Cameron's Interference?

[ancienthibby]

What's your view on PM Cameron's decision today to try and set the terms on the forthcoming Referendum on Scotland's constitutional future??

[lucky]

He has every right. The constitution is a reserved matter as such its Westminster that has the legal authority on this matter. The SNP claim they have a mandate to hold the referendum in latter stages of this parliament but fact is it was not in their manifesto, Wee Eck announced it in the final weekend of the campaign. I do find it strange that the only party that does not want to hold a referendum is the party whose policy it is to be independent. They should be desperate to hold it but he knows that Scotland does not want it. He is trying everything to make the vote unfair. He is even talking about 16/17 kids a vote. It should be called now, let the people decide then let us all move on regardless of the result.

[IndieHibby]

What's your view on PM Cameron's decision today to try and set the terms on the forthcoming Referendum on Scotland's constitutional future??

Perhaps it should be taken on face value - he's sticking up for Scottish people who just want a fair "yes/no" vote on independence.

Salmond, rightly or wrongly, is gaming the whole referendum issue to get the answer he wants. Which is crass of him, in my opinion.

Or perhaps, as someone who is probably on the side of the Union (but prepared to be persuaded), I can't see the wood for the trees.

Enlighten me, oh patriots! :saltireflag

[greenlex]

Perhaps it should be taken on face value - he's sticking up for Scottish people who just want a fair "yes/no" vote on independence.

Salmond, rightly or wrongly, is gaming the whole referendum issue to get the answer he wants. Which is crass of him, in my opinion.

Or perhaps, as someone who is probably on the side of the Union (but prepared to be persuaded), I can't see the wood for the trees.

Enlighten me, oh patriots! :saltireflag

As I understand it you will get a yes / no vote but will also get a if it turns out no do you want more powers option. I guess that will be yes or no too.
dont know what the hurry is to be honest. The Nats have said it will be in 2014 so what's the problem?

Like you I don't particularlupy mind the union for the most but Bullying from Westminster to order me when I need to make my mind up might just sway me against it.

[Purple & Green]

I'll never really understand how the Tories are so reviled in Scotland, but yet when an opportunity comes along to wipe them from the face of the Scottish political map there are plenty of socialists prepared to side with them.

The referendum is a distraction, when it happens is largely irrelevant, so why the unionist parties are focussing on it now smacks to be of attempting to sidetrack a successful scottish administration. It surprises me because my suspicion is that if they shut up about it the snp would find it hard to win in 2014.

I don't particularly like Alex Salmond - I didn't vote for him in the leadership election - but he seems to be running rings around the unionist parties of all hues just now.

[CropleyWasGod]

As I understand it you will get a yes / no vote but will also get a if it turns out no do you want more powers option. I guess that will be yes or no too.
dont know what the hurry is to be honest. The Nats have said it will be in 2014 so what's the problem?

Like you I don't particularlupy mind the union for the most but Bullying from Westminster to order me when I need to make my mind up might just sway me against it.

This was my reaction too. Although the Nats might be publicly mumping about the "interference", in private I'll bet they are rubbing their hands at this. "A posh English Tory sticking his nose in? That's another few hundred thousand votes for a Yes".

Question, though, for anyone constitutionally-minded. Supposing the SNP went ahead with their own referendum, even if it was deemed "illegal", and the result was in favour of independence. Could Westminster really (morally, not legally) refuse to recognise it?

[Hainan Hibs]

Sturgeon clarified that the SNP want a straight YES/NO question, but would add a third for "Devo Max" if it was wanted by others, however the Lib Dems and Labour seem to be doing the hokey cokey with that.

I can see this one backfiring on Cameron and personally can't believe he's provide an own goal to the SNP. Shirley he's adding a few % points to the Yes camp.

Personally I would like to see a date set, preferably in the 2nd half of the term so both sides of the argument can be set out to the public in full.

Also it's fun seeing Salmond have the unionists by the baws and they can do nothing about it:greengrin

[lucky]

Wee Eck is damaging Scotland with this stalling. I want the referendum now so that the matters put to bed. In the event of the Scottish people saying yes, I would predict the SNP will break up within 10 years. They are a cross section of the political scene. Salmond, Swinney, Stevenson and Ewing are right wing but others such as Sturgeon, Brown and others are more left of center. The goal of independence holds them together.

[--------]

Wee Eck is damaging Scotland with this stalling. I want the referendum now so that the matters put to bed. In the event of the Scottish people saying yes, I would predict the SNP will break up within 10 years. They are a cross section of the political scene. Salmond, Swinney, Stevenson and Ewing are right wing but others such as Sturgeon, Brown and others are more left of center. The goal of independence holds them together.



No he's not.

Unionists want the referendum as soon as possible because they fancy that right now they would get an acceptable (to them) result. They also want to set the terms of that referendum (just as they did last time) so that they can load the dice in their own favour.

If the Scottish Government brought forward the referendum you profess to be so keen on, you'd be on here complaining that "Wee Eck" was damaging Scotland by distracting attention away from the "real issues" for the sake of doctrinaire nationalism. Two-faced isn't a strong enough word for you guys.

BTW - remind me, WHO exactly's the Scottish Labour Leader these days? I keep forgetting his/her/it's name, and nobody I ask can tell me. :devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

Wee Eck is damaging Scotland with this stalling. I want the referendum now so that the matters put to bed. In the event of the Scottish people saying yes, I would predict the SNP will break up within 10 years. They are a cross section of the political scene. Salmond, Swinney, Stevenson and Ewing are right wing but others such as Sturgeon, Brown and others are more left of center. The goal of independence holds them together.

In what way? I have heard this line, but have yet to hear anything that supports it. Genuinely interested BTW.

[GlesgaeHibby]

He has every right. The constitution is a reserved matter as such its Westminster that has the legal authority on this matter. The SNP claim they have a mandate to hold the referendum in latter stages of this parliament but fact is it was not in their manifesto, Wee Eck announced it in the final weekend of the campaign. I do find it strange that the only party that does not want to hold a referendum is the party whose policy it is to be independent. They should be desperate to hold it but he knows that Scotland does not want it. He is trying everything to make the vote unfair. He is even talking about 16/17 kids a vote. It should be called now, let the people decide then let us all move on regardless of the result.

How is that unfair? You can be working at 16 and paying tax to the government so why shouldn't 16/17 year olds be entitled to a vote?

The unionist parties strong defence of the union tells me that Scotland more than pays it's way, and it is beneficial for the UK for Scotland to be in the union. If we were a hinderance, they would be more eager to see us go our own ways- especially due to the current financial crisis. Truth is they don't want to lose the billions Scotland pours into the exchequer every year.

[thekaratekid]

Cameron/Scottish Labour would love a referendum as soon as possible as public opinion still weighs in favour of a no vote.

IMO

[ancienthibby]

My interest in starting the thread came in part from wondering just where does Cameron's authority come for making this (anticipated) intervention??

If I remember correctly in the last UK general election, the Conservative (and Unionist) party in Scotland returned a single MP.

Then, in the Scottish elections in May last year, all of the Conservatives, Liberals and Labour lost seats to the SNP, giving that party an unprecedented outright majority in Holyrood.

As someone else might say, the Scottish peeple (!) have spoken!

So what moral authority does the UK Prime Minister have for today's pronouncement??

[hibs0666]

As I understand it you will get a yes / no vote but will also get a if it turns out no do you want more powers option. I guess that will be yes or no too.
dont know what the hurry is to be honest. The Nats have said it will be in 2014 so what's the problem?

Like you I don't particularlupy mind the union for the most but Bullying from Westminster to order me when I need to make my mind up might just sway me against it.

The problem is that it is now 2012 and no-one has the vaguest clue what independence actually is, never mind how an independent nation is actually decoupled from a unified whole. It's a disgrace that we are in this position with only two years to go before such a seminal event.

Although he is an erse of a man (like slippery-as-a-Salmond), I'm happy that Cameron is now putting the question of independence on the agenda and very much hope that the issue gets the scrutiny it so badly needs.

[hibs0666]

My interest in starting the thread came in part from wondering just where does Cameron's authority come for making this (anticipated) intervention??

If I remember correctly in the last UK general election, the Conservative (and Unionist) party in Scotland returned a single MP.

Then, in the Scottish elections in May last year, all of the Conservatives, Liberals and Labour lost seats to the SNP, giving that party an unprecedented outright majority in Holyrood.

As someone else might say, the Scottish peeple (!) have spoken!

So what moral authority does the UK Prime Minister have for today's pronouncement??

We elect MPs to a London parliament, and the constitution is a UK parliamentary issue. I don't see your beef.

[hibs0666]

Cameron/Scottish Labour would love a referendum as soon as possible as public opinion still weighs in favour of a no vote.

IMO

I would love a referendum ASAP too. The uncertainty is doing Scotland no favours at all.

[hibsbollah]

He has every right. The constitution is a reserved matter as such its Westminster that has the legal authority on this matter. The SNP claim they have a mandate to hold the referendum in latter stages of this parliament but fact is it was not in their manifesto, Wee Eck announced it in the final weekend of the campaign. I do find it strange that the only party that does not want to hold a referendum is the party whose policy it is to be independent. They should be desperate to hold it but he knows that Scotland does not want it. He is trying everything to make the vote unfair. He is even talking about 16/17 kids a vote. It should be called now, let the people decide then let us all move on regardless of the result.

I agree with all of that.

Leaving aside whether Cameron has 'the right' to set boundaries for a referendum (he clearly does), its an interesting political decision for Cameron to take. Why get involved in unnecessary :stirrer: with the :saltireflag(tartan underpant brigade)... unless he has less interest in keeping the Union together than we are led to believe. Theres an argument that the best thing for the Tory party in England would be a clean break with Scotland.




On the 'does Cameron have the right' question, this is a useful link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/09/scottish-independence-legality

Verdict

David Cameron has the law on his side if he wants to stage-manage a Scottish referendum on independence. The Scotland Act 1998 that established Holyrood also dictates clear limits to devolution: constitutional matters remain in Westminster, the SNP can't stage a binding referendum without Westminster's say-so and even an indicative poll to test the public opinion could be open to legal challenge.
However, the idea that the UK government would legally challenge a yes vote forcing the Scots to remain part of the UK shows the limits of Cameron's powers. He may have the law on his side, but the moral argument that Westminster should have the upper-hand in dictating the future for the Scottish people – particularly when there is currently only one Tory MP in Scotland – is shaky at best.
Constitutional experts said yesterday that while Westminster remains sovereign, Cameron has taken a huge political gamble by "hijacking" the SNP's plans to test public opinion in an indicative poll and fast-tracking a legally binding referendum.
Professor Robert Hazell, director of the constitution unit at University College London, said that according to international precedent – most relevant is the Canadian government's handling of referendums on the independence of Quebec – Cameron is within his right to argue for a clear question but could be "over-reaching" himself politically by dictating the timing and that the outcome should be "decisive".
Hazell said: "He [Cameron] is hijacking the SNP's timetable. My advice to UK government would have been to sit on your hands. The likelihood is that the people would vote no in a indicative referendum – the British government needn't have got involved in the game at all. But Cameron is a wily operator, there is nothing he likes more than a fight."
If accusations of stage-management are to be levelled at Downing Street, they could also be applied to the SNP. Polls suggest that if asked today, the Scottish people would vote against independence, but that support is on an upward trend. The thinking behind the SNP's policy to hold an indicative poll in the latter part of this parliament is that by then the effects of coalition's spending cuts will start to pinch and Westminster and the union's popularity will wane. More time also means more time for them to sell the idea.
Aidan O'Neill QC, a senior Scottish lawyer, said: "Both parties are accusing the other of being partisan about the constitution. Cameron is trying to fix it for his result; Salmond is doing the same. Salmond can say that he represents the people of Scotland; Cameron can reply that he represents Scottish unionists who won the majority of the seats in Scotland in 2010. But Salmond needs the UK government to come in for it to happen. There's a lot shadow boxing going on."

[Holmesdale Hibs]

We elect MPs to a London parliament, and the constitution is a UK parliamentary issue. I don't see your beef.

They were interviewing a guy on BBC news and he was saying that, if the SNP won the vote, Westminster would have to approve it and bring it in to law. Technically they could veto it.

I agree with the earlier poster who said this could be an own goal for Cameron and its more likely to make people vote for yes. Can't see Cameron winning a debate held through the media in Scotland, regardless of whether he's right or wrong.

[Hainan Hibs]

I've been hearing this "it's damaging Scotland!" line quite often, especially from Cameron and co with the latest installment from George today, with no evidence to back it up.

Salmond's just signed a renewable energy link up with Masdar, we've had Amazon invest and Mitsubishi amongst others have invested in renewables.

If claims are made they should be backed up. If a discussion is going to go ahead it would be useful for the unionist camp to build a case for the union instead of spouting throwaway lines intended to cause people to push panic buttons.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Financial Times editorial (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b1e6f054-3ad2-11e1-be4b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1izXvmx7S)

But far from knocking Mr Salmond off-balance, Mr Cameron may find that he has played into his opponent’s hands. What looks in London like a smart political tactic – luring the SNP into holding a poll it might lose – may seem, north of the border, more like old-fashioned English meddling in Scotland’s affairs. Nothing is more likely to raise hackles or to damage the case for the union. Meanwhile, the pretext for accelerating the poll – that uncertainty is damaging the economy – looks disingenuous at best. As threats go, the risks posed by separatism are as a fleabite compared with the all-devouring eurozone crisis.

Mr Salmond’s politics may smack of demagoguery, but when it comes to tactics the former lawyer is an acknowledged master. Rather than confronting him on his chosen battleground, unionists should wait for him to bring forward his referendum and then make the case for the union on its merits. Honest arguments will save the UK, not judo moves and political ploys.

[Eyrie]

There should be two referenda, not one.

Firstly, to authorise Salmond to negotiate our departure from the UK or to confirm our commitment to continuing as part of the UK. Then, if the first vote is in favour of negotiations, there should be a second referendum on whether the negotiated terms are acceptable.

Right now we could vote for independence and then get stitched up in the negotiations, resulting in a disaster. There is a world of difference between getting all of the oil and none of the national debt at one extreme, and a twelfth of each (based on population) at the other extreme.

[Part/Time Supporter]

There should be two referenda, not one.

Firstly, to authorise Salmond to negotiate our departure from the UK or to confirm our commitment to continuing as part of the UK. Then, if the first vote is in favour of negotiations, there should be a second referendum on whether the negotiated terms are acceptable.

Right now we could vote for independence and then get stitched up in the negotiations, resulting in a disaster. There is a world of difference between getting all of the oil and none of the national debt at one extreme, and a twelfth of each (based on population) at the other extreme.

