nation who had voted for independence. More likely the English, many of whom see themselves as English first and British second, would be happy to see us go.


:agree:

That makes complete sense to me. I don't expect to live to see it, but I'm convinced that within the lifetime of my son, the United Kingdom will cease to exist.

The unionist position seems to be reducing down to two main arguments - we're Scots, and incompetent, so we mustn't cast off from Big Brother down south, and if the nasty Nats get their way, we'll all be blown up or shot in the ensuing civil war. This is scaremongering, nothing less.

I get very tired of unionists of whatever colour - Tory, Labour, Liberal or whatever - constantly talking down and rubbishing their own people and their own country. Over the centuries, Scotland (for a very small nation) has produced a remarkable number of great man and women who have contributed hugely to the world we live in (and take for granted) today. I drove down to Monklands Hospital today for an ultrasound. I drove on a tarmac road - thank you Mt MacAdam, a Scot. My car has pneumatic tyres - thank you Mr Dunlop, a Scot. The screens and viewers the technician was using were developed over years through television technology - thank you Mr Logie Baird, a Scot. If I had needed an operation, I could thank Dr Simpson for the anaesthetic, and Dr Lister for the antiseptic procedures employed - both Scots.

I could go on and on listing the contributions Scots have made to the world we live in.

Keep telling people they're incompetent and they'll eventually believe you. That's what Scottish Unionists of all colours have been doing (and getting away with it) for far too long. Even the sectarian issue that plagues us relates to the Union - one side should be Scottish, but in rejecting Britishness sees its identity as essentially Irish, and the other should be Scottish, but sees its identity as essentially defined by being subject to the British Crown. Neither are comfortable with just being Scots, because being a Scot means being part of something perceived as being second-class and incompetent.

Scotland never had a problem with incomers (except with English invaders) until the beginning of the 19th century, 100 years after the Union. Until we become our own nation with our own identity we will continue to be at odds with one another and at odds in our own selves. We're part of a Union which is part of another Union - we have the European Parliament, Westminster, and Holyrood all governing us. Take out the middle man, and IMO we'd be a lot better governed, and a lot more happy.

[JimBHibees]

:agree:

That makes complete sense to me. I don't expect to live to see it, but I'm convinced that within the lifetime of my son, the United Kingdom will cease to exist.

The unionist position seems to be reducing down to two main arguments - we're Scots, and incompetent, so we mustn't cast off from Big Brother down south, and if the nasty Nats get their way, we'll all be blown up or shot in the ensuing civil war. This is scaremongering, nothing less.

I get very tired of unionists of whatever colour - Tory, Labour, Liberal or whatever - constantly talking down and rubbishing their own people and their own country. Over the centuries, Scotland (for a very small nation) has produced a remarkable number of great man and women who have contributed hugely to the world we live in (and take for granted) today. I drove down to Monklands Hospital today for an ultrasound. I drove on a tarmac road - thank you Mt MacAdam, a Scot. My car has pneumatic tyres - thank you Mr Dunlop, a Scot. The screens and viewers the technician was using were developed over years through television technology - thank you Mr Logie Baird, a Scot. If I had needed an operation, I could thank Dr Simpson for the anaesthetic, and Dr Lister for the antiseptic procedures employed - both Scots.

I could go on and on listing the contributions Scots have made to the world we live in.

Keep telling people they're incompetent and they'll eventually believe you. That's what Scottish Unionists of all colours have been doing (and getting away with it) for far too long. Even the sectarian issue that plagues us relates to the Union - one side should be Scottish, but in rejecting Britishness sees its identity as essentially Irish, and the other should be Scottish, but sees its identity as essentially defined by being subject to the British Crown. Neither are comfortable with just being Scots, because being a Scot means being part of something perceived as being second-class and incompetent.

Scotland never had a problem with incomers (except with English invaders) until the beginning of the 19th century, 100 years after the Union. Until we become our own nation with our own identity we will continue to be at odds with one another and at odds in our own selves. We're part of a Union which is part of another Union - we have the European Parliament, Westminster, and Holyrood all governing us. Take out the middle man, and IMO we'd be a lot better governed, and a lot more happy.

Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[One Day Soon]

:agree:

That makes complete sense to me. I don't expect to live to see it, but I'm convinced that within the lifetime of my son, the United Kingdom will cease to exist.

The unionist position seems to be reducing down to two main arguments - we're Scots, and incompetent, so we mustn't cast off from Big Brother down south, and if the nasty Nats get their way, we'll all be blown up or shot in the ensuing civil war. This is scaremongering, nothing less.

I get very tired of unionists of whatever colour - Tory, Labour, Liberal or whatever - constantly talking down and rubbishing their own people and their own country. Over the centuries, Scotland (for a very small nation) has produced a remarkable number of great man and women who have contributed hugely to the world we live in (and take for granted) today. I drove down to Monklands Hospital today for an ultrasound. I drove on a tarmac road - thank you Mt MacAdam, a Scot. My car has pneumatic tyres - thank you Mr Dunlop, a Scot. The screens and viewers the technician was using were developed over years through television technology - thank you Mr Logie Baird, a Scot. If I had needed an operation, I could thank Dr Simpson for the anaesthetic, and Dr Lister for the antiseptic procedures employed - both Scots.

I could go on and on listing the contributions Scots have made to the world we live in.

Keep telling people they're incompetent and they'll eventually believe you. That's what Scottish Unionists of all colours have been doing (and getting away with it) for far too long. Even the sectarian issue that plagues us relates to the Union - one side should be Scottish, but in rejecting Britishness sees its identity as essentially Irish, and the other should be Scottish, but sees its identity as essentially defined by being subject to the British Crown. Neither are comfortable with just being Scots, because being a Scot means being part of something perceived as being second-class and incompetent.

Scotland never had a problem with incomers (except with English invaders) until the beginning of the 19th century, 100 years after the Union. Until we become our own nation with our own identity we will continue to be at odds with one another and at odds in our own selves. We're part of a Union which is part of another Union - we have the European Parliament, Westminster, and Holyrood all governing us. Take out the middle man, and IMO we'd be a lot better governed, and a lot more happy.

Well, that's an impressively inaccurate re-writing of history. And it follows the Nat songbook nicely. Essentially you can only be a true patriotic Scot if you are pro-independence.

A 'keep telling people they're not real Scots if they're pro union and they'll eventually believe you' approach.

Thankfully homogeneous Scottishness isn't defined centrally by someone or some people sitting look at the issue through tartan specs.

I can be Scottish and European but not Scottish and British - is that it? One union is alright but the other isn't?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well, that's an impressively inaccurate re-writing of history. And it follows the Nat songbook nicely. Essentially you can only be a true patriotic Scot if you are pro-independence.

A 'keep telling people they're not real Scots if they're pro union and they'll eventually believe you' approach.

Thankfully homogeneous Scottishness isn't defined centrally by someone or some people sitting look at the issue through tartan specs.

I can be Scottish and European but not Scottish and British - is that it? One union is alright but the other isn't?

Out of curiosity, do you think you can be A patriotic Scot and believe in the Union?

Im not trying to be smart, im just curious because it does seem to me to be a massive contradiction. Can a Lancastrian be a Lancashire patriot, or a Yorkshireman be a Yorkshire patriot?

Make no mistake, the Union was supposed to do Scotland (North Britain) what abosorbtion into England has done to them - make them regions - yes they may have dialects, identities and traditions - but they are regions of England/Britain.

I dont see how you can be patriotic about your country (Scotland) and yet not want it to be a country? That position genuinely puzzles me.

Again i would ask you to put forward a positive case for why continuing the Union into the future is the best thing for Scotland and its inhabitants?

Im not rabidly anti-Union, i think it is impossible to deny that we have had huge benefits from it, especially as we had access to the greatest empire the world has ever known. But we dont anymore. We are now a peripheral region, still suffering from post-industrial collapse and joined on to a country that has been in decline in almost every sense for the past 70 years.

We dont control our own finances, our own resources, and we still have to reply on handouts and have no incentive for growing our economy because we dont see the tax reciepts. Surely that is not a satisfactory situation for anyone who has aspiration and ambition?

Britain is broken, so why would we want to stay as part of it, except out of either a misguided belief in our own racial inferiority, nostalgia for Great Britain ruling the waves and taking us along for the ride, or a deep-felt Brittish patriotism?

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't class myself as a Nationalist, nor a Unionist for that matter, but I'm pretty much in agreement with Southside and Doddie's posts, which seem sensible to me. As has been said, I think the process of the disintegration of the Union is a secular one. Britain was founded to promote industry and empire, and made some kind of sense in that context. It has been sustained by the esprit de corps generated by two World Wars, but there's little left to maintain this and their seems no point anymore.

I think Scots have become second class citizens in a UK which is dominated by an England and which sees us as an irrelevance. (Quiet rightly in my opinion, as in the context of the UK, we pretty much are.) Most English friends I know say 'you've got you're own parliament, why don't you stop moaning, and just bugger off and do your own thing.'

The shameful answer to this, for all our 'proud warrior' rhetoric, is that we simply haven't got the bottle. We are a rather timid, ultra-cautious people, many off whom, as Doddie says, so scared of facing up to who they are, they play distracting sectarian games and pretend to be Irish or English.

But what we have done, rather cleverly, I suppose, is to set up an institution which can take more and more power as our baby steps become more confident. That might take some time though. At present the biggest threat to the Union is likely to come, not from timid Scots, but from (justifiably) bored and exasperated English people telling us to get lost, grow the *uck up and stand on our own two feet.

So, as I said earlier, bloodshed no, boredom yes, as we inch in our scared, grudging and rather pathetic manner to this probably inexorable goal.

I don't think this is a nationalist wet dream, nor a unionist one, but I do think it should be source of considerable shame and embarrassment for all Scots. I'd rather we either stayed in the Union as dynamic, confident and enthusiastic partners, or reclaimed our nationhood with pride, assertiveness and self-assurance.

Ain't gonna happen though, and we're stuck with the process we're in. A lot of lawyers and politicians will make decent careers on the way. The good thing about it is, probably nobody will get hurt.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Well, that's an impressively inaccurate re-writing of history. And it follows the Nat songbook nicely. Essentially you can only be a true patriotic Scot if you are pro-independence.

A 'keep telling people they're not real Scots if they're pro union and they'll eventually believe you' approach.

Thankfully homogeneous Scottishness isn't defined centrally by someone or some people sitting look at the issue through tartan specs.

I can be Scottish and European but not Scottish and British - is that it? One union is alright but the other isn't?

At no point does doddie say any of the things you have just said!

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't class myself as a Nationalist, nor a Unionist for that matter, but I'm pretty much in agreement with Southside and Doddie's posts, which seem sensible to me. As has been said, I think the process of the disintegration of the Union is a secular one. Britain was founded to promote industry and empire, and made some kind of sense in that context. It has been sustained by the esprit de corps generated by two World Wars, but there's little left to maintain this and their seems no point anymore.

I think Scots have become second class citizens in a UK which is dominated by an England and which sees us as an irrelevance. (Quiet rightly in my opinion, as in the context of the UK, we pretty much are.) Most English friends I know say 'you've got you're own parliament, why don't you stop moaning, and just bugger off and do your own thing.'

The shameful answer to this, for all our 'proud warrior' rhetoric, is that we simply haven't got the bottle. We are a rather timid, ultra-cautious people, many off whom, as Doddie says, so scared of facing up to who they are, they play distracting sectarian games and pretend to be Irish or English.

But what we have done, rather cleverly, I suppose, is to set up an institution which can take more and more power as our baby steps become more confident. That might take some time though. At present the biggest threat to the Union is likely to come, not from timid Scots, but from (justifiably) bored and exasperated English people telling us to get lost, grow the *uck up and stand on our own two feet.

So, as I said earlier, bloodshed no, boredom yes, as we inch in our scared, grudging and rather pathetic manner to this probably inexorable goal.

I don't think this is a nationalist wet dream, nor a unionist one, but I do think it should be source of considerable shame and embarrassment for all Scots. I'd rather we either stayed in the Union as dynamic, confident and enthusiastic partners, or reclaimed our nationhood with pride, assertiveness and self-assurance.

Ain't gonna happen though, and we're stuck with the process we're in. A lot of lawyers and politicians will make decent careers on the way. The good thing about it is, probably nobody will get hurt.

:troll:

Thought I'd get it in before anybody else. With timing like that, let me confidently predict glory for Hearts in next years Europa Cup Final.

I'm seriously proud to be Scottish right now.

[Hiber-nation]

Time for Eck to get the ball rolling, the SNP are on the biggest high they might ever reach so surely he can't delay the referendum for much longer.

[One Day Soon]

Time for Eck to get the ball rolling, the SNP are on the biggest high they might ever reach so surely he can't delay the referendum for much longer.

Here, here.

Labour delivered the Scottish Parliament referendum within a year of winning the 1997 election. Elected May 1997, Referendum held September 1997. Absolutely no reason why Salmond could not do the same.

[J-C]

Here, here.

Labour delivered the Scottish Parliament referendum within a year of winning the 1997 election. Elected May 1997, Referendum held September 1997. Absolutely no reason why Salmond could not do the same.


As much as I'd love Mr Salmond to have a referendum right away, lets not all jump the gun here. SNP strolled to victory yes but was this due to the electorate deciding it's time for independance of was it 2 fingers to Lib Dems and Labour. What's needed now is discussion re independance, let the SNP have a strong 2nd term and show the Scottish people what can be achieved. Our powers at Holyrood are limited and this should be our first matter on the agenda, get London to allow Scotland to keep all monies taken so as to fully budget with what's properly due to us.We give more in taxation than what we receive back from central government and this has to change.

[One Day Soon]

As much as I'd love Mr Salmond to have a referendum right away, lets not all jump the gun here. SNP strolled to victory yes but was this due to the electorate deciding it's time for independance of was it 2 fingers to Lib Dems and Labour. What's needed now is discussion re independance, let the SNP have a strong 2nd term and show the Scottish people what can be achieved. Our powers at Holyrood are limited and this should be our first matter on the agenda, get London to allow Scotland to keep all monies taken so as to fully budget with what's properly due to us.We give more in taxation than what we receive back from central government and this has to change.

What? You mean the Scottish people can't be trusted to decide what they think until they've been massaged for a few years?

"was this due to the electorate deciding it's time for independance of was it 2 fingers to Lib Dems and Labour." Why not just have the guts to ask them which it was by giving them a referendum?

A wee fly in the ointment - we do not give more in taxation than we receive back from central government.

[CropleyWasGod]

What? You mean the Scottish people can't be trusted to decide what they think until they've been massaged for a few years?

