What does independence actually mean?

[hibs0666]

Now that the SNP is obliged to hold an independence referendum, it will have to make its case and explain what independence actually is. Clearly, soundbites from fat Alex will be insufficient, and the SNP will be required to put very substantial meat on the bones come referendum time.

Alex shot from the hip yesterday when he raised the possibility of a shared defensive force with England, only for that suggestion to be laughed out of court. However, I haven't yet heard a SNP spokesman confirming whether or not Alex's utterences represent SNP policy.

So, my starter questions for ten are:

Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence?
Does Scotland become a republic?
Does Scotland raise its own armed forces?
How does it balance personal and corporate taxation?
Will Scotland continue to use English currency?
Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down?
Does Scotland remain in Europe?
Does Scotland become a neutral country?
Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect?
Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC?
Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland?

[--------]

Now that the SNP is obliged to hold an independence referendum, it will have to make its case and explain what independence actually is. Clearly, soundbites from fat Alex will be insufficient, and the SNP will be required to put very substantial meat on the bones come referendum time.

Alex shot from the hip yesterday when he raised the possibility of a shared defensive force with England, only for that suggestion to be laughed out of court. However, I haven't yet heard a SNP spokesman confirming whether or not Alex's utterences represent SNP policy.

So, my starter questions for ten are:

Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence? Yes - quite a few. That's why we need to start talking about it sensibly.
Does Scotland become a republic? Not according to present SNP policy.
Does Scotland raise its own armed forces? That's the "nonsensical idea" AS was trying to start discussion on. Which Fox - the man who's cutting defence spending and resources like there's not tomorrow - laughed at.
How does it balance personal and corporate taxation? That's a question for the first Scottish Government possessing tax-raising powers.
Will Scotland continue to use English currency? Why not the Euro?
Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down? Why would they do that? they're muti-nationals last time I looked, and there's no reason they shouldn't be 'homed' in Scotland.
Does Scotland remain in Europe? Why would we leave?
Does Scotland become a neutral country? Neutral as in 'leaving NATO? Again, a decision for a post-independence government. But there's no reason why we should.
Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect? Again, a decision for a post-independence government.
Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC? No. We'll be able to get it via Sky or Virgin, surely. We MAY pay a licence fee to fund Scottish broadcasting.
Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland? Again, a decision for a post-independence government.

(That's just off the top of my head.)




First of all, there's not a question of the Government being "obliged" to hold a referendum regarding independence. It was made very clear that the Unionist groups in the last Parliament were determined to vote down any proposal for such a measure; it was simply common sense not to waste parliamentary time on something which clearly wasn't going to succeed.

The Government now have the opportunity and means to hold a referendum on the constitution at a time in a form of their own choosing. Which I am absolutely sure they will do.

By that time I would be very surprised indeed if the Government hasn't put a fair bit of flesh on the bones of the proposal - a LOT more than "soundbites from fat Alex" as you put it. Since I was recently rebuked for being less than respectful to Dreary Donald Dewar, Happy Henry Mcleish and Jack the Joker McConnell (not forgetting Gordy and Tone), I do hope you're aware that this represents an immature attitude incompatible with serious political debate.... :rolleyes:

As for the defence issue you raise, Fox's response to the first Minister's suggestion was as follows: "It is tempting to make light of some of the nonsensical ideas that tend to come from the SNP. But now that they are in such a strong political position in Scotland we have to take some of these issues more seriously. It is extremely worrying that the SNP have previously had a position and a posture which is anti-Nato, and anti the nuclear defence of this country. I think it is now time for a very serious debate on issues that ought to worry all those who believe not only in the United Kingdom but in sound defence for the United Kingdom."

It good to have confirmation from an authoritative source that hitherto the Westminster Government haven't been taking the Scottish Government seriously. As Defence Minister he's surely an expert on "nonsensical ideas" - after all most of the UK defence budget right now is committed to Trident and Trident's successor (including 3/4 new missile boats to carry the things) plus two new aircraft carriers doomed to spend the first ten years or so of their lives bereft of aircraft. Note to Dr Fox - an aircraft carrier's offensive armament is its AIRCRAFT.

And it seems to me that Alec Salmond's raising of the issue was just exactly the sort of thing that might initiate a mature debate on the subject of UK defence. We've been needing one for a very long time now - almost as long as I've been alive, IMO.

[Hibbie0762]

I would be very surprised indeed if the Government hasn't put a fair bit of flesh on the bones of the proposalI think we are all a bit surprised that the SNP Government have not already started to do so, to be honest.

After all, they have presumably been planning for independence since the year they were formed and planning fairly seriously, if not since the the SP was set up 12 years ago, at least since 2007 when they formed their minority administration. I mean, presumably they have been doing a bit more over the past four years than abolishing the Bridge Tolls, giving the middle classes their free prescriptions and obsessing themselves with bilingual signage in the SP and Victoria Quay?

Judging by the latest defence fiasco, the reports of confusion within the SNP themselves as to what independence 2011-style actually means, and disquiet among the Fundies over Salmond's newly emerging Independence-lite concept (low alcohol independence? How appropriate :greengrin ), the other Parties were not the only ones making it up as they went along during the recent campaign.

[hibs0666]

First of all, there's not a question of the Government being "obliged" to hold a referendum regarding independence. It was made very clear that the Unionist groups in the last Parliament were determined to vote down any proposal for such a measure; it was simply common sense not to waste parliamentary time on something which clearly wasn't going to succeed.

The Government now have the opportunity and means to hold a referendum on the constitution at a time in a form of their own choosing. Which I am absolutely sure they will do.

It would be disgraceful for a SNP majority government NOT to host a referendum and bring this issue to a head. The longer this issue rumbles on, the more uncertainty there is and the less likely Scotland becomes as a destination for new international investment.


By that time I would be very surprised indeed if the Government hasn't put a fair bit of flesh on the bones of the proposal - a LOT more than "soundbites from fat Alex" as you put it. Since I was recently rebuked for being less than respectful to Dreary Donald Dewar, Happy Henry Mcleish and Jack the Joker McConnell (not forgetting Gordy and Tone), I do hope you're aware that this represents an immature attitude incompatible with serious political debate.... :rolleyes:

As for the defence issue you raise, Fox's response to the first Minister's suggestion was as follows: "It is tempting to make light of some of the nonsensical ideas that tend to come from the SNP. But now that they are in such a strong political position in Scotland we have to take some of these issues more seriously. It is extremely worrying that the SNP have previously had a position and a posture which is anti-Nato, and anti the nuclear defence of this country. I think it is now time for a very serious debate on issues that ought to worry all those who believe not only in the United Kingdom but in sound defence for the United Kingdom."

It good to have confirmation from an authoritative source that hitherto the Westminster Government haven't been taking the Scottish Government seriously. As Defence Minister he's surely an expert on "nonsensical ideas" - after all most of the UK defence budget right now is committed to Trident and Trident's successor (including 3/4 new missile boats to carry the things) plus two new aircraft carriers doomed to spend the first ten years or so of their lives bereft of aircraft. Note to Dr Fox - an aircraft carrier's offensive armament is its AIRCRAFT.

And it seems to me that Alec Salmond's raising of the issue was just exactly the sort of thing that might initiate a mature debate on the subject of UK defence. We've been needing one for a very long time now - almost as long as I've been alive, IMO.

Fat Alex's off the cuff suggestion of shared defences was laughed out of court for a very good reason - how can a single army have two political masters? If I was a strategic planner in the MOD in London I would be at this very minute drawing up scenarios for the early withdrawal of UK forces from Scotland. This is but one example why an early referendum must happen in order to end such uncertainty.


Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence? Yes - quite a few. That's why we need to start talking about it sensibly.

Where can I find this vision?

Does Scotland become a republic? Not according to present SNP policy.

Surely this debate should go hand-in-hand with independence - what use is independence when we remain subjects of a foreign crown?

Does Scotland raise its own armed forces? That's the "nonsensical idea" AS was trying to start discussion on. Which Fox - the man who's cutting defence spending and resources like there's not tomorrow - laughed at.

Clearly fat Alex has not thought this one through - just a minor oversight - a bit like the arc of prosperity I suppose.

How does it balance personal and corporate taxation? That's a question for the first Scottish Government possessing tax-raising powers.

We cannot let this fundamental uncertainty go unchallenged for years and years when our competitor countries are fighting for every penny of investment going. Surely the SNP have this nailed?

Will Scotland continue to use English currency? Why not the Euro?

Why is that not SNP policy already? This is basic stuff surely!

Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down? Why would they do that? they're muti-nationals last time I looked, and there's no reason they shouldn't be 'homed' in Scotland.

I hope that the Scottish economy is strong enough to bankroll any further losses in RBS then. Unless we get very brave and the Scottish Central Bank lets RBS go down the tubes if there are further ructions in the global banking system.

Does Scotland remain in Europe? Why would we leave?

The SNP is seeking to leave one union - why not go the whole hog and leave the European Zone as well? As with the Irish, we would be a tiny wee country in a Eurozone in which interest rates would be set for the big guys and very possibly against Scottish interests. I'm sure the SNP have this policy issue nailed though. Aye right.

Does Scotland become a neutral country? Neutral as in 'leaving NATO? Again, a decision for a post-independence government. But there's no reason why we should.

Sounds liek this is yet another issue in which the SNP have no policy then.

Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect? Again, a decision for a post-independence government.

So no clarity there then either.

Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC? No. We'll be able to get it via Sky or Virgin, surely. We MAY pay a licence fee to fund Scottish broadcasting.

What guarantee can you provide that Virgin and Sky will continue operations in Scotland? Will they be required to host local operaitons here when Scotland becomes independent? Will they be subject to punitive corporate taxes if they continue operations here?

Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland? Again, a decision for a post-independence government.

There really is very little understanding of what an independent Scotland might look like is there?

[J-C]

Now that the SNP is obliged to hold an independence referendum, it will have to make its case and explain what independence actually is. Clearly, soundbites from fat Alex will be insufficient, and the SNP will be required to put very substantial meat on the bones come referendum time.

Alex shot from the hip yesterday when he raised the possibility of a shared defensive force with England, only for that suggestion to be laughed out of court. However, I haven't yet heard a SNP spokesman confirming whether or not Alex's utterences represent SNP policy.

So, my starter questions for ten are:

Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence?

http://www2.snp.org/

Does Scotland become a republic?

As in without a monarch, I wouldn't think so as the Queen is half Scottish and has residence here.

Does Scotland raise its own armed forces?

We already have an army here, the Scottish regiment, which is an amalgamation of all the previous regiments. The Royal Scots were the first official frontline foot infantry in the British army, formed in 1633.

How does it balance personal and corporate taxation?

I'm not that savvy, someone with more money brains can answer that better.

Will Scotland continue to use English currency?