1. Why the hell would the Scottish negotiator accept 1/12 of the oil, 9/10 of which is in Scottish territorial waters (as defined for the purposes of fishing, which is devolved)?

2. There is no precedent anywhere in the world for two referendums in an independence process. What happens if the second vote is no? Back to square one? Renegotiate a new deal? The people would have voted to divorce, but then voted against the settlement. I think you are overstating the potential contentiousness and scope for disagreement in any settlement.

[One Day Soon]

Financial Times editorial (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b1e6f054-3ad2-11e1-be4b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1izXvmx7S)

But far from knocking Mr Salmond off-balance, Mr Cameron may find that he has played into his opponent’s hands. What looks in London like a smart political tactic – luring the SNP into holding a poll it might lose – may seem, north of the border, more like old-fashioned English meddling in Scotland’s affairs. Nothing is more likely to raise hackles or to damage the case for the union. Meanwhile, the pretext for accelerating the poll – that uncertainty is damaging the economy – looks disingenuous at best. As threats go, the risks posed by separatism are as a fleabite compared with the all-devouring eurozone crisis.

Mr Salmond’s politics may smack of demagoguery, but when it comes to tactics the former lawyer is an acknowledged master. Rather than confronting him on his chosen battleground, unionists should wait for him to bring forward his referendum and then make the case for the union on its merits. Honest arguments will save the UK, not judo moves and political ploys.


Except he isn't. A former lawyer that is.

I wouldn't be praying in aid an article in which the author cannot even get basic facts like that right if I were you.

[Eyrie]

1. Why the hell would the Scottish negotiator accept 1/12 of the oil, 9/10 of which is in Scottish territorial waters (as defined for the purposes of fishing, which is devolved)?
It was an extreme example, although I note you chose to ignore the other extreme which would be entirely in Scotland's interests to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

And if there is to be only one vote then Salmond should have declared that winning the election would be his mandate to start negotiations with the vote to follow based on the agreement.

My feelings about independence are very much determined by what we will actually get. For example, on currency I would see no point to remaining part of the pound, would regard the euro as a massive loss of our newly gained sovereignty and believe that a new Scottish currency is appropriate.

[One Day Soon]

No he's not.

Unionists want the referendum as soon as possible because they fancy that right now they would get an acceptable (to them) result. They also want to set the terms of that referendum (just as they did last time) so that they can load the dice in their own favour.

If the Scottish Government brought forward the referendum you profess to be so keen on, you'd be on here complaining that "Wee Eck" was damaging Scotland by distracting attention away from the "real issues" for the sake of doctrinaire nationalism. Two-faced isn't a strong enough word for you guys.

BTW - remind me, WHO exactly's the Scottish Labour Leader these days? I keep forgetting his/her/it's name, and nobody I ask can tell me. :devil:


Nationalists want the referendum as late as possible because they fancy that then they would get an acceptable (to them) result. They believe if they hold it after the next UK general election - which they hope that the Tories win - it will enable them to say "why stick with the UK when it gives us Tory governments". Salmond also wants to set the terms of the referendum (for example by extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds who tend to be much more pro-Nationalist) so that he can load the dice in his own favour.

If Westminster brings forward the referendum you profess to be so keen on, you're on here complaining that "Unionists" are damaging Scotland by distracting attention away from the "real Referendum" for the sake of doctrinaire unionism. Two-faced isn't a strong enough word for you guys.

BTW - remind me, WHO exactly's the SNP Leader at Westminster these days? I keep forgetting his/her/it's name, and nobody I ask can tell me. :devil:

See what I did there?

[twiceinathens]

If there was a referendum tomorrow I would have to think long and hard before I decided which way to vote. A lifelong labour voter I joined the majority of my compatriots in voting SNP in the last Scottish elections having become disenchanted with a labour party who seemed to take their electorate for granted and whose election tactics simply appeared to abuse their opponents. At present I am relatively happy at the SNP performance. However this does not mean I would automatically vote for separation. It does however seem significant how the opposition parties who only a few months ago were scoffing at the very idea of a referendum are desperate for it to be held as soon as possible. The economic argument that investors and businesses are being discouraged from financial involvement are generalised vague and non specific. Of course we are told they cannot be specific because of "commercial confidentially". The claim may be true, but why should I believe it simply because it is stated as a fact?

[Mon Dieu4]

I think Cameron is also just at it, I feel this could backfire in spectacular fashion for him.

Why would the SNP want the vote right now when they have a couple of years to show the people what the can do with the power they now have, their main aim is for Independence so why wouldnt they want to do everything they can to swing the balance in their favour.

Its like saying ok, you have to box Mike Tyson, you can do it tomorrow or train for 6 months then fight him, common sense surely :rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

It is interesting that despite the fact we have had Salmond and the SNP in charge of Scotland for the last five years, it has taken a UK Tory Prime Minister to actually get the real debate about the referendum and independence going. You'd almost think Salmond didn't want to talk about it in public.....

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think Cameron is also just at it, I feel this could backfire in spectacular fashion for him.

Why would the SNP want the vote right now when they have a couple of years to show the people what the can do with the power they now have, their main aim is for Independence so why wouldnt they want to do everything they can to swing the balance in their favour.

Its like saying ok, you have to box Mike Tyson, you can do it tomorrow or train for 6 months then fight him, common sense surely :rolleyes:

:agree: unless of course you are a unionist and scared of losing, so you just make up things about it being bad for business then give zero evidence to back up your claims.

I mean who seriously thought that getting David and George to wade into the argument was going to help the unionist cause:faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

It is interesting that despite the fact we have had Salmond and the SNP in charge of Scotland for the last five years, it has taken a UK Tory Prime Minister to actually get the real debate about the referendum and independence going. You'd almost think Salmond didn't want to talk about it in public.....

.... or, that Salmond is clever enough to get Cameron to play right into his hands. :wink:

[Part/Time Supporter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/09/scottish-referendum-backlash-tories-salmond


But there was immediate confusion about what Cameron meant. In Scotland, papers ran differing interpretations of the No 10 strategy after being briefed by different ministerial and official sources. One paper said Cameron would ban Salmond from staging the referendum unless he gave in to a list of UK government demands; several reported there would be an 18-month deadline for the new legal power to be used; some referred to a "sunset clause" built into the new power; another said Salmond would be told to hold the poll by August 2013, while others said Salmond would be barred from using the official electoral roll for the referendum if he refused Cameron's offer. One report suggested the UK government would also ask Scottish voters how the referendum should be worded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/09/scottish-referendum-labour-lib-dems?newsfeed=true


Michael Moore, the Lib Dem Scotland secretary, will tell MPs on Tuesday that the Westminster parliament should devolve the power to hold a legally binding referendum to Holyrood on a temporary basis. But Nick Clegg has ensured that there will be no fixed, 18-month deadline. Moore is rushing forward his statement, which he had been due to make later in the week, after a backlash against the prime minister's announcement that the coalition would call the bluff of Alex Salmond by bringing forward a referendum.

I agree with Nick

:faf:


Labour sources expressed surprise that Downing Street had failed to brief Ed Miliband, whose party is the largest pro-union party in Scotland. The sources also expressed astonishment that George Osborne briefed the cabinet on Monday on the government's thinking at a meeting of the cabinet convened at the site of the London Olympics. "It is totally bonkers for the cabinet to have been briefed on this by George Osborne at the site of the London Olympics," one Labour source said. "It is bizarre that the Scotland secretary did not take the lead in briefing the cabinet."

Who is the secretary of state for Scotland?

See what I did there?

[The Harp Awakes]

What's your view on PM Cameron's decision today to try and set the terms on the forthcoming Referendum on Scotland's constitutional future??

Just when wee Eck is looking for a shot in the arm for independence, up pop the English Tories aka Cameron and Osborne as if by magic to take the bait:flag:

Meanwhile the Labour Party's silence is deafening.

Magic:aok:

Wee Eck and Nicola must be p1ssing themselves laughing tonight.

[One Day Soon]

:agree: unless of course you are a unionist and scared of losing, so you just make up things about it being bad for business then give zero evidence to back up your claims.

I mean who seriously thought that getting David and George to wade into the argument was going to help the unionist cause:faf:


You mean a bit like a Nationalist being scared of explaining whether we will join the Euro (bust currency), stay with the pound (leaving Scottish inflation, interest rates and money supply under the control of a UK government in which we have no say whatsoever) or making up a fantasy new currency that would have all the strength of a used chip bag? :faf:

[Jack]

I can see a major problem with those that suggest Cameron would have moral issues to contend with if Scotland voted yes.

[steakbake]

It all looks like a bit of a shambles this evening to be honest. Falling over themselves to take a swipe at the SNP's position but seem to so far have tied themselves in a knot.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You mean a bit like a Nationalist being scared of explaining whether we will join the Euro (bust currency), stay with the pound (leaving Scottish inflation, interest rates and money supply under the control of a UK government in which we have no say whatsoever) or making up a fantasy new currency that would have all the strength of a used chip bag? :faf:

Would you like another straw to clutch at:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

.... or, that Salmond is clever enough to get Cameron to play right into his hands. :wink:

Sure, that's whats happening. That's why there have been Nats with toys out of the pram all over the place today.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I can see a major problem with those that suggest Cameron would have moral issues to contend with if Scotland voted yes.

Sorry not sure what you mean?

[The Harp Awakes]

Sure, that's whats happening. That's why there have been Nats with toys out of the pram all over the place today.

Aye and a fire always burns more fiercely when the flames are stoked:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Sure, that's whats happening. That's why there have been Nats with toys out of the pram all over the place today.

In public, sure... of course they would express indignation. But, in private, as I said before, they will be delighted.

I am no great fan of Salmond, but he is very good at picking his battles.

[hibs0666]

.... or, that Salmond is clever enough to get Cameron to play right into his hands. :wink:

You're giving the fat slob more credit than he is due. How's the arc of prosperity these days?

[One Day Soon]

Would you like another straw to clutch at:greengrin

Which currency would you prefer?

[steakbake]

My interest in starting the thread came in part from wondering just where does Cameron's authority come for making this (anticipated) intervention??

If I remember correctly in the last UK general election, the Conservative (and Unionist) party in Scotland returned a single MP.

Then, in the Scottish elections in May last year, all of the Conservatives, Liberals and Labour lost seats to the SNP, giving that party an unprecedented outright majority in Holyrood.

As someone else might say, the Scottish peeple (!) have spoken!

So what moral authority does the UK Prime Minister have for today's pronouncement??

The authority he has is that he's the Prime Minister of the UK and his government has responsibility in these matters. The fact he's a Tory and there's only one of those in Scotland is totally beside the point.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Which currency would you prefer?

impossible to say at this stage as the timeline for independance is not yet clear as we haven't yet voted to become independant. Therefore we would need to look at which currency suited our needs best closer to the time, not which one suits england best as is the current situation, and the people of scotland will if they wish be free to make that decision.

Do you not want the people of scotland to make such decisions, or do you not think us capable?

[One Day Soon]

In public, sure... of course they would express indignation. But, in private, as I said before, they will be delighted.

I am no great fan of Salmond, but he is very good at picking his battles.

Not if a single question referendum now takes place before the next UK election they won't. A few day's headlines for the Nats now in exchange for a referendum in early 2013 rather than 2014 is what is at stake. Its the difference between a slim chance of independence and no chance whatsoever.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You're giving the fat slob more credit than he is due. How's the arc of prosperity these days?

Thats a bit desperate is it not George?

[Hainan Hibs]

Which currency would you prefer?

I would stick with the Uk pound for the first years of independence, and then introduce a Scottish currency, pegged against the Uk pound for initial stability.

George Keravan talks about the possiblity here : http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts-blog/george_kerevan_we_can_still_rise_and_be_a_triple_a _nation_again_1_2040202

[One Day Soon]

impossible to say at this stage as the timeline for independance is not yet clear as we haven't yet voted to become independant. Therefore we would need to look at which currency suited our needs best, not which one suits england best as is the current situation, and the people of scotland will if they wish be free to make that decision.

Do you not want the people of scotland to make such decisions, or do you not think us capable?


You want people to vote for independence and you can't tell them something as basic as what currency we would have? That's reassuring. Given that the vote is around either 12 months or 24 months months away do you not think that the currency on which the stability of the entire Scottish economy would be based is a teensy detail that you should be capable of giving a clear answer on?

I want the people of Scotland to have a vote on their constitutional future as soon as possible, it seems to be those who are supposedly in favour of independence who want to keep the people of Scotland from expressing their view for as long as possible.

[Hainan Hibs]

You want people to vote for independence and you can't tell them something as basic as what currency we would have? That's reassuring. Given that the vote is around either 12 months or 24 months months away do you not think that the currency on which the stability of the entire Scottish economy would be based is a teensy detail that you should be capable of giving a clear answer on?

I want the people of Scotland to have a vote on their constitutional future as soon as possible, it seems to be those who are supposedly in favour of independence who want to keep the people of Scotland from expressing their view for as long as possible.

The SNP's policy is a continuation of the monetary union with England until at such times it is in the benefit of Scotland to change.

[HKhibby]

He has every right. The constitution is a reserved matter as such its Westminster that has the legal authority on this matter. The SNP claim they have a mandate to hold the referendum in latter stages of this parliament but fact is it was not in their manifesto, Wee Eck announced it in the final weekend of the campaign. I do find it strange that the only party that does not want to hold a referendum is the party whose policy it is to be independent. They should be desperate to hold it but he knows that Scotland does not want it. He is trying everything to make the vote unfair. He is even talking about 16/17 kids a vote. It should be called now, let the people decide then let us all move on regardless of the result.