"was this due to the electorate deciding it's time for independance of was it 2 fingers to Lib Dems and Labour." Why not just have the guts to ask them which it was by giving them a referendum?

A wee fly in the ointment - we do not give more in taxation than we receive back from central government.

Had this discussion.....http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/10

[One Day Soon]

Had this discussion.....http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/06/22160331/10

I know, I know. And it wasn't settled so I'm just counter asserting the assertion.

[Sir David Gray]

Time for Eck to get the ball rolling, the SNP are on the biggest high they might ever reach so surely he can't delay the referendum for much longer.

The SNP's results last night were brilliant for them, there is no getting away from that.

However, a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence, even although that is their main policy.

If the referendum was held next week, I think Salmond would get a shock. I could see it being around 65% rejecting independence.

He might want to take a couple of years to put forward his case for independence spending that time trying to persuade the people of Scotland that it would be in our interests to split from the UK before holding the referendum.

Unlike last time, he knows for certain this time that a Bill would be passed in Holyrood so I don't suppose there's any rush.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What? You mean the Scottish people can't be trusted to decide what they think until they've been massaged for a few years?

"was this due to the electorate deciding it's time for independance of was it 2 fingers to Lib Dems and Labour." Why not just have the guts to ask them which it was by giving them a referendum?

A wee fly in the ointment - we do not give more in taxation than we receive back from central government.

Sorry thats just not good enough ODS, Facts please and back them up with evidence at all times:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Sorry thats just not good enough ODS, Facts please and back them up with evidence at all times:greengrin

Go here http://www.reformscotland.com/include/events/15246888049f0737b061f9.ppt for one example of a net deficit of around £3bn in 2006/07. Happy?

[J-C]

Go here http://www.reformscotland.com/include/events/15246888049f0737b061f9.ppt for one example of a net deficit of around £3bn in 2006/07. Happy?


Erm data from 2006-07..................4-5 yrs ago, do you not have recent numbers.

http://www.snp.org/node/13969

[hibee62]

A credible post. It will take a long time, maybe up to 50 years, but independence is the inevitable outcome of the slow transfer of power from Westminster to Holyrood.

I don't think there is any chance of violence to achieve independence unless the rest of the UK tried to enforce the union on a Scottish nation who had voted for independence. More likely the English, many of whom see themselves as English first and British second, would be happy to see us go.

Really? I, being a student at the University of Edinburgh, have lots of English friends. During the almost universal shock that the SNP had won a majority, we discussed this very issue. Everyone who was there declared themselves British, not English or Scottish. And every Scot stated that if independence was cast upon us we would want to be known as British and definitely not Scottish!

[One Day Soon]

Erm data from 2006-07..................4-5 yrs ago, do you not have recent numbers.

http://www.snp.org/node/13969

Your figures are from just one year later than those I referenced and are themselves three years old. The key point in these and all other figures is that without oil revenue Scotland has a net deficit of around £5 billion. With oil it just about breaks even.

You can add in 80% or so of oil revenue to try and create balance or a surplus but there are two problems with that. One is that the question of the percentage due to different parts of the UK is highly debatable and the other is that you are essentially leaving Scottish public services at the mercy of oil. An asset that is in decline and for which prices are notoriously unstable.

A sensible approach would be to look at figures over a twenty to thirty year sweep to get a better average assessment. I think that has been done but I have no idea where it is.

[J-C]

Your figures are from just one year later than those I referenced and are themselves three years old. The key point in these and all other figures is that without oil revenue Scotland has a net deficit of around £5 billion. With oil it just about breaks even.

You can add in 80% or so of oil revenue to try and create balance or a surplus but there are two problems with that. One is that the question of the percentage due to different parts of the UK is highly debatable and the other is that you are essentially leaving Scottish public services at the mercy of oil. An asset that is in decline and for which prices are notoriously unstable.

A sensible approach would be to look at figures over a twenty to thirty year sweep to get a better average assessment. I think that has been done but I have no idea where it is.



With these figures based on oil prices of only $65 it is abundantly clear that with current prices of over $120 a barrel – meaning an offshore windfall of £4-5 billion this year on top of the £10 billion forecast at the time of the Budget – Scotland’s black gold is plugging the Treasury’s black hole.


There lies the problem, the use of our oil to help the rest of Britain out with their monitory problems. Mrs T used the massive revenue from Scottish oil to pay of massive debt rn up by previous Labour Governments, Scotland ( apart from the NE ) saw very little of the monies from this wealth. Wells are now being drilled off the west coast, where there seems to be very large quantities of oil, are we going to be allowed to get the benefits from this load of oil or is the Treasury and England going to get the majority of it again.

[ancienthibby]

Your figures are from just one year later than those I referenced and are themselves three years old. The key point in these and all other figures is that without oil revenue Scotland has a net deficit of around £5 billion. With oil it just about breaks even.

You can add in 80% or so of oil revenue to try and create balance or a surplus but there are two problems with that. One is that the question of the percentage due to different parts of the UK is highly debatable and the other is that you are essentially leaving Scottish public services at the mercy of oil. An asset that is in decline and for which prices are notoriously unstable.

A sensible approach would be to look at figures over a twenty to thirty year sweep to get a better average assessment. I think that has been done but I have no idea where it is.

Oh no its not!!

This matter was settled by the International Courts of Justice in the Netherlands (that may not quite be the right name!) but that ruling was completely *******ised by the corrupt Liebor Government in Westminster just prior to the advent of devolution in 1997!!:agree:

[Hainan Hibs]

Your figures are from just one year later than those I referenced and are themselves three years old. The key point in these and all other figures is that without oil revenue Scotland has a net deficit of around £5 billion. With oil it just about breaks even.


So, by having the audacity to include all our revenue, we "just about break even". Obviously, going a tad mental by including everything we produce.

Maybe we could analyse the English economy without London city?

And while we are on the subject, what sort of surplus has the UK been producing in the past few years?

[CropleyWasGod]

Your figures are from just one year later than those I referenced and are themselves three years old. The key point in these and all other figures is that without oil revenue Scotland has a net deficit of around £5 billion. With oil it just about breaks even.

You can add in 80% or so of oil revenue to try and create balance or a surplus but there are two problems with that. One is that the question of the percentage due to different parts of the UK is highly debatable and the other is that you are essentially leaving Scottish public services at the mercy of oil. An asset that is in decline and for which prices are notoriously unstable.

A sensible approach would be to look at figures over a twenty to thirty year sweep to get a better average assessment. I think that has been done but I have no idea where it is.

To be fair, the current Scottish Government (and, I would assume other parties would do this too) is looking beyond oil and trying to exploit Scotland's enormous potential for the generation of alternative energy sources. For example, the recent development of Europe's largest offshore energy plant. It's not just in the production of energy that we have that potential, and the ability to sell excess energy on to others, but also in the export of the technology.... a market which Denmark led the world in until recently, and which (for their own internal political reasons) they seem to have moved out of.

SNP leaders maybe used the phrase "It's Scotland's Oil" in the past, but they have moved on, as they should.

It is oors though :wink:

[One Day Soon]

With these figures based on oil prices of only $65 it is abundantly clear that with current prices of over $120 a barrel – meaning an offshore windfall of £4-5 billion this year on top of the £10 billion forecast at the time of the Budget – Scotland’s black gold is plugging the Treasury’s black hole.


There lies the problem, the use of our oil to help the rest of Britain out with their monitory problems. Mrs T used the massive revenue from Scottish oil to pay of massive debt rn up by previous Labour Governments, Scotland ( apart from the NE ) saw very little of the monies from this wealth. Wells are now being drilled off the west coast, where there seems to be very large quantities of oil, are we going to be allowed to get the benefits from this load of oil or is the Treasury and England going to get the majority of it again.

So you just want to conveniently ignore those years when oil prices are much lower and there is a clear net deficit?

"Scotland’s black gold is plugging the Treasury’s black hole" - You are Stewart Hosie MP, or at least the quote from his press release, and I claim my £10.

[One Day Soon]

Oh no its not!!

This matter was settled by the International Courts of Justice in the Netherlands (that may not quite be the right name!) but that ruling was completely *******ised by the corrupt Liebor Government in Westminster just prior to the advent of devolution in 1997!!:agree:

I'm afraid your appalling language was asterisked by the system, making it a tad difficult to understand your post.

As an aside, do you talk in the same terms in - as it were - real life? Do you actually refer to 'Liebor' in conversation?

Do you have a reference for the judgment or whatever it was?

[One Day Soon]

So, by having the audacity to include all our revenue, we "just about break even". Obviously, going a tad mental by including everything we produce.

Nice misrepresentation and not at all what I was saying as you well know. Is this how you intend to conduct the independence discussion prior to the referendum?

Maybe we could analyse the English economy without London city?

Feel free to go ahead and do that if you like. Are you planning to take the English economy out of the Union? Or the London economy out of England?

And while we are on the subject, what sort of surplus has the UK been producing in the past few years?

So your contention is that structural deficit is a perfectly healthy economic state of affairs and one we should be thinking of pursuing for an independent Scotland.

[One Day Soon]

To be fair, the current Scottish Government (and, I would assume other parties would do this too) is looking beyond oil and trying to exploit Scotland's enormous potential for the generation of alternative energy sources. For example, the recent development of Europe's largest offshore energy plant. It's not just in the production of energy that we have that potential, and the ability to sell excess energy on to others, but also in the export of the technology.... a market which Denmark led the world in until recently, and which (for their own internal political reasons) they seem to have moved out of.

SNP leaders maybe used the phrase "It's Scotland's Oil" in the past, but they have moved on, as they should.

It is oors though :wink:

Renewables are an exciting proposition, but potential doesn't pay the bills. If you are going to ask people to vote for independence then I think you need a stronger prospectus than hoping there will be a pot of gold at the end of the renewables rainbow.

[CropleyWasGod]

Renewables are an exciting proposition, but potential doesn't pay the bills. If you are going to ask people to vote for independence then I think you need a stronger prospectus than hoping there will be a pot of gold at the end of the renewables rainbow.

Indeed, but I was trying to demonstrate that there is an answer to those who say "aye, you canny rely on the oil forever", and that we (the collective "we") understand that and are doing something to minimise the risk.

[One Day Soon]

Indeed, but I was trying to demonstrate that there is an answer to those who say "aye, you canny rely on the oil forever", and that we (the collective "we") understand that and are doing something to minimise the risk.

Well I get that, but at the moment all you have is an idea on a bit of paper. You need to be generating billions in revenue to fill the gap. You are not going to be at that position by 2016 or whenever this referendum comes, if it comes at all.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Well I get that, but at the moment all you have is an idea on a bit of paper. You need to be generating billions in revenue to fill the gap. You are not going to be at that position by 2016 or whenever this referendum comes, if it comes at all.

aye but the well won't be dry by 2016 either, I think most people are switched on enough to see that we are leading the pack on renewable energy and actually could well be blessed in this area given our natural resources, just because the revenue doesn't = that of oil come the referendum will I think be a small argument without much weight. Your right however that the financial case will have to be clearly laid out before the majority(me included) will vote for independence.

The figures that I will be more interested in though are the increased costs of doing it all ourselves, for example we will need mechanisms for collecting taxes, we will need systems etc to do this and this will cost a lot of money. There will be high up front costs and increased running costs and I will want to know this is affordable. I love the dream of an independent Scotland, but first of all we need to be able to afford the dream.

[CropleyWasGod]

aye but the well won't be dry by 2016 either, I think most people are switched on enough to see that we are leading the pack on renewable energy and actually could well be blessed in this area given our natural resources, just because the revenue doesn't = that of oil come the referendum will I think be a small argument without much weight. Your right however that the financial case will have to be clearly laid out before the majority(me included) will vote for independence.

The figures that I will be more interested in though are the increased costs of doing it all ourselves, for example we will need mechanisms for collecting taxes, we will need systems etc to do this and this will cost a lot of money. There will be high up front costs and increased running costs and I will want to know this is affordable. I love the dream of an independent Scotland, but first of all we need to be able to afford the dream.

Indeed, but there should also be an up front dividend from a break up. It would be like a divorce... in round terms, 10% of the UK's assets are Scottish. How that would be quantified is a bit scary.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Renewables are an exciting proposition, but potential doesn't pay the bills. If you are going to ask people to vote for independence then I think you need a stronger prospectus than hoping there will be a pot of gold at the end of the renewables rainbow.

I agree with you to an extent.

The problem with this argument is that is is completely circular - i honestly dont know how people have the energy to keep going with it - defecit, surplus etc.

The way i see independence is that it is about the process, not the destination - do we know Scotland would be better-off independent? No.

Do we know we wouldnt be better off? No.

How we managed, and what paths we chose IF we were independent would depend very much on the people we elected in charge, and the decisions we took. The point for me, is it has to be us making those decisions, not a much larger government that cannot consider our interests solely.

Like Dashing Bob says above, Scots are generally irrelevant in the UK, we are a small minority (i might be right in thinking that there are more Muslims in England than there are Scots in the UK?) so why should the UK government consider our interests?

To the UK, we are sparsley populated country, with massive natural resources and (more so in the past than now) a very strategic position at the North West frontier of Europe. Why should they consider what we want or need?

The best way to make decisions is for yourself, and just as i am sure you wouldnt defer decision making about your home or garden to a 'committee of the whole street' so that you could only do things to your house or garden if the whole street agreed, so i dont think we, as a country, should defer decisions about our country to a parliament 500 or so miles away which cannot (and should not) be giving us and our needs its full attention. (for example, what would suit Scotland more, spending a couple of billion on upgrading the road infrastructure, or paying for the massive London marketing operation that is the 2012 olympics?)

Indepence, and the arguments around it are for me not about the decisions that would be made after it were achieved. It is about the fact that we would be free to make them, taking into account only our needs, not those of Devon, Cornwall, Wales, Manchester, Norwhich and then us.

I dont, and never have, been able to understand the mindset that so many Scots have, that it is better to have somebody else take your important decisions for you. That it is better to give your income to somebody else and let them decide to give you some back.

And while we are on the point of the surplus/defecit argument (ignoring the very obvious point that that UK hardly turns surplus very often) - just how much of our income that we send to London is wasted in paying for the bureacracy that then allocates it back to us? Are we not just creating a whole lot of civil service jobs in London so that they can then give us our money?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

aye but the well won't be dry by 2016 either, I think most people are switched on enough to see that we are leading the pack on renewable energy and actually could well be blessed in this area given our natural resources, just because the revenue doesn't = that of oil come the referendum will I think be a small argument without much weight. Your right however that the financial case will have to be clearly laid out before the majority(me included) will vote for independence.