We have our own currency which has been around for a few hundred years, we also accept English money as they do abroad, only there they have to change it to Euro's.

Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down?

Both Scottish banks are presently housed in Edinburgh at Gogarburn and the Mound, they are connected to English banks so are now multi nationals.

Does Scotland remain in Europe?

Why not, Britain is in Europe, we would just carry on as before surely.

Does Scotland become a neutral country?

In what way do you mean neutral, if you mean no longer part of Nato then I can't answer that, I see no reason to leave Nato myself

Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect?

I don't think the nuclear stations are at risk, I think it's nuclear weapons the SNP are wanting to decommision

Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC?

I've always been against a license for thr BBC seeing as one way or another nowadays we all pay for our TV through Sky,Vigin etc. We have BBC studios in Scotland, we may not need them seeing as we have these other forms of media to get our TV, also we have STV part of the Independant Television Authority.

Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland?

Again someone with a greater knowledge than me would have to answer.

[hibs0666]

Nowt on the SNP website mate - it's clearly too controversial for an independence party to outline its vision for an independent Scotland.

The SNP will not get away with this bland waving of the Saltire for too much longer though.

[J-C]

Nowt on the SNP website mate - it's clearly too controversial for an independence party to outline its vision for an independent Scotland.

The SNP will not get away with this bland waving of the Saltire for too much longer though.


You have to click vision, then downloads, this gives you this....
http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_highRes.pdf

[hibs0666]

Saw a wee bit on the news right enough. Policy seems to include keeping Liz, keeping sterling and keeping the army. Not much there to justify independence then.

I guess the strategy is independence by stealth but fat Alex is still going to have let us know what he is seeking to create.

[Hibbie0762]

Saw a wee bit on the news right enough. Policy seems to include keeping Liz, keeping sterling and keeping the army. Not much there to justify independence then.

I guess the strategy is independence by stealth but fat Alex is still going to have let us know what he is seeking to create.I am not holding my breath on the SNP publishing a detailed blueprint for Independence any time soon.

In the run-up to the 2011 Election Salmond invested £50K of Scottish taxpayers' cash in visits to the Court of Session to prevent details of the financial implications of the SNP's local income tax plans becoming public.

When it comes to the arguments for Independence, a bit like the team Salmond supports it seems we are expected just to Believe :greengrin

[hibs0666]

You have to click vision, then downloads, this gives you this....
http://votesnp.com/campaigns/SNP_Manifesto_2011_highRes.pdf

Thanks for this. All I could find of substance under independence was the desire to retain Scottish taxes in Scotland, and the ability to control corporation tax.

There is no discussion of what the SNP intends to do with this control - too controversial I suspect.

[Sir David Gray]

Now that the SNP is obliged to hold an independence referendum, it will have to make its case and explain what independence actually is. Clearly, soundbites from fat Alex will be insufficient, and the SNP will be required to put very substantial meat on the bones come referendum time.

Alex shot from the hip yesterday when he raised the possibility of a shared defensive force with England, only for that suggestion to be laughed out of court. However, I haven't yet heard a SNP spokesman confirming whether or not Alex's utterences represent SNP policy.

So, my starter questions for ten are:

Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence?
There are soundbites on their website but nothing of much substance.

Does Scotland become a republic?
I think that's one thing they have been pretty clear on, to be fair. I don't think Alex Salmond is, or ever has been, a republican and he has stated on many occasions that an independent Scotland under his guidance will retain the British monarch as the Scottish Head of State.

Does Scotland raise its own armed forces?
No idea.

How does it balance personal and corporate taxation?
No idea.

Will Scotland continue to use English currency?
I think I heard Nicola Sturgeon attempting to give a bit of a half baked answer to this question last week. I was always under the impression that we would adopt the euro under the SNP but she was suggesting that we might keep sterling until the time was right to join the euro. Very vague to say the least.

Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down?
No idea.

Does Scotland remain in Europe?
Unfortunately. Which is one of the reasons why I will never vote SNP. I can't believe that a pro-independence party is pro-EU. Totally beyond belief and defies all logic and comprehension.

Does Scotland become a neutral country?
No idea.

Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect?
Probably. Only to be replaced by thousands of ugly wind farms all over the country soon after.

Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC?
Knowing the SNP, we'll probably adopt BBC Alba as our main BBC channel and have our programmes in a language that 99% of the country can't understand.

Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland?
No idea.


There are many questions which the SNP have to answer before any of us can really make an informed decision on whether or not we want independence.

I know that a referendum is probably about 3-4 years away but Salmond really needs to start making his vision for an independent Scotland a lot clearer than it is at the moment because, as things stand, there really is nothing for anyone to vote on.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Fat Alex's off the cuff suggestion of shared defences was laughed out of court for a very good reason - how can a single army have two political masters? If I was a strategic planner in the MOD in London I would be at this very minute drawing up scenarios for the early withdrawal of UK forces from Scotland. This is but one example why an early referendum must happen in order to end such uncertainty.

Who is the political master of NATO?

[hibs0666]

Who is the political master of NATO?

The North Atlantic Council is the most senior political forum.

Clearly nothing like that exists in the UK and Salmond would have to negotiate this into existence. Fat chance.

[Part/Time Supporter]

The North Atlantic Council is the most senior political forum.

Clearly nothing like that exists in the UK and Salmond would have to negotiate this into existence. Fat chance.

Quite right. There is no single political master. Any NATO activity is done by a consensus of said forum. There was no consensus over Iraq, which is why it was not organised by NATO.

Your notion that there would be no defence cooperation whatsoever is laughable. Take Trident, for example. There is no suitable base for it presently apart from Faslane. A lease would have to be negotiated, at least for the period during which an alternative base was constructed. Take air defence, the Russians have been increasing their activity in the North Sea over the last few years. You would need some sort of NORAD-style co-operation (a joint air defence program between the US and Canada) to cover that.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Surely this debate should go hand-in-hand with independence - what use is independence when we remain subjects of a foreign crown?

Perhaps you should explain to the people of Canada, Australia and New Zealand that their independence from the UK is without "use".


We cannot let this fundamental uncertainty go unchallenged for years and years when our competitor countries are fighting for every penny of investment going. Surely the SNP have this nailed?

Why are you asking them to set theoretical budgets for theoretical tax powers for a theoretically independent country possibly 10 years in the future? We don't know what tax rates George Osborne will set for more than a year in advance.


Why is that not SNP policy already? This is basic stuff surely!

Their policy is the same as the UK Government policy has been for the last 15 years - wait and see.


I hope that the Scottish economy is strong enough to bankroll any further losses in RBS then. Unless we get very brave and the Scottish Central Bank lets RBS go down the tubes if there are further ructions in the global banking system.

That's what should have happened internationally, thereby forcing wealthy speculators to take a haircut instead of getting bailed out by the ordinary taxpayer.


The SNP is seeking to leave one union - why not go the whole hog and leave the European Zone as well? As with the Irish, we would be a tiny wee country in a Eurozone in which interest rates would be set for the big guys and very possibly against Scottish interests. I'm sure the SNP have this policy issue nailed though. Aye right.

See above. I believe the most sensible approach would be to temporarily remain with the UK currency zone until a referendum would decide whether to adopt the Euro or launch a separate currency. Of course, the Euro might not be an option by then. It would be a bit daft to commit to joining the Euro if it didn't exist.


Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect? Again, a decision for a post-independence government.

So no clarity there then either.

Why should there be? You're miring yourself in detail. I believe the present idea is to greatly develop renewable sources and to enhance the network of European interconnectors, thereby Scotland could export excess renewable generation and import from other countries when there was a shortage.

[hibs0666]

I'm saying if independence means retaining the monarchy, currency and armed forces then what exactly is the point of independence?

[Hainan Hibs]

From my understanding what is actually being proposed is the sharing of facilities and co-operation in defence of the island which is a good idea.

Least we forget this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8105006/UK-France-defence-David-Cameron-hails-new-military-co-operation-between-Britain-and-France.html

[Part/Time Supporter]

I'm saying if independence means retaining the monarchy, currency and armed forces then what exactly is the point of independence?

If that's your attitude, you could also ask what's the point of devolution? It's about improving the governance of the country.

The monarchy isn't particularly relevant to that, and hasn't been since about 1800. I don't think the currency would be retained except on a short term basis. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding what Salmond said about defence.

[steakbake]

From my understanding what is actually being proposed is the sharing of facilities and co-operation in defence of the island which is a good idea.

Least we forget this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8105006/UK-France-defence-David-Cameron-hails-new-military-co-operation-between-Britain-and-France.html

Indeed. Not such a ridiculous idea, but people are often quick to get hot under the collar and play down independence than to see examples of what is being proposed as they currently exist.

Germany and Cyprus (amongst others) have allowed the UK to use bases and have facilities there. The US has several bases here and our intelligence network is shared by various partners.

Being very cynical, it could be claimed that a variety of our recent military adventures would demonstrate that the US tend to be more in control of our armed forces than folks in London are. Also, I do worry that without Scotland over-subsidising the UK army with manpower, they may just struggle on their own.

More generally, there are a number of long-standing, joint military exercises, shared facilities etc. This is not unusual.

Re: the Monarchy - many of the countries in the Commonwealth have the queen as head of state. They are independent countries. I don't see how Scotland being independent would automatically have to result in a republic or how the monarchy cannot fit in with that new constitutional structure?

Money: sterling in the short term makes sense. The EURO is a shared currency between many independent countries. Many countries also use the US dollar or the Euro as a convenience currency. I think the only exception where it seems to be a problem is if it is suggested for Scotland.

[hibs0666]

If that's your attitude, you could also ask what's the point of devolution? It's about improving the governance of the country.

The monarchy isn't particularly relevant to that, and hasn't been since about 1800. I don't think the currency would be retained except on a short term basis. I think you're deliberately misunderstanding what Salmond said about defence.

Devolution appears to already give what Salmond wants - a monarchy, sterling as a currency and armed forces facilities in Scotland. I ask again - what does a independent Scotland look like? Rather than towing the SNP line, why should a republic not be up for discussion as part of the independence discussion?

As regards the military discussion, Salmond said that Scotland would would be willing to share military facilities with "friendly neighbours" under independence. Guess what - that is exactly what happens today! As usual when the independence agenda is addressed, Salmond has uttered yet another wee soundbite with absolutely no substance.

- Does he want veto over the use of the nuclear arsenal based in Scotland?
- Does he want to control the use of Scottish armed forces?
- Does he want a power of veto over the use of English soldiers based in Scotland?
- Does he want a few sheckels in rent for English forces based in Scotland?
- Does he want Scottish soldiers to be based in England, Germany etc.