Cant really understand why we are having this discussion at all!, but since its out there, well people will discuss it, Scotland will not be leaving the UK at all, nor will it ever either, not in our lifetime anyway, i dont know your age, sorry, this has been whipped up time and time again by that guy Salmond, who in my opinion is just a bigot anyway, with a hatred for anything/anybody, British or English, who incidentally has done very well over the years with his salary as a Westminster MP too!, paid for not only by Scottish tax payers money, but English/Welsh/Norther Irish, and yes believe it or not other parts of GB too including the Commonwealth, as they pay towards the UK in some form too, thats another story/debate!
The question is where would Scotland go if independant? deeper into the EU?, and adopt the Euro?, why? a currency which is going to go either one of two ways, split in half and have to re-adopt their own currencies again or set up a new one, but given the state of affairs of such useless countries like Greece/Spain/Portugal/Ireland, wouldnt happen, the second is the Euro will fall apart completely, or the only other is the status quo in Europe, with the likes of Germany still supporting the useless non-poductive countries! now would Germany support Scotland?, just another country thats what they would think!, and anyway Scotland would have to negotiate terms for entry into the EU as a "sovereign" country.
I cant imagine anyone with any common sense at all wanting to be part of the EU in its present form or the useless currency that is the Euro!, you also have to look at the taxes would go sky high, in whatever currency they adopted, to pay for this and that, and probably very high possibility of what investment there has been by business would re-locate else where, either south of the border or elsewhere, high taxes and high costs for employers do not create business, and business creates employment and investment.
You also have to look at the Pound is not a Scottish currency, nor an English currency, it is a British currency GBP its called, so given too if and when the Euro falls apart which currency would Scotland adopt? the Pound again? would the UK allow it back?
There is also other things like Defence/Foreign policy!, well foreign policy would just become the EU foreign policy etc..and you would be paying a whole lot more than now to the EU for sure!
Cameron in my opinion is the best damn PM the UK has had for a long time, at least he stands up for the UK against the EU-SSR! and hopefully take the UK out of the corrupt inward looking organisation or dis-organisation!
All this and a whole lot more just like even having their own broadcasting authority, as the BBC certainly wouldnt be the main provider anymore either, it would have to bought in etc.. so iwould say to anyone that considers voting for "independance" to think very carefully about everything and not listen to the politics of bitter and twisted and envy or jealousy.
This and alot more is why Scotland will not be seperate, and i for one am quiet happy being British where ever i live in the world, and have lived away from Edinburgh and Scotland for a long time now

[lucky]

The SNP must be the only pro independence party that the world has seen that does not want to talk, debate, tell the people their plans for this new country, or even hold a vote on it. It must be every Nats wet dream to get to independence yet they are holding us all back from this great new world. Why?

Let people decide ASAP and let us move on one way or another. Wee Eck pissed the election but does not trust the people.

As for those saying Cameron raising this makes them more likey to vote yes well vote yes. But I can't imagine anyone will vote one way or another because Cameron wants to give them a choice ASAP. To me, this is the biggest political decision we will make in our lifetime so it would be madness to vote for or against based who called the referendum.

[steakbake]

Cant really understand why we are having this discussion at all!, but since its out there, well people will discuss it, Scotland will not be leaving the UK at all, nor will it ever either, not in our lifetime anyway, i dont know your age, sorry, this has been whipped up time and time again by that guy Salmond, who in my opinion is just a bigot anyway, with a hatred for anything/anybody, British or English, who incidentally has done very well over the years with his salary as a Westminster MP too!, paid for not only by Scottish tax payers money, but English/Welsh/Norther Irish, and yes believe it or not other parts of GB too including the Commonwealth, as they pay towards the UK in some form too, thats another story/debate!
The question is where would Scotland go if independant? deeper into the EU?, and adopt the Euro?, why? a currency which is going to go either one of two ways, split in half and have to re-adopt their own currencies again or set up a new one, but given the state of affairs of such useless countries like Greece/Spain/Portugal/Ireland, wouldnt happen, the second is the Euro will fall apart completely, or the only other is the status quo in Europe, with the likes of Germany still supporting the useless non-poductive countries! now would Germany support Scotland?, just another country thats what they would think!, and anyway Scotland would have to negotiate terms for entry into the EU as a "sovereign" country.
I cant imagine anyone with any common sense at all wanting to be part of the EU in its present form or the useless currency that is the Euro!, you also have to look at the taxes would go sky high, in whatever currency they adopted, to pay for this and that, and probably very high possibility of what investment there has been by business would re-locate else where, either south of the border or elsewhere, high taxes and high costs for employers do not create business, and business creates employment and investment.
You also have to look at the Pound is not a Scottish currency, nor an English currency, it is a British currency GBP its called, so given too if and when the Euro falls apart which currency would Scotland adopt? the Pound again? would the UK allow it back?
There is also other things like Defence/Foreign policy!, well foreign policy would just become the EU foreign policy etc..and you would be paying a whole lot more than now to the EU for sure!
Cameron in my opinion is the best damn PM the UK has had for a long time, at least he stands up for the UK against the EU-SSR! and hopefully take the UK out of the corrupt inward looking organisation or dis-organisation!
All this and a whole lot more just like even having their own broadcasting authority, as the BBC certainly wouldnt be the main provider anymore either, it would have to bought in etc.. so iwould say to anyone that considers voting for "independance" to think very carefully about everything and not listen to the politics of bitter and twisted and envy or jealousy.
This and alot more is why Scotland will not be seperate, and i for one am quiet happy being British where ever i live in the world, and have lived away from Edinburgh and Scotland for a long time now

A lengthy straw-man argument on the merits of one union on the basis of the disadvantages of another.

What irritates me is that both sides are so wrapped up in subjective navel gazing. For me, this is only about where decisions should be made and who should make them: where the authority lies and what represents us best.

Everything else is raking over hypotheticals and bandying around myths to cajole people into thinking its about something else.

[Sir David Gray]

I would stick with the Uk pound for the first years of independence, and then introduce a Scottish currency, pegged against the Uk pound for initial stability.

George Keravan talks about the possiblity here : http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts-blog/george_kerevan_we_can_still_rise_and_be_a_triple_a _nation_again_1_2040202

I'm sure that all new member states of the EU (which Scotland would become under an SNP government, if we broke from the rest of the UK) are obliged to eventually join the euro.

Can't wait for that. :rolleyes:

As for David Cameron getting involved, I think he's playing a dangerous game in that it could result in a backlash from Scottish voters who may be encouraged to support independence.

However, I think he's right to be saying what he is. Alex Salmond should be calling a referendum right now and getting the issue decided once and for all, one way or the other.

The fact that he plans to carry out this referendum no earlier than 2014 says that he knows what the outcome would be if he held it any earlier than that.

I think that's a really poor indictment on Salmond and the SNP. They've been the largest party in the country for almost five years now, have had plenty of opportunities to put their case forward for why Scotland would be better off outside of the United Kingdom and yet, after all this time, the SNP knows that they would get slaughtered at the polls if they asked the question tomorrow and their separation dream would be buried for at least a generation.

Every time I've heard a member of the SNP being questioned on very simple topics in terms of how Scotland would function as an independent nation, they've always given some very vague and evasive answers.

Without these clear and concise answers, they have no chance of succeeding with their referendum.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You want people to vote for independence and you can't tell them something as basic as what currency we would have? That's reassuring. Given that the vote is around either 12 months or 24 months months away do you not think that the currency on which the stability of the entire Scottish economy would be based is a teensy detail that you should be capable of giving a clear answer on?

I want the people of Scotland to have a vote on their constitutional future as soon as possible, it seems to be those who are supposedly in favour of independence who want to keep the people of Scotland from expressing their view for as long as possible.

:faf: I'm not Alex Salmond though, I'm just giving my opinion not that of the SNP, not that difficult to understand is it :confused:


I believe the SNP's policy is to carry on with sterling until the people of scotland feel it is right to join the euro. Sounds fairly sensible to me but it all depends on how each currency is doing at the time, given independnace if it happens is still a few years off it is difficult to predict what state the euro and sterling will be in if the last few years are anything to go by, wouldn't you agree?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm sure that all new member states of the EU (which Scotland would become under an SNP government, if we broke from the rest of the UK) are obliged to eventually join the euro.

Can't wait for that. :rolleyes:

As for David Cameron getting involved, I think he's playing a dangerous game in that it could result in a backlash from Scottish voters who may be encouraged to support independence.

However, I think he's right to be saying what he is. Alex Salmond should be calling a referendum right now and getting the issue decided once and for all, one way or the other.

The fact that he plans to carry out this referendum no earlier than 2014 says that he knows what the outcome would be if he held it any earlier than that.

I think that's a really poor indictment on Salmond and the SNP. They've been the largest party in the country for almost five years now, have had plenty of opportunities to put their case forward for why Scotland would be better off outside of the United Kingdom and yet, after all this time, the SNP knows that they would get slaughtered at the polls if they asked the question tomorrow and their separation dream would be buried for at least a generation.

Every time I've heard a member of the SNP being questioned on very simple topics in terms of how Scotland would function as an independent nation, they've always given some very vague and evasive answers.

Without these clear and concise answers, they have no chance of succeeding with their referendum.

The truth is though all parties will need to give there answers on how they would run an independant scotland, because if the people vote for it are labour, lib dems and the tories just going to leave scottish politics?

If they don't and we do vote yes these parties will never lead in scotland ever again.

I wouldn't expect any party to outline there plans until the run up to the referendum, the same way they don't outline there policies until the run up to the general election. The desperate moves to get information out of the SNP are just a ploy by the unionist parties to try and get an upperhand. However all they are doing is getting scots backs up and thats not a good strategy if they want to win.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I'm sure that all new member states of the EU (which Scotland would become under an SNP government, if we broke from the rest of the UK) are obliged to eventually join the euro.

Can't wait for that. :rolleyes:

As for David Cameron getting involved, I think he's playing a dangerous game in that it could result in a backlash from Scottish voters who may be encouraged to support independence.

However, I think he's right to be saying what he is. Alex Salmond should be calling a referendum right now and getting the issue decided once and for all, one way or the other.

The fact that he plans to carry out this referendum no earlier than 2014 says that he knows what the outcome would be if he held it any earlier than that.

I think that's a really poor indictment on Salmond and the SNP. They've been the largest party in the country for almost five years now, have had plenty of opportunities to put their case forward for why Scotland would be better off outside of the United Kingdom and yet, after all this time, the SNP knows that they would get slaughtered at the polls if they asked the question tomorrow and their separation dream would be buried for at least a generation.

Every time I've heard a member of the SNP being questioned on very simple topics in terms of how Scotland would function as an independent nation, they've always given some very vague and evasive answers.

Without these clear and concise answers, they have no chance of succeeding with their referendum.

They're not. They have to make an assessment of whether their country is economically ready to join the Euro or not. As long as the government of the day says they are not ready, the country concerned doesn't join the Euro. That's why some of the 2004 accession countries have joined the Euro (eg Slovakia) and some haven't (eg Poland, Czech Republic).

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

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

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

[hibs0666]

:faf: I'm not Alex Salmond though, I'm just giving my opinion not that of the SNP, not that difficult to understand is it :confused:


I believe the SNP's policy is to carry on with sterling until the people of scotland feel it is right to join the euro. Sounds fairly sensible to me but it all depends on how each currency is doing at the time, given independnace if it happens is still a few years off it is difficult to predict what state the euro and sterling will be in if the last few years are anything to go by, wouldn't you agree?

So we stick with the English pound and we stick with the monarchy.

If so, what exactly is the point of independence?

[marinello59]

So we stick with the English pound and we stick with the monarchy.

If so, what exactly is the point of independence?

Indendence does not automatically mean we become a Republic. It's a common misconception. Salmond is savvy enough to know that many Scots still support the monarchy, why would he needlessly alienate them?

[hibs0666]

The SNP's policy is a continuation of the monetary union with England until at such times it is in the benefit of Scotland to change.

Except the English will set monetary policy on English needs, and rightly so. I might be missing the point here but what exactly is the point of independence if it results in weaker fiscal policy making than is possible just now? :confused:

[Hainan Hibs]

Except the English will set monetary policy on English needs, and rightly so. I might be missing the point here but what exactly is the point of independence if it results in weaker fiscal policy making than is possible just now? :confused:

We would have control over factors we do not now, including Foreign Policy, defence and national security, oil and gas and social security. Also we would have control over borrowing levels and therefore be better positioned to invest in areas of need. We would have full control over taxation and expenditure.

I can't imagine independence will be a smooth road so I would stay with the pound sterling for a period after independence as due to our trade levels with the rest of the UK compared to Europe it would make more sense than adopt the Euro. After that, Scotland should IMO adopt a new currency, initially pegged to the Uk pound and then floated, giving us further controls such as control over interest rates.

[Hainan Hibs]

I'm sure that all new member states of the EU (which Scotland would become under an SNP government, if we broke from the rest of the UK) are obliged to eventually join the euro.


A report commissioned by the Commons actually admitted they don't know what will happen, and after Call Me Dave's veto and the reaction Alyn Smith SNP MEP received at the Euro Parliament when he suggested Scotland would be better off independent I think there is nothing more Europe would like to see than the UK break up and an independent Scotland emerge.

[easty]

How is that unfair? You can be working at 16 and paying tax to the government so why shouldn't 16/17 year olds be entitled to a vote?



:agree: And I know people my age who know about as much as a typcial 16 year old about politics. At 16 you should be allowed to vote. (or, some people my age shouldnt be allowed, I suppose.)

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree: And I know people my age who know about as much as a typcial 16 year old about politics. At 16 you should be allowed to vote. (or, some people my age shouldnt be allowed, I suppose.)

exactly they give me a vote FFS :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

exactly they give me a vote FFS :greengrin

Yes, that IS worrying.

[Beefster]

If Cameron thinks that Salmond waiting for the best time for a referendum is damaging Scotland, wait until Scotland gets out of the Union and runs straight into the arms of the EU/Euro.

They're both at it. Cameron wants it now because the 'No to Independence' campaign would likely win now. Salmond wants it later because the 'No to Independence' campaign would likely win now.

[greenlex]

Which currency would you prefer?
Neither of your suggestions. I think we should adopt the Yankee dollar.:agree: The preferred currency all over the world.

[ancienthibby]

The Eckmeister has announced that the referendum will be held in Autumn 2014.

That's after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow (with outstanding Scottish performances!) and after winning the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles (world coverage of an international event)!!

And did you see the shocking performances of the nodding donkeys (that's Moore, Murphy, Mundell, Bain, Alexander and Motormouth Curran with her heid down) in Parliament today??

[greenlex]

The Eckmeister has announced that the referendum will be held in Autumn 2014.

That's after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow (with outstanding Scottish performances!) and after winning the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles (world coverage of an international event)!!

And did you see the shocking performances of the nodding donkeys (that's Moore, Murphy, Mundell, Bain, Alexander and Motormouth Curran with her heid down) in Parliament today??
Bannockburn was 1314. The 300th anniversary. Was that battle in the Autumn?:greengrin

[ancienthibby]

Bannockburn was 1314. The 300th anniversary. Was that battle in the Autumn?:greengrin

No!

[greenlex]

No!

Boooooooooooo!

[Future17]

Bannockburn was 1314. The 300th anniversary. Was that battle in the Autumn?:greengrin

That would have been in 1614 would it not...which is about quarter past four. :greengrin

[Eyrie]

Bannockburn was 1314. The 300th anniversary. Was that battle in the Autumn?:greengrin
24 June, but you can guarantee that the SNP will look for another Homecoming in 2014 to capitalise on the anniversary, Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup. All will be used to stir up the 90 minute patriots into voting for the Dear Leader's ambition, and there will still be sod all detail on the mechanics of it.