The figures that I will be more interested in though are the increased costs of doing it all ourselves, for example we will need mechanisms for collecting taxes, we will need systems etc to do this and this will cost a lot of money. There will be high up front costs and increased running costs and I will want to know this is affordable. I love the dream of an independent Scotland, but first of all we need to be able to afford the dream.

I think this is simliar to the point that i was just trying to make (not very well!).

I suppose bureacracies etc will always have to be paid for, but at the moment that money, in the shape of civil service jobs, stays down south, helping their economy and, in a bit of a double whammy, helping to enocurage the brain drain from here, thus increasing the concentration of wealth in the South East.

I wonder what affect, 1,000 or so civil service jobs might have if they were in Glasgow, or Dundee, or Inverness (or of course Edinburgh), in improving the economies, raising house prices etc

[J-C]

So you just want to conveniently ignore those years when oil prices are much lower and there is a clear net deficit?

"Scotland’s black gold is plugging the Treasury’s black hole" - You are Stewart Hosie MP, or at least the quote from his press release, and I claim my £10.


Erm, I posted this link on post 75 to which you answered, I'd assume you'd read the link before commenting, obviously you chose not to as the "treasury black hole" bit was part of the link, I'll post the link again so as you can equate yourself with it therefore not making the same mistake agian.

http://www.snp.org/node/13969 (http://www.snp.org/node/13969)

Another link for you to peruse re oil
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Oil-bonanza-for-Shetland-under.4049141.jp

[Beefster]

I agree with you to an extent.

The problem with this argument is that is is completely circular - i honestly dont know how people have the energy to keep going with it - defecit, surplus etc.

The way i see independence is that it is about the process, not the destination - do we know Scotland would be better-off independent? No.

Do we know we wouldnt be better off? No.

How we managed, and what paths we chose IF we were independent would depend very much on the people we elected in charge, and the decisions we took. The point for me, is it has to be us making those decisions, not a much larger government that cannot consider our interests solely.

Like Dashing Bob says above, Scots are generally irrelevant in the UK, we are a small minority (i might be right in thinking that there are more Muslims in England than there are Scots in the UK?) so why should the UK government consider our interests?

To the UK, we are sparsley populated country, with massive natural resources and (more so in the past than now) a very strategic position at the North West frontier of Europe. Why should they consider what we want or need?

The best way to make decisions is for yourself, and just as i am sure you wouldnt defer decision making about your home or garden to a 'committee of the whole street' so that you could only do things to your house or garden if the whole street agreed, so i dont think we, as a country, should defer decisions about our country to a parliament 500 or so miles away which cannot (and should not) be giving us and our needs its full attention. (for example, what would suit Scotland more, spending a couple of billion on upgrading the road infrastructure, or paying for the massive London marketing operation that is the 2012 olympics?)

Indepence, and the arguments around it are for me not about the decisions that would be made after it were achieved. It is about the fact that we would be free to make them, taking into account only our needs, not those of Devon, Cornwall, Wales, Manchester, Norwhich and then us.

I dont, and never have, been able to understand the mindset that so many Scots have, that it is better to have somebody else take your important decisions for you. That it is better to give your income to somebody else and let them decide to give you some back.

And while we are on the point of the surplus/defecit argument (ignoring the very obvious point that that UK hardly turns surplus very often) - just how much of our income that we send to London is wasted in paying for the bureacracy that then allocates it back to us? Are we not just creating a whole lot of civil service jobs in London so that they can then give us our money?

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury?

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.

[marinello59]

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury?

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.
:top marks
Excellent post. I favour Independence but some of the arguments I hear being made for for it make me cringe.

[Dashing Bob S]

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury?

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.

What a wonderful and pertinent post. It would be great if we could all take note of the last line.

To me the opportunity of an independent Scotland should be about charting our own course, while preserving the aspects of the UK, which work to mutual benefit. The idea of a big catacylsmic split from England is the nonsense stuff of Bannockburn/Culloden fantasists, whether they be nationalistic or unionist in their orientation.

London is one of the great metropolitan centres of the world and talented Scots will alwats be drawn there, but in the globalised era its no longer the be all and end all, with cities in America, Europe and beyond also attractive.

But our economy and society under the union has been second rate compared with independent countries of similar size, location and culture, (Scandinavia, Benelux) and we would be self-flagelating fools not to take notice of this fact.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury?

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.


Fair points Beefster, and i agree with your last point, i just think the onus should be on those who favour staying in the Union to make that case! But i absolutely accept that there are benefits to being in the Union, of course there are.

I agree with DBS also that independence is about making the choices that suit us, not necessarily about what those choices are.

In terms of important decisions that are made - and yes we have Scottish MPs, but there another 500-600 who are not Scottish MPs, and there are only about a dozen Scottish MPs in the government.

Decisions that we cannot make for ourselves are our economic path, our foreign affairs, EU negotiations (i.e. fishing), broadcasting, (most) taxation, defence, and indeirectly, our spending.

Your point about Merseyside is fine, and if your position is that Scotland isn't an 'our' then thats of course perfectly legitimate, i happen to think it is. What happens in Merseyside is, frankly, unimportant to me. As for the colleactive point, well its a fair point, but if it is not 'ours' as in Scottish, then why stop at 'ours' in the UK? Would you be happy enough to cede the north sea oil wealth to the EU (like we have done with fishing) and just share it around the EU?

I read somewhere that Scotland is the only country (for the nationalist out there) but also the only region (for all the unionists) in the world, that has not directly benefitted from finding oil and gas in its territory. I think in Alaska for example, each and every resident gets (i think) 2,000 dollars every year as a direct payment for selling concessions on Alaska's oil and gas resources. A direct benefit.

The point on the banks is well made, but if we had found ourselves responsible for RBS, it would have meant that throughout the 'boom' years we would have been in reciept of the billions that they paid in corporation tax on their record profits - and who is to say what we might have done with that to mitigate (i.e. sovereign wealth funds etc).

And for all Ireland and Iceland have difficulties now, i dont hear a scramble in Ireland to come back to the Union (a union that they were part of for longer than us if my history is right), nor Iceland wanting to go back to Denmark.

In fact, as far as i know, no country in the world that has (re) gained its independence has then decided that it was better not to make your own decisions and asked to be re-absorbed.

[J-C]

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions. As said we are overwhelmed by English MP's, who wil vote for what's good for England.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury? The billions/trillions of oil revenue went a hellova long way to pay off the debt incurred by numerous parties, who mismanaged the treasury and got us into severe debt, some of the older guys/gals on here will remember 3 day weeks and power cuts.

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale. RBS(1727) and Bank of Scotland(1695) were good solid banks with a very long sucessful history until they merged with their English partners and we all know what happened then.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either..

[One Day Soon]

Erm, I posted this link on post 75 to which you answered, I'd assume you'd read the link before commenting, obviously you chose not to as the "treasury black hole" bit was part of the link, I'll post the link again so as you can equate yourself with it therefore not making the same mistake agian.

Duh, of course I read it. Hence the Hosie reference. Get your sense of humour plugged back in.

http://www.snp.org/node/13969 (http://www.snp.org/node/13969)

Another link for you to peruse re oil
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Oil-bonanza-for-Shetland-under.4049141.jp

I will have a look at this one too.

[One Day Soon]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Beefster http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2796513#post2796513)
What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions. As said we are overwhelmed by English MP's, who wil vote for what's good for England.

Why would you assume that? What makes you think they don't vote for what's good for Britain as a whole? In fact their support of the Barnett formula perpetuates a distribution of taxation which is disproportionately fair to Scotland as against other parts of the UK.


You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury? The billions/trillions of oil revenue went a hellova long way to pay off the debt incurred by numerous parties, who mismanaged the treasury and got us into severe debt, some of the older guys/gals on here will remember 3 day weeks and power cuts.

Right, so it didn't go into public services and infrastructure in Scotland at all? And I presume none of the billions made by the City of London has gone into Scotland either? These are just shortbread tin arguments for independence. There is a respectable case for independence (which clearly I do not support) but these aren't it.


A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale. RBS(1727) and Bank of Scotland(1695) were good solid banks with a very long sucessful history until they merged with their English partners and we all know what happened then.

Are you seriously suggesting that the problems which engulfed these two banks in some way arose because they got involved with the English? can you explain that further because I'm at a complete loss to understand the how and the why of what you are getting at.


Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.

I agree with this sentiment though to be fair if you are going to have an all encompassing debate you do also need the more partisan supporters of either side giving their full blooded contributions too.

[J-C]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Beefster http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2796513#post2796513)
What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions. As said we are overwhelmed by English MP's, who wil vote for what's good for England.

Why would you assume that? What makes you think they don't vote for what's good for Britain as a whole? In fact their support of the Barnett formula perpetuates a distribution of taxation which is disproportionately fair to Scotland as against other parts of the UK.


You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury? The billions/trillions of oil revenue went a hellova long way to pay off the debt incurred by numerous parties, who mismanaged the treasury and got us into severe debt, some of the older guys/gals on here will remember 3 day weeks and power cuts.

Right, so it didn't go into public services and infrastructure in Scotland at all? And I presume none of the billions made by the City of London has gone into Scotland either? These are just shortbread tin arguments for independence. There is a respectable case for independence (which clearly I do not support) but these aren't it.

Infrastructure in Scotland, well maybe in the Aberdeen area as that was the only part of Scotland that really benefitted from the oil, it still amazes me that we have 1 motorway leaving Scotland going to England(M74). We have a couple of motorways with the rest 2nd class A roads winding trecherously around Scotland, not what I'd call great infrastructure. London has nothing to do with this as without the huge revenues from oil and gas these city businessmen could never have wheeled and dealt as they did.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/

https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/appendices/UKCS_Tax_Table.pdf


A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale. RBS(1727) and Bank of Scotland(1695) were good solid banks with a very long sucessful history until they merged with their English partners and we all know what happened then.

Are you seriously suggesting that the problems which engulfed these two banks in some way arose because they got involved with the English? can you explain that further because I'm at a complete loss to understand the how and the why of what you are getting at.

These 2 banks which have grown steadily for a few hundred years did so by being frugile and solid in it's business, both merged with English banking institutes a few years back. Both banks since went through a change in chairmen and boards, which then resulted in a change in their banking attitude. They like many banks throughout Europe and USA went for the fast buck, massive lending on mortgages and private loans, this was something in the past these 2 banks were very careful of. Would these banking institutes have got involved in this type of busines or would they have been the steady frugile banks they had always been and something that had made them the strong banks they were ??

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.

I agree with this sentiment though to be fair if you are going to have an all encompassing debate you do also need the more partisan supporters of either side giving their full blooded contributions too.

One thing I don't understand is that if every Scottish man and woman understood the 1707 Union, why it came about and that at the time it only benefitted those and those only( higherarchy of both Scotland and England ), why would you not want your country back in our own hands, as a fully independant country, the way it was and should have stayed.

[One Day Soon]

One thing I don't understand is that if every Scottish man and woman understood the 1707 Union, why it came about and that at the time it only benefitted those and those only( higherarchy of both Scotland and England ), why would you not want your country back in our own hands, as a fully independant country, the way it was and should have stayed.

I have no idea and to be honest I don't really think the decision taken in 1707 has much bearing on what we should do now and next.

As to why someone might oppose independence, in my view because we get a better deal by being part of the UK.

As to your explanation on the two banks - I dont see how you can say that it has something to do with associating with the English. Apart from anything else what were the actual English institutions you are referring to? Surely the change in corporate culture is not nation related but business culture related?

[J-C]

I have no idea and to be honest I don't really think the decision taken in 1707 has much bearing on what we should do now and next.

As to why someone might oppose independence, in my view because we get a better deal by being part of the UK.

As to your explanation on the two banks - I dont see how you can say that it has something to do with associating with the English. Apart from anything else what were the actual English institutions you are referring to? Surely the change in corporate culture is not nation related but business culture related?


1707 has everything to do with it because that is the date the Act of Union came about and Scotland became part of GB, why do think the people were rioting in the streets in Edinburgh,Glasgow, Dundee etc.

The 2 English banking institutions were the Natwest and Halifax, when the RBS and Bank of Scotland merged a new board of directors were installed, some would say not for the better, these boards were more profit driven than previous boards and the rest is now history.

[Bishop Hibee]

Really? I, being a student at the University of Edinburgh, have lots of English friends. During the almost universal shock that the SNP had won a majority, we discussed this very issue. Everyone who was there declared themselves British, not English or Scottish. And every Scot stated that if independence was cast upon us we would want to be known as British and definitely not Scottish!

I, as someone who lived in England for 4 years and live in Edinburgh which has a substantial English-born population also have lots of English friends!

Some declare themselves English first, others British and I even know one or two who stay in Edinburgh and are pro-independence.

I don't think it's possible to jump to conclusions from small samples although huns and jambos are an exception to the rule.

The scenario seems to me to be a referendum in 2014/15 when the SNP will have gambled the economy will be on the up. I'd have a stab at 60-40 against independence regardless of how the question is phrased which will lead to recriminations in the SNP and the chance of another referendum 15 years away.

Still no bloodshed though.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I, as someone who lived in England for 4 years and live in Edinburgh which has a substantial English-born population also have lots of English friends!

Some declare themselves English first, others British and I even know one or two who stay in Edinburgh and are pro-independence.

I don't think it's possible to jump to conclusions from small samples although huns and jambos are an exception to the rule.

The scenario seems to me to be a referendum in 2014/15 when the SNP will have gambled the economy will be on the up. I'd have a stab at 60-40 against independence regardless of how the question is phrased which will lead to recriminations in the SNP and the chance of another referendum 15 years away.

Still no bloodshed though.

I think thats probably how it will go as well.

I was quite amazed though on Saturday when it was mooted that if the nats don't hold a referendum the Tories in London might do it for them, now if anything was going to get a yes vote in Scotland it would be the Tories forcing a referendum on us, I'm sure there/their not that naive but you never know.

I really think the worst thing the opposition parties can do is continually go on about the referendum for the next four years, they need to be concentrating on having there own policies.

[Beefster]

I think thats probably how it will go as well.

I was quite amazed though on Saturday when it was mooted that if the nats don't hold a referendum the Tories in London might do it for them, now if anything was going to get a yes vote in Scotland it would be the Tories forcing a referendum on us, I'm sure there/their not that naive but you never know.

I really think the worst thing the opposition parties can do is continually go on about the referendum for the next four years, they need to be concentrating on having there own policies.

Mooted by whom? Anyone in a position to influence anything?

[tony higgins]

Pub debate/argument

Can Scotland achieve independence without blood shed?