We have a right and need to know as this is yet another area of uncertainty that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Devolution appears to already give what Salmond wants - a monarchy, sterling as a currency and armed forces facilities in Scotland. I ask again - what does a independent Scotland look like? Rather than towing the SNP line, why should a republic not be up for discussion as part of the independence discussion?

As regards the military discussion, Salmond said that Scotland would would be willing to share military facilities with "friendly neighbours" under independence. Guess what - that is exactly what happens today! As usual when the independence agenda is addressed, Salmond has uttered yet another wee soundbite with absolutely no substance.

- Does he want veto over the use of the nuclear arsenal based in Scotland?
- Does he want to control the use of Scottish armed forces?
- Does he want a power of veto over the use of English soldiers based in Scotland?
- Does he want a few sheckels in rent for English forces based in Scotland?
- Does he want Scottish soldiers to be based in England, Germany etc.

We have a right and need to know as this is yet another area of uncertainty that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

It doesn't because the present settlement gives the Scottish Parliament less economic powers than your local council.

The answer to all your questions is yes. It would surely make sense to continue many of the existing arrangements, particularly where they are mutually beneficial. A big part of the "unionist" argument has been to imply that the SNP favour some sort of total separation, as if Scotland could float off somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. What he is doing is to establish that there is no need to separate those things which currently work well within the Union. The point of independence is to have the power to resolve those that don't.

The point about the armed forces is that there is an implied subsidy from Scotland to the rest of the UK of £800M. Scotland is assigned £2,800M in UK defence spending as a share of population (it isn't part of Barnett because it is a "UK" thing), but in fact only £2,000M is phsyically spent in Scotland (soon to be reduced by the closure of at least Kinloss). Therefore with the present expenditure you could easily maintain the existing capability.

[hibs0666]

It doesn't because the present settlement gives the Scottish Parliament less economic powers than your local council.

I'm interested in this statement re economic powers of the Scottish parliament versus the local councils - what are you alluding to here?

Looking at economic powers. Salmond wants to retain sterling and therefore the Bank of England will dictate interest rate policy in Scotland without requiring to pay even lip service to prevailing Scottish economic conditions. Adopting the Euro would grant even less direct macro-economic influence.

On the income side, Salmond wants retain Scottish taxes - that much is clear. However, I am far more interested in what he intends to do with those powers, and what is the expected increase/decrease in the available budget by doing this?

[hibs0666]

It doesn't because the present settlement gives the Scottish Parliament less economic powers than your local council.

The answer to all your questions is yes. It would surely make sense to continue many of the existing arrangements, particularly where they are mutually beneficial. A big part of the "unionist" argument has been to imply that the SNP favour some sort of total separation, as if Scotland could float off somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. What he is doing is to establish that there is no need to separate those things which currently work well within the Union. The point of independence is to have the power to resolve those that don't.

The point about the armed forces is that there is an implied subsidy from Scotland to the rest of the UK of £800M. Scotland is assigned £2,800M in UK defence spending as a share of population (it isn't part of Barnett because it is a "UK" thing), but in fact only £2,000M is phsyically spent in Scotland (soon to be reduced by the closure of at least Kinloss). Therefore with the present expenditure you could easily maintain the existing capability.

This appears to not be a discussion about the principles of independence but one of access to available UK resources. However, it is quite clear that the SNP is unclear regarding a vision for the armed forces in an independent Scotland.

[Hainan Hibs]

This appears to not be a discussion about the principles of independence but one of access to available UK resources. However, it is quite clear that the SNP is unclear regarding a vision for the armed forces in an independent Scotland.

From their website their policy is the creation of a Scottish Defence Force. http://www.snp.org/node/6599

However, with the number of people who rely on the defence industry for employment the SNP will have to produce and communicate a very clear picture of what this is if they are to gain a majority yes in a referendum.

[hibs0666]

From their website their policy is the creation of a Scottish Defence Force. http://www.snp.org/node/6599

However, with the number of people who rely on the defence industry for employment the SNP will have to produce and communicate a very clear picture of what this is if they are to gain a majority yes in a referendum.

Faslane seems to be a goner, full stop, and non-negotiable so it cannot form part of a negotiated shared defence agreement with England. I see that an independent Scotland will withdraw from NATO as it is a nuclear-based organisation.

I cannot therefore see how it can share defensive duties with England for the same reason, and this certainly seems to run contrary to the position stated by fat Alex over the weekend.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's all in here although it takes a bit of unpicking ...

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/11/26155932/0

It also, I think, gives an idea of what they actually want to do with the referendum which is give 3 choices:

- Calman
- "Full Devolution", ie. fiscal autonomy within the UK
- Independence

[hibs0666]

It's all in here although it takes a bit of unpicking ...

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/11/26155932/0

It also, I think, gives an idea of what they actually want to do with the referendum which is give 3 choices:

- Calman
- "Full Devolution", ie. fiscal autonomy within the UK
- Independence

It's asking a lot of the electorate to get their heads around the implications of those different options, especially with the independence option being so ill-considered at the present time.

[Hainan Hibs]

Faslane seems to be a goner, full stop, and non-negotiable so it cannot form part of a negotiated shared defence agreement with England. I see that an independent Scotland will withdraw from NATO as it is a nuclear-based organisation.

I cannot therefore see how it can share defensive duties with England for the same reason, and this certainly seems to run contrary to the position stated by fat Alex over the weekend.

I think it could be similiar to what the Nordics are looking at, a paper they issued looks "towards the next 10-15 years and focuses on 13 areas of potential closer co-operation in the Nordic region, such as peace-building, air-policing and maritime monitoring, security in the High North, cyber-security, co-operation between foreign services and defence."

In Scotland and England's case there could be an agreement on monitoring the seas around the British isles, air policing and use of air and military bases for training etc. This would of course be discussed by an independent Scottish Government with England.

What Salmond said, as far as I'm aware and I could be wrong, was there is the possibility of sharing military facilities between the two countries if we gained independence. He didn't say it would be 100% certain, but there are areas where co-operation would be possible. As two countries on the same small island it would be completely logical to co-operate on certain issues. As an independent country however we could decide on the size of our military, the direction of spending, and what wars to get involved in.

[J-C]

I'm interested in this statement re economic powers of the Scottish parliament versus the local councils - what are you alluding to here?

Looking at economic powers. Salmond wants to retain sterling and therefore the Bank of England will dictate interest rate policy in Scotland without requiring to pay even lip service to prevailing Scottish economic conditions. Adopting the Euro would grant even less direct macro-economic influence.

On the income side, Salmond wants retain Scottish taxes - that much is clear. However, I am far more interested in what he intends to do with those powers, and what is the expected increase/decrease in the available budget by doing this?

Erm the Scottish notes from RBS and HBOS are also Sterling, take one out and have a look, remember the Bank of Scotland is an older bank than the Bank of Emgland( founded by a Scotsman ), with RBS a few years later, why get rid of a currency that we probably started and invented.
An independant body could easily be set up to oversee the interst rates.

[richard_pitts]

I'm saying if independence means retaining the monarchy, currency and armed forces then what exactly is the point of independence?

This is a serious, and often overlooked point: arguably the major influence on the Scottish economy is what goes on in England - it's a market next door several times bigger than our own, to which we are linked socially as much as politically, driven by one of the major world cities, London. Even if we declare independence there is a risk that all that will happen is we reduce our influence over that factor and England, London especially continues to exert that influence.

If we look at Slovakia for example (cited by Alex Salmond as an example) it has limited freedom in reality to vary tax and regulation because the close ties with Czech republic and the fact that companies continue to treat both countries as one mean that whatever you do, what goes on next door determines what happens in your country. Oh, and Slovakia has faded from view whilst the Czech Republic remains a prominent player in Central Europe.

[richard_pitts]

Erm the Scottish notes from RBS and HBOS are also Sterling, take one out and have a look, remember the Bank of Scotland is an older bank than the Bank of Emgland( founded by a Scotsman ), with RBS a few years later, why get rid of a currency that we probably started and invented.
An independant body could easily be set up to oversee the interst rates.

RBS and HBOS were bailed out by English taxpayers. There is no way an independent Scotland could have propped them up. I could just see the Bank of England agreeing to relinquish control of Sterling. In any case, interest rates would be set to benefit the whole of the currency area meaning England would dominate, along with English politics. So much for independence...:taxi

[J-C]

RBS and HBOS were bailed out by English taxpayers. There is no way an independent Scotland could have propped them up. I could just see the Bank of England agreeing to relinquish control of Sterling. In any case, interest rates would be set to benefit the whole of the currency area meaning England would dominate, along with English politics. So much for independence...:taxi

So the Scots, Welsh and NI didn't have any tax taken for this bail out, a bail due to the greed of the English banking system in your City of London Markets,which unfortunately the RBS and the Bank of Scotland had gotten involved with due to their mergers with their English counterparts. Funny that's it's no coincidence that these 2 very long established banking companies, went down a very slippery slope after their mergers in the early part of 2001, bothe companies had a radical change at the top with aggressive business measures finally coming back to bite them. Pity the share holders of these banks hadn't thought about their actions and instilled bankers in charge instead of retail orientated money men.

Also an independant Scotland would never have allowed them to be merged in the first place.

[hibs0666]

An independant body could easily be set up to oversee the interst rates.

Not a hope.

[hibs0666]

So the Scots, Welsh and NI didn't have any tax taken for this bail out, a bail due to the greed of the English banking system in your City of London Markets,which unfortunately the RBS and the Bank of Scotland had gotten involved with due to their mergers with their English counterparts. Funny that's it's no coincidence that these 2 very long established banking companies, went down a very slippery slope after their mergers in the early part of 2001, bothe companies had a radical change at the top with aggressive business measures finally coming back to bite them. Pity the share holders of these banks hadn't thought about their actions and instilled bankers in charge instead of retail orientated money men.

Also an independant Scotland would never have allowed them to be merged in the first place.

So the bad old English caused this financial catastrophe, and not the poor wee managers of the Scottish banks? Looks a bit too good to be true from an independence perspective, and certainly seems to let those poor wee managers of the Scottish banks off the hook.

Why would an independent Scotland not have permitted these mergers? It would strike me that Scotland would have hee haw say since it would simply serve to deter other organisations from investing in Scotland for fear of political meddling.

[J-C]

I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy.

[hibs0666]

I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy.

That is an argument that is no more than tugging on the emotional heart-strings. A rational debate about independence needs to answer one very simple question - does it or does it not improve the lives of Scottish people?

Unfortunately we have no way of answering that question until we understand what independence means, and no amount of Saltire-waving or re-runs of Braveheart will change that.

[J-C]

So the bad old English caused this financial catastrophe, and not the poor wee managers of the Scottish banks? Looks a bit too good to be true from an independence perspective, and certainly seems to let those poor wee managers of the Scottish banks off the hook.