I want to know if our economy will be at the mercy of an indifferent England (because we're using the pound) or if there is a risk of our government being deposed because France and Germany don't think our economic policy is suitable for the euro.

I want to know how much of the oil we will control, and whether it will be invested in a sovereign oil fund, used to cut corporation tax or to subsidise public sector pensions. Can't do everything.

I want to know how much of the UK national debt we will inherit - 5% based on claims that we have subsidised the UK, 8.5% based on our population or 9.5% based on our share of UK GDP (including oil).

Until I know what I am being asked to vote for, common sense tells me to vote "no" which is why I'd rather have a vote once we know the deal on offer. I'd compare it to being asked to marry a mystery woman - sure it could turn out to be Halle Berry :thumbsup: but what if it's Ann Widdicombe? :no way:

[sKipper]

24 June, but you can guarantee that the SNP will look for another Homecoming in 2014 to capitalise on the anniversary, Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup. All will be used to stir up the 90 minute patriots into voting for the Dear Leader's ambition, and there will still be sod all detail on the mechanics of it.

I want to know if our economy will be at the mercy of an indifferent England (because we're using the pound) or if there is a risk of our government being deposed because France and Germany don't think our economic policy is suitable for the euro.

I want to know how much of the oil we will control, and whether it will be invested in a sovereign oil fund, used to cut corporation tax or to subsidise public sector pensions. Can't do everything.

I want to know how much of the UK national debt we will inherit - 5% based on claims that we have subsidised the UK, 8.5% based on our population or 9.5% based on our share of UK GDP (including oil).

Until I know what I am being asked to vote for, common sense tells me to vote "no" which is why I'd rather have a vote once we know the deal on offer. I'd compare it to being asked to marry a mystery woman - sure it could turn out to be Halle Berry :thumbsup: but what if it's Ann Widdicombe? :no way:

Some of that information is already available and the rest will certainly be clarified before the big day.

Think of the mian plusses though ; -

No more tory governments ever ! :agree:

No more wasted investment in Nuclear weapons systems. :agree:

No more illegal wars aka Iraq.:agree:

Not to mention a thousand and one domestic matters needing attention.

Cannot wait ! :greengrin

[Sylar]

I had to laugh at the "referendum mandate wouldn't be legal under English law" argument which was put forward today. Were we playing cards, I'd be calling bull**** straight off the bat.

In ANY such attempt to gain independence, the "opinion" of the "Mother" country matters for absolutely nothing - so long as an independent Scotland would be internationally recognised.

The soundbites coming out of Moore and his associates today were laughable.

Right now, I don't know if I would vote for an independent Scotland. However, the more the likes of Cameron and Westminster try and force the hand and intervene, the more I'm likely to want shot of them. I also don't get why Cameron feels the English population should be given a say in the matter - this is a Scottish issue for the Scottish people and we're more than capable/intelligent enough to both make up our own minds on the issue without political mouthpieces pushing either side and complete a ballot paper which gives more than a Y/N option.

Imagine for a second, like other independence campaigns across the globe, that we were a nation who were being governed by an oppressive, fascist regime and were seeking to escape - an international court would laugh at England for demanding that a) they get a vote and b) that the outcome of any vote which wasn't sanctioned by the "oppressors" wouldn't be legal. Granted, that's a stretch of an example, but what England want to deem as legal really doesn't matter worth a jot.

[hibs0666]

Some of that information is already available and the rest will certainly be clarified before the big day.

Think of the mian plusses though ; -

No more tory governments ever ! :agree:

No more wasted investment in Nuclear weapons systems. :agree:

No more illegal wars aka Iraq.:agree:

Not to mention a thousand and one domestic matters needing attention.

Cannot wait ! :greengrin

Will we still be prime movers in the arc of prosperity too?

[hibs0666]

Who said this then?

"Scotland can change to a better future and be part of northern Europe's arc of prosperity. We have three countries * Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east - all in the top six wealthiest countries in the world. In contrast devolved Scotland is in 18th place. We can join that arc of prosperity. By matching their success Scotland would be £4000 a head better off. It's time we seized this opportunity."

[Eyrie]

Some of that information is already available and the rest will certainly be clarified before the big day.
So what has our Dear Leader been up to for the last five years, because there is pathetically little of it available?

The rest of your points depend on what type of government we elect in an independent Scotland. It could be a glorious workers' paradise, or a prosperous free market.


I had to laugh at the "referendum mandate wouldn't be legal under English law" argument which was put forward today. Were we playing cards, I'd be calling bull**** straight off the bat.
The Scottish Parliament was established under a UK law which explicitly reserved constitutional matters to the UK Parliament. One good thing that is coming out of this is that the UK government is killing off the risk of a legal challenge to the referendum, so that it will be legally binding.

Interesting to see that Salmond has finally been forced to announce when the referendum will be held. Next up, will he accept that the Electoral Commission is non-partisan or will he persist in wanting a handpicked coterie in charge? As regards 16-17 year olds voting, they should have as much right to vote as Scots living outwith our country. Why should one group be allowed to vote and not the other?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who said this then?

"Scotland can change to a better future and be part of northern Europe's arc of prosperity. We have three countries * Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east - all in the top six wealthiest countries in the world. In contrast devolved Scotland is in 18th place. We can join that arc of prosperity. By matching their success Scotland would be £4000 a head better off. It's time we seized this opportunity."

Thats a belter, I'm defo voting no now then:rolleyes:

[steakbake]

As regards 16-17 year olds voting, they should have as much right to vote as Scots living outwith our country. Why should one group be allowed to vote and not the other?

Well, 16/17 year olds who work/ live in Scotland should be given the vote ahead of people who don't even live here, I'd suggest. Eligibility to vote should be based on who is living and registered here to vote at the time of the referendum. Seeing as it is their future too and they are of working and tax paying age, I don't see why someone who is 16 or 17 should be ruled out.

[sKipper]

Who said this then?

"Scotland can change to a better future and be part of northern Europe's arc of prosperity. We have three countries * Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east - all in the top six wealthiest countries in the world. In contrast devolved Scotland is in 18th place. We can join that arc of prosperity. By matching their success Scotland would be £4000 a head better off. It's time we seized this opportunity."

Last I saw, Norway was number 1 in the world for prosperity and Iceland despite their well publicised troubles are still doing better than the UK.

If prosperity is your marker we need to get out of bankrupt Britain asap.

[JeMeSouviens]

Who said this then?

"Scotland can change to a better future and be part of northern Europe's arc of prosperity. We have three countries * Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east - all in the top six wealthiest countries in the world. In contrast devolved Scotland is in 18th place. We can join that arc of prosperity. By matching their success Scotland would be £4000 a head better off. It's time we seized this opportunity."

They all still rank better than the UK, btw. :wink:

GDP per capita in International $K

UK 35.059
Iceland 36.730
Ireland 39.492
Norway 51.959 (oil rich, population around 5M, just saying)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=30&pr.y=15&sy=2010&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C 311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C12 2%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513% 2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C 273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C68 6%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558% 2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C 156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C22 8%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636% 2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C 968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C71 6%2C321%2C456%2C243%2C722%2C248%2C942%2C469%2C718% 2C253%2C724%2C642%2C576%2C643%2C936%2C939%2C961%2C 644%2C813%2C819%2C199%2C172%2C184%2C132%2C524%2C64 6%2C361%2C648%2C362%2C915%2C364%2C134%2C732%2C652% 2C366%2C174%2C734%2C328%2C144%2C258%2C146%2C656%2C 463%2C654%2C528%2C336%2C923%2C263%2C738%2C268%2C57 8%2C532%2C537%2C944%2C742%2C176%2C866%2C534%2C369% 2C536%2C744%2C429%2C186%2C433%2C925%2C178%2C869%2C 436%2C746%2C136%2C926%2C343%2C466%2C158%2C112%2C43 9%2C111%2C916%2C298%2C664%2C927%2C826%2C846%2C542% 2C299%2C967%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C 698&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

[sKipper]

Well, 16/17 year olds who work/ live in Scotland should be given the vote ahead of people who don't even live here, I'd suggest. Eligibility to vote should be based on who is living and registered here to vote at the time of the referendum. Seeing as it is their future too and they are of working and tax paying age, I don't see why someone who is 16 or 17 should be ruled out.

Agreed. Don't know why they don't already get the vote.:confused:

[sKipper]

They all still rank better than the UK, btw. :wink:

GDP per capita in International $K

UK 35.059
Iceland 36.730
Ireland 39.492
Norway 51.959 (oil rich, population around 5M, just saying)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=30&pr.y=15&sy=2010&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C 311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C12 2%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513% 2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C 273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C68 6%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558% 2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C 156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C22 8%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636% 2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C 968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C71 6%2C321%2C456%2C243%2C722%2C248%2C942%2C469%2C718% 2C253%2C724%2C642%2C576%2C643%2C936%2C939%2C961%2C 644%2C813%2C819%2C199%2C172%2C184%2C132%2C524%2C64 6%2C361%2C648%2C362%2C915%2C364%2C134%2C732%2C652% 2C366%2C174%2C734%2C328%2C144%2C258%2C146%2C656%2C 463%2C654%2C528%2C336%2C923%2C263%2C738%2C268%2C57 8%2C532%2C537%2C944%2C742%2C176%2C866%2C534%2C369% 2C536%2C744%2C429%2C186%2C433%2C925%2C178%2C869%2C 436%2C746%2C136%2C926%2C343%2C466%2C158%2C112%2C43 9%2C111%2C916%2C298%2C664%2C927%2C826%2C846%2C542% 2C299%2C967%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C 698&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

Ha ! Knew I'd seen it recently.:wink:

[sKipper]

So what has our Dear Leader been up to for the last five years, because there is pathetically little of it available?

The rest of your points depend on what type of government we elect in an independent Scotland. It could be a glorious workers' paradise, or a prosperous free market.

Just because you missed it doesn't mean there is "pathetically little" available. Just the other day it was reported that Scotlands share of UK debt would be circa 49 billion. Not bad when you consider the total debt is over 700 billion.

[One Day Soon]

Some of that information is already available and the rest will certainly be clarified before the big day.




That is where your tartan spectacles fail you. None of that information is available. None of it.

Salmond can't or won't say which currency we will use, how much oil revenue we would have or more importantly what he would spend it on between the various big promises he has made which simply do not add up.

The guy's so clever he's just been forced to set a referendum date by a Tory Prime Minister with only one Scottish MP. Now he's tied to it.

Bluster and make it up as you go along isn't going to cut it now that this is finally getting real.

[sKipper]

That is where your tartan spectacles fail you. None of that information is available. None of it.

Salmond can't or won't say which currency we will use, how much oil revenue we would have or more importantly what he would spend it on between the various big promises he has made which simply do not add up.

The guy's so clever he's just been forced to set a referendum date by a Tory Prime Minister with only one Scottish MP. Now he's tied to it.

Bluster and make it up as you go along isn't going to cut it now that this is finally getting real.

The bluster and make it up as you go along seems only to be from yourself mate. :wink:

[Eyrie]

Well, 16/17 year olds who work/ live in Scotland should be given the vote ahead of people who don't even live here, I'd suggest. Eligibility to vote should be based on who is living and registered here to vote at the time of the referendum. Seeing as it is their future too and they are of working and tax paying age, I don't see why someone who is 16 or 17 should be ruled out.
I agree that people have to be registered voters in Scotland which would rule out anyone working elsewhere in the UK or abroad. But I will acknowledge that could rule one of us out, if we happen to move to England for whatever reason in the next couple of years, yet we are both clearly passionate about the best interests of our country.

However any extension of the right to vote to 16 or 17 year olds has to be done after proper consideration and not as a one-off for a referendum. We don't allow 16 year olds to drive or 17 year olds to drink (legally). On the other hand a 15 year old can pay tax, and some 15 year olds are more mature and informed than some 16 year olds. Not that I'm suggesting they should get a vote, just highlighting the problems of where to set the voting age.


Just because you missed it doesn't mean there is "pathetically little" available. Just the other day it was reported that Scotlands share of UK debt would be circa 49 billion. Not bad when you consider the total debt is over 700 billion.
I pay attention to the news, so am aware that was a claim by John Swinney based on his view that Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK and so had less responsibility for the accumulated debt. He's not what either of us would consider a neutral in the matter.

There have been plenty of questions asked of the SNP regarding these matters, and very little in the way of responses. Hopefully that will change in the run up to the referendum and we will know what we are being asked to vote for.

[One Day Soon]

The bluster and make it up as you go along seems only to be from yourself mate. :wink:

Really? You should be able to give us concrete answers to the questions posed above in that case.

[The Harp Awakes]

24 June, but you can guarantee that the SNP will look for another Homecoming in 2014 to capitalise on the anniversary, Commonwealth Games and Ryder Cup. All will be used to stir up the 90 minute patriots into voting for the Dear Leader's ambition, and there will still be sod all detail on the mechanics of it.

I want to know if our economy will be at the mercy of an indifferent England (because we're using the pound) or if there is a risk of our government being deposed because France and Germany don't think our economic policy is suitable for the euro.

I want to know how much of the oil we will control, and whether it will be invested in a sovereign oil fund, used to cut corporation tax or to subsidise public sector pensions. Can't do everything.

I want to know how much of the UK national debt we will inherit - 5% based on claims that we have subsidised the UK, 8.5% based on our population or 9.5% based on our share of UK GDP (including oil).

Until I know what I am being asked to vote for, common sense tells me to vote "no" which is why I'd rather have a vote once we know the deal on offer. I'd compare it to being asked to marry a mystery woman - sure it could turn out to be Halle Berry :thumbsup: but what if it's Ann Widdicombe? :no way:

I think you worry too much mate and you are turning a blind eye to the benefits of independence to Scotland rather than immersing yourself in possible negatives. In the lead up to the referendum the Unionists campaign will be based on the same negative attitude which you have adopted in your post whereas the SNP will adopt the positve attitude which Scotland needs to move forward and prosper as a country.

3 of our biggest industries in terms of employment and wealth generation (whiskey, salmon production and tourism) will go from strength to strength through the greater Scottish identity brought about by an independent Scotland. We have given the world a lot over the years whilst our nationality has been stifled by the Union - much of the World still refer to these islands as England or Inglaterra and are not even aware that Scotland exists.

[hibs0666]

That is where your tartan spectacles fail you. None of that information is available. None of it.

Salmond can't or won't say which currency we will use, how much oil revenue we would have or more importantly what he would spend it on between the various big promises he has made which simply do not add up.

The guy's so clever he's just been forced to set a referendum date by a Tory Prime Minister with only one Scottish MP. Now he's tied to it.

Bluster and make it up as you go along isn't going to cut it now that this is finally getting real.