In my life time I can only think of Czechoslovakia that has been broken up to go independent.

So if the opinion polls are correct and wee eck wins ( i doubt it) a majority. will Scotland and the rest of the UK accept this with out a civil war? or will Unionists and Nationalist reject the will of the people?

The fear I have is that it becomes polarised like Northern Ireland around the one issue rather than policies of the parties.

Will the political parties accept the democratic decision of the people?

Who would lead any unionist interest in a civil war.

Annabel Goldie just doesn't seem the boxing type.

[Part/Time Supporter]

What important decisions does someone else make for us? Don't we have elected Scots in Westminster to help make those decisions? The English may even have more reason to grumble considering they have Scots making decisions on their NHS and education systems whilst the Scots make their own decisions.

You consider it to be 'our' income because you're ignoring the fact that Scotland is part of the UK. Does Merseyside moan about their income going to the Treasury?

A major problem with the independence debate is that those who want it already consider Scotland as an entirely separate entity and therefore talk about 'our' oil, 'our' money, 'our' this, 'our' that. It would have been 'our' RBS and possibly even 'our' HBOS, under that rationale.

Until those on both sides, admit there are benefits to being independent and being part of the UK, there will never be a full and honest debate. This swift dismissal of the opposition views does no-one any favours either.

Well, no, because Merseyside isn't, never has been and never will be a nation, let alone a nation state. Plenty of people throughout the UK moan about "our" money being used to "subsidise" or "bail out" other nations in the European Union, and not just in the recent debt crises. What's the difference between those two situations?

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including G Brown and J Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the two politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on). The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories / myths. If they argue for the next few years down the "too wee / too poor / too stupid" line of argument, they will lose.

[One Day Soon]

Well, no, because Merseyside isn't, never has been and never will be a nation, let alone a nation state. Plenty of people throughout the UK moan about "our" money being used to "subsidise" or "bail out" other nations in the European Union, and not just in the recent debt crises. What's the difference between those two situations?

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including G Brown and J Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the two politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on). The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories / myths. If they argue for the next few years down the "too wee / too poor / too stupid" line of argument, they will lose.

Scary. I find myself agreeing with most of that.

[One Day Soon]

1707 has everything to do with it because that is the date the Act of Union came about and Scotland became part of GB, why do think the people were rioting in the streets in Edinburgh,Glasgow, Dundee etc.

I know what date it is I just think it has absolutely nothing to contribute to the debate of today.

The 2 English banking institutions were the Natwest and Halifax, when the RBS and Bank of Scotland merged a new board of directors were installed, some would say not for the better, these boards were more profit driven than previous boards and the rest is now history.

This doesn't really get you to your position that joining up with English institutions was bad for them. I don't think what happened had anything to do with Englishness - was Fred Goodwin English? Unless you are contending that joining up with other institutions per se was bad for them, regardless of the nation of origin of those institutions. In which case the English bit is completely redundant.

[One Day Soon]

I think thats probably how it will go as well.

I was quite amazed though on Saturday when it was mooted that if the nats don't hold a referendum the Tories in London might do it for them, now if anything was going to get a yes vote in Scotland it would be the Tories forcing a referendum on us, I'm sure there/their not that naive but you never know.

I really think the worst thing the opposition parties can do is continually go on about the referendum for the next four years, they need to be concentrating on having there own policies.

There is no chance of that. Apart from anything else the media will be into this permanently and so will every major institution in the country. Independence is as fundamental a change as you can get and there is no way that things are just going to quietly beetle along until the day of a referendum without huge amounts of discussion, questions and energy generally going into the for and against 'what if' stuff. If you have an SNP majority government then the speculation and discussion comes with the territory.

In fact if it didn't we would be likely to make a more ill informed choice when the time comes.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Mooted by whom? Anyone in a position to influence anything?

Can't recall who it was, but I'm sure the person being interviewed was the minister for the scotland office (is that the right title,basically londons man in scotland?)

I think the idea was put out by someone in the tories, but I suspect not anyone high up and the beeb decided to ask him about it. He was fairly non committal about it I think but as you'd expect he never ruled it out.

I don't think it's a serious option, I think it's just a bit of posturing.

[bighairyfaeleith]

There is no chance of that. Apart from anything else the media will be into this permanently and so will every major institution in the country. Independence is as fundamental a change as you can get and there is no way that things are just going to quietly beetle along until the day of a referendum without huge amounts of discussion, questions and energy generally going into the for and against 'what if' stuff. If you have an SNP majority government then the speculation and discussion comes with the territory.

In fact if it didn't we would be likely to make a more ill informed choice when the time comes.

I disagree, if people have it forced down there throats for the next four years they will just become bored with it all, better to have a proper discussion when the time comes. All the parties should be carefully preparing there arguments and getting ready to present some real facts to the people and giving the soundbites a rest for now. I actually think continuing to go on about it will only benefit the SNP as the rest will just end up looking bitter and twisted while the SNP get on with managing the country(hopefully).

[ancienthibby]

Can't recall who it was, but I'm sure the person being interviewed was the minister for the scotland office (is that the right title,basically londons man in scotland?)

I think the idea was put out by someone in the tories, but I suspect not anyone high up and the beeb decided to ask him about it. He was fairly non committal about it I think but as you'd expect he never ruled it out.

I don't think it's a serious option, I think it's just a bit of posturing.

Michael Forsyth, or Freddie Scissorhands as he became known!

[J-C]

This doesn't really get you to your position that joining up with English institutions was bad for them. I don't think what happened had anything to do with Englishness - was Fred Goodwin English? Unless you are contending that joining up with other institutions per se was bad for them, regardless of the nation of origin of those institutions. In which case the English bit is completely redundant.

Fred Goodwin started of in Australia, then onto England taking over teh Yorkshire, Midland and the Clydedale banks, his nickname " Fred the shred " came due to his severe cost cutting and was branded a corporate Attila due to him being a fearsome ousider from Scotland. After working at RBS they expanded very rapidly taking over the the much larger Natwest, Credit Suisse, Direct Line, Church hill, US Citizens Financial Group, Charter One Financial, The Accident Group and a large share in the Bank of China, it was the purchase of ABN Amro that created all the problems due to hedge funding.
Apart from being a Scot, Goodwin's pre RBS job was purely down south in England, his hard line buying and spending cost the RBS Billions and was branded as the " worlds worst banker "

[ancienthibby]

Fred Goodwin started of in Australia, then onto England taking over teh Yorkshire, Midland and the Clydedale banks, his nickname " Fred the shred " came due to his severe cost cutting and was branded a corporate Attila due to him being a fearsome ousider from Scotland. After working at RBS they expanded very rapidly taking over the the much larger Natwest, Credit Suisse, Direct Line, Church hill, US Citizens Financial Group, Charter One Financial, The Accident Group and a large share in the Bank of China, it was the purchase of ABN Amro that created all the problems due to hedge funding.
Apart from being a Scot, Goodwin's pre RBS job was purely down south in England, his hard line buying and spending cost the RBS Billions and was branded as the " worlds worst banker "


And, JC50, you could add that the downfall of the two predominant Scottish Banks, was due to hiring two non-bankers to run them (Goodwin and Hornby). And in the case of Goodwin, in the matter of ABN-Ambro, this was not a banking, not even a commercial deal - this was just one man's ego overdosing on hubris.

[One Day Soon]

Fred Goodwin started of in Australia, then onto England taking over teh Yorkshire, Midland and the Clydedale banks, his nickname " Fred the shred " came due to his severe cost cutting and was branded a corporate Attila due to him being a fearsome ousider from Scotland. After working at RBS they expanded very rapidly taking over the the much larger Natwest, Credit Suisse, Direct Line, Church hill, US Citizens Financial Group, Charter One Financial, The Accident Group and a large share in the Bank of China, it was the purchase of ABN Amro that created all the problems due to hedge funding.
Apart from being a Scot, Goodwin's pre RBS job was purely down south in England, his hard line buying and spending cost the RBS Billions and was branded as the " worlds worst banker "

So was their downfall due to becoming involved with "the English" or not?

[One Day Soon]

And, JC50, you could add that the downfall of the two predominant Scottish Banks, was due to hiring two non-bankers to run them (Goodwin and Hornby). And in the case of Goodwin, in the matter of ABN-Ambro, this was not a banking, not even a commercial deal - this was just one man's ego overdosing on hubris.

Quite possibly, but nothing to do with being English.

[J-C]

So was their downfall due to becoming involved with "the English" or not?


Are you deliberately trying to make me out as a racist towards the English, if so I think it's a shabby way of posting and a piss poor attempt to get a reaction.

Please take some time and read about Sir Fred, the RBS and Bank of Scotland, you will quickly see that the downturn in their fortunes and ultimately there losses were mainly due to their over expantion from the late 1990's, their strategies changed when they merged with their bigger English counterparts. They had become fairly large by being good solid baking companies but this changed when 2 non banking CEO's took over at the helm and they ventured into unknown ground, in other words walk before you run.


James R Crosby trained as an Actuary and worked with the Halifax and instigated the merger between them and Bank of Scotland, making him and his bank English.

[RyeSloan]

Well, no, because Merseyside isn't, never has been and never will be a nation, let alone a nation state. Plenty of people throughout the UK moan about "our" money being used to "subsidise" or "bail out" other nations in the European Union, and not just in the recent debt crises. What's the difference between those two situations?

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including G Brown and J Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the two politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on). The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories / myths. If they argue for the next few years down the "too wee / too poor / too stupid" line of argument, they will lose.


Good post...I do love this green revolution / reindustralisation idea that the SNP have alighted on, strikes me that this has replaced their arc of prosperity chat.

The only thing is I doubt green technology will ever generate serious long term employment growth in the way it is portrayed and the concept of going back to manufacturing as the new old way is just plain daft.

I still have no idea what an independent Scotland actaully means and seriously hope in the next year or two the SNP get round to painting the picture so we can all decide...first start would be what currency we would use, would there be an independent central bank and what would the landscape look like in terms of personal and corporate taxation. Next would be some certainty on sizing that tax intake and therefore giving us some idea of what the risk would be to our current £30bn odd a year central government budget.

There is so many unanswered questions when it comes to what independence means that I think it is shameful the SNP have never bothered to start answering them...I'm not surprised as Salmond loves generalities but surely now some tough questions have to be answered.

As for oil revenue...I kind of see oil as subsidising the rest of the UK but then the south east subsidises the rest of the UK as well....take one or either out of the equation and you probably end up about even. Therefore an independent scotland without acccess to a share of the huge revenues generated by the south east would probably need every bit of oil revenue to make up for that loss.

[RyeSloan]

I wonder what affect, 1,000 or so civil service jobs might have if they were in Glasgow, or Dundee, or Inverness (or of course Edinburgh), in improving the economies, raising house prices etc

If you are talking about directly funded civil service jobs for a new independent Scottish Government the answer is zero.

No government funded jobs can grow an economy as by their nature they are fully funded by taking money out of the economy in the first place.

[ancienthibby]

Quite possibly, but nothing to do with being English.

And just who said it was!!

If you want to be an English apologist then your home is not here, but The Guardian, etc, etc!!

[Sir David Gray]

Good post...I do love this green revolution / reindustralisation idea that the SNP have alighted on, strikes me that this has replaced their arc of prosperity chat.

The only thing is I doubt green technology will ever generate serious long term employment growth in the way it is portrayed and the concept of going back to manufacturing as the new old way is just plain daft.

I still have no idea what an independent Scotland actaully means and seriously hope in the next year or two the SNP get round to painting the picture so we can all decide...first start would be what currency we would use, would there be an independent central bank and what would the landscape look like in terms of personal and corporate taxation. Next would be some certainty on sizing that tax intake and therefore giving us some idea of what the risk would be to our current £30bn odd a year central government budget.

There is so many unanswered questions when it comes to what independence means that I think it is shameful the SNP have never bothered to start answering them...I'm not surprised as Salmond loves generalities but surely now some tough questions have to be answered.

As for oil revenue...I kind of see oil as subsidising the rest of the UK but then the south east subsidises the rest of the UK as well....take one or either out of the equation and you probably end up about even. Therefore an independent scotland without acccess to a share of the huge revenues generated by the south east would probably need every bit of oil revenue to make up for that loss.

Since Scotland would become the next member state of the European Union under Alex Salmond's independent nation, I'm pretty sure we would adopt the euro.

I agree with your general point, though, that the SNP must provide answers as to how an independent Scotland, under their leadership, would work.

[ancient hibee]

Fred Goodwin's from Paisley.RBS didn't merge with NatWest they took them over.The takeover was extremely successful.Their downfall wasn't through getting bigger it was through making poor decisions.The collapse of BOS was through their panic to become bigger.It was hastened by horrendous lending decisions made by Peter Cummings a BOS man since school days.

At the election 25% of the electorate voted for the SNP-not exactly overwhelming.50% of the electorate couldn't even be bothered to get off their backsides to vote.

Should we become independent we will be an even more disregarded part of the EU than the UK is now.

[One Day Soon]

Are you deliberately trying to make me out as a racist towards the English, if so I think it's a shabby way of posting and a piss poor attempt to get a reaction.

Your own post on this thread was this:

"RBS(1727) and Bank of Scotland(1695) were good solid banks with a very long sucessful history until they merged with their English partners and we all know what happened then."

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you were trying to say but that statement reads to me that you believe that merging with English partners somehow caused the downfall of the banks. I think the nationality of the partners is utterly irrelevant - do you agree?

Please take some time and read about Sir Fred, the RBS and Bank of Scotland, you will quickly see that the downturn in their fortunes and ultimately there losses were mainly due to their over expantion from the late 1990's, their strategies changed when they merged with their bigger English counterparts. They had become fairly large by being good solid baking companies but this changed when 2 non banking CEO's took over at the helm and they ventured into unknown ground, in other words walk before you run.

Again I really do not see what the relevance of 'English' partners is.


James R Crosby trained as an Actuary and worked with the Halifax and instigated the merger between then and Bank of Scotland, making him and his bank English.

I am not trying to make you out as anything. But you have on the one thread now said that English MPs will only vote for English interests and that English partners caused the fall of the two Scottish banks. I think you are looking at things through a, shall we say, rather English/Scottish set of lenses which doesn't make a lot of sense.

[One Day Soon]

[/B]
And just who said it was!!

If you want to be an English apologist then your home is not here, but The Guardian, etc, etc!!

This is what JC50 said:

"RBS(1727) and Bank of Scotland(1695) were good solid banks with a very long sucessful history until they merged with their English partners and we all know what happened then."