Why would an independent Scotland not have permitted these mergers? It would strike me that Scotland would have hee haw say since it would simply serve to deter other organisations from investing in Scotland for fear of political meddling.

Fred the Shred was trained and worked all his career in England, he was an accountant and only took charge when the merger with Nat west took place, his vision for Rbs was to make them a world leading bank, spending silly money on Gogar etc and then being duped by barclays into buying ANB Ambro which had horrendous hedge funding loans which was the start of the downfall.

Bank of Scotland had and Englishman in charge who was a risk manager, again non banker, he came from the Halifax. Both he and Freddy attempted to buy everything in their paths, to grow as quickly as possible and in the process nearly destroyed Britaind 1st and 3rd oldest banks.
These 2 institutes became fairly large by being typically Scottish and investing wisely, only after their mergers did they change tact and the rest as they say is history. It would be worthwhile reading a bit more about the history of these banks, especially the last 10-12 years.

[J-C]

That is an argument that is no more than tugging on the emotional heart-strings. A rational debate about independence needs to answer one very simple question - does it or does it not improve the lives of Scottish people?

Unfortunately we have no way of answering that question until we understand what independence means, and no amount of Saltire-waving or re-runs of Braveheart will change that.


It's not all heart string stuff, maybe if you started reading a bit more about where we came from, why we're here and how can we get to where we want, then maybe you can answer your own questions. So far you keep asking but never give any options yourself, you sound a typical bitter voter who's party has just lost heavily. I'm now bored to death with this topic, time to move on with my life.

[Hibbie0762]

I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy.This is a beguiling combination of Brigadoonery and bollocks.

Before any of us can attempt to shoot ideas re independence down in flames, said ideas will first have to be brought forward by the SNP. That has not happened so far. What we get instead are jingoistic slogans and daft claims that those Scots who find themselves unwilling to place blind faith in the SNP dogma must somehow have been brainwashed. It is not yet thoughtcrime to reject the scripture according to Salmond.

Regardless of political allegiance, most Scots simply do not have a view of Westminster Government as Big Brother with his boot forever on the neck of a poor, downtrodden nation cheated out of their birthright. And maybe you should check on just how fat, greedy or wealthy some of our English neighbours actually are in this time of global recession, not to mention those in the Welsh valleys or Belfast.

Most Scots do not "fear" independence or feel that being part of the UK somehow diminishes our Scottishness or self-confidence. The alleged Scottish Cringe is largely an SNP invention and routinely levelled at those Scots who, far from "talking Scotland down", reckon that we are already pretty comfortable in our own skins as a nation without an artificial man-made border or a wee placard in Brussels and Strasbourg.

So perhaps you could come back here when you have something more substantial to offer than the same tired old cliches - such as a reasoned roadmap to Independence explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off. Fully costed would also be good - we are becoming used to black holes in the SNP's fiscal plans. Sustainable comparisons with other small nations might also be helpful, though I wouldn't bother with Iceland or the Irish Republic this time. Or Slovakia, where most of the velvet in their revolution ended up in Prague rather than Bratislava.

[hibs0666]

It's not all heart string stuff, maybe if you started reading a bit more about where we came from, why we're here and how can we get to where we want, then maybe you can answer your own questions. So far you keep asking but never give any options yourself, you sound a typical bitter voter who's party has just lost heavily. I'm now bored to death with this topic, time to move on with my life.

I'm not bitter at all - far from it. Te key thing for me about the election result is that independence - whatever it means - is now a genuine possibility. As a result, I want to know what independence is, and whether it will make Scotland a better place to live, work and play.

From what i've heard so far - putting Braveheart and Brigadoon aside - independence looks awfy like the existing arrangement, and is therefore nowhere near worth the uncertainty, cost and upheaval involved.

[Hibbie0762]

I'm not bitter at all - far from it. Te key thing for me about the election result is that independence - whatever it means - is now a genuine possibility. As a result, I want to know what independence is, and whether it will make Scotland a better place to live, work and play.

From what i've heard so far - putting Braveheart and Brigadoon aside - independence looks awfy like the existing arrangement, and is therefore nowhere near worth the uncertainty, cost and upheaval involved.Reminds me of that slogan from the US Primaries a few Elections back - Where's the beef, Alex? :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Regardless of political allegiance, most Scots simply do not have a view of Westminster Government as Big Brother with his boot forever on the neck of a poor, downtrodden nation cheated out of their birthright.


My view of Westminster Government is that they have neither the time nor the inclination to give the proverbial 2 hoots about some insignificant backwater somewhere up north.



The alleged Scottish Cringe is largely an SNP invention


Really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3494686.stm



reckon that we are already pretty comfortable in our own skins as a nation without an artificial man-made border or a wee placard in Brussels and Strasbourg.


So where did the demand for the Scottish Parliament come from? Where does the drive for Calman come from? Why are the SNP winning elections? We'll see in time if there's any demand for independence but for such contented folk we seem to be changing things rather a lot, no?



Sustainable comparisons with other small nations might also be helpful, though I wouldn't bother with Iceland or the Irish Republic this time. Or Slovakia, where most of the velvet in their revolution ended up in Prague rather than Bratislava.

Slovakia has had the fastest economic growth of any member state in the EU since joining in 2005, and was top of the table again last year. Even after a god awful year, Ireland still has a higher standard of living than the UK.

[JeMeSouviens]

independence looks awfy like the existing arrangement, and is therefore nowhere near worth the uncertainty, cost and upheaval involved.

The existing arrangement where one parliament raises the money and another one spends it seems just plain stupid to me.

No representation without taxation. :wink:

[hibs0666]

The existing arrangement where one parliament raises the money and another one spends it seems just plain stupid to me.

No representation without taxation. :wink:

Fair point, but why does this require independence?

[Hibbie0762]

My view of Westminster Government is that they have neither the time nor the inclination to give the proverbial 2 hoots about some insignificant backwater somewhere up north....and you are entitled to it.


Really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3494686.stmYes, really. The fact that McConnell once referred to it hardly gives him ownership. Indeed for some of us the fact that McConnell claimed it discredits the concept even further :greengrin


So where did the demand for the Scottish Parliament come from? Where does the drive for Calman come from? Why are the SNP winning elections? We'll see in time if there's any demand for independence but for such contented folk we seem to be changing things rather a lot, no?We could have a lengthy debate about how much demand for a Scottish Parliament there actually was back in 1999 - there was plenty of talk at the time (and still is in some quarters) of a "Peedy Parliament" which would just cost more money. The SNP themselves were not exactly in the van of devolution back then.

Is there a "drive for Calman" other than among politicos? It is certainly not the subject of fiery debate on the top of the 31 bus in my experience. It is usually a mistake to confuse what politicians want with what excites the general populace. To some of us, Calman looks like nothing so much as Salmond's latest vehicle over which to grandstand with Westminster.

Again, we can have a very long debate about why the SNP are winning Elections. This particular one seemed to hang mostly on where the Lib Dem vote went (ie not to Labour), though of course it is not quite as simple as that. But the general consensus is that whatever Scots were voting for, it was not Independence.

I did not say contented, I said comfortable. Few political activists ever reach a stage of contentment - I am as interested in making Scotland better as any other Scot and of course there will always be scope for change. Nothing ever stays the same for long. But I am perfectly comfortable in pursuing a change agenda which does not include independence. And so are a lot of other Scots who do not buy the SNP picture of Scotland as a downtrodden fiefdom which will never be great until we throw off the yoke of evil, grasping Westminster.


Slovakia has had the fastest economic growth of any member state in the EU since joining in 2005, and was top of the table again last year. Even after a god awful year, Ireland still has a higher standard of living than the UK.I've been in Slovakia. And the Irish Republic. Whatever the figures say (and growth figures are only ever part of the story) I know which among the three countries is a better place to be for the average working Joe. Or is Slovakia to be the SNP's new arc of prosperity?

[Hainan Hibs]

Is there a "drive for Calman" other than among politicos? It is certainly not the subject of fiery debate on the top of the 31 bus in my experience. It is usually a mistake to confuse what politicians want with what excites the general populace. To some of us, Calman looks like nothing so much as Salmond's latest vehicle over which to grandstand with Westminster.

A poll in the Scotsman in January put the support for "devolution-Max" at 58%, and the most recent poll shows support for independence at 38%, with 46% against independence, so a minority supports the continuation of the union (the undecided's will play a crucial role in the result of a referendum). There is strong support for furthering the powers of the Scottish parliament.



I've been in Slovakia. And the Irish Republic. Whatever the figures say (and growth figures are only ever part of the story) I know which among the three countries is a better place to be for the average working Joe. Or is Slovakia to be the SNP's new arc of prosperity?

I really do hope the arc of prosperity jibe continues to be used. As seen by the election result the electorate sees past the negativity and doom and gloom of the unionist parties, and if they are going to achieve a no vote in a referendum they will have to start realising that a positive case for the Union will have to be made and constant jibes at other small countries (which never includes Norway) won't win a referendum.

[Hibbie0762]

A poll in the Scotsman in January put the support for "devolution-Max" at 58%, and the most recent poll shows support for independence at 38%, with 46% against independence, so a minority supports the continuation of the union (the undecided's will play a crucial role in the result of a referendum). There is strong support for furthering the powers of the Scottish parliament.I am not sure how you work out that those figures add up to minority support for the Union. The undecideds have a crucial role in all elections - IF they vote. Using that argument, the SNP Government has the support of only 2 from every 9 Scottish voters. But arithmetic has never been the most convincing aspect of the SNP's trickbag. And I think we will continue to see a lot of polls over the next few years.


I really do hope the arc of prosperity jibe continues to be used. As seen by the election result the electorate sees past the negativity and doom and gloom of the unionist parties, and if they are going to achieve a no vote in a referendum they will have to start realising that a positive case for the Union will have to be made and constant jibes at other small countries (which never includes Norway) won't win a referendum.The Arc of Prosperity jibe will continue to be used so long as the SNP keep wheeling out various small countries in support of their Independence strategy, only to see them fail to live up to the hype. There are lots of reasons why Norway is not a brilliant comparator either, but if you think Let's All Be Norway will run as a Referendum slogan, by all means go for it.

You can stop using the Unionist negativity script now, the Election is over and you won. I admire the effectiveness of the SNP's campaign but in truth it was far from as wholly positive as the SNP and their new friends in the Scottish media would have us believe. It comprised mainly of character assassination of Iain Gray (a job which Scottish Labour admittedly made pretty easy for them), a large bribe in the form of a 5-year Council Tax freeze, a reminder of the bribes we have already had (Bridge tolls, free prescriptions for the middle classes, generously not scrapping Labour's free bus passes) and lots of pictures of Alex Salmond looking moody and presidential. But otherwise it was almost entirely devoid of policy or vision (Scotland - better with the SNP is a vacuous slogan, not a vision).