And don't mention national defence arrangements.
Then there's the role of the monarchy in a new Scotland.
The there's the need to oversee/indemnify our mega-banks.
Don't forget Europe...

[Greentinted]

I think this is Davie boy at his Machiavellian best.

The esteemed professor here pretty much sums up my attitude to Cameron from the moment he started banging on about our referendum.


http://paulcairney.blogspot.com/2012/01/independence-referendum-annoyance-is.html

[Calvin]

I think this is Davie boy at his Machiavellian best.

The esteemed professor here pretty much sums up my attitude to Cameron from the moment he started banging on about our referendum.


http://paulcairney.blogspot.com/2012/01/independence-referendum-annoyance-is.html

I enjoy reading Cairney's articles (the best lecturer I've ever had) and I'm inclined to agree with what he says here.

[Hibrandenburg]

Both Salmond and Cameron will get what they want out of independence. If Scotland leaves the UK then England will never have another government other than a tory one.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I think this is Davie boy at his Machiavellian best.

The esteemed professor here pretty much sums up my attitude to Cameron from the moment he started banging on about our referendum.


http://paulcairney.blogspot.com/2012/01/independence-referendum-annoyance-is.html

I would say he is pretty bang on, until Sunday independence was a long way off, it's a fair bit closer right now. Maybe salmond should call a snap referendum:devil:

[Beefster]

Last I saw, Norway was number 1 in the world for prosperity and Iceland despite their well publicised troubles are still doing better than the UK.

If prosperity is your marker we need to get out of bankrupt Britain asap.


They all still rank better than the UK, btw. :wink:

GDP per capita in International $K

UK 35.059
Iceland 36.730
Ireland 39.492
Norway 51.959 (oil rich, population around 5M, just saying)

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=30&pr.y=15&sy=2010&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C 311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C12 2%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513% 2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C 273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C68 6%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558% 2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C 156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C22 8%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636% 2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C 968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C71 6%2C321%2C456%2C243%2C722%2C248%2C942%2C469%2C718% 2C253%2C724%2C642%2C576%2C643%2C936%2C939%2C961%2C 644%2C813%2C819%2C199%2C172%2C184%2C132%2C524%2C64 6%2C361%2C648%2C362%2C915%2C364%2C134%2C732%2C652% 2C366%2C174%2C734%2C328%2C144%2C258%2C146%2C656%2C 463%2C654%2C528%2C336%2C923%2C263%2C738%2C268%2C57 8%2C532%2C537%2C944%2C742%2C176%2C866%2C534%2C369% 2C536%2C744%2C429%2C186%2C433%2C925%2C178%2C869%2C 436%2C746%2C136%2C926%2C343%2C466%2C158%2C112%2C43 9%2C111%2C916%2C298%2C664%2C927%2C826%2C846%2C542% 2C299%2C967%2C582%2C443%2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C 698&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=

GDP has to be looked at with respect to debt. Iceland and Ireland may have a slightly higher GDP but no-one is seriously suggesting that we should aspire to be in the same position as them, surely?

Either way, if RBS had gone under in an independent Scotland, we'd have had to close it down (like Iceland did with its banks). 150,000 jobs - gone.

That's before we talk about the consequences of joining the Euro and having our budgets pre-approved by the EU. Independent, my arse.

[bighairyfaeleith]

And don't mention national defence arrangements.
Then there's the role of the monarchy in a new Scotland.
The there's the need to oversee/indemnify our mega-banks.
Don't forget Europe...

There is only one country that ever invades Scotland, our defence spend would be minimal as an independent country because we wouldn't need to engage in other peoples wars. Imagine being a peaceful country that looked after itself and didn't invade other countries and kill people by the thousands. I quite like the sound of that country.
The monarchy will stay with us much like she has Canada, Australia and the rest of the commonwealth.
The banks is a valid question, but given the UK government owns our only bank I'm not sure it is our problem right now but it does warrant more answres.
Europe, we are already in Europe, maybe we will get even more trade from Europe however if we are not associated with David Cameron who is a fairly toxic brand to Europeans.

Here is a question, how would labour/Lib Dems/Tories propose to run an independent Scotland, what is there policies. They better have some or they will never govern this country again if we vote yes. Lets be honest the tories never will anyway but the other two need to be careful not to cut there nose off despite there face.

[bighairyfaeleith]

GDP has to be looked at with respect to debt. Iceland and Ireland may have a slightly higher GDP but no-one is seriously suggesting that we should aspire to be in the same position as them, surely?

Either way, if RBS had gone under in an independent Scotland, we'd have had to close it down (like Iceland did with its banks). 150,000 jobs - gone.

That's before we talk about the consequences of joining the Euro and having our budgets pre-approved by the EU. Independent, my arse.

Was it not not the UK governments lack of legislation and cosying up to the banks that caused the crash. Thats what Davey tells us, so perhaps UK my arse?

[Jack]

GDP has to be looked at with respect to debt. Iceland and Ireland may have a slightly higher GDP but no-one is seriously suggesting that we should aspire to be in the same position as them, surely?

Either way, if RBS had gone under in an independent Scotland, we'd have had to close it down (like Iceland did with its banks). 150,000 jobs - gone.

That's before we talk about the consequences of joining the Euro and having our budgets pre-approved by the EU. Independent, my arse.


Not getting at you but did the UK government not find billions to bail out the Irish banks on the grounds of avoiding bank contagion and the effect on exports?

I don’t know the RBS inside out but I’ll bet there's a pretty strong influence from ‘English’ RBS officials in decisions made at the Edinburgh HQ. So no matter where its based the importance to both countries economies, whatever their independent status, would have meant a rescue plan.

A more independent ‘bank’ example (or maybe not English example) may be the Dunfermline, which in my view was summarily folded by the UK government when a Scottish rescue could easily have been put in place.

[Hainan Hibs]

In regards to the bail out of RBS, precedent was set by the bail outs of Fortis and Dexia. France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg took a proportion of the cost in relation to the amount of trading within their respective regions.

More info here:http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/2649-independent-scotland-could-have-afforded-bank-bail-out

Also, no one knows what situation an independent Scotland would have been in. According to the McCrone Report we would have been up there with Switzerland had we been independent since the 70's therefore we will never know what condition Scotland would've been in as an independent country heading into the crisis.

[Betty Boop]

Cameron said on PMQs 'It's not a referundum the SNP want it's a neverundum'.

[steakbake]

Cameron said on PMQs 'It's not a referundum the SNP want it's a neverundum'.

Pfft - his speech writer will get a wee bonus for that one.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Cameron said on PMQs 'It's not a referundum the SNP want it's a neverundum'.

He's a card isn't he

[JeMeSouviens]

Pfft - his speech writer will get a wee bonus for that one.

He won't get an originality bonus. It's the term English speaking Canadians use referring to Quebec.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Obviously there are a million things to know before people can decide. One of the main things being alluded to ablove is our place in the EU (if we even want to be in it) and the possibility we would have to seek election. I really do not understand that at all. Surely if we have to seek re-election then so would engerlund? If it is a mutually agreeable split then it is not as if we have declared a state of unilateral independance and all countries involoved would need to re-apply. However I don't see the need to re-apply as we are already a member. Why should engerlund automatically get the rights of the UK membership?

It might not be constitutionally correct (what UK constitution???) for Salmond to say we are having it but in my opinion he certainly has a moral right. He has a mandate to govern Scotland. If part of governing Scotland says he wants to have a referendum, then we should be allowed to have one.

[greenlex]

And don't mention national defence arrangements.
Then there's the role of the monarchy in a new Scotland.
The there's the need to oversee/indemnify our mega-banks.
Don't forget Europe...

I am sure there are hundreds of just as important questions that need to be debated and resolved.
Autumn 2014 gives a decent amoun of time o do that. Or we could just vote next month because it's quick. It's really going to help businesses an the economy and the electorate would probably be scared into a no vote (just like in the 70's.) not to even mention a vote for more powers rather than full independence.
Still unsure which way to vote myself and need to be persuaded either way but the bullying from Westminster isn't helping the unions cause IMO.

[steakbake]

Anyone else already very tired of this? 1000 days of it to go!

[ancienthibby]

Anyone else already very tired of this? 1000 days of it to go!

The more the unionist cabal (CallMeDave and Ed, MMoore, weeMotormouth Curran, Al Darling, et al), join together to support the Union, the more it will split apart!!

[Beefster]

Obviously there are a million things to know before people can decide. One of the main things being alluded to ablove is our place in the EU (if we even want to be in it) and the possibility we would have to seek election. I really do not understand that at all. Surely if we have to seek re-election then so would engerlund? If it is a mutually agreeable split then it is not as if we have declared a state of unilateral independance and all countries involoved would need to re-apply. However I don't see the need to re-apply as we are already a member. Why should engerlund automatically get the rights of the UK membership?

It might not be constitutionally correct (what UK constitution???) for Salmond to say we are having it but in my opinion he certainly has a moral right. He has a mandate to govern Scotland. If part of governing Scotland says he wants to have a referendum, then we should be allowed to have one.

No. England isn't a separate member of the EU, the UK is. We'd be leaving the UK. The UK would still exist.

[ancienthibby]

I just tried to post a reply on Brian Taylor's BBC blog.

He is BBC Scotland's Political Editor.

No comments are allowed.

I just successfully posted on the blog of Nick Robinson, the English BBC Political Editor.

Says it all really.

Will the unionist propagandists never learn?? (I hope not :greengrin)

[Beefster]

I just tried to post a reply on Brian Taylor's BBC blog.

He is BBC Scotland's Political Editor.

No comments are allowed.

I just successfully posted on the blog of Nick Robinson, the English BBC Political Editor.

Says it all really.

Will the unionist propagandists never learn?? (I hope not :greengrin)

Nick Robinson covers the UK Parliament. But aye, that's cast iron proof of a Unionist conspiracy.

[Lucius Apuleius]

No. England isn't a separate member of the EU, the UK is. We'd be leaving the UK. The UK would still exist.

Have to agree to disagree with this then mate. It would be a mutual parting. The UK as it currently stands would not exist and could no longer be called the UK in my opinion.

[Jack]

Have to agree to disagree with this then mate. It would be a mutual parting. The UK as it currently stands would not exist and could no longer be called the UK in my opinion.

Would we not become The IK?

Independent Kingdoms :-)

Only Wales would loose out by slipping down the alphabetical list a bit, the rest of us would be well up :-)

[JeMeSouviens]

No. England isn't a separate member of the EU, the UK is. We'd be leaving the UK. The UK would still exist.

Not as currently constituted it wouldn't. There'd be 2 states, Scotland and not-Scotland. I'm sure not-Scotland would probably choose to keep the UK brand, but they'd really be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Here's a handy timeline, the poor old Welsh never got a look in. :wink:



Scotland - England - Ireland
|
v

1707

Kingdom of Great Britain - Ireland
|
v

1801

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
|
v

1921

UK of GB and NI - Irish Free State (then RoI)
|
v

2014

Scotland - ?? - RoI

[Eyrie]

I think you worry too much mate and you are turning a blind eye to the benefits of independence to Scotland rather than immersing yourself in possible negatives. In the lead up to the referendum the Unionists campaign will be based on the same negative attitude which you have adopted in your post whereas the SNP will adopt the positve attitude which Scotland needs to move forward and prosper as a country.
I'm aware of the positives of independence, as I hear them regularly from the SNP. What I don't hear from the party that demands independence is how they will address potential negatives. I'm looking for them to provide answers and not ignore the inconvenient. Then I can make an informed judgement on whether the positives outweigh the negatives.


Have to agree to disagree with this then mate. It would be a mutual parting. The UK as it currently stands would not exist and could no longer be called the UK in my opinion.
I'll have to agree to disagree with your disagreement :wink: The UK would continue with England, Wales and Northern Ireland because it would be Scotland leaving.

That said, I fully expect us to be admitted to the EU regardless of whether it is a continuation of our UK membership or a rushed through application. We tick all their boxes if you include Salmond's desire to adopt the euro.

[One Day Soon]

I just tried to post a reply on Brian Taylor's BBC blog.

He is BBC Scotland's Political Editor.

No comments are allowed.

I just successfully posted on the blog of Nick Robinson, the English BBC Political Editor.

Says it all really.

Will the unionist propagandists never learn?? (I hope not :greengrin)


I see your McGlashan reflex is alive and well.

You really believe there is an organised unionist conspiracy? You believe that this conspiracy extends to the microscopic extent of deciding whether or not to allow comments on a blog written by Brian Taylor?

Do you also think Elvis is still alive?

[Eyrie]

For the second day running, Salmond has provided a bit of the missing detail. Yesterday it was when the referendum will be held, today it is saying that Scotland would accept 8% of the debt, approximately in line with our population share.

Pity he couldn't provide this information earlier. Maybe the UK government should have made its move sooner.

[bighairyfaeleith]

For the second day running, Salmond has provided a bit of the missing detail. Yesterday it was when the referendum will be held, today it is saying that Scotland would accept 8% of the debt, approximately in line with our population share.

Pity he couldn't provide this information earlier. Maybe the UK government should have made its move sooner.

got a link to back that up?

Sorry found it on channel4 website

[bighairyfaeleith]

So what he has actually said is that we accepts that we will have to take our share of the debt and that would likely be worked out either on a population percentage basis or by percentage of GDP.

I'm pretty sure that's never been a secret.

[ancienthibby]

I see your McGlashan reflex is alive and well.

You really believe there is an organised unionist conspiracy? You believe that this conspiracy extends to the microscopic extent of deciding whether or not to allow comments on a blog written by Brian Taylor?

Do you also think Elvis is still alive?

Indeedie.

He is alive and well and doing not bad as manager of Falkirk FC!:greengrin

Do keep up.

:faf:

[One Day Soon]

Indeedie.

He is alive and well and doing not bad as manager of Falkirk FC!:greengrin

Do keep up.

:faf:

You must save a fortune on TV licence and Sky subscriptions what with your ability to hilariously entertain yourself.

[hibsbollah]

I think this is Davie boy at his Machiavellian best.

The esteemed professor here pretty much sums up my attitude to Cameron from the moment he started banging on about our referendum.


http://paulcairney.blogspot.com/2012/01/independence-referendum-annoyance-is.html


Describing his behaviour as machiavellian would suggest it was well thought out and the result of wise counsel. I think it was just the opposite, assuming he does indeed want to protect the status quo.

[Eyrie]

So what he has actually said is that we accepts that we will have to take our share of the debt and that would likely be worked out either on a population percentage basis or by percentage of GDP.