As I have posted above, perhaps I am misinterpreting what he was trying to say but that statement reads to me that he believes that merging with English partners somehow caused the downfall of the banks. I think the nationality of the partners is utterly irrelevant - do you agree too?

Oh and you can take your "English apologist" stuff and ram it. Alex Salmond would squirm with embarrassment over a statement with language like the one you have made.

"English apologist"? Have a tartan word with yourself. Where do you get off telling people their home is not on this website?

[steakbake]

I agree with your general point, though, that the SNP must provide answers as to how an independent Scotland, under their leadership, would work.

I agree with this to an extent, but you know the state of independence is quite separate from an SNP government. I would suggest the idea of an independent Scotland is much bigger than one political party.

I doubt independence would mean that there is just the SNP. I am fairly sure that with the constitutional question resolved, parties would change, form or coalesce around that new political reality. What would Labour do in the event of a yes vote, what would the Tories do?

Perhaps more importantly, if they wish to "save the Union", Unionists should also be telling the electorate - in positive as opposed to negative terms - precisely what the union offers Scotland, what Scotland's place in it really is and how far that can go.

Would we be having even an elementary discussion about the potential of independence if the union was the perfect solution? Surely if all was rosy in the constitutional garden and devolution was supposed to "kill separatism stone dead", it would seem absurd to us to have just a) voted in a party as a majority government which has independence at it's core and b) to even be entertaining a debate about the constitutional future?

I think there's many people who are rightly putting the spotlight on the SNP but if/when we are to have the referendum, it's not all one way traffic. The forthcoming debate should be about putting all the cards on the table and working out which is the best way to go forward.

Interestingly again, the LibDems, Tories and Labour would have to be seen to work together for a No vote: there's no point having three No campaigns! It's precisely this differentiation between the SNP on the one hand, and the other three mainstream alternatives which has proved such a successful electoral technique. I would not bet against it working in a referendum either as I don't really trust the opinion poll findings on it. I think it is far closer and far more probable than people might wish to believe.

[ancient hibee]

I agree with this to an extent, but you know the state of independence is quite separate from an SNP government. I would suggest the idea of an independent Scotland is much bigger than one political party.

I doubt independence would mean that there is just the SNP. I am fairly sure that with the constitutional question resolved, parties would change, form or coalesce around that new political reality. What would Labour do in the event of a yes vote, what would the Tories do?

Perhaps more importantly, if they wish to "save the Union", Unionists should also be telling the electorate - in positive as opposed to negative terms - precisely what the union offers Scotland, what Scotland's place in it really is and how far that can go.

Would we be having even an elementary discussion about the potential of independence if the union was the perfect solution? Surely if all was rosy in the constitutional garden and devolution was supposed to "kill separatism stone dead", it would seem absurd to us to have just a) voted in a party as a majority government which has independence at it's core and b) to even be entertaining a debate about the constitutional future?

I think there's many people who are rightly putting the spotlight on the SNP but if/when we are to have the referendum, it's not all one way traffic. The forthcoming debate should be about putting all the cards on the table and working out which is the best way to go forward.

Interestingly again, the LibDems, Tories and Labour would have to be seen to work together for a No vote: there's no point having three No campaigns! It's precisely this differentiation between the SNP on the one hand, and the other three mainstream alternatives which has proved such a successful electoral technique. I would not bet against it working in a referendum either as I don't really trust the opinion poll findings on it. I think it is far closer and far more probable than people might wish to believe.
Except as i posted earlier only 25% of the electorate voted for the SNP.As it is generally accepted that the SNP gains votes from people who do not support independence it is more likely that there would be less support in a referendum.

[Sir David Gray]

I agree with this to an extent, but you know the state of independence is quite separate from an SNP government. I would suggest the idea of an independent Scotland is much bigger than one political party.

I doubt independence would mean that there is just the SNP. I am fairly sure that with the constitutional question resolved, parties would change, form or coalesce around that new political reality. What would Labour do in the event of a yes vote, what would the Tories do?

Perhaps more importantly, if they wish to "save the Union", Unionists should also be telling the electorate - in positive as opposed to negative terms - precisely what the union offers Scotland, what Scotland's place in it really is and how far that can go.

Would we be having even an elementary discussion about the potential of independence if the union was the perfect solution? Surely if all was rosy in the constitutional garden and devolution was supposed to "kill separatism stone dead", it would seem absurd to us to have just a) voted in a party as a majority government which has independence at it's core and b) to even be entertaining a debate about the constitutional future?

I think there's many people who are rightly putting the spotlight on the SNP but if/when we are to have the referendum, it's not all one way traffic. The forthcoming debate should be about putting all the cards on the table and working out which is the best way to go forward.

Interestingly again, the LibDems, Tories and Labour would have to be seen to work together for a No vote: there's no point having three No campaigns! It's precisely this differentiation between the SNP on the one hand, and the other three mainstream alternatives which has proved such a successful electoral technique. I would not bet against it working in a referendum either as I don't really trust the opinion poll findings on it. I think it is far closer and far more probable than people might wish to believe.

I understand what you're saying. Obviously a party's stance will change to go along with the current political reality. I doubt if Labour or the Lib Dems would campaign for Scotland to re-enter the United Kingdom, if independence was achieved. The Tories might be for that, I don't know.

However, I think that since the SNP are the only mainstream pro-independence party, the onus must be on them to lay out their plans for an independent Scotland. Obviously Scotland would begin its status as an independent nation with the SNP as the government, not under Labour, the Lib Dems or the Conservatives so we need to know how they would make independence work for the first few years at least.

If independence was to ever happen, then the other parties would need to lay out their own plans and state what their position was going to be on various issues.

Initially, though, all that must come from the SNP because they are the ones who wish to change the status quo.

[J-C]

I am not trying to make you out as anything. But you have on the one thread now said that English MPs will only vote for English interests and that English partners caused the fall of the two Scottish banks. I think you are looking at things through a, shall we say, rather English/Scottish set of lenses which doesn't make a lot of sense.

So are you trying to say that an English MP wouldn't do what was best for his English constituency and since we are dramatically outnumbered in Westminster, the English MP's will always have the majority of votes.

RBS merged with Natwest in 1999, Bank of Scotland merged with Halifax in 2001, prior to these dates each bank was overseen by CEO's with a strong banking background. The takeovers resulted in 2 men running Scotland banks without the banks and their shareholders interests at heart, instead they attempted to expand with the City of London money men and with their American counterparts, The fast buck was chased, something never done before by these same 2 banks and both men were fully blamed for their downfall.

So as I said, I blame the fall of these banks squarely on the fact that their downfall started with their mergers with English based banks, 2 new CEO's took over and huge investment mistakes were made resulting in the mess we all see now, as you can also see no other countries banks were involved, hence why I keep saying English banks, fact.

Lets not forget Labour government had a lot to blame here, banking sector should've been more regulated but the treasury were turning a blind eye because when times were good the taxation from huge companies like RBS and HBOS was enormous and added to their coffers.

I'm not anti English but for some reason you seem to like ignoring actual facts which can be found anywhere, unlike yourself who seems to be very pro English and defend them at every opertunity.

[J-C]

Except as i posted earlier only 25% of the electorate voted for the SNP.As it is generally accepted that the SNP gains votes from people who do not support independence it is more likely that there would be less support in a referendum.



Don't know where you're getting your numbers from but I checked and it says the SNP pecentage was 45.4%, Labour 31.7%, Tory 13.9%, Lib Dem 7.9% and the rest to independants.

[tony higgins]

Well, no, because Merseyside isn't, never has been and never will be a nation, let alone a nation state. Plenty of people throughout the UK moan about "our" money being used to "subsidise" or "bail out" other nations in the European Union, and not just in the recent debt crises. What's the difference between those two situations?

The Scottish independence argument comes down to two points:

1. Is Scotland a nation? The vast majority would say it is. Even the majority of "unionist" politicians, including G Brown and J Reid, signed the claim of right.

2. Is Scotland better off part of the United Kingdom, or in some other "independent" arrangement? It's up to the two politicians to offer a convincing case for each. At the moment the SNP have been making more of a convincing case of what they could do with at least more powers, if not full independence (green revolution / reindustralisation and so on). The unionist perspective has done little more than peddle scare stories / myths. If they argue for the next few years down the "too wee / too poor / too stupid" line of argument, they will lose.

:agree:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Except as i posted earlier only 25% of the electorate voted for the SNP. As it is generally accepted that the SNP gains votes from people who do not support independence it is more likely that there would be less support in a referendum.

That's a silly point really. Tony Blair at his height of popularity "only" won 25% of the electorate (42% share of 60% turnout in 1997). You also don't know how many people normally vote for "unionist" parties but would actually vote for independence in a referendum, because they place other economic or social issues above the constitutional. The 20-25% core support for the SNP is the floor for any yes vote, not a ceiling.

[ancient hibee]

Don't know where you're getting your numbers from but I checked and it says the SNP pecentage was 45.4%, Labour 31.7%, Tory 13.9%, Lib Dem 7.9% and the rest to independants.
Less than 50% of the electorate voted therefore the percentages you quote-which are percentages of those who voted-should be halfed(approximately).If offered the Scottish Treasury after independence please turn it down:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I agree with this to an extent, but you know the state of independence is quite separate from an SNP government. I would suggest the idea of an independent Scotland is much bigger than one political party.

I doubt independence would mean that there is just the SNP. I am fairly sure that with the constitutional question resolved, parties would change, form or coalesce around that new political reality. What would Labour do in the event of a yes vote, what would the Tories do?

Perhaps more importantly, if they wish to "save the Union", Unionists should also be telling the electorate - in positive as opposed to negative terms - precisely what the union offers Scotland, what Scotland's place in it really is and how far that can go.

Would we be having even an elementary discussion about the potential of independence if the union was the perfect solution? Surely if all was rosy in the constitutional garden and devolution was supposed to "kill separatism stone dead", it would seem absurd to us to have just a) voted in a party as a majority government which has independence at it's core and b) to even be entertaining a debate about the constitutional future?

I think there's many people who are rightly putting the spotlight on the SNP but if/when we are to have the referendum, it's not all one way traffic. The forthcoming debate should be about putting all the cards on the table and working out which is the best way to go forward.

Interestingly again, the LibDems, Tories and Labour would have to be seen to work together for a No vote: there's no point having three No campaigns! It's precisely this differentiation between the SNP on the one hand, and the other three mainstream alternatives which has proved such a successful electoral technique. I would not bet against it working in a referendum either as I don't really trust the opinion poll findings on it. I think it is far closer and far more probable than people might wish to believe.

I think your points are valid and I agree wholeheartedly that an Independence referendum result is far from a foregone conclusion.

However I also agree with Falkirk’s post…the SNP want change, they support a vote on Independence. In that case the onus really does lie with the SNP to articulate the problem with remaining in the Union (i.e just what are the main reasons for change) and then to spell out what that change actually means….to my mind this simply hasn’t happened yet and I really don’t know why not.

To date I have yet to see even a broad brush outline of what an Independent Scotland would look like and therefore find it very hard to support as a concept.

There are seriously hundreds and hundreds of outstanding questions.

What currency
What tax regime
Who would be head of state
Would we have a written constitution
How would we manage our foreign relations
Would we join the EU
Would we be accepted to the EU
What happens to our share of the UK debt pile
Would we be able to raise funding on the international debt markets
What would be the fiscal priorities
Would we sign up to the Euro Constitution on Human Rights
How would we replace the myriad of agreements the UK has over visa rights, foreign income etc etc etc
What international bodies would we sign up with (there is hunners of these things that controls internet protocals to aviation to fishing to international post to god knows what else) and how long would that take
How would we control ‘immigration’
What would the cost be of a Scottish armed forces

The list goes on and on and on and on…..I’m unsure how I can be asked to support Independence when almost none of these have been answered in any meaningful way.

I agree that a lot of Unionist arguments tend to be on the negative side (what would have happened re RBS etc) but I would suggest that’s fair enough, there is nothing wrong in pointing out risks….I would also go as far to say that the arguments are largely negative because there is simply no ‘future state’ proposal to discuss therefore you can only point out what obvious losses an Independent Scotland would suffer when breaking from the Union.

Finally I wonder if we are really talking true independence here and if such a thing is actually possible in a globalised world…I would have thought a continuation of devolving powers and importantly fiscal responsibility is the easiest and simplest way to achieve most of what independence supporters want, it’s not quite as dramatic as a formal divorce from the UK but will probably be much easier to implement and save an absolute fortune in terms of replicating the whole mechanism of state north of the border.

[ancient hibee]

That's a silly point really. Tony Blair at his height of popularity "only" won 25% of the electorate (42% share of 60% turnout in 1997). You also don't know how many people normally vote for "unionist" parties but would actually vote for independence in a referendum, because they place other economic or social issues above the constitutional. The 20-25% core support for the SNP is the floor for any yes vote, not a ceiling.
Yours is an even sillier point as two wrongs don't make a right:greengrin The idea that anti independence voters would vote for independence because of economic factors is frankly ridiculous as the main arguments over independence centre on the economic.As you say the core vote for the SNP is 20'25%.Where was it then because there's no doubt that a good deal of their support came from Lib Dems.

[RyeSloan]

Since Scotland would become the next member state of the European Union under Alex Salmond's independent nation, I'm pretty sure we would adopt the euro.


And who decides what country adopts the Euro...not the SNP nor Salmond I would suggest...if we stay with sterling just how independent from the UK would that make us? Still being tied to Westminster spending decisions impacting our currency and still allowing the BoE to set interest rates hardly sounds like independence to me.

The Euro option is hardly any better and in many ways much worse just now.

What would be the requirements for adopting the Euro?

Should we be looking to adopt a currency that is facing signficant structural issues including almost inevitable debt default by at least one of it's members...what would be the cost to Scotland caused by that?

If we think Westminster cares little about Scotland just wait until we are dictated to by Germany or France!!

Maybe just maybe it's careful what you wish for here. And that's my main point, I'm not sure what people are actaully wishing for when it comes to independence and very little has been done to explain what that wish may look like if it does come true.

Believe it or not I have no fundamental issue with independence and may well support a well thought out, properly constructed argument for it...I just haven't seen one yet and find it soemwhat scary that we are so far down the line in terms of the likelyhood of being asked the big I question without some of the most basic of facts.

[ancienthibby]

I think your points are valid and I agree wholeheartedly that an Independence referendum result is far from a foregone conclusion.

However I also agree with Falkirk’s post…the SNP want change, they support a vote on Independence. In that case the onus really does lie with the SNP to articulate the problem with remaining in the Union (i.e just what are the main reasons for change) and then to spell out what that change actually means….to my mind this simply hasn’t happened yet and I really don’t know why not.