And I think that Alex Salmond understands, even if some of his supporters appear not to do so, that it is not for the other Parties to make a case for the status quo, it is for the SNP to make a convincing case for change. The SNP have had 77 years to plan for Independence -12 years of that in the SP and the past 4 years as a minority administration. You would think therefore that they would be ready to hit the ground running with their case for Independence. Yet their 44-page 2011 Manifesto contains but a single page on the subject, and that is mostly high-level waffle about how much better Scotland will be in various ways, with no supporting evidence or argument.

SNP supporters can burble on as much as they want about how wonderful an independent Scotland will be, but until the case is made in detail - as I said before, a roadmap explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off, all fully costed - a Referendum will almost certainly not succeed. As all politicians understand or ignore at their peril, it's the economy, stupid. And you will not be able to count on the support of the Sun, Herald, Scotsman etc on this one. The help of Scotland's largely Tory-owned and biased media to slay the Labour dragon is one thing - their help to dismantle the UK is quite another. The Herald is already making distancing noises.

But the SNP won. You have 69 seats from 127. You took 45% of the popular vote. Time to put up or shut up. Let's hear the arguments. Let's have that Referendum.

[steakbake]

I really don't understand where the perception comes from that Iain Gray was somehow picked on? He wasn't. He did most of his undoing himself. He was weak on the televised debates, proved to be running scared of the electorate and to be honest, was never really cut out to be the Labour Leader in the Scottish Parliament in the first place. He wasn't even Labour MSP's first choice - I understand he became Labour Leader in the Scottish Parliament thanks to the votes of Labour MPs in Westminster?

Anyhow, his opening shot in the election campaign was that he was going to make it a personal battle and didn't mind fighting dirty. I've posted the link before but none of his fans/protectors seem to have commented specifically on it. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Iain-Gray-gets-personal-as.6671599.jp

Bottom line is - compared to Salmond, Gray is an oddball and doesn't come across well. But he was someone who could keep that all important umbilical chord with the mother party in London.

Second: Friends in the media? Glenn Campbell, Bernard Ponsonby, Lorraine Davidson, Kirsty Wark, Gordon Brewer? Friends of the SNP??? Really? You must be really bitter.

If you mean a few editorials went against you in newspapers which have dwindling circulations, I think you underestimate the decision of the electorate. The mainstream editorials were lukewarm on the SNP but are cold on independence. Perhaps if Labour weren't totally shambolic, then editors wouldn't have minded backing them.

It's a bit of a bizarre argument that you claim the SNP have friends in the media yet more or less in the same post, point out that no major journalistic source is pro-independence, the SNP's "raison d'etre", as is often claimed by people in your camp. So which is it? They either have a friendly media or they don't?

PS - are you Iain Gray by any chance?

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair point, but why does this require independence?

It doesn't. It does require a (major) change to the existing arrangements.

[JeMeSouviens]

SNP supporters can burble on as much as they want about how wonderful an independent Scotland will be, but until the case is made in detail - as I said before, a roadmap explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off, all fully costed - a Referendum will almost certainly not succeed.

You wouldn't be convinced by that either, any more than I would be by the unprovable assertion that inward investment will disappear if we're no longer part of the UK.

Independence is about having the power to do things. We could have an independent currency allowed to float, a nominally independent currency pegged to the pound or we could join the Euro. We may decide that the best thing for Scotland is the closest to the existing arrangement, ie. we stick with the pound (and implicitly with BoE control).

I hope we ditch the monarchy and become a republic, I hope we have a proportionally much smaller military than the UK. However, there's little point in the SNP saying x, y and z are going to happen and it'll make us 4.76% worse off over the next 5 years. What about after that? What if they lose the first elections to an independent parliament? Independence is for life, not just for Christmas.

We may or may not be better off than the rest of the UK at various points in the future. We might be subject to monumental cock ups or we might get lucky and make some brillant calls. You and your labour chums can campaign for however it is you'd like Scotland to be and, even better, if you win an election you'd actually have the power to do it. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

It comprised mainly of character assassination of Iain Gray

btw, off topic, but it really didn't. The SNP seemed to end up almost embarrassed to mention him. Presumably they didn't want to seem to be kicking the man when he was so far down.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Let's have that Referendum.

It's incredibly transparent this lets have a referendum argument now coming from labour, you know the referendum would get a no right now so are desperately trying to make it happen.

Trouble is, a few weeks ago there was no way the snp would even win the last election, you really should be careful what you wish for:wink:

I and probably lots of other voters want this government to get on with running the country and we can deal with a referendum when the time is right, now is the time for getting us through the current financial crisis in as few pieces as possible. Do you think we should actually forget all that and concentrate on another election?

Not surprising labour lost again:rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

btw, off topic, but it really didn't. The SNP seemed to end up almost embarrassed to mention him. Presumably they didn't want to seem to be kicking the man when he was so far down.

aye, kind of like swiping the legs off a three legged dog

[tony higgins]

Now that the SNP is obliged to hold an independence referendum, it will have to make its case and explain what independence actually is. Clearly, soundbites from fat Alex will be insufficient, and the SNP will be required to put very substantial meat on the bones come referendum time.

Alex shot from the hip yesterday when he raised the possibility of a shared defensive force with England, only for that suggestion to be laughed out of court. However, I haven't yet heard a SNP spokesman confirming whether or not Alex's utterences represent SNP policy.

So, my starter questions for ten are:

Is there anywhere a clear vision for Scottish independence?
Does Scotland become a republic?
Does Scotland raise its own armed forces?
How does it balance personal and corporate taxation?
Will Scotland continue to use English currency?
Do we re-home the banks in England just in case they take our wee country down?
Does Scotland remain in Europe?
Does Scotland become a neutral country?
Does Scotland decommission its nuclear power stations with immediate effect?
Do we continue to pay a licence fee for the BBC?
Are new regulatory authorities for key industries to be established in Scotland?

What would you like an independent Scotland to look like?

[marinello59]

What would you like an independent Scotland to look like?

St. Lucia.

[hibs0666]

What would you like an independent Scotland to look like?

A secular republic would certainly pique my interest. :thumbsup:

Add in a guaranteed 10 degrees increase in average annual temperatures and I'll be there sitting beside my wee mate Alex getting all dewey-eyed watching Brigadoon in my best Braveheart warpaint. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

A secular republic would certainly pique my interest. :thumbsup:


Chance of independent Scotland becoming a republic within 10 years = pretty good.

Chance of the UK becoming a republic within 100 years = next to none.

For the 10 degrees, you just need to get out and campaign against the windfarms. :wink:

[One Day Soon]

I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy.

You don't think this might be a tad racist? What makes you think all English people are fat, wealthy and greedy?

[One Day Soon]

Fred the Shred was trained and worked all his career in England, he was an accountant and only took charge when the merger with Nat west took place, his vision for Rbs was to make them a world leading bank, spending silly money on Gogar etc and then being duped by barclays into buying ANB Ambro which had horrendous hedge funding loans which was the start of the downfall.

Bank of Scotland had and Englishman in charge who was a risk manager, again non banker, he came from the Halifax. Both he and Freddy attempted to buy everything in their paths, to grow as quickly as possible and in the process nearly destroyed Britaind 1st and 3rd oldest banks.
These 2 institutes became fairly large by being typically Scottish and investing wisely, only after their mergers did they change tact and the rest as they say is history. It would be worthwhile reading a bit more about the history of these banks, especially the last 10-12 years.

Years back Channel 4 ran a show called 'Absolutely'. Brilliant stuff. In one episode very late one night I remember watching them sing the Mickey Weir song and thinking that there would be maybe ten viewers watching in the country who would get that gag.

Anyway Jack Docherty played one character (McGlashan) who was obsessed with the English. That's you that is.

[One Day Soon]

I really don't understand where the perception comes from that Iain Gray was somehow picked on? He wasn't. He did most of his undoing himself. He was weak on the televised debates, proved to be running scared of the electorate and to be honest, was never really cut out to be the Labour Leader in the Scottish Parliament in the first place. He wasn't even Labour MSP's first choice - I understand he became Labour Leader in the Scottish Parliament thanks to the votes of Labour MPs in Westminster?

Anyhow, his opening shot in the election campaign was that he was going to make it a personal battle and didn't mind fighting dirty. I've posted the link before but none of his fans/protectors seem to have commented specifically on it. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Iain-Gray-gets-personal-as.6671599.jp

Bottom line is - compared to Salmond, Gray is an oddball and doesn't come across well. But he was someone who could keep that all important umbilical chord with the mother party in London.

Second: Friends in the media? Glenn Campbell, Bernard Ponsonby, Lorraine Davidson, Kirsty Wark, Gordon Brewer? Friends of the SNP??? Really? You must be really bitter.

If you mean a few editorials went against you in newspapers which have dwindling circulations, I think you underestimate the decision of the electorate. The mainstream editorials were lukewarm on the SNP but are cold on independence. Perhaps if Labour weren't totally shambolic, then editors wouldn't have minded backing them.

It's a bit of a bizarre argument that you claim the SNP have friends in the media yet more or less in the same post, point out that no major journalistic source is pro-independence, the SNP's "raison d'etre", as is often claimed by people in your camp. So which is it? They either have a friendly media or they don't?

PS - are you Iain Gray by any chance?


If you are a politician you pretty much by definition cannot be picked on - you have put yourself in play. But that is to confuse what was being stated. The SNP ran an incredibly strong and clever negative campaign on Gray (no one is saying he didn't invite it). Their masterful use of digital communications was the delivery mechanism and kept most of it invisible to the mainstream media. So the idea that they ran an exclusively positive campaign is just plain wrong. They also ran a very effective negative campaign.

Though the caving in of the Lib Dems magnified and exagerated the result greatly, you still have to admire the slick professionalism of the Scottish Nationalist Party campaign.

[One Day Soon]

I am not sure how you work out that those figures add up to minority support for the Union. The undecideds have a crucial role in all elections - IF they vote. Using that argument, the SNP Government has the support of only 2 from every 9 Scottish voters. But arithmetic has never been the most convincing aspect of the SNP's trickbag. And I think we will continue to see a lot of polls over the next few years.

The Arc of Prosperity jibe will continue to be used so long as the SNP keep wheeling out various small countries in support of their Independence strategy, only to see them fail to live up to the hype. There are lots of reasons why Norway is not a brilliant comparator either, but if you think Let's All Be Norway will run as a Referendum slogan, by all means go for it.

You can stop using the Unionist negativity script now, the Election is over and you won. I admire the effectiveness of the SNP's campaign but in truth it was far from as wholly positive as the SNP and their new friends in the Scottish media would have us believe. It comprised mainly of character assassination of Iain Gray (a job which Scottish Labour admittedly made pretty easy for them), a large bribe in the form of a 5-year Council Tax freeze, a reminder of the bribes we have already had (Bridge tolls, free prescriptions for the middle classes, generously not scrapping Labour's free bus passes) and lots of pictures of Alex Salmond looking moody and presidential. But otherwise it was almost entirely devoid of policy or vision (Scotland - better with the SNP is a vacuous slogan, not a vision).