I'm pretty sure that's never been a secret.
Swinney was touting a much lower figure very recently, so the clarification was both welcome and necessary.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Swinney was touting a much lower figure very recently, so the clarification was both welcome and necessary.

have the UK government said what figure they will accept?

[Eyrie]

Not come across anything other than suggestions that a simple head count may not be appropriate. We could end up with a higher percentage based on higher public spending in Scotland, or a lower one if the claims that we subsidise the rest of the UK can be substantiated.

The unionists need to be careful however in responding to what does look a fair apportionment. Claiming the figure will be higher is likely to lead to resentment and more votes for independence, but they can hardly argue for a lower figure. One to watch.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not come across anything other than suggestions that a simple head count may not be appropriate. We could end up with a higher percentage based on higher public spending in Scotland, or a lower one if the claims that we subsidise the rest of the UK can be substantiated.

The unionists need to be careful however in responding to what does look a fair apportionment. Claiming the figure will be higher is likely to lead to resentment and more votes for independence, but they can hardly argue for a lower figure. One to watch.

I agree and the problem with either side revealing there negotiating position now is it weakens them if the talks do happen after the referendum. Makes getting the info before hand even harder.

[RyeSloan]

The problem is that it is now 2012 and no-one has the vaguest clue what independence actually is, never mind how an independent nation is actually decoupled from a unified whole. It's a disgrace that we are in this position with only two years to go before such a seminal event.

Although he is an erse of a man (like slippery-as-a-Salmond), I'm happy that Cameron is now putting the question of independence on the agenda and very much hope that the issue gets the scrutiny it so badly needs.

Great post.

Sadly I reckon you will forever be disappointed. The SNP have no real intention to spell this out to the Nation.....they already look like they are more than happy to use the power of party politics instead.

Cameron has done the right thing here for sure...whether he meant it or not I don't know...as finally Eck is having to come up with some answers. Shouldn't really have to be dragging this stuff out of him though considering we are talking about the whole nations future!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Great post.

Sadly I reckon you will forever be disappointed. The SNP have no real intention to spell this out to the Nation.....they already look like they are more than happy to use the power of party politics instead.

Cameron has done the right thing here for sure...whether he meant it or not I don't know...as finally Eck is having to come up with some answers. Shouldn't really have to be dragging this stuff out of him though considering we are talking about the whole nations future!

A week ago few in Scotland cared about the independance debate, never mind intended to vote yes. A lot more now will vote yes thanks to cameron. Yes he has done a great job!!

Carlsberg don't make tories but if they did

[Eyrie]

A bit of back tracking - Salmond is saying that the bank debts shouldn't be included as the crisis was the result of failings by a UK regulatory authority. I'd say he's on thin ice with that one. Scotland shouldn't be liable for all of the RBS bailout, but we have to accept a share.

[bighairyfaeleith]

A bit of back tracking - Salmond is saying that the bank debts shouldn't be included as the crisis was the result of failings by a UK regulatory authority. I'd say he's on thin ice with that one. Scotland shouldn't be liable for all of the RBS bailout, but we have to accept a share.

yes and by taking our percentage of the debt we are taking our share.

[RyeSloan]

A week ago few in Scotland cared about the independance debate, never mind intended to vote yes. A lot more now will vote yes thanks to cameron. Yes he has done a great job!!

Carlsberg don't make tories but if they did

Few cared? Really, how strange.

As I have said the SNP want to play party politics all the way to Independence....your point kind of evidenced that.

[Greentinted]

Describing his behaviour as machiavellian would suggest it was well thought out and the result of wise counsel. I think it was just the opposite, assuming he does indeed want to protect the status quo.

That's been my take on it since he started sticking his neb in. I believe he would prefer us pesky, and increasingly radicalising, Scots to bugger off, taking a massive slice of the (justifiable and sizable) anti-Tory factor out (broadly) from UK elections (let's be honest here, even the words 'Conservative' and 'Tory' are more likely to be on the Scottish offensive word list than many of the odd choices on the .net sweary filter :devil:), but obviously as a 'unionist' Cameron can't be seen to go public with that.

Meantime, many Scots, particularly the silent many who normally can't be bothered with engagement in the political process, are thinking, '**** you Davie, keep yer Maggie Thatcher lovin nose oot', and are considering voting for the first time ever on this one (predictably anti-'the other' way), something I've heard frequently in conversation this week. 'Call me' Dave loses referendum but can claim he 'tried his best' for the union yet overnight the Tory majority in Westminister would proportionately increase and potentially stabalise in the long term - happy days in real terms for the slack-jawed elitist Thatcherite/Unionist apologists. I honestly think he's played a blinder here (eeuch, am away tae wash ma mooth oot)

On the side, in the (washed-out) red corner, representing the diluted version of the reactionary self-preservation society (not quite Thatcherite but not a kick-in-the-erse-off it) I think the acting puppet-in-chief Little Ted in joining up with the Tories on this issue is protecting what is a still a not insubstantial, although presently waning slightly granted, Labour dominance north of the border in terms of the Westminster vote. As many have voiced opinions in regard to the the recently flawed but well intended legislation which has rendered the Old-Firms collective solitary pair off nauseatingly soiled 1970s Y-Fronts twisted - something that can upset both sides of the mainstream political establishment can surely never be a bad thing.

I'm no fan of Wee Fat Eck (particularly, as I have mentioned elsewhere, his obsequious attitude to maintaining the unprosecuted benefit cheating, Teutonic asylum-seeking, genetic disaster in Buck Hoose as Head of State) but without getting out his bed this week he's got a right stramash gaun on doon the road.

However, if the long-term legacy of the despicable, unforgivable hammer-of-the-Scots Maggie The Murderous Witch is the dissolution of the 1707 union, I reckon I could live with the odd concession or caveat. I may even contribute a couple of bob to her funeral as this would surely be the cure to eradicating her malignantly evil personage and putting it to the sword. And while I am no religious adherent (having the ability to think for myself), I do love a bit of karma and I, like many who were badly scarred by that demons policies and megalomaniacal whims will enjoy the harmony to the discord she wrought when what went around surely comes right back around.

Never underestimate the significance of personality politics. Many of us Caledonian 'plebs' have long memories and are judicious with how we dispense forgiveness.

"Bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel of rogues for a Nation" said Mr Burns

English hegemony :bye:

Here's a nice new revised version of the butchers apron, better start getting used to it:

http://www.readingcarerslink.org.uk/pictures/rugby/Union-Flag-without-scotland.jpg

[Betty Boop]

Cameron is hob-nobbing with the Saudis as we speak. Overthrowing dictatorial regimes on one hand, while selling arms to the House of Saud with the other. Sickening !

[Beefster]

That's been my take on it since he started sticking his neb in. I believe he would prefer us pesky, and increasingly radicalising, Scots to bugger off, taking a massive slice of the (justifiable and sizable) anti-Tory factor out (broadly) from UK elections (let's be honest here, even the words 'Conservative' and 'Tory' are more likely to be on the Scottish offensive word list than many of the odd choices on the .net sweary filter :devil:), but obviously as a 'unionist' Cameron can't be seen to go public with that.

Meantime, many Scots, particularly the silent many who normally can't be bothered with engagement in the political process, are thinking, '**** you Davie, keep yer Maggie Thatcher lovin nose oot', and are considering voting for the first time ever on this one (predictably anti-'the other' way), something I've heard frequently in conversation this week. 'Call me' Dave loses referendum but can claim he 'tried his best' for the union yet overnight the Tory majority in Westminister would proportionately increase and potentially stabalise in the long term - happy days in real terms for the slack-jawed elitist Thatcherite/Unionist apologists. I honestly think he's played a blinder here (eeuch, am away tae wash ma mooth oot)

On the side, in the (washed-out) red corner, representing the diluted version of the reactionary self-preservation society (not quite Thatcherite but not a kick-in-the-erse-off it) I think the acting puppet-in-chief Little Ted in joining up with the Tories on this issue is protecting what is a still a not insubstantial, although presently waning slightly granted, Labour dominance north of the border in terms of the Westminster vote. As many have voiced opinions in regard to the the recently flawed but well intended legislation which has rendered the Old-Firms collective solitary pair off nauseatingly soiled 1970s Y-Fronts twisted - something that can upset both sides of the mainstream political establishment can surely never be a bad thing.

I'm no fan of Wee Fat Eck (particularly, as I have mentioned elsewhere, his obsequious attitude to maintaining the unprosecuted benefit cheating, Teutonic asylum-seeking, genetic disaster in Buck Hoose as Head of State) but without getting out his bed this week he's got a right stramash gaun on doon the road.

However, if the long-term legacy of the despicable, unforgivable hammer-of-the-Scots Maggie The Murderous Witch is the dissolution of the 1707 union, I reckon I could live with the odd concession or caveat. I may even contribute a couple of bob to her funeral as this would surely be the cure to eradicating her malignantly evil personage and putting it to the sword. And while I am no religious adherent (having the ability to think for myself), I do love a bit of karma and I, like many who were badly scarred by that demons policies and megalomaniacal whims will enjoy the harmony to the discord she wrought when what went around surely comes right back around.

Never underestimate the significance of personality politics. Many of us Caledonian 'plebs' have long memories and are judicious with how we dispense forgiveness.

"Bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel of rogues for a Nation" said Mr Burns

English hegemony :bye:

Here's a nice new revised version of the butchers apron, better start getting used to it:

http://www.readingcarerslink.org.uk/pictures/rugby/Union-Flag-without-scotland.jpg

So, are you pro-Scottish or anti-English? I can't find one positive thing about Scotland in your rant about England. I do love the conspiracy theories though.

I am looking forward to another 2.5 years of pure politicking from both sides though. Let's not debate the actual issues - just the petty point-scoring should do it.

[One Day Soon]

That's been my take on it since he started sticking his neb in. I believe he would prefer us pesky, and increasingly radicalising, Scots to bugger off, taking a massive slice of the (justifiable and sizable) anti-Tory factor out (broadly) from UK elections (let's be honest here, even the words 'Conservative' and 'Tory' are more likely to be on the Scottish offensive word list than many of the odd choices on the .net sweary filter :devil:), but obviously as a 'unionist' Cameron can't be seen to go public with that.

Meantime, many Scots, particularly the silent many who normally can't be bothered with engagement in the political process, are thinking, '**** you Davie, keep yer Maggie Thatcher lovin nose oot', and are considering voting for the first time ever on this one (predictably anti-'the other' way), something I've heard frequently in conversation this week. 'Call me' Dave loses referendum but can claim he 'tried his best' for the union yet overnight the Tory majority in Westminister would proportionately increase and potentially stabalise in the long term - happy days in real terms for the slack-jawed elitist Thatcherite/Unionist apologists. I honestly think he's played a blinder here (eeuch, am away tae wash ma mooth oot)

On the side, in the (washed-out) red corner, representing the diluted version of the reactionary self-preservation society (not quite Thatcherite but not a kick-in-the-erse-off it) I think the acting puppet-in-chief Little Ted in joining up with the Tories on this issue is protecting what is a still a not insubstantial, although presently waning slightly granted, Labour dominance north of the border in terms of the Westminster vote. As many have voiced opinions in regard to the the recently flawed but well intended legislation which has rendered the Old-Firms collective solitary pair off nauseatingly soiled 1970s Y-Fronts twisted - something that can upset both sides of the mainstream political establishment can surely never be a bad thing.

I'm no fan of Wee Fat Eck (particularly, as I have mentioned elsewhere, his obsequious attitude to maintaining the unprosecuted benefit cheating, Teutonic asylum-seeking, genetic disaster in Buck Hoose as Head of State) but without getting out his bed this week he's got a right stramash gaun on doon the road.

However, if the long-term legacy of the despicable, unforgivable hammer-of-the-Scots Maggie The Murderous Witch is the dissolution of the 1707 union, I reckon I could live with the odd concession or caveat. I may even contribute a couple of bob to her funeral as this would surely be the cure to eradicating her malignantly evil personage and putting it to the sword. And while I am no religious adherent (having the ability to think for myself), I do love a bit of karma and I, like many who were badly scarred by that demons policies and megalomaniacal whims will enjoy the harmony to the discord she wrought when what went around surely comes right back around.

Never underestimate the significance of personality politics. Many of us Caledonian 'plebs' have long memories and are judicious with how we dispense forgiveness.

"Bought and sold for English gold, sic a parcel of rogues for a Nation" said Mr Burns

English hegemony :bye:

Here's a nice new revised version of the butchers apron, better start getting used to it:

http://www.readingcarerslink.org.uk/pictures/rugby/Union-Flag-without-scotland.jpg


You could have just written 'The English are bad'. Would have saved you a lot of time and spared the rest of us.

Before we all begin painting the blue bits of our Union Jacks white, can you tell us how many opinion polls - ever - have showed a majority of Scots in favour of independence?

While you're at it perhaps you can say why you think it would be better to have the pound as our currency, our interest rates determined by the Bank of England and money supply set by them too so that our economy is controlled by a foreign country over which we would have no influence at all.

[JeMeSouviens]

You could have just written 'The English are bad'. Would have saved you a lot of time and spared the rest of us.

Before we all begin painting the blue bits of our Union Jacks white, can you tell us how many opinion polls - ever - have showed a majority of Scots in favour of independence?

While you're at it perhaps you can say why you think it would be better to have the pound as our currency, our interest rates determined by the Bank of England and money supply set by them too so that our economy is controlled by a foreign country over which we would have no influence at all.

Not many, although they do exist.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/yes-voters-take-lead-in-new-independence-poll.14984897

On the currency, of course Osbourne etc. will try and present a hostile scary attitude this side of the referendum. I'm not sure they would be quite so keen to have Scottish oil reserves outside the poundozone/sterlozone as they say now though? I suspect that posturing aside they'd be happy enough to enter a monetary union with us.

[ancienthibby]

Not many, although they do exist.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/yes-voters-take-lead-in-new-independence-poll.14984897

On the currency, of course Osbourne etc. will try and present a hostile scary attitude this side of the referendum. I'm not sure they would be quite so keen to have Scottish oil reserves outside the poundozone/sterlozone as they say now though? I suspect that posturing aside they'd be happy enough to enter a monetary union with us.


Osbourne's running scared!!

An independent Scotland with control of all of its legitimately established oil and gas revenues would push Engerland into a Greece-like position!

Keep it up, Georgie Boy, you are making the case with every word you spout, for independence for Scotland!!

[Hainan Hibs]

Not many, although they do exist.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/yes-voters-take-lead-in-new-independence-poll.14984897

On the currency, of course Osbourne etc. will try and present a hostile scary attitude this side of the referendum. I'm not sure they would be quite so keen to have Scottish oil reserves outside the poundozone/sterlozone as they say now though? I suspect that posturing aside they'd be happy enough to enter a monetary union with us.