To date I have yet to see even a broad brush outline of what an Independent Scotland would look like and therefore find it very hard to support as a concept.

There are seriously hundreds and hundreds of outstanding questions.

What currency
What tax regime
Who would be head of state
Would we have a written constitution
How would we manage our foreign relations
Would we join the EU
Would we be accepted to the EU
What happens to our share of the UK debt pile
Would we be able to raise funding on the international debt markets
What would be the fiscal priorities
Would we sign up to the Euro Constitution on Human Rights
How would we replace the myriad of agreements the UK has over visa rights, foreign income etc etc etc
What international bodies would we sign up with (there is hunners of these things that controls internet protocals to aviation to fishing to international post to god knows what else) and how long would that take
How would we control ‘immigration’
What would the cost be of a Scottish armed forces

The list goes on and on and on and on…..I’m unsure how I can be asked to support Independence when almost none of these have been answered in any meaningful way.

I agree that a lot of Unionist arguments tend to be on the negative side (what would have happened re RBS etc) but I would suggest that’s fair enough, there is nothing wrong in pointing out risks….I would also go as far to say that the arguments are largely negative because there is simply no ‘future state’ proposal to discuss therefore you can only point out what obvious losses an Independent Scotland would suffer when breaking from the Union.

Finally I wonder if we are really talking true independence here and if such a thing is actually possible in a globalised world…I would have thought a continuation of devolving powers and importantly fiscal responsibility is the easiest and simplest way to achieve most of what independence supporters want, it’s not quite as dramatic as a formal divorce from the UK but will probably be much easier to implement and save an absolute fortune in terms of replicating the whole mechanism of state north of the border.

A couple of pointers for you which may help your search for answers.

Can't say I know anything about them, but both Michael Portillo and James Mitchell were on the media yesterday speaking about exactly your concerns. Portillo apparently has a new programme coming out later this week about new types of unionism so that will be worth tracking, while Jim Mitchell said that in 2007 the SNP published a paper on the options for independence and unionism.

I would hope these two items will help your pursuit of understanding.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Yours is an even sillier point as two wrongs don't make a right:greengrin The idea that anti independence voters would vote for independence because of economic factors is frankly ridiculous as the main arguments over independence centre on the economic.As you say the core vote for the SNP is 20'25%.Where was it then because there's no doubt that a good deal of their support came from Lib Dems.

You misunderstood my point. What I was saying is that you don't know if there are a whole lot of people who may support independence in a referendum, but don't vote SNP because they place other political considerations above independence when they vote in party elections. What I meant by economic considerations wasn't the economy of an independent Scotland, but the present economy of the UK (ie most people voted Labour last year to stop Tory cuts).

In fact the discrepancy between Holyrood and Westminster elections could in part be explained by this. People who are inclined to support greater national autonomy and therefore vote SNP into Holyrood, but prioritise something else (ie keeping the Tories out of power) and therefore vote Labour into Westminster.

My view of a referendum is that you maybe have a hardcore of 20% on either side, but the great bulk of people could be convinced either way. Whereas if you believed the political "experts" the great majority are actively opposed to independence. I don't think there's any great evidence for that.

[Part/Time Supporter]

The list goes on and on and on and on…..I’m unsure how I can be asked to support Independence when almost none of these have been answered in any meaningful way.

This is a very good book which explores many of the key questions, although it was written 10 years ago it is pretty much all still relevant. From memory (it's a few years since I last read it) it looks in detail at Europe and the nukes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scottish-Independence-Constitutional-Issues-Practical/dp/0748616993


Finally I wonder if we are really talking true independence here and if such a thing is actually possible in a globalised world…I would have thought a continuation of devolving powers and importantly fiscal responsibility is the easiest and simplest way to achieve most of what independence supporters want, it’s not quite as dramatic as a formal divorce from the UK but will probably be much easier to implement and save an absolute fortune in terms of replicating the whole mechanism of state north of the border.

I think the development that has allowed the SNP to become a party of Government is that they have pretty much realised that point. Back in the 70s the SNP were pretty chippy and selfish, about the oil in particular. I think since devolution was set up there has been more of a maturity and they have seen more of the practical issues involved in governance and legislation.

I think if the unionist politicians had the wisdom to develop the concept of devolution to the point where Scotland could govern itself to its full potential, without many of the risks associated with independence, that would take a lot of the force out of the independence argument. Basically devolution, as it presently stands, is a job half done (if that). I mean there is even a conservative argument for increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament, due to the present situation of it having naff all tax-raising powers, but a lot of the tax-spending powers.

[Sir David Gray]

And who decides what country adopts the Euro...not the SNP nor Salmond I would suggest...if we stay with sterling just how independent from the UK would that make us? Still being tied to Westminster spending decisions impacting our currency and still allowing the BoE to set interest rates hardly sounds like independence to me.

The Euro option is hardly any better and in many ways much worse just now.

What would be the requirements for adopting the Euro?

Should we be looking to adopt a currency that is facing signficant structural issues including almost inevitable debt default by at least one of it's members...what would be the cost to Scotland caused by that?

If we think Westminster cares little about Scotland just wait until we are dictated to by Germany or France!!

Maybe just maybe it's careful what you wish for here. And that's my main point, I'm not sure what people are actaully wishing for when it comes to independence and very little has been done to explain what that wish may look like if it does come true.

Believe it or not I have no fundamental issue with independence and may well support a well thought out, properly constructed argument for it...I just haven't seen one yet and find it soemwhat scary that we are so far down the line in terms of the likelyhood of being asked the big I question without some of the most basic of facts.

I totally agree with you and I hope I didn't come across in that post as if I was in favour of Scotland adopting the euro. I'm delighted that the UK has so far resisted any calls for it to join the euro and I hope that remains to be the case. So if Scotland does become an independent nation, I would oppose any moves for us to adopt it.

As you'll probably be aware, the EU is one of my biggest bugbears and the SNP's stance on this issue is one of the main reasons why I would not support them and their vision for independence.

You are absolutely correct with the bit in bold. Simply changing from having one parliament dictating to us to another doesn't seem like real independence to me.

[J-C]

Less than 50% of the electorate voted therefore the percentages you quote-which are percentages of those who voted-should be halfed(approximately).If offered the Scottish Treasury after independence please turn it down:greengrin


Turn that around and if they got 45% of half the electorate, then if another 25% turn out to vote, then their percentage could also rise to around 55-60%.

[steakbake]

I agree in some respects with the idea of the EU being an issue. I'd rather an independent Scotland stayed out of the EU but had trade associations with it, like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. But that is my own personal preference.

However, it's a cyclical argument long put about my unionists against independence along the lines of: so leaving the UK, Scotland would immediately hand over it's new found sovereignty to the EU? Or even: Scotland wouldn't automatically become a member of the EU, you know. So which is it to be? Is EU membership essential, not desirable or simply a matter of preference?

The UK, last time I checked, is part of the EU. Most recently, we've "adopted" provisions of the Lisbon treaty and PM Brown refused to offer a referendum on it, insisting that as there was a majority of elected representatives in parliament who were for it, therefore no need for a plebiscite (as we are represented by sitting MPs).

This is an interesting fact, given that according to some posters on various threads since Thursday, an election result is only somehow valid or counts if you convince a majority of the total electorate. Labour's 2005 election win was based on 22% of the total electorate voting for the Labour party, 2001 (25%) and 1997 (30%). Perhaps it's different if it is Labour who hold the power and not the SNP? Or does it depend what the issue/party is? Not sure... maybe someone can explain their objections...

Anyhow, using the logic of the way that Lisbon was adopted by Brown (and by default, the UK), Salmond might reasonably assume that he could make a unilateral declaration of independence based on Thursday's result. But relax - he won't.

The point I am making is whether in the UK as part of the EU or out the UK as Scotland in the EU, there is one crucial difference. As an independent state and member of the EU, we would have representation at various levels which we do not presently have any representation for Scottish issues - only at a UK level. Membership of the Council of Ministers for example, would mean being able to put Scotland's case about all sorts of things. At the moment, the UK is represented by a single member, despite their being three devolved administrations with a variety of remits which the EU influences, yet with no representation at the top table for any of the devolved governments.

But I hear you say, we're too small to have any influence? Well, Cyprus is about to take over the Presidency of the EU. Denmark (recent Presidential country) have a number of opt-out clauses and have yet to ratify the Lisbon treaty, but will have a referendum on it in 2011. Equally, they will be having a referendum in the future to cancel their opt outs - as they are finding many aspects of EU membership beneficial and that some of their opt outs are counter to their interests.

As I say, personally, I am against it. But I don't think you can say that a newly independent Scotland "handing over" sovereignty to the EU is necessarily an argument against independence, given that the UK is currently a fully signed up member yet we have no official representation for Scotland there, despite many aspects of EU law already directly affecting devolved matters.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I totally agree with you and I hope I didn't come across in that post as if I was in favour of Scotland adopting the euro. I'm delighted that the UK has so far resisted any calls for it to join the euro and I hope that remains to be the case. So if Scotland does become an independent nation, I would oppose any moves for us to adopt it.

As you'll probably be aware, the EU is one of my biggest bugbears and the SNP's stance on this issue is one of the main reasons why I would not support them and their vision for independence.

You are absolutely correct with the bit in bold. Simply changing from having one parliament dictating to us to another doesn't seem like real independence to me.

As an absolute minimum an independent Scotland would have to be in EFTA (the free trade zone), otherwise all exports (including to England) would be subject to tariffs. Norway and Iceland are currently in EFTA but not in the EU. EFTA membership does give some of the benefits of the EU without some of the costs, but they have to accept some EU trade regulations without having any input.

It's unclear whether an independent Scotland would still be in the EU or would have to re-apply for membership as there is no real precedent. East Germany joined the EU when it reunified with the West, but that in legal terms was a takeover by the West. The closest precedent (believe it or not) was Greenland leaving the EU when it became autonomous from Denmark.

[steakbake]

As an absolute minimum an independent Scotland would have to be in EFTA (the free trade zone), otherwise all exports (including to England) would be subject to tariffs. Norway and Iceland are currently in EFTA but not in the EU. EFTA membership does give some of the benefits of the EU without some of the costs, but they have to accept some EU trade regulations without having any input.

It's unclear whether an independent Scotland would still be in the EU or would have to re-apply for membership as there is no real precedent. East Germany joined the EU when it reunified with the West, but that in legal terms was a takeover by the West. The closest legal precedent (believe it or not) was Greenland leaving the EU when it became autonomous from Denmark.

Interesting you mention Greenland - themselves very keen on an independence referendum and led in their devolved administration in Nuuk by pro-independence/separatist politicians. Someone should tell them that with 55,000 people, they are too small and too stupid to run their own affairs or be a viable country.

[J-C]

As an absolute minimum an independent Scotland would have to be in EFTA (the free trade zone), otherwise all exports (including to England) would be subject to tariffs. Norway and Iceland are currently in EFTA but not in the EU. EFTA membership does give some of the benefits of the EU without some of the costs, but they have to accept some EU trade regulations without having any input.

It's unclear whether an independent Scotland would still be in the EU or would have to re-apply for membership as there is no real precedent. East Germany joined the EU when it reunified with the West, but that in legal terms was a takeover by the West. The closest precedent (believe it or not) was Greenland leaving the EU when it became autonomous from Denmark.

I would assume Scotland as a Nation is already part of the EU, remember we are only part of a union of countries, the countries never at anytime became 1 larger country, we are 3 countries and a principality working together with 1 parliament.

[RyeSloan]

Interesting you mention Greenland - themselves very keen on an independence referendum and led in their devolved administration in Nuuk by pro-independence/separatist politicians. Someone should tell them that with 55,000 people, they are too small and too stupid to run their own affairs or be a viable country.

Last itme I looked the Danes were quite willing to let Greenland go as it has for a long long time been substantially subsided by Copenhagen to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a a year.

While greenland may well benefit from new ability to get to some of it's natural resources even a cursory glance at their economy shows full independence would indeed be a significantly risky.

[ancient hibee]

Turn that around and if they got 45% of half the electorate, then if another 25% turn out to vote, then their percentage could also rise to around 55-60%.
Sorry -it wouldn't.If the percentage voting went up to 75% of the electorate and the SNP got roughly half of that they would have 38% of the electorate.Even if the additional voters all voted Snp the percentage of the electorate voting for them would be under 50%.

[ancient hibee]

You misunderstood my point. What I was saying is that you don't know if there are a whole lot of people who may support independence in a referendum, but don't vote SNP because they place other political considerations above independence when they vote in party elections. What I meant by economic considerations wasn't the economy of an independent Scotland, but the present economy of the UK (ie most people voted Labour last year to stop Tory cuts).

In fact the discrepancy between Holyrood and Westminster elections could in part be explained by this. People who are inclined to support greater national autonomy and therefore vote SNP into Holyrood, but prioritise something else (ie keeping the Tories out of power) and therefore vote Labour into Westminster.
My view of a referendum is that you maybe have a hardcore of 20% on either side, but the great bulk of people could be convinced either way. Whereas if you believed the political "experts" the great majority are actively opposed to independence. I don't think there's any great evidence for that.


You're right I did.However I've always thought that for those in favour of independence the best signal to send Westminster is to return a majority of SNP MPs.

[steakbake]

Last itme I looked the Danes were quite willing to let Greenland go as it has for a long long time been substantially subsided by Copenhagen to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a a year.

While greenland may well benefit from new ability to get to some of it's natural resources even a cursory glance at their economy shows full independence would indeed be a significantly risky.

Interesting - you could probably find similar sentiments recently in the letters page of the Telegraph and such like, only substitute "Danes" for "English" and "Greenland" for "Scotland".

You are of course right - it would be a risk. What is notable though, is that the aspiration of being your own country, taking control of your own destiny is a gamble that the Greenlanders seem willing to take. Denmark's fairly enlightened stance to step back and not scaremonger, interfere or try to corrupt an internal decision for the Greenlandic people is also instructive.

[J-C]

Sorry -it wouldn't.If the percentage voting went up to 75% of the electorate and the SNP got roughly half of that they would have 38% of the electorate.Even if the additional voters all voted Snp the percentage of the electorate voting for them would be under 50%.


I think you better check your calculator.....4 million registered electors of which approx 2 million voted, SNP got roughly 1.3 million votes. Add another 1 million votes(75%) and give the SNP the same share, it gives them an extra 550,000 votes added to 1.3 m, total of 1.85 million out of 3 million voters, that's still well over 50% of the electorate.

[Sir David Gray]

I agree in some respects with the idea of the EU being an issue. I'd rather an independent Scotland stayed out of the EU but had trade associations with it, like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. But that is my own personal preference.