And I think that Alex Salmond understands, even if some of his supporters appear not to do so, that it is not for the other Parties to make a case for the status quo, it is for the SNP to make a convincing case for change. The SNP have had 77 years to plan for Independence -12 years of that in the SP and the past 4 years as a minority administration. You would think therefore that they would be ready to hit the ground running with their case for Independence. Yet their 44-page 2011 Manifesto contains but a single page on the subject, and that is mostly high-level waffle about how much better Scotland will be in various ways, with no supporting evidence or argument.

SNP supporters can burble on as much as they want about how wonderful an independent Scotland will be, but until the case is made in detail - as I said before, a roadmap explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off, all fully costed - a Referendum will almost certainly not succeed. As all politicians understand or ignore at their peril, it's the economy, stupid. And you will not be able to count on the support of the Sun, Herald, Scotsman etc on this one. The help of Scotland's largely Tory-owned and biased media to slay the Labour dragon is one thing - their help to dismantle the UK is quite another. The Herald is already making distancing noises.

But the SNP won. You have 69 seats from 127. You took 45% of the popular vote. Time to put up or shut up. Let's hear the arguments. Let's have that Referendum.

We, the Scottish people, aren't going to be consulted for some time it appears.

We've had a 'National Conversation' at taxpayer's expense for the last four years under the SNP, they refused to even debate a referendum in the last parliament because they said that the opposition parties would vote it down and now that they are in power with an overall majority they can't even tell us the date for it.

Who speaks for Scotland's constitutional future, Salmond or the Scottish people? Blair brought forward a referendum on the Scottish Parliament within four months of winning power in 1997. What's stopping Salmond?

Since the election result the Nats have been calling for control over a range of things they never raised in their campaign, while steadfastly refusing to get on with pursuing the thing they did raise (a little at least) - independence. A cynic might suggest they were delaying going to the country in case the country gave them an answer they didn't want.

[steakbake]

Cabinet selected this afternoon. FM voted in yesterday, MSPs installed this week. The referendum will happen when the governing party decides. They said towards the end of this session. As in the last session as now, it's their decision.

If Labour, Tories, LD's wanted it sooner, they should have had it in their manifestos and won the election.

[J-C]

You don't think this might be a tad racist? What makes you think all English people are fat, wealthy and greedy?


Get an effing grip mate, I'm speaking of a certain type of person, no matter what race, at no point did I mention English, you like having a wee dig just to get reactions eh!

This thread is all about independence and guess what? it's independence from England, so there's a bloody good chance we'll talk about them as a nation.

[Sir David Gray]

What would you like an independent Scotland to look like?

Non-member of the European Union and non-user of the euro currency.

Christian democracy with strong support for the Church of Scotland and traditional Christian values.

Socially conservative (Pro-life in issues of capital punishment, euthanasia and, in most cases, abortion. Support for traditional marriage.)

Harsh approach to crime, longer prison sentences and more prisons being built.

Controlled levels of immigration.

Active approach to international issues, strong support for democratic nations including staunchly supportive of other states in Western Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Retain some form of nuclear deterrent.

No aid for states who have a nuclear programme such as Pakistan and India.

If Alex Salmond campaigned for all of the above then I would vote for him and independence in a heartbeat.

Sadly there's more chance of pigs flying past my window tomorrow morning than there is of Salmond campaigning for the above issues.

Instead, I fully expect to see the following;

Scotland being a fully fledged member of the European Union, with taxpayers paying hundreds of millions of pounds for the privilege.

Adoption of the euro.

Secularism being the order of the day with Christianity being further marginalised.

Introduction of same sex marriage. I also fully expect to see Margo MacDonald's Bill for assisted suicide being passed in some form or another eventually.

Soft on crime, more early release for prisoners, including the release of serious offenders like al Megrahi and also in the cases of the two convicted paedophiles where, earlier on this week, one of them had his original sentence cut by a third and another had his original sentence cut by more than 40%.

'Open door' policy on immigration.

More road signs and other signage in Gaelic, which only 1% of the Scottish population can understand.

[J-C]

Years back Channel 4 ran a show called 'Absolutely'. Brilliant stuff. In one episode very late one night I remember watching them sing the Mickey Weir song and thinking that there would be maybe ten viewers watching in the country who would get that gag.

Anyway Jack Docherty played one character (McGlashan) who was obsessed with the English. That's you that is.


Again Mr Going for a Reaction, the thread being about independence, England will be debated but obviously you seem to be so much in love with all things English. I know if things are so much sunnier and fantastic over the other side of Hadrians Wall, why don't you make the move down there and give all a break from you pro union rants, as it's becoming tedious, now where is that ignore button.:confused:

You are like Hugh/Shug Rab C nesbitt's cousin in London, deep inside a Scot but trying desperately to be just like his English peers.

[steakbake]

Christian democracy with strong support for the Church of Scotland and traditional Christian values.

Socially conservative (Pro-life in issues of capital punishment, euthanasia and, in most cases, abortion. Support for traditional marriage.)

Harsh approach to crime, longer prison sentences and more prisons being built.

Retain some form of nuclear deterrent.


A theocracy with a bad human rights record and some nuclear bombs? Perhaps Salmond could be the tartan ayatollah in a free state modelled on Iran?

[bighairyfaeleith]

[QUOTE=FalkirkHibee;2807701]Non-member of the European Union and non-user of the euro currency.

Christian democracy with strong support for the Church of Scotland and traditional Christian values.

Socially conservative (Pro-life in issues of capital punishment, euthanasia and, in most cases, abortion. Support for traditional marriage.)

Harsh approach to crime, longer prison sentences and more prisons being built.

Controlled levels of immigration.

Active approach to international issues, strong support for democratic nations including staunchly supportive of other states in Western Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Retain some form of nuclear deterrent.

No aid for states who have a nuclear programme such as Pakistan and India.


If that was scotland I would move to England. Can't stand the idea of government supporting one form of religion!

opinions eh:wink:

[Calvin]

Years back Channel 4 ran a show called 'Absolutely'. Brilliant stuff. In one episode very late one night I remember watching them sing the Mickey Weir song and thinking that there would be maybe ten viewers watching in the country who would get that gag.

Anyway Jack Docherty played one character (McGlashan) who was obsessed with the English. That's you that is.

One of my favourite TV shows. Unfortunately McGlashan is, for a lot of Unionists, their basic idea of a Nat which does us no favours at all!

The Scots are a very self deprecating people and while I generally enjoy that aspect of our psyche I agree with JC that there is an element of brainwashing involved. Maybe not so much brainwashing, as gradual conditioning through the media that Scotland isn't as good as England and couldn't handle ourselves.

Really, my main motivation for being pro-independence is selfish - I want to have the happiest life possible in our country and think we are better placed to achieve that as an independent state. The way I look at independence is that I am Scottish. Currently, I live in Scotland and I live in Britain. However, there is a possibility to live in a different type of Scotland, a Scotland where we have full control over our own affairs and have nobody else to blame out troubles on, and I would be happier living under that kind of rule. I don't believe that we would be any worse off by looking after ourselves, and I think that in the long term we would really thrive and have a better domestic quality of life as a small country compared to remaining in the UK to satisfy our own delusions of grandeur.

[Betty Boop]

Non-member of the European Union and non-user of the euro currency.

Christian democracy with strong support for the Church of Scotland and traditional Christian values.

Socially conservative (Pro-life in issues of capital punishment, euthanasia and, in most cases, abortion. Support for traditional marriage.)

Harsh approach to crime, longer prison sentences and more prisons being built.

Controlled levels of immigration.

Active approach to international issues, strong support for democratic nations including staunchly supportive of other states in Western Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Retain some form of nuclear deterrent.

No aid for states who have a nuclear programme such as Pakistan and India.

If Alex Salmond campaigned for all of the above then I would vote for him and independence in a heartbeat.

Sadly there's more chance of pigs flying past my window tomorrow morning than there is of Salmond campaigning for the above issues.

Instead, I fully expect to see the following;

Scotland being a fully fledged member of the European Union, with taxpayers paying hundreds of millions of pounds for the privilege.

Adoption of the euro.

Secularism being the order of the day with Christianity being further marginalised.

Introduction of same sex marriage. I also fully expect to see Margo MacDonald's Bill for assisted suicide being passed in some form or another eventually.

Soft on crime, more early release for prisoners, including the release of serious offenders like al Megrahi and also in the cases of the two convicted paedophiles where, earlier on this week, one of them had his original sentence cut by a third and another had his original sentence cut by more than 40%.

'Open door' policy on immigration.

More road signs and other signage in Gaelic, which only 1% of the Scottish population can understand.

Good grief, I would absolutely hate to live in your vision of Scotland, in fact I would emigrate. You remind me of a male version of Melanie Philips. :greengrin

[steakbake]

Good grief, I would absolutely hate to live in your vision of Scotland, in fact I would emigrate. You remind me of a male version of Melanie Philips. :greengrin

That comparison has crossed my mind before when reading some of FH's classic posts.

However, redeeming features are that he's a passionate Hibby, he doesn't work for the Daily Mail (as far as I know) and his contributions on here are always thought-provoking and honest if, at times, a touch extreme.

Not sure about where his Man Utd supporter status places him though... :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

That comparison has crossed my mind before when reading some of FH's classic posts.

However, redeeming features are that he's a passionate Hibby, he doesn't work for the Daily Mail (as far as I know) and his contributions on here are always thought-provoking and honest if, at times, a touch extreme.

Not sure about where his Man Utd supporter status places him though... :wink:

Thankfully falkirk:greengrin:wink:

[Betty Boop]

That comparison has crossed my mind before when reading some of FH's classic posts.

However, redeeming features are that he's a passionate Hibby, he doesn't work for the Daily Mail (as far as I know) and his contributions on here are always thought-provoking and honest if, at times, a touch extreme.

Not sure about where his Man Utd supporter status places him though... :wink:

I can imagine him sneering as he types ! :greengrin

[Hainan Hibs]

I am not sure how you work out that those figures add up to minority support for the Union. The undecideds have a crucial role in all elections - IF they vote. Using that argument, the SNP Government has the support of only 2 from every 9 Scottish voters. But arithmetic has never been the most convincing aspect of the SNP's trickbag. And I think we will continue to see a lot of polls over the next few years.


There is a majority of voters who would like the furthering of our power however. The SNP were at one point 10 points behind Labour in the polls, and I wouldn't put it past Salmond and co to get above 50% for independence.