:agree: After the hysteria calmed down both sides would be able to have a constructive discussion regarding currency.

[stoneyburn hibs]

You could have just written 'The English are bad'. Would have saved you a lot of time and spared the rest of us.

Before we all begin painting the blue bits of our Union Jacks white, can you tell us how many opinion polls - ever - have showed a majority of Scots in favour of independence?

While you're at it perhaps you can say why you think it would be better to have the pound as our currency, our interest rates determined by the Bank of England and money supply set by them too so that our economy is controlled by a foreign country over which we would have no influence at all.

What about the .net poll ? :na na:

[Eyrie]

An independent Scotland with control of all of its legitimately established oil and gas revenues would push Engerland into a Greece-like position!

Except that the remaining UK (you have heard of Wales and Northern Ireland?) would have their own currency which adjust to reflect their economic conditions. And since we'd share that currency we'd have interest and exchange rates which reflect that UK economy. We'd end up like Ireland rather than Greece, but still in trouble.

Of course we could always leave the pound for the euro and have our democratically elected government deposed by Merkozy.

[ancienthibby]

Except that the remaining UK (you have heard of Wales and Northern Ireland?) would have their own currency which adjust to reflect their economic conditions. And since we'd share that currency we'd have interest and exchange rates which reflect that UK economy. We'd end up like Ireland rather than Greece, but still in trouble.

Of course we could always leave the pound for the euro and have our democratically elected government deposed by Merkozy.

Does your credibility no good to make such facile remarks.:agree:

Your currency point is working against you since Scotland would be the only country in the UK (united or disunited) to own a petro-currency.

You need to pay attention. Your friend Osbourne has been out and about today proclaiming that Scotland might not be allowed to be in the pound post-independence.

Translate?

Osbourne is scared s...less that Engerlund will no longer have the resources of Scottish oil to prompt up their disastrous currency after independence!!

[Beefster]

Does your credibility no good to make such facile remarks.:agree:

Your currency point is working against you since Scotland would be the only country in the UK (united or disunited) to own a petro-currency.

You need to pay attention. Your friend Osbourne has been out and about today proclaiming that Scotland might not be allowed to be in the pound post-independence.

Translate?

Osbourne is scared s...less that Engerlund will no longer have the resources of Scottish oil to prompt up their disastrous currency after independence!!

Yet again, no positive reason on why Scotland should vote for independence (and a seeming glee at the prospect of the rest of the UK suffering somehow).

As far as I know, Osbourne pointed out that the SNP wanted to join the Euro so would have to give up the pound. Not what you claim - unless you can point me to a quote.

Isn't a fair chunk of the oil fields in English territorial waters anyway?

[ancienthibby]

Yet again, no positive reason on why Scotland should vote for independence (and a seeming glee at the prospect of the rest of the UK suffering somehow).

As far as I know, Osbourne pointed out that the SNP wanted to join the Euro so would have to give up the pound. Not what you claim - unless you can point me to a quote.

Isn't a fair chunk of the oil fields in English territorial waters anyway?

Nope!!

The overwhelming majority of North Sea oilfields has always been in Scottish designated waters (as defined by International Courts) until - guess what- devolution under the Liebor Party came along!!

That statement is still true today, albeit with a reduced majority in Scotland's favour!!

[stoneyburn hibs]

Nope!!

The overwhelming majority of North Sea oilfields has always been in Scottish designated waters (as defined by International Courts) until - guess what- devolution under the Liebor Party came along!!

That statement is still true today, albeit with a reduced majority in Scotland's favour!!
how much has it reduced ?

[Eyrie]

Does your credibility no good to make such facile remarks.:agree:
I concede I could have phrased it differently, but I do wonder why people use England to refer to the rest of the UK when they'd get as p'd off as I do at England being used to refer to the current UK.


Your currency point is working against you since Scotland would be the only country in the UK (united or disunited) to own a petro-currency.

You need to pay attention. Your friend Osbourne has been out and about today proclaiming that Scotland might not be allowed to be in the pound post-independence.
We wouldn't own a currency. We'd be using the UK pound or the euro. My preference in the event of independence is our own currency, so I would regard Osbourne's comments as being friendly (although he doesn't intend them that way).

[ancienthibby]

how much has it reduced ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil

[Greentinted]

You could have just written 'The English are bad'. Would have saved you a lot of time and spared the rest of us.

Before we all begin painting the blue bits of our Union Jacks white, can you tell us how many opinion polls - ever - have showed a majority of Scots in favour of independence?

While you're at it perhaps you can say why you think it would be better to have the pound as our currency, our interest rates determined by the Bank of England and money supply set by them too so that our economy is controlled by a foreign country over which we would have no influence at all.

I have absolutely no problem with 'The English' - you may find this hard to believe but I am essentially 66% English.
I do, however, have a problem with the British Establishment and the concept of 'Britishness' which is weighted against the Celtic nations. Having grown-up in a country/region (Scotland) which was held in contempt by the brutal Thatcherist regime that had no local moral mandate I developed a similar contempt for Westminster. The older I get, the more aggrieved I get at many social injusticies and abuses of the underdog and the present Westminster administration echoes the dark days of the 80s (at least to my ears).

Broadly, I am fervently anti-monarchist and I suppose my politics, such as they are, are basically republican/socialist but not in extremis. (Although I will confess to being disappointed that Betty in Buck Hoose wasn't declared a widow on Christmas Day just past - I know, I am a bad man, och well nobody's perfect)

And in all honesty I have no liking for any organised political party in the UK (although I recognise the requirement for them, at least at national level - I can't see a parliament achieving much if all MPs/MSPs were independent - could be interesting at local level though, it would shake up our lot of corrupt incompetents in the Chambers), believing the adage that 'anybody expressing a desire to become a politician should be immediately precluded from doing so'. I recall someone on Question Time a while back stating that politicians are tragic attention-seekers who are too unattractive to be in show business. Funnily enough, that was enough to silence the sheepish looking talking heads.


I expressed an opinion which is mine, I don't claim it is right, it is simply my belief based on my experiences. And I don't claim to know how everything works politically - I leave that as the folly of the professional politicians.

As for Sterling v the Euro (I'm not sure I mentioned that or should I have to render my opinion more credible?), I could never claim to be an economist - I'll leave that to the experts who will be able to highlight the problems in the Eurozone much more clearly than I. *Edit* There's a good debate going on HERE (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?225304-The-UK-National-Debt)

Sorry you don't like the flag, but I find it rather fetching.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I have absolutely no problem with 'The English' - you may find this hard to believe but I am essentially 66% English.
I do, however, have a problem with the British Establishment and the concept of 'Britishness' which is weighted against the Celtic nations. Having grown-up in a country/region (Scotland) which was held in contempt by the brutal Thatcherist regime that had no local moral mandate I developed a similar contempt for Westminster. The older I get, the more aggrieved I get at many social injusticies and abuses of the underdog and the present Westminster administration echoes the dark days of the 80s (at least to my ears).

Broadly, I am fervently anti-monarchist and I suppose my politics, such as they are, are basically republican/socialist but not in extremis. (Although I will confess to being disappointed that Betty in Buck Hoose wasn't declared a widow on Christmas Day just past - I know, I am a bad man, och well nobody's perfect)

And in all honesty I have no liking for any organised political party in the UK (although I recognise the requirement for them, at least at national level - I can't see a parliament achieving much if all MPs/MSPs were independent - could be interesting at local level though, it would shake up our lot of corrupt incompetents in the Chambers), believing the adage that 'anybody expressing a desire to become a politician should be immediately precluded from doing so'. I recall someone on Question Time a while back stating that politicians are tragic attention-seekers who are too unattractive to be in show business. Funnily enough, that was enough to silence the sheepish looking talking heads.


I expressed an opinion which is mine, I don't claim it is right, it is simply my belief based on my experiences. And I don't claim to know how everything works politically - I leave that as the folly of the professional politicians.

As for Sterling v the Euro (I'm not sure I mentioned that or should I have to render my opinion more credible?), I could never claim to be an economist - I'll leave that to the experts who will be able to highlight the problems in the Eurozone much more clearly than I. *Edit* There's a good debate going on HERE (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?225304-The-UK-National-Debt)

Sorry you don't like the flag, but I find it rather fetching.
love it:top marks

[thekaratekid]

Say we became an independent nation in 2007 a year before the global financial collapse.

What sort of position would we be in now?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Say we became an independent nation in 2007 a year before the global financial collapse.

What sort of position would we be in now?

say I won the euromillions how great would the hibs team be?

It's all pie in the sky. If we had been in charge of our country and banks perhaps we would have regulated them better. Perhaps they wouldn't have grown so big on the back of the city of londons greed.

Then again perhaps we would have replicated all of englands mistakes.

At the end of the day they would be our mistakes, made by us and we would be accountable to ourselves.

[One Day Soon]

say I won the euromillions how great would the hibs team be?

It's all pie in the sky. If we had been in charge of our country and banks perhaps we would have regulated them better. Perhaps they wouldn't have grown so big on the back of the city of londons greed.

Then again perhaps we would have replicated all of englands mistakes.

At the end of the day they would be our mistakes, made by us and we would be accountable to ourselves.


What do you mean by "englands mistakes"?

The degree of anti-English fuelled nationalism on here - both latent and open - is pretty disturbing. How the hell do you conclude that the two Scottish banks HBOS and RBS grew big on the back of the City of London's greed? Why do you think their size had anything to do with their predicament anyway? Why don't you think that the stewardship of the Scotsman Fred Goodwin, in the case of RBS, was more relevant to the bank's troubles than some fantasy "englands mistakes"?

[One Day Soon]

I have absolutely no problem with 'The English' - you may find this hard to believe but I am essentially 66% English.
I do, however, have a problem with the British Establishment and the concept of 'Britishness' which is weighted against the Celtic nations.

What exactly do you believe the "concept of 'Britishness'" to be and how is it weighted against the Celtic nations?

Having grown-up in a country/region (Scotland) which was held in contempt by the brutal Thatcherist regime that had no local moral mandate I developed a similar contempt for Westminster.

You can apply the same argument to the way that the North of England, Liverpool, Wales etc were treated by Thatcher. That manifestation wasn't a function of the UK, it was a function of Tory policy and the persona of Margaret Thatcher.

The older I get, the more aggrieved I get at many social injusticies and abuses of the underdog and the present Westminster administration echoes the dark days of the 80s (at least to my ears).

You might get just as worked up about the fact that child poverty is worsening (including in Scotland where the SNP have had five years of being in power with record levels of public spending at their disposal) but that the worst area in the UK is Tower Hamlets in England, not Scotland. The underdog in this country is not Scotland by dint of its geography, it is the poor and the disadvantaged who live in all of the nations of the UK. Being poor, unemployed, elderly and afraid or just neglected is not something that recognises borders - it is the same experience in Edinburgh as in Leeds and in Glasgow as in Manchester.

Broadly, I am fervently anti-monarchist and I suppose my politics, such as they are, are basically republican/socialist but not in extremis. (Although I will confess to being disappointed that Betty in Buck Hoose wasn't declared a widow on Christmas Day just past - I know, I am a bad man, och well nobody's perfect)

And in all honesty I have no liking for any organised political party in the UK (although I recognise the requirement for them, at least at national level - I can't see a parliament achieving much if all MPs/MSPs were independent - could be interesting at local level though, it would shake up our lot of corrupt incompetents in the Chambers), believing the adage that 'anybody expressing a desire to become a politician should be immediately precluded from doing so'. I recall someone on Question Time a while back stating that politicians are tragic attention-seekers who are too unattractive to be in show business. Funnily enough, that was enough to silence the sheepish looking talking heads.

I expressed an opinion which is mine, I don't claim it is right, it is simply my belief based on my experiences. And I don't claim to know how everything works politically - I leave that as the folly of the professional politicians.

I didn't suppose it was anyone else's opinion but yours. I don't think its a matter of knowing how everything works politically, I think its a matter of having a full discussion on what we are being sold here by people who have a view that Scotland - regardless of the consequences - should be independent. There is no conditional offer from Salmond and the SNP here - it is the case that they believe we should leave the UK whether it leaves us better or worse off.

As for Sterling v the Euro (I'm not sure I mentioned that or should I have to render my opinion more credible?), I could never claim to be an economist - I'll leave that to the experts who will be able to highlight the problems in the Eurozone much more clearly than I. *Edit* There's a good debate going on HERE (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?225304-The-UK-National-Debt)

When it comes to the case for or against independence the position regarding our national currency is about as fundamental as it gets. Its not just some interesting debating point, it goes to the core of sovereignty, the ability to control your own economy and therefore to promote growth and employment and it is central to the stability of public finances in order to be able to fund publice services and invest in vital infrastructure. At present we have the pound, with interest rates set by the Bank of England and money supply (a key determinant of high or low inflation) controlled by the Bank of England. To a greater or lesser extent all of these are accountable to political or appointed overseers and Scots and Scottish interests make up the mix in that accoutability. Become independent and stay with the pound and we will have the same institutions in charge except with precisely zero accountability to Scotland, no Scottish influence on their decision making and with a focus on what works best for the remaining UK economies. So how does having less control over these core levers of economic performance increase our independence or our economic prospects?

Time and again Salmond has got the big decisions wrong and on the economic and public finances side his sums don't add up. He wants to use increased tax raising powers to cut Corporation Tax and stimulate inward investment and growth. But he could have done that at any tine in the last five years by using the Parliament's existing tax varying powers to raise income with which to cut Corporation Tax. He hasn't done it because its all just talk, soundbite after soundbite and spin upon spin to nurse us along to the day of a referendum. Don't pull back the curtain and let them see the skeletons until the vote is over.

He's an outstanding politician and tactician but that is not the same thing as being a statesman. And as I said, Salmond and his crew start from the intellectual position that we should leave the UK and work backwards from there to justify it. That's a reckless bet I don't my children's future to be built upon.

He's already got plans to spend the oil revenues three times over: once to create a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's, once to fill the gap in Scotland's public finances after independence and then again to cut Corporation Tax.

Sorry you don't like the flag, but I find it rather fetching.

I don't mind the flag, I just prefer the Union Jack. And I detest the 'Butcher's Apron' reference which I think is trite and sloppy. Plenty of people have found freedom, justice and dignity under that flag too and many Scots helped to deliver it.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What do you mean by "englands mistakes"?

The degree of anti-English fuelled nationalism on here - both latent and open - is pretty disturbing. How the hell do you conclude that the two Scottish banks HBOS and RBS grew big on the back of the City of London's greed? Why do you think their size had anything to do with their predicament anyway? Why don't you think that the stewardship of the Scotsman Fred Goodwin, in the case of RBS, was more relevant to the bank's troubles than some fantasy "englands mistakes"?