However, it's a cyclical argument long put about my unionists against independence along the lines of: so leaving the UK, Scotland would immediately hand over it's new found sovereignty to the EU? Or even: Scotland wouldn't automatically become a member of the EU, you know. So which is it to be? Is EU membership essential, not desirable or simply a matter of preference?

The UK, last time I checked, is part of the EU. Most recently, we've "adopted" provisions of the Lisbon treaty and PM Brown refused to offer a referendum on it, insisting that as there was a majority of elected representatives in parliament who were for it, therefore no need for a plebiscite (as we are represented by sitting MPs).

This is an interesting fact, given that according to some posters on various threads since Thursday, an election result is only somehow valid or counts if you convince a majority of the total electorate. Labour's 2005 election win was based on 22% of the total electorate voting for the Labour party, 2001 (25%) and 1997 (30%). Perhaps it's different if it is Labour who hold the power and not the SNP? Or does it depend what the issue/party is? Not sure... maybe someone can explain their objections...

Anyhow, using the logic of the way that Lisbon was adopted by Brown (and by default, the UK), Salmond might reasonably assume that he could make a unilateral declaration of independence based on Thursday's result. But relax - he won't.

The point I am making is whether in the UK as part of the EU or out the UK as Scotland in the EU, there is one crucial difference. As an independent state and member of the EU, we would have representation at various levels which we do not presently have any representation for Scottish issues - only at a UK level. Membership of the Council of Ministers for example, would mean being able to put Scotland's case about all sorts of things. At the moment, the UK is represented by a single member, despite their being three devolved administrations with a variety of remits which the EU influences, yet with no representation at the top table for any of the devolved governments.

But I hear you say, we're too small to have any influence? Well, Cyprus is about to take over the Presidency of the EU. Denmark (recent Presidential country) have a number of opt-out clauses and have yet to ratify the Lisbon treaty, but will have a referendum on it in 2011. Equally, they will be having a referendum in the future to cancel their opt outs - as they are finding many aspects of EU membership beneficial and that some of their opt outs are counter to their interests.

As I say, personally, I am against it. But I don't think you can say that a newly independent Scotland "handing over" sovereignty to the EU is necessarily an argument against independence, given that the UK is currently a fully signed up member yet we have no official representation for Scotland there, despite many aspects of EU law already directly affecting devolved matters.

I think that an independent Scotland handing over powers to the EU is a valid argument against independence. Just because the UK is a member state is neither here nor there.

The point that I would make is, at the moment Scotland is not an independent state and we have a party in the SNP who have the independence of Scotland from the UK at the heart of their agenda. I just don't understand how someone can be for the independence of Scotland and, at the same time, say that once independence from the UK has been achieved they'll hand over even more powers to another parliament.

To me, that just defeats the whole idea of independence.

I'm not actually completely against the idea of independence but I can't see myself ever voting for it, whilst the SNP are the only serious pro-independence party.

As for Denmark holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, I fully expect that, should a 'No' vote prevail first time round, they'll simply do what they did in Ireland a couple of years ago and keep holding the referendum until they get the outcome that they want.

[ancient hibee]

I think you better check your calculator.....4 million registered electors of which approx 2 million voted, SNP got roughly 1.3 million votes. Add another 1 million votes(75%) and give the SNP the same share, it gives them an extra 550,000 votes added to 1.3 m, total of 1.85 million out of 3 million voters, that's still well over 50% of the electorate.
I'm afraid that you are still a little confused.The electorate is not (in your example )the 3M voting but the 4M entitled to vote.So it is 1.85M out of 4M-less than 50%.

[J-C]

I'm afraid that you are still a little confused.The electorate is not (in your example )the 3M voting but the 4M entitled to vote.So it is 1.85M out of 4M-less than 50%.


But you never ever get 100% electorial vote, therefore scale up to 4m voters and you'll still get more than 50%, remember this is all conjecture and it's all depending on people voting and voting the way they did in last weeks election.

Remember you can only have a percentage of the number who actually vote not the number of registered voters, until every man and woman vote, we'll always have conjecture.

[RyeSloan]

Interesting - you could probably find similar sentiments recently in the letters page of the Telegraph and such like, only substitute "Danes" for "English" and "Greenland" for "Scotland".
You are of course right - it would be a risk. What is notable though, is that the aspiration of being your own country, taking control of your own destiny is a gamble that the Greenlanders seem willing to take. Denmark's fairly enlightened stance to step back and not scaremonger, interfere or try to corrupt an internal decision for the Greenlandic people is also instructive.

Possibly however the Danish grant to Greenland I'm pretty sure is much clearer than the rather murky calcs required to work out Scotlands revenue v blaock grant received back.

Again I take your point re Denmarks approach however I would suggest that Denmark has very little to lose in letting Greenland go however that's not the case when you look at all of the implications a total divorce of Scotland from the rest of the UK...Scotland is much larger for starters and much more integrated into the fabric of the UK than Greenland is to Denmark (it's physically connected for starters!)

It is fair to say though that there is probably lessons to be learned from Greenland/Denmark but that does not automatically mean they will be lessons that support full Scotland independence! :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

This is a very good book which explores many of the key questions, although it was written 10 years ago it is pretty much all still relevant. From memory (it's a few years since I last read it) it looks in detail at Europe and the nukes.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scottish-Independence-Constitutional-Issues-Practical/dp/0748616993



I think the development that has allowed the SNP to become a party of Government is that they have pretty much realised that point. Back in the 70s the SNP were pretty chippy and selfish, about the oil in particular. I think since devolution was set up there has been more of a maturity and they have seen more of the practical issues involved in governance and legislation.

I think if the unionist politicians had the wisdom to develop the concept of devolution to the point where Scotland could govern itself to its full potential, without many of the risks associated with independence, that would take a lot of the force out of the independence argument. Basically devolution, as it presently stands, is a job half done (if that). I mean there is even a conservative argument for increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament, due to the present situation of it having naff all tax-raising powers, but a lot of the tax-spending powers.

Thanks for the link and may well purchase said book! However a lot of these issues are known and I'm sure the book may expand on potential solutions...what I am really looking for is the SNP (or whoever!) is to start drawing out what solutions they are proposing to the huge number of issues Independence would create.

At this moment in time I have no idea if the aim is a low tax, small government country with a large focus on individual responsibility or a tax and spend approach with lots of central government involvement..these two simple and basic scenarios could lead to a very very different country so to my mind it's absolutely critical that someone gets round to putting a proposal on the table.

I'm unsure why the SNP have not done this more forcefully yet...to my mind a well thought through proposal that clearly shows significant benefits to the status quo would be a great way of selling the idea of independence...currently I have a horrible feeling we would be looking at higher taxes, more government and a significantly reduced abiltity to invest and grow our economy. If that feeling is shared by a significant portion of others and not dispelled via a properly argued 'future state' proposal then Independence will never come to fruition (all IMVHO of course! :greengrin)

[Part/Time Supporter]

Thanks for the link and may well purchase said book! However a lot of these issues are known and I'm sure the book may expand on potential solutions...what I am really looking for is the SNP (or whoever!) is to start drawing out what solutions they are proposing to the huge number of issues Independence would create.

At this moment in time I have no idea if the aim is a low tax, small government country with a large focus on individual responsibility or a tax and spend approach with lots of central government involvement..these two simple and basic scenarios could lead to a very very different country so to my mind it's absolutely critical that someone gets round to putting a proposal on the table.

I'm unsure why the SNP have not done this more forcefully yet...to my mind a well thought through proposal that clearly shows significant benefits to the status quo would be a great way of selling the idea of independence...currently I have a horrible feeling we would be looking at higher taxes, more government and a significantly reduced abiltity to invest and grow our economy. If that feeling is shared by a significant portion of others and not dispelled via a properly argued 'future state' proposal then Independence will never come to fruition (all IMVHO of course! :greengrin)

And the answer is... it would scare the horses. If you said for example it would be a low tax economy, that would somewhat put off people who might be attracted by the prospect of escaping the (English) Tories.

The SNP can reasonably argue why should they bind the hands of a theoretical future Government of Scotland. That principle isn't forced upon Westminster parties, who usually say that their proposals are only for this Parliament and they will publish a new manifesto for the next one at election time.

I believe that the SNP's concept of independence is that the tax mix would be altered to suit the needs. Obviously at the moment you have the vast majority of taxes set at a UK level with no concession of what may or may not be appropriate in different nations or regions. This is pretty unusual in an international context, as most states the size of the UK or larger have some major variations (eg the different state and provincial level taxes in the US and Canada). I think Scotland would have a lower corporate tax rate to attract inward investment, for example, hence the SNP demanding that power within devolution.

[Future17]

Again I take your point re Denmarks approach however I would suggest that Denmark has very little to lose in letting Greenland go however that's not the case when you look at all of the implications a total divorce of Scotland from the rest of the UK...Scotland is much larger for starters and much more integrated into the fabric of the UK than Greenland is to Denmark (it's physically connected for starters!)

In terms of population maybe....:wink:

[ancient hibee]

But you never ever get 100% electorial vote, therefore scale up to 4m voters and you'll still get more than 50%, remember this is all conjecture and it's all depending on people voting and voting the way they did in last weeks election.

Remember you can only have a percentage of the number who actually vote not the number of registered voters, until every man and woman vote, we'll always have conjecture.
It is certainly not conjecture to state that of all the people entitled to vote only 25% voted SNP.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It is certainly not conjecture to state that of all the people entitled to vote only 25% voted SNP.

what % voted labour, what % voted conservative etc etc?

[J-C]

It is certainly not conjecture to state that of all the people entitled to vote only 25% voted SNP.

I'm sorry but I'm absolutely baffled by the fact you keep getting this magical, yet nonsense of 25% voted SNP.

The polls showed that 54% of the people who voted in the election voted SNP, now as we know only approx just over half the registered electorate voted, so we are around 2m votes short.

That still doesn't make 25% as neither you nor I know how these missing 2m voters wouls sctually vote, unless of course you made voting mandatory.

All you can do is say that if the missing voters voted the same way as the others then the SNP would still get 54% but as I've never in my life seen a 100% turnout in all my years of voting, we can only go by those who do vote, that's the democratic way, so it'll be 54% then and not your rediculous 25, end of.

If this is too much for your ancient brain to take in, would someone else
like a go at explaining it as I'm getting fed up trying, as simple as it is.

[J-C]

what % voted labour, what % voted conservative etc etc?


At the election SNP 54% Labour 28% Tory 11% Lib Dem 4% Rest 3%

Approx 2m out of the 4m registered electors voted.

[ancient hibee]

I'm sorry but I'm absolutely baffled by the fact you keep getting this magical, yet nonsense of 25% voted SNP.

The polls showed that 54% of the people who voted in the election voted SNP, now as we know only approx just over half the registered electorate voted, so we are around 2m votes short.

That still doesn't make 25% as neither you nor I know how these missing 2m voters wouls sctually vote, unless of course you made voting mandatory.

All you can do is say that if the missing voters voted the same way as the others then the SNP would still get 54% but as I've never in my life seen a 100% turnout in all my years of voting, we can only go by those who do vote, that's the democratic way, so it'll be 54% then and not your rediculous 25, end of.

If this is too much for your ancient brain to take in, would someone else
like a go at explaining it as I'm getting fed up trying, as simple as it is.
Well I can't understand how you can't understand.Do you understand that 50% voted for nobody and 50%voted for somebody.It doesn't matter how the nobodies might have voted.Of the 50%that voted half of them voted for the SNP.That makes 25% of the total that could have voted.If you want it in numbers if 4M could vote and 1M vote for the SNP that means the SNP got the votes of 25%of the total electorate.I suggest you pick up a book that explains simple arithmetic-it may help.

[J-C]

Well I can't understand how you can't understand.Do you understand that 50% voted for nobody and 50%voted for somebody.It doesn't matter how the nobodies might have voted.Of the 50%that voted half of them voted for the SNP.That makes 25% of the total that could have voted.If you want it in numbers if 4M could vote and 1M vote for the SNP that means the SNP got the votes of 25%of the total electorate.I suggest you pick up a book that explains simple arithmetic-it may help.


But as you have just stated, only 50% voted and that is the crux of this pointless discussion, which you seem unable grasp. All elections are won by the party with the most number of votes, no matter how many voters voted, in this instance SNP gained a majority with the most number of votes and out of these votes they recorded 54%.

You can't then go onto say they only have 25% the backing of the people as you only just said yourselfin your post not everyone voted and you cannot guess how they would vote if all votes were cast. Therefore your arguement is pointless as until there's an election where 100% of the electorate votes the we have to take a first past the post system with the total votes cast.

This is my last post to you on this as I'm starting to lose the will to live attempting to explain this simple mathematical process to you.:confused::bye:

[steakbake]

Well I can't understand how you can't understand.Do you understand that 50% voted for nobody and 50%voted for somebody.It doesn't matter how the nobodies might have voted.Of the 50%that voted half of them voted for the SNP.That makes 25% of the total that could have voted.If you want it in numbers if 4M could vote and 1M vote for the SNP that means the SNP got the votes of 25%of the total electorate.I suggest you pick up a book that explains simple arithmetic-it may help.

Would you be as fixated with the percentages game if your party won the election?

Fact of the matter is that some of the electorate didn't vote. Too bad. If they don't vote, their vote doesn't count.

Next point, please caller.

[Levenhibee]

Possibly however the Danish grant to Greenland I'm pretty sure is much clearer than the rather murky calcs required to work out Scotlands revenue v blaock grant received back.

Again I take your point re Denmarks approach however I would suggest that Denmark has very little to lose in letting Greenland go however that's not the case when you look at all of the implications a total divorce of Scotland from the rest of the UK...Scotland is much larger for starters and much more integrated into the fabric of the UK than Greenland is to Denmark (it's physically connected for starters!)

It is fair to say though that there is probably lessons to be learned from Greenland/Denmark but that does not automatically mean they will be lessons that support full Scotland independence! :greengrin


Of course you could argue that Denmark with a population of around 5.5m is too small to be a viable independant nation in the first place.Come to think of it the same could be said of Norway, New Zealand and Singapore all with populations between 4m to 5m.

[Hibbie0762]

The polls showed that 54% of the people who voted in the election voted SNPI am not sure how you have calculated this 54% figure.

The figures which I have, both from the SNP's new House Journal the Herald and the BBC website, show that the SNP got 45.4% of the Constituency vote and 44% of the list vote (902, 915 and 876,421 respectively). You can do different things with these figures but they all lead to a conclusion that the SNP got around 45% of the votes actually cast, and 23% of the overall Electorate.