The Arc of Prosperity jibe will continue to be used so long as the SNP keep wheeling out various small countries in support of their Independence strategy, only to see them fail to live up to the hype. There are lots of reasons why Norway is not a brilliant comparator either, but if you think Let's All Be Norway will run as a Referendum slogan, by all means go for it.

I don't think it will be, and never said that would be a slogan, I just find it funny that unionists are selective on the small countries they compare Scotland to, missing out dozens who actually run their country far better than the UK.


You can stop using the Unionist negativity script now, the Election is over and you won. I admire the effectiveness of the SNP's campaign but in truth it was far from as wholly positive as the SNP and their new friends in the Scottish media would have us believe. It comprised mainly of character assassination of Iain Gray (a job which Scottish Labour admittedly made pretty easy for them),

I don't think the SNP did anything that can be described as a "character assassination", even a majority of Labour supporters thought he was hopeless. Even with the support of some of the media during the election, the SNP is still in an up-hill battle against a significant amount of unionist bias in the media.


a large bribe in the form of a 5-year Council Tax freeze, a reminder of the bribes we have already had (Bridge tolls, free prescriptions for the middle classes, generously not scrapping Labour's free bus passes) and lots of pictures of Alex Salmond looking moody and presidential. But otherwise it was almost entirely devoid of policy or vision (Scotland - better with the SNP is a vacuous slogan, not a vision).

Void of vision? And "Vote Labour, stop the Tories" was a vision? The SNP won the election with the vision they gave for Scotland. They gave ideas, especially on renewables, which inspired voters to switch to the SNP. They battered the doom and gloom, the tories are back message Labour gave, who were void of credible, thought out policies of their own. . On the council tax freeze, Labour got in on that act when they started to pinch SNP policies when the panic button was smacked.


And I think that Alex Salmond understands, even if some of his supporters appear not to do so, that it is not for the other Parties to make a case for the status quo, it is for the SNP to make a convincing case for change. The SNP have had 77 years to plan for Independence -12 years of that in the SP and the past 4 years as a minority administration. You would think therefore that they would be ready to hit the ground running with their case for Independence. Yet their 44-page 2011 Manifesto contains but a single page on the subject, and that is mostly high-level waffle about how much better Scotland will be in various ways, with no supporting evidence or argument.

David Cameron said recently a positively case must be made for the union. After the election I think it is clear sitting back and doing nothing will not win a referendum. If the union is so important for Scotland a positive case must be there, I've yet to hear one.

The election was on more than independence, and if they would have been criticised by opposition for being "obsessed" if there was a significant amount of the manifesto just on independence.


SNP supporters can burble on as much as they want about how wonderful an independent Scotland will be, but until the case is made in detail - as I said before, a roadmap explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off, all fully costed - a Referendum will almost certainly not succeed. As all politicians understand or ignore at their peril, it's the economy, stupid. And you will not be able to count on the support of the Sun, Herald, Scotsman etc on this one. The help of Scotland's largely Tory-owned and biased media to slay the Labour dragon is one thing - their help to dismantle the UK is quite another. The Herald is already making distancing noises.

What plan would you want fully costed? How can we do that before we know the exact details of what we will have at the end of the union? A road-map on how discussions would go with Westminster and the process would be good to know I agree, but wanting everything fully costed after independence is unreasonable when the different parties would then campaign with seperate manifestos for an independent parliament. What we do know is Scotland is in surplus and the SNP can make the case on how complete control of our finances, and the surplus, can improve our lives and how decision making closer to home will benefit our lives.



But the SNP won. You have 69 seats from 127. You took 45% of the popular vote. Time to put up or shut up. Let's hear the arguments. Let's have that Referendum.

I thought a referendum was not wanted by the people and was a distraction? Unionists seem rather nervous at the fact that they can not do a thing to stop Salmond now he has a majority.

[Hibbie0762]

Second: Friends in the media? Glenn Campbell, Bernard Ponsonby, Lorraine Davidson, Kirsty Wark, Gordon Brewer? Friends of the SNP??? Really? You must be really bitter.Not at all bitter - in politics, as in life, some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you. I am happy to admit that Scottish Labour were their own worst enemies with a deplorably bad campaign. Time to move on - we are where we are.

But I was making a specific point about the motives of the Scottish press rather than the TV. I specifically named the papers concerned as the Sun, the Herald and the Scotsman, though that bastion of progressive left-wing politics the Daily Mail waded in on the side of the SNP as well.


If you mean a few editorials went against you in newspapers which have dwindling circulations, I think you underestimate the decision of the electorate. The mainstream editorials were lukewarm on the SNP but are cold on independence. Perhaps if Labour weren't totally shambolic, then editors wouldn't have minded backing them.

It's a bit of a bizarre argument that you claim the SNP have friends in the media yet more or less in the same post, point out that no major journalistic source is pro-independence, the SNP's "raison d'etre", as is often claimed by people in your camp. So which is it? They either have a friendly media or they don't?Is it not the SNP's own Constitution which puts Scottish Independence as its raison d'etre rather than what you so quaintly describe as "people in my camp"?

And we are talking about far more than a few editorials here. The papers concerned all made an outright declaration of support for the SNP and backed that up with a sustained stream of pro-SNP comment throughout the campaign. Of course in a democracy the press are perfectly entitled to support whom they wish. My point was not really about that support - the press not supporting Labour is hardly a man bites dog story anyway - but that when a traditionally Tory press decides to support the self-styled left of centre SNP, perhaps their motives merit close examination, particularly when it is clear that the said Tory press are not exactly embracing the Independence agenda (though some might argue that they have that much at least in common with Alex Salmond :greengrin )


PS - are you Iain Gray by any chance?This thread is about the timing of the Referendum. My posts have largely remained on topic, I reckon. I have not been making a case for Scottish Labour (bit hard anyway after that campaign) or even mentioning them much other than when unavoidable. Seems to me that it is people in your camp who keep dragging Labour into the picture, mainly as a device to deflect from giving straight answers about the SNP.

So no, I am not Iain Gray and you cannot claim your five pounds. He currently has enough sorrows to bear without being me as well.

[Hibbie0762]

There is a majority of voters who would like the furthering of our power however. The SNP were at one point 10 points behind Labour in the polls, and I wouldn't put it past Salmond and co to get above 50% for independence.I have no problem with that in principle, even if your conclusion is based on voodoo arithmetic. But a furthering of powers is quite distinct from full Independence.


I don't think it will be, and never said that would be a slogan, I just find it funny that unionists are selective on the small countries they compare Scotland to, missing out dozens who actually run their country far better than the UK.I think that both camps can be pretty selective to be honest. But if there are really "dozens" of such small countries who run themselves better than the UK, perhaps we can have a list. We can put it with the list of the 84 from 94 of 2007 Manifesto pledges which the SNP claim to have delivered.


I don't think the SNP did anything that can be described as a "character assassination", even a majority of Labour supporters thought he was hopeless. Even with the support of some of the media during the election, the SNP is still in an up-hill battle against a significant amount of unionist bias in the media.I have conceded on several occasions that Scottish Labour ran a poor campaign, but that undisputed fact and a campaign of character assassination are not mutually exclusive. And I have also pointed out elsewhere, my point about media support was not that the SNP got it (though by and large they did get a very easy ride) but why an essentially Tory press should be throwing their weight behind a self-styled left of centre Party.


Void of vision? And "Vote Labour, stop the Tories" was a vision? The SNP won the election with the vision they gave for Scotland. They gave ideas, especially on renewables, which inspired voters to switch to the SNP. They battered the doom and gloom, the tories are back message Labour gave, who were void of credible, thought out policies of their own. . On the council tax freeze, Labour got in on that act when they started to pinch SNP policies when the panic button was smacked.Nobody is denying that Labour ran a negative campaign which, for what it it is worth, many Labour supporters consider was ill-conceived. But that fact does not turn the SNP's campaign into the glowing symbol of positivity now being claimed.


David Cameron said recently a positively case must be made for the union. After the election I think it is clear sitting back and doing nothing will not win a referendum. If the union is so important for Scotland a positive case must be there, I've yet to hear one....I suspect that I take my political direction from David Cameron and his allies even less than you do. And if Independence is so important for Scotland a positive case must be there. Likewise I have yet to hear it.


The election was on more than independence, and if they would have been criticised by opposition for being "obsessed" if there was a significant amount of the manifesto just on independence.For the SNP's part their Election campaign almost entirely avoided the Independence word :greengrin


What plan would you want fully costed? How can we do that before we know the exact details of what we will have at the end of the union? A road-map on how discussions would go with Westminster and the process would be good to know I agree, but wanting everything fully costed after independence is unreasonable when the different parties would then campaign with seperate manifestos for an independent parliament. What we do know is Scotland is in surplus and the SNP can make the case on how complete control of our finances, and the surplus, can improve our lives and how decision making closer to home will benefit our lives.You will have to do better than evasive bollocks like this. The Electorate will want at least some hard facts and figures - and not just on the financial aspects - as a basis for making a choice. Trust me, I'm with Alex is just not going to cut it.


I thought a referendum was not wanted by the people and was a distraction? Unionists seem rather nervous at the fact that they can not do a thing to stop Salmond now he has a majority.Don't blame me, I was then and remain now firmly in the Bring It On camp. Blocking the Referendum in the first term was in my view one of many errors of political judgement made by the main opposition Parties.

[Jack]

Just the Scots? 4,459,071 of us.

What about the Scots in other parts of the UK? Other parts of the world? The Scottish Ancestral Diaspora runs to some 28 to 40 million.


United States 9,365,490
Canada 4,719,850
Australia 1,501,204
England 795,000
Argentina 100,000
Chile 80,000
New Zealand 12,792
Isle of Man 2,403

That would mean they get a bigger vote than the folk that live here! :faf:


Is it fair that they do not get to vote whereas the 12% of the population of Scotland that is not ethnically Scots does? :rolleyes:


Other White British: 373,685
Any other White background: 87,650
White Irish: 49,428
Mixed: 12,764
South Asian: 55,007
Pakistani: 31,793
Indian: 15,037
Bangladeshi: 1,981
Other South Asian: 6,196
Black: 8,025
African: 5,118
Caribbean: 1,778
Other Black: 1,129
Chinese: 16,310

Just wondering likes :greengrin

[steakbake]

Who gets to vote? Why, the same registered, resident voters in Scotland who are on the electoral register, regardless of race, ethnicity etc.

Can't be many countries in the world who only permit voting on the basis of race. Perhaps SAfrica in the past... and modern day Israel.

[Peevemor]

Just the Scots? 4,459,071 of us.

What about the Scots in other parts of the UK? Other parts of the world? The Scottish Ancestral Diaspora runs to some 28 to 40 million.