You really need to read posts better. I was talking about if we had been independant and had been running our own country during the years running up to the crash. Thats why we would be copying englands mistakes.

This was in reference to the previous poster asking what would have happened if we had been independant when the crash happened.

[One Day Soon]

You really need to read posts better. I was talking about if we had been independant and had been running our own country during the years running up to the crash. Thats why we would be copying englands mistakes.

This was in reference to the previous poster asking what would have happened if we had been independant when the crash happened.


No, I read your post very carefully before replying. Let's try and clarify what you really meant.

1. Which of "englands mistakes" are you talking about that you think we might not have made? To put it another way, if we had been independent and running our own system in the years running up to the crash what are the mistakes that England made which you believe we might have avoided?

2. Why do you think RBS problems arose from having "grown so big on the City of London's greed" when it was actually a Scottish based bank run by the Scot Fred Goodwin?

[One Day Soon]

Not many, although they do exist.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/yes-voters-take-lead-in-new-independence-poll.14984897

On the currency, of course Osbourne etc. will try and present a hostile scary attitude this side of the referendum. I'm not sure they would be quite so keen to have Scottish oil reserves outside the poundozone/sterlozone as they say now though? I suspect that posturing aside they'd be happy enough to enter a monetary union with us.


Your link doesn't work and the truth is that Scots have never been in favour of independence.

Your 'suspecting' that the rest of the UK would be happy to be locked into a monetary union with Scotland is nothing more than an uninformed guess. I could just as easily argue that I suspect Ireland would be happy to be in monetary union with us post-independence.

The UK would have its own share of oil reserves after independence. That share which came to Scotland would be utterly useless to the remainder of the UK. It would have no bearing whatsoever on their consideration of a monetary union with a country which had just said "thanks for the last three hundred years, we're off".

One reason among very many why the UK is highly unlikely to want to be in a monetary union with Scotland is this. The stated objectives on public spending and fiscal policies of Alex Salmond and the SNP are a total basket case. Put simply the cost of borrowing would rise substantially under their plans because their public spending and revenue plans don't stack up - meaning the risk of default on debt rises and lenders factor that risk into higher interest rates.

In addition as a country of 6 million instead of a country of 60 million, we would be regarded as less economically stable and more susceptible to the pressures of the money markets which would again increase the cost of our borrowing. All of this matters because it is how we fund building the infrastructure needed to be a competitive economy, provide decent NHS healthcare and have schools fit to learn in.

Another thing. A significant reason why the UK economy is not in the same state as that of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece is because we have in the pound and the Bank of England our own currency and a strong central bank. That means we have a lender to government of last resort and a guarantor of government debt. You can kiss that goodbye in an independent Scotland.

The reason why the Germans are becoming increasingly unpopular with some of their European partners such as Greece is because the European Central Bank - which the Germans effectively control - is not being allowed to make loans or guarantee loans to countries such as Greece. Instead the Germans and French are calling the shots on the other economies by telling them that they must cut public spending (and by how much). So the Euro as an alternative to the pound is not a particularly attractive option either.

[Beefster]

Nope!!

The overwhelming majority of North Sea oilfields has always been in Scottish designated waters (as defined by International Courts) until - guess what- devolution under the Liebor Party came along!!

That statement is still true today, albeit with a reduced majority in Scotland's favour!!

So the UK (as it would remain after we left) would have a petro-currency too? Wouldn't we be using someone else's currency (i.e. the Euro or the Pound) anyway?


Say we became an independent nation in 2007 a year before the global financial collapse.

What sort of position would we be in now?

We'd be ****ed. But we're not allowed to discuss events that actually happened and how we'd have been affected as a nation. We're only allowed to look at the [imaginary] future.


say I won the euromillions how great would the hibs team be?

It's all pie in the sky. If we had been in charge of our country and banks perhaps we would have regulated them better. Perhaps they wouldn't have grown so big on the back of the city of londons greed.

Then again perhaps we would have replicated all of englands mistakes.

At the end of the day they would be our mistakes, made by us and we would be accountable to ourselves.


You really need to read posts better. I was talking about if we had been independant and had been running our own country during the years running up to the crash. Thats why we would be copying englands mistakes.

This was in reference to the previous poster asking what would have happened if we had been independant when the crash happened.

You mean the UK's mistakes? Yet again, I find it surprising that a nationalist would write off Wales and NI quite so readily.

You do know that part of the reason that regulation of the banks was so poor was because of Tony Blair (arguably Scottish) and Gordon Brown (unarguably Scottish)?

[One Day Soon]

So the UK (as it would remain after we left) would have a petro-currency too? Wouldn't we be using someone else's currency (i.e. the Euro or the Pound) anyway?



We'd be ****ed. But we're not allowed to discuss events that actually happened and how we'd have been affected as a nation. We're only allowed to look at the [imaginary] future.





You mean the UK's mistakes? Yet again, I find it surprising that a nationalist would write off Wales and NI quite so readily.

You do know that part of the reason that regulation of the banks was so poor was because of Tony Blair (arguably Scottish) and Gordon Brown (unarguably Scottish)?

Excuse me Beefster but if I'm not mistaken Mr Salmond is also on past record as having been in favour of light touch regulation of the banks is he not?

[Beefster]

Excuse me Beefster but if I'm not mistaken Mr Salmond is also on past record as having been in favour of light touch regulation of the banks is he not?

Absolutely.

Salmond's no different from any other politician. Sucking up to Murdoch, Westminster expenses, wanting the Euro, wanting light regulation and so on - he's made exactly the same 'mistakes' as the rest of them.

[Eyrie]

You do know that part of the reason that regulation of the banks was so poor was because of Tony Blair (arguably Scottish)
Unionist, nationalist or undecided - we'd all agree to argue against that description of Blair.


Salmond's no different from any other politician. Sucking up to Murdoch, Westminster expenses, wanting the Euro, wanting light regulation and so on - he's made exactly the same 'mistakes' as the rest of them.
And yet we're being asked to uncritically accept his opinion on what an independent Scotland will be like.

[Leicester Fan]

say I won the euromillions how great would the hibs team be?

It's all pie in the sky. If we had been in charge of our country and banks perhaps we would have regulated them better. Perhaps they wouldn't have grown so big on the back of the city of londons greed.

Then again perhaps we would have replicated all of englands mistakes.

At the end of the day they would be our mistakes, made by us and we would be accountable to ourselves.

Come off it. We're not talking the blame for Gordon Brown.:greengrin

[ancienthibby]

No, I read your post very carefully before replying. Let's try and clarify what you really meant.

1. Which of "englands mistakes" are you talking about that you think we might not have made? To put it another way, if we had been independent and running our own system in the years running up to the crash what are the mistakes that England made which you believe we might have avoided?

2. Why do you think RBS problems arose from having "grown so big on the City of London's greed" when it was actually a Scottish based bank run by the Scot Fred Goodwin?


Dearie me, ODS, you just love putting your great size 18's in it, don't you.

Here's a few words for you:

Banking dealing rooms where deals are bought and sold, do not exist in Edinburgh.

However, they do in London, New York, Hong Kong and Singapore and elsewhere.

No buying of junk US bonds, of Fannie Mae debt or Freddie Mac debt, or securitised mortgage debt, etc, etc, etc, was done in Edinburgh.

Instead it was done in the global markets where RBS operated, and, most likely, through investment vehicle companies, most likely registered outwith the UK.

Then again you want to protect Freddie Goodwin?

FG was a loose cannon (being a Scot does not protect him), completely hell bent on doing a deal against all the advice that was being offered.

That deal was, of course, spending £41 billion of RBS shareholders funds to buy ABN-Amro, whose real asset value was just £5 billion.

Take a very deep breath and let these numbers sink into your psyche.

One man, a Scot, a non-banker, in that single transaction did more to destroy RBS than any other event.

Then again, Freddie was not the single RBS director culpable.

The RBS NED's had and have a huge responsibility - and where were they - nowhere to be found.

[JeMeSouviens]

Your link doesn't work and the truth is that Scots have never been in favour of independence.


Actually, (when you bother to look :rolleyes:) there are several.

ICM 23/11/06 Yes 52, No 35
YouGov 03/04/06 Yes 46, No 39
TNS Sys3 07/04/05 Yes 46, No 39
TNS Sys3 04/04/08 Yes 41, No 40

Of course, there are probably 10 times as many saying No, but if the result was such a foregone conclusion you wouldn't be wasting so much typing on it.



Your 'suspecting' that the rest of the UK would be happy to be locked into a monetary union with Scotland is nothing more than an uninformed guess.


As opposed to your guesses which are what, crystal ball backed?



The UK would have its own share of oil reserves after independence. That share which came to Scotland would be utterly useless to the remainder of the UK. It would have no bearing whatsoever on their consideration of a monetary union with a country which had just said "thanks for the last three hundred years, we're off".


The UK's share would be about 10% of the currently known fields but would proportionally diminish over time since new finds are all in Scottish waters. As for your last two sentences, you might want to note the carefully chosen rhetoric of Osbourne, Alexander et al. Bullish and confrontational, but not even close to ruling this out. Wonder why? :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

No, I read your post very carefully before replying. Let's try and clarify what you really meant.

1. Which of "englands mistakes" are you talking about that you think we might not have made? To put it another way, if we had been independent and running our own system in the years running up to the crash what are the mistakes that England made which you believe we might have avoided?

2. Why do you think RBS problems arose from having "grown so big on the City of London's greed" when it was actually a Scottish based bank run by the Scot Fred Goodwin?

Ok lets pretend you had read my post properly.

1. We may have regulated our banks properly, we may have made them work as traditional style banks and not become so heavily involved in the riskier industries such as selling sub prime etc. However we may have made exactly the same mistakes, the point is we don't know so trying to use hindsight to prove we would have been screwed come the crash is just as ridiculous as using to prove we wouldn't have been. We can only move forwards not back.

2. All the big banks problems arose from trying to compete with each other in more and more ridiculous ways, the vast majority of these decisions and actions where taken within the financial district in the city of London, fuelled by too many people earning far more money than there abilities should have permitted. RBS as a UK bank got sucked into competing and while it should have sat back and went for gradual growth it didn't, it wanted to compete with the barclays and the HSBC's of the world. I'm not trying to deny RBS made mistakes or that Fred Goodwin should have done things differently but it's also far too simplistic to just blame one man.

My main point is that it's impossible to say we would never have survived the crash if we had been independent because we simply don't know if we would have been in the same situation.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Come off it. We're not talking the blame for Gordon Brown.:greengrin

yeah ok I'll accept if we had been independant you probably wouldn't have had to worry about gordon brown:wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

So the UK (as it would remain after we left) would have a petro-currency too? Wouldn't we be using someone else's currency (i.e. the Euro or the Pound) anyway?


We'd be ****ed. But we're not allowed to discuss events that actually happened and how we'd have been affected as a nation. We're only allowed to look at the [imaginary] future.

You can discuss whatever you like but lets at least be honest about what you are actually saying. You are basically trying to make one change in isolation and apply the rest of history as being the same. That wouldn't be the way it would have worked and you well know it, so the ability to say we would have been ****ed is based purely on your own outlook and nothing of a factual basis. By the same token I cannot say with any factual credence that we would have been ok because there are far too many unknowns. What I can say is that I believe an independent Scotland would have made better choices and we may not have had such large banks in the first place, but thats just my opinion.


You mean the UK's mistakes? Yet again, I find it surprising that a nationalist would write off Wales and NI quite so readily.

No I mean Englands mistakes, lets not pretend that wales and NI have any sort of voice in the UK once we leave as the tory majority will be just too great. The welsh First minister has already highlighted this fact.

You do know that part of the reason that regulation of the banks was so poor was because of Tony Blair (arguably Scottish) and Gordon Brown (unarguably Scottish)?

Well yes but I don't recall George Osbourne calling for tighter regulations prior to the crash, in fact quite the opposite. Perhaps if we had a meaningful opposition party and not the tories, Labour would have been forced to make better decisions. Doesn't excuse Labour but everyone has to accept there part not just keep re-writing history to suit there own ends.

[Beefster]

Well yes but I don't recall George Osbourne calling for tighter regulations prior to the crash, in fact quite the opposite. Perhaps if we had a meaningful opposition party and not the tories, Labour would have been forced to make better decisions. Doesn't excuse Labour but everyone has to accept there part not just keep re-writing history to suit there own ends.

You can't absolve the people making the decisions from the decisions they made because other folk weren't screaming for them to make different decisions. For the record, Salmond wasn't calling for tighter regulation either. They're all as clueless as each other.

[Jack]

… and news just coming through.

Mr Cameron has completed Angry Birds on his phone!

[bighairyfaeleith]

You can't absolve the people making the decisions from the decisions they made because other folk weren't screaming for them to make different decisions. For the record, Salmond wasn't calling for tighter regulation either. They're all as clueless as each other.

Not trying top absolve anyone as labour need to accept the bulk of the blame, however it's always too easy to just use a fall guy like Fred or Gordon Brown when the truth is always a bit more involved. Your right though all politicians are generally useless.

[Dashing Bob S]

Of course Cameron has to take a view on this, he is PM of the UK, but he also has to accept that things have changed up here. We already have a degree of sovereignty with a parliament and a first Minister, and like it or not, we are probably heading in the direction of independence, not as a result of the policies/practices of the SNP, but because the union is pretty much in secular decline. It was created to facilitate imperial expansion and industrial growth, and sustained by the esprit de corps bolstered by the outcome of those adventures, the two world wars. It tried to take on a more inclusive hue by creating a welfare state after the war, but since the eighties its been deigned we can no longer afford this and this has been slowly dismantled by Conservative and Labour governments.

Now there's practically nothing left in the English-dominated union for Scots, but to be cast in role of peripheral, second class citizens, this notion buttressed by a globalized media who mistake Britain for England in terms of their news, sports and cultural programing, and a home counties, public school-centric BBC.

We aren't so much leaving as being (admittedly inadvertently) pushed out. And why not? England has its own issues in trying to redefine itself as a post-imperial multi-ethnic society. They don't give a toss about what happens up here, and why should they? The only reason we have any interest in what happens down there is that were compelled to, as the government is based there and the media blasts the message of Engerlund in our faces at every given opportunity.

I think we should be a bit bolder, but I believe that independence will come by creeping stealth as it has been doing for the last thirty years.

[greenlex]

Did anyone see Cameron in the House yesterday trying to recite Burns during retort?
What a ****ing upper class tory prick in the extreme.
He is either really Stupid or really really clever. He is driving Scotland toward independence more than Salmond.

[Betty Boop]

Why doesn't he interfere and stop Stephen Hester from collecting a million pound bonus ?