Incidentally, the overall turnout was dead on 50%, 1.3% down on the 2007 SP Election. So the result represented a redistribution of a slightly reduced number of votes of those who traditionally bother to vote rather than any popular uprising on the streets.

There is no argument other than that the SNP won the 2011 Election very well indeed under the present Election system. But nevertheless they did not win an overall majority of votes. The simple fact is that even of the 1 in 2 eligible Scots who bothered to vote, more voted against the SNP than voted for them.

I do not think that the arithmetic in any way impacts upon the SNP's strong mandate to run Scotland for the next five years, and personally I do not think that the numbers mean much either in terms of the debate on an Independence Referendum which has now started. But if we are going to bandy figures around in support of the SNP's legitimacy (which I do not think anyone on either side of the argument is disputing anyway), at least use accurate figures.

[--------]

It's somewhat more than amusing - absolutely freakin hilarious, as a matter of fact - to see folks arguing about this percentage and that percentage and what would have happened IF the bone-lazy irresponsible shiftless element of the electorate had actually got off their backsides and voted.

The voting system for Holyrood was set up with the definite purpose of preventing any party from achieving an outright majority. "Consensus politics" was to be the name of the game, with the solid responsible Unionist parties always able to put the hems on the nasty Nats nefarious naughtiness.

Donald Dewar did his job well - exactly what his Westmonster taskmasters told him to do. And for a while it worked. We had Dreary Donald, Happy Henry, and Jack the Joker as our First Monsters, all the faithful vassals of Tone and Gordy, all toes firmly behind the party line.

But now, absolutely according to the rules set down by Westmonster parties in Westmonster, no cheating and strictly according to the book laid out by Dreary Donald and his wee sidekick Wee Davie the Pocket Politician, the Nasty Nats have actually won a majority. A working majority, not even needing to speak nicely to Margo (though I'm sure they will). Iain and Tavish and Auntie Bella have all fallen on their swords (emails from London, guys?) and we settle down to five years with a majority Government in Edinburgh.

So what's the problem, guys? Scotland is (I have been told) a democracy. So all the Labour-Liberal-Tory Unionists have to do is win the next election in 5 years time. That's how democracy works.

[Hibbie0762]

It's somewhat more than amusing - absolutely freakin hilarious, as a matter of fact - to see folks arguing about this percentage and that percentage and what would have happened IF the bone-lazy irresponsible shiftless element of the electorate had actually got off their backsides and voted.
I did not argue any what ifs. I was careful to acknowledge the scale of the result and the strength of the mandate which it represents. I simply suggested that where figures are being quoted in defence of an argument - and it was a pro-SNP argument in this particular case - the figures should at least be accurate.


So all the Labour-Liberal-Tory Unionists have to do is win the next election in 5 years time. That's how democracy works.Just so. Is anyone disputing that? Or were you merely taking the opportunity to get in a bit more post-Election gloating and infantile name-calling? We can all think up jokey and insulting names for our political opponents but it is a long way from mature politics - or indeed the wisdom on which Alex Salmond states he has not got a monopoly.

[J-C]

I am not sure how you have calculated this 54% figure.

The figures which I have, both from the SNP's new House Journal the Herald and the BBC website, show that the SNP got 45.4% of the Constituency vote and 44% of the list vote (902, 915 and 876,421 respectively). You can do different things with these figures but they all lead to a conclusion that the SNP got around 45% of the votes actually cast, and 23% of the overall Electorate.

Incidentally, the overall turnout was dead on 50%, 1.3% down on the 2007 SP Election. So the result represented a redistribution of a slightly reduced number of votes of those who traditionally bother to vote rather than any popular uprising on the streets.

There is no argument other than that the SNP won the 2011 Election very well indeed under the present Election system. But nevertheless they did not win an overall majority of votes. The simple fact is that even of the 1 in 2 eligible Scots who bothered to vote, more voted against the SNP than voted for them.

I do not think that the arithmetic in any way impacts upon the SNP's strong mandate to run Scotland for the next five years, and personally I do not think that the numbers mean much either in terms of the debate on an Independence Referendum which has now started. But if we are going to bandy figures around in support of the SNP's legitimacy (which I do not think anyone on either side of the argument is disputing anyway), at least use accurate figures.

Oops, slip of the typing fingers, got the numbers wrong way round, my bad.

It's been said before that until you get a full 100% vote, or at least get a vast majority coming out to vote, it's hard to say if independance will be on a winner but we do need to get more people voting to gauge.

[--------]

I did not argue any what ifs. I was careful to acknowledge the scale of the result and the strength of the mandate which it represents. I simply suggested that where figures are being quoted in defence of an argument - and it was a pro-SNP argument in this particular case - the figures should at least be accurate.

Just so. Is anyone disputing that? Or were you merely taking the opportunity to get in a bit more post-Election gloating and infantile name-calling? We can all think up jokey and insulting names for our political opponents but it is a long way from mature politics - or indeed the wisdom on which Alex Salmond states he has not got a monopoly.


My apologies. I was doing what Iain Gray and his cronies were doing all through the campaign - making it up as I went along.

What the SNP now have is a mandate to govern Scotland for the next 5 years according to their manifesto - and I didn't see any other party nearly as well-equipped to do so before the vote. Can't see any now either.

For the record, I would say that of the three Scottish Labour mini-leaders I insulted, I have time - a LOT of time - for Henry McLeish, not least because of the three of them he's the only one who's been prepared to engage in intelligent discussion about the future constitution of the United (or Dis-United) Kingdom. He's an intelligent and IMO decent man, and to him, I apologise.

Donald Dewar should have been put under severe scrutiny over the scandalous cost of the Parliament building - £40 million rising to how much? £500 million? More? Do we even know yet? I smell some mega-pockling going on there. Never trust a Labour politician with a building contract, as my old dad used to say...

Jack McConnell was the guy who foisted that tramway nightmare on my native city, and turned up in New York in a pinstrip jacket and skirt ensemble looking like Ivana Trump on a bad hair day, and I blankly refuse to be polite about HIM.

But my main point remains - the SNP have a firmer and more decisive remit to govern than any other party since the re-establishment of the Parliament. They now have both the right and the means to bring forward a referendum on the future constitutional position of the Scottish nation. They can do so at the time of their own choosing. They can frame the questions to give the electorate as wide or as narrow a choice as they choose. And they can act upon the results as they're led - subject to the sovereign will of the Scottish people as expressed at the ballot-box.

But I still think Margo will be proved right - we'll take a wee bit here, another wee bit there, and line by line and clause by clause we'll grow into being a nation again - either as an independent nation within the EU, or as a confederated equal partner in a reformed UK.

But please - gonnae no ask me to be polite about Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?

Just gonnae no? :devil:

[Hibbie0762]

My apologies. I was doing what Iain Gray and his cronies were doing all through the campaign - making it up as I went along.I had spotted that.


What the SNP now have is a mandate to govern Scotland for the next 5 years according to their manifesto - and I didn't see any other party nearly as well-equipped to do so before the vote. Can't see any now either.Well, they are the masters now. Let us see what they do with their mandate.


Donald Dewar should have been put under severe scrutiny over the scandalous cost of the Parliament building - £40 million rising to how much? £500 million? More? Do we even know yet?The main reason for the costs spiralling out of control - apart from poor contract management by officials - was the incessant Requests for Change by MSPs from all Parties. Blaming Labour for the cost of the SP has always been a feature of the SNP script, but in truth their MSPs were as culpable as anyone else. David Steel was not blameless either.


Jack McConnell was the guy who foisted that tramway nightmare on my native city, and turned up in New York in a pinstrip jacket and skirt ensemble looking like Ivana Trump on a bad hair day, and I blankly refuse to be polite about HIM.I am no McConnell fan myself, but of course he is not the only Scot who ever fannied about in a kilt in New York City, all at the expense of the public purse naturally.


But my main point remains - the SNP have a firmer and more decisive remit to govern than any other party since the re-establishment of the Parliament. They now have both the right and the means to bring forward a referendum on the future constitutional position of the Scottish nation. They can do so at the time of their own choosing. They can frame the questions to give the electorate as wide or as narrow a choice as they choose. And they can act upon the results as they're led - subject to the sovereign will of the Scottish people as expressed at the ballot-box.The SNP have a strong mandate. In SP terms they can do whatever they choose to do with it, without the consent of any other Party. But what they still do not have is the consent of a majority of the Scottish people. The fact remains that despite their whopping superiority of MSP numbers, 11 out of every 20 Scots who bothered to vote in 2011 did not vote for the SNP. And only slightly better than 1 in every 5 Scots able to vote voted SNP.

In terms of how our Parliamentary systems works, you will get no argument from me that the SNP have a strong mandate to implement their Manifesto. Indeed, some of us are keen to learn quite how they intend to deliver on all the promissory notes which they wrote out during the campaign. The 5 year Council Tax freeze is by no means the only bribe on which they will be expected to make good.

But I am sure Salmond is not kidding himself that he has a mandate to impose independence without further consultation with the Scottish people. That was most certainly not in the Manifesto.


But I still think Margo will be proved right - we'll take a wee bit here, another wee bit there, and line by line and clause by clause we'll grow into being a nation again - either as an independent nation within the EU, or as a confederated equal partner in a reformed UK.Who knows, if at some stage the SNP actually start to detail what they mean by independence and exactly how we Scots will be so much better off, we might even vote for it :devil:


But please - gonnae no ask me to be polite about Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?A state of political maturity towards your opponents is a destination you must reach by dint of your own efforts. No-one can drive you there :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

It's somewhat more than amusing - absolutely freakin hilarious, as a matter of fact - to see folks arguing about this percentage and that percentage and what would have happened IF the bone-lazy irresponsible shiftless element of the electorate had actually got off their backsides and voted.

The voting system for Holyrood was set up with the definite purpose of preventing any party from achieving an outright majority. "Consensus politics" was to be the name of the game, with the solid responsible Unionist parties always able to put the hems on the nasty Nats nefarious naughtiness.

Donald Dewar did his job well - exactly what his Westmonster taskmasters told him to do. And for a while it worked. We had Dreary Donald, Happy Henry, and Jack the Joker as our First Monsters, all the faithful vassals of Tone and Gordy, all toes firmly behind the party line.

But now, absolutely according to the rules set down by Westmonster parties in Westmonster, no cheating and strictly according to the book laid out by Dreary Donald and his wee sidekick Wee Davie the Pocket Politician, the Nasty Nats have actually won a majority. A working majority, not even needing to speak nicely to Margo (though I'm sure they will). Iain and Tavish and Auntie Bella have all fallen on their swords (emails from London, guys?) and we settle down to five years with a majority Government in Edinburgh.

So what's the problem, guys? Scotland is (I have been told) a democracy. So all the Labour-Liberal-Tory Unionists have to do is win the next election in 5 years time. That's how democracy works.

Have you been politically cross breeding with ancienthibby? These weird humourless nicknames are pretty dull.

[One Day Soon]

My apologies. I was doing what Iain Gray and his cronies were doing all through the campaign - making it up as I went along.

What the SNP now have is a mandate to govern Scotland for the next 5 years according to their manifesto - and I didn't see any other party nearly as well-equipped to do so before the vote. Can't see any now either.

For the record, I would say that of the three Scottish Labour mini-leaders I insulted, I have time - a LOT of time - for Henry McLeish, not least because of the three of them he's the only one who's been prepared to engage in intelligent discussion about the future constitution of the United (or Dis-United) Kingdom. He's an intelligent and IMO decent man, and to him, I apologise.

What a surprise. A Nat has a lot of time for the former First Minister who has spent the last four years cosying up to - the Nats. Yes, I'm sure your admiration for him is all about his "intelligent discussion about the future constitution of the United (or Dis-United) Kingdom."

Dismissing Dewar's contribution, given his role in delivering devolution and the Scottish Parliament, is just crass. To put it another way, if you didn't have the Scottish Parliament he was instrumental in delivering you wouldn't be having the Scottish Nationalist Party government you are so proud of and you wouldn't have the opportunity to have the present debate. You would do better to take your tartan tinted glasses off.


Donald Dewar should have been put under severe scrutiny over the scandalous cost of the Parliament building - £40 million rising to how much? £500 million? More? Do we even know yet? I smell some mega-pockling going on there. Never trust a Labour politician with a building contract, as my old dad used to say...

You clearly have absolutely no understanding as to how that whole fiasco ran out of control. If you did you would realise that a) the project was controlled by the Parliament itself and not the Government and b) the majority of the increased cost arose from idiot backbenchers of all parties demanding substantial design changes once the project was under way. One cracker being that the chamber should be less of a horseshoe and more flat and open in order to encourage a less confrontational debating style. The cost of that was many millions on its own.

Actually your hint that Dewar was in some way corrupt in this matter is pretty vile. About as low as you could have gone in fact.

Jack McConnell was the guy who foisted that tramway nightmare on my native city, and turned up in New York in a pinstrip jacket and skirt ensemble looking like Ivana Trump on a bad hair day, and I blankly refuse to be polite about HIM.

It would be hard to find much to flatter McConnell about. I'm not sure you have a case in regard to him foisting the tram on Edinburgh though.

But my main point remains - the SNP have a firmer and more decisive remit to govern than any other party since the re-establishment of the Parliament. They now have both the right and the means to bring forward a referendum on the future constitutional position of the Scottish nation. They can do so at the time of their own choosing. They can frame the questions to give the electorate as wide or as narrow a choice as they choose. And they can act upon the results as they're led - subject to the sovereign will of the Scottish people as expressed at the ballot-box.

The Parliament isn't re-established it is established. To be re-established it would have to be the Scottish Parliament of the sovereign state of Scotland re-constituted, which it isn't at present.

Other than that I agree. The people have spoken. So could we now have the referendum - or even just the date of the referendum - so that the people can speak on this most fundamental of matters. Or are they not to be trusted with their choice until they have been massaged for the next four years?

Who is in charge of the constitutional future of Scotland, Salmond or the Scottish people?

But I still think Margo will be proved right - we'll take a wee bit here, another wee bit there, and line by line and clause by clause we'll grow into being a nation again - either as an independent nation within the EU, or as a confederated equal partner in a reformed UK.

But please - gonnae no ask me to be polite about Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?

Just gonnae no? :devil:

The time for slogans is over. This is a real as it gets so now we need to see the colour of the Nationalist money and that means a full, open and factually informed discussion on their proposals. It does not help of course that they were elected on a manifesto for independence and yet one of the first things they have said is that they will not be pursuing independence. You would have thought a majority government could have sustained at least one month in office before breaking its first promise.