United States 9,365,490
Canada 4,719,850
Australia 1,501,204
England 795,000
Argentina 100,000
Chile 80,000
New Zealand 12,792
Isle of Man 2,403That would mean they get a bigger vote than the folk that live here! :faf:


OI! + 3 in Brittany. :rules:

[JeMeSouviens]

Is it fair that they do not get to vote whereas the 12% of the population of Scotland that is not ethnically Scots does?

Define "ethnically Scots". :worms:

[Jack]

Who gets to vote? Why, the same registered, resident voters in Scotland who are on the electoral register, regardless of race, ethnicity etc.

Can't be many countries in the world who only permit voting on the basis of race. Perhaps SAfrica in the past... and modern day Israel.

Yeah, I know that’s the answer.

Is it fair that Johnny foreigner over here on a short working sojourn and doesn’t really give two hoots mon the noos about Scotland other that it gives him/her the chance to send a few bob home, has the right to vote on Scotland's destiny while Scots folk, like all those in Brittany for example, keeping close ties with the mother country, doing something similar, don’t?

The Scots folk living abroad and descendents of Scots tend to be very passionate and care about the auld country. Yet their voice will but a whisper in the debate and like a morning mist hanging in the glens till the warmth of summer sun kisses them a fond farewell they become nought but a memory to the wee haggis, the only living creature to have seen them. :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeah, I know that’s the answer.

Is it fair that Johnny foreigner over here on a short working sojourn and doesn’t really give two hoots mon the noos about Scotland other that it gives him/her the chance to send a few bob home, has the right to vote on Scotland's destiny while Scots folk, like all those in Brittany for example, keeping close ties with the mother country, doing something similar, don’t?

:[/FONT][/COLOR]

Our Celtic brethren in Brittany will get a postal vote, Shirley.

As for Johnny F, it's the old chestnut "no taxation without...etc etc". I know a referendum wouldn't be about representation per se, but the principle will probably hold. Even if it doesn't, what's the alternative? A test of one's Scottishness, like Tebbit's cricket test? Nah.... no thanks.

The numbers of short-term foreign nationals wouldn't, IMO, be enough to threaten the result, and restrictions on their voting wouldn't be worth the nasty slurs that would surely result.

[JeMeSouviens]

Our Celtic brethren in Brittany will get a postal vote, Shirley.


Interesting.

Just looked this up. The rules are different for Scottish parliament elections and Westminster elections.

Scotland:

* resident at an address in Scotland
* aged 18 or over on polling day
* a British, Commonwealth or European Union citizen.

Homeless people can register using a declaration of local intention. People resident overseas (apart from service personnel serving overseas) cannot vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

Westminster:

* aged 18 or over on polling day
* a British citizen, or a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic (living in the UK)
* not legally excluded from voting (for example, if you are in prison)

If you are a British citizen living abroad who has registered to vote within the past 15 years, you can apply to be an overseas voter.


Presumably the Scottish parliament rules would apply?

[sKipper]

Interesting to note the pathetic references to Brigadoon and Braveheart from the Brit Nats on this thread.

Stick to your patronising and condescending garbage lads while the rest of us look to the SNP to take Scotland forward. :agree:

[marinello59]

Interesting to note the pathetic references to Brigadoon and Braveheart from the Brit Nats on this thread.

Stick to your patronising and condescending garbage lads while the rest of us look to the SNP to take Scotland forward. :agree:

Possibly the most ironic sentence ever posted on hibs.net. Nice one. :thumbsup:

[Jack]

Define "ethnically Scots". :worms:
Google it, that what I did to get the numbers :saltireflag

[sKipper]

Possibly the most ironic sentence ever posted on hibs.net. Nice one. :thumbsup:

WTF are you on about ?????:confused:

[One Day Soon]

Get an effing grip mate, I'm speaking of a certain type of person, no matter what race, at no point did I mention English, you like having a wee dig just to get reactions eh!

This thread is all about independence and guess what? it's independence from England, so there's a bloody good chance we'll talk about them as a nation.


This is what you wrote:

" I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy."

Perhaps you did not intend to convey an anti-English perspective but that's certainly what you achieved in this and other posts. As has been pointed out elsewhere you seem to continuously default to associating Scotland's problems or those of Scottish institutions with the malign influence of England.

And in fact it is not about independence from England as you suggest, it is about independence from the UK - which includes Northern Ireland and Wales. So why do you keep targeting England?

Of course you could just say that the English are perfectly decent people just like us and that whatever issues or challenges we face, the problems are not of their making. In which case you could then just leave out the references to England altogether.

[One Day Soon]

Again Mr Going for a Reaction, the thread being about independence, England will be debated but obviously you seem to be so much in love with all things English. I know if things are so much sunnier and fantastic over the other side of Hadrians Wall, why don't you make the move down there and give all a break from you pro union rants, as it's becoming tedious, now where is that ignore button.:confused:


Ah, so on the one hand you aren't blaming the English en masse and on the other anyone who expresses the view that perhaps England isn't the cause of our problems is labelled as someone who thinks things are "so much sunnier and fantastic over the other side of Hadrians Wall". Is your view that people who disagree with you should leave the country representative of the new politics we can look forward to?

You are like Hugh/Shug Rab C nesbitt's cousin in London, deep inside a Scot but trying desperately to be just like his English peers.


I don't define my Scottishness by reference to what I am not - ie English. It seems that you do though. The SNP front bench largely left the articulation of that kind of chippy nationalism (if not its motive force) behind quite some time ago.

[J-C]

This is what you wrote:

" I love the fact that when idea's are brought forward re independence, many people are quick to shoot them down in flames, as Scots, I ask, what the hell are you all afraid of and are you all brainwashed by our fat, wealthy, greedy neighbours down south.
Knowing our history, especially with England, why would we as a Nation not want to regain our heritage and govern our country once again as we should be doing. For too many years now we have been treated as second rate cousins by the ruling government, even more galling concidering 2 Scots have been in charge for some of these years. as said on a previous post with all the Labour MP's here, they did very little to help their fellow Scots, only when things looked like turning did they decide on a devolution to keep us happy."

Perhaps you did not intend to convey an anti-English perspective but that's certainly what you achieved in this and other posts. As has been pointed out elsewhere you seem to continuously default to associating Scotland's problems or those of Scottish institutions with the malign influence of England.

And in fact it is not about independence from England as you suggest, it is about independence from the UK - which includes Northern Ireland and Wales. So why do you keep targeting England?

Of course you could just say that the English are perfectly decent people just like us and that whatever issues or challenges we face, the problems are not of their making. In which case you could then just leave out the references to England altogether.


NI has a completely different landscape history/religion wise to Scotland and is far more complicated than us.

Wales is a Principality( and a country ) and was made a pricipality in 1218 with the Treaty of Worcester between llewlyn the Great and the English crown.

I have many English friends, infact I was down in Weston Super mare at the weekend partying and enjoying their company.
If you look at the history of UK, the big factor in all cases have been the English crown and Parliament and the control and power over it's near neighbours.
Even as we speak the Queen is in Ireland on a royal tour, which was very controversial because of the past history between the countries.

When I say England I of course mean the city of London and the bankers/money men who flaunt their champagne and wealth when everyone else around the country are really struggling to make ends meet. These are the people who control all the power, these are the ones who continually put the UK at risk by their dodgy wheeling and dealing, these are the people who don't have a thought in their heads re Scotland/NI/Wales etc.

[J-C]

I don't define my Scottishness by reference to what I am not - ie English. It seems that you do though. The SNP front bench largely left the articulation of that kind of chippy nationalism (if not its motive force) behind quite some time ago.


I must admit I despair at people like yourself and so I am hitting the ignor button so thankfully will never read another post by yourself, goodbye and good riddence.:bye:

[One Day Soon]

I must admit I despair at people like yourself and so I am hitting the ignor button so thankfully will never read another post by yourself, goodbye and good riddence.:bye:

Farewell then, McGlashan.

[Dashing Bob S]

Not really surprising that it's difficult to work out where Scotland will be as an independent country, as it's just about equally impossible to ascertain where it'll be if it remains part of the union.

A lot of people increasingly feel that we're heading for second-class citizenship under the dominance of a continuing emerging 'Englishness', which is supplanting 'Britishness' and are voting accordingly.

We really should be thinking (whatever party we support) about what sort of independent Scotland we want, rather than what the SNP are proposing. The forces that are leading to the break up of UK and the re-emergence of England, Scotland and Wales as separate nations are much bigger than the SNP, even though they are the principal electoral benefactors.

[Sir David Gray]

Good grief, I would absolutely hate to live in your vision of Scotland, in fact I would emigrate. You remind me of a male version of Melanie Philips. :greengrin

I've been called a lot worse than that in the past. :greengrin

In fact, coming from yourself, I'll take that as a real compliment! :tee hee:


That comparison has crossed my mind before when reading some of FH's classic posts.

However, redeeming features are that he's a passionate Hibby, he doesn't work for the Daily Mail (as far as I know) and his contributions on here are always thought-provoking and honest if, at times, a touch extreme.

Not sure about where his Man Utd supporter status places him though... :wink:

Aw cheers for that. :embarrass

I might even make you deputy first minister in my cabinet. :greengrin

[Jack]

I've been called a lot worse than that in the past. :greengrin

In fact, coming from yourself, I'll take that as a real compliment! :tee hee:



Aw cheers for that. :embarrass

I might even make you deputy first minister in my cabinet. :greengrin

LTYF :agree:

[RyeSloan]

SNP supporters can burble on as much as they want about how wonderful an independent Scotland will be, but until the case is made in detail - as I said before, a roadmap explaining in detail what would change, what would not change, how it would all work in practice and in what ways we will be so much better off, all fully costed - a Referendum will almost certainly not succeed. As all politicians understand or ignore at their peril, it's the economy, stupid.

Absolutely no chance of that...just look at the responses on this thread.

I'm with you 100% on this, I find it bizzare that we may (if the SNP get round to asking!) be asked to vote for something that we have no idea what it entails.

To simply say, ach the SNP might not have control after Independence so we can't tell you one thing about it is a total cop out. There should be a VERY strong narrative already of what is wrong with being in the Union and just how independence would resolve that...there isn't and I'm starting to believe there never will be.

The SNP seem determined not to spell out their vision for an Independent Scotland. This is really a great shame as if that vision was clear enough they may well find signficant support and allow Scotland the chance to step change it's approach to many many areas....relying on "Westminster Bad, Independence Good" is not good enough and the SNP supporters pretending it is should be demanding a lot more of their party.

[steakbake]

I've been called a lot worse than that in the past. :greengrin

In fact, coming from yourself, I'll take that as a real compliment! :tee hee:



Aw cheers for that. :embarrass

I might even make you deputy first minister in my cabinet. :greengrin

Very kind, but politics ain't my bag! :greengrin