Scottish Independence

[SteveHFC]

Do you want independence.

Yes or No or Not Sure?

[Aaron]

Do you want independence.

Yes or No or Not Sure?

I am (maybe was) very pro union but I will wait to see what the SNP come up with before I put my vote in. We need to know what would happen with so many things if we were to go it alone. It is too early to say yet so I say not sure.

[Sir David Gray]

Not necessarily against the idea of independence but would never vote for it under the SNP.

What they're proposing isn't actually independence anyway, since they would simply sign us up with the EU as soon as they withdrew us from the UK.

If the vote was held tomorrow, I would vote 'No' and I can't see that changing too much by the time 2014 comes.

[frazeHFC]

I know nothing of politics, i turn the tv off when politics comes on, i just generally hate it, but 1 question if have is:

Why do they want it, what's the key benefits?

[steakbake]

I know nothing of politics, i turn the tv off when politics comes on, i just generally hate it, but 1 question if have is:

Why do they want it, what's the key benefits?

Main benefit: being a proper, sovereign country that can make its own decisions like the many other nations of our size and smaller in the world.

At the moment, we're neither owt nor nowt. A kind of halfway house.

[steakbake]

Do you want independence.

Yes or No or Not Sure?

What authority do you have to run this poll and is it legally binding?

[Beefster]

Main benefit: being a proper, sovereign country that can make its own decisions like the many other nations of our size and smaller in the world.

At the moment, we're neither owt nor nowt. A kind of halfway house.

Being a sovereign country that left the UK so that we could become full members of the EU/Euro and have our budgets signed off by the EU.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Being a sovereign country that left the UK so that we could become full members of the EU/Euro and have our budgets signed off by the EU.

If Thats what we want then yes, depends who runs the independent Scotland. Yes in the referendum is just for independence.

[steakbake]

Being a sovereign country that left the UK so that we could become full members of the EU/Euro and have our budgets signed off by the EU.

Not sure about that reasoning at all. We're in a union which is in the EU right now. If we want concessions, or to make a point we have to run it past London first and they'll advance that cause if it is seen to be in the UK - not Scotland's - interests. So if we leave the union and we remain part of the EU, we have our own position at the table, our own member of the council of ministers and our own national ability to negotiate the terms of our membership. Denmark, Sweden, Austria et al all have various clauses, exemptions etc. Where we are right now is that we accept the crumbs from the big table and occasionally try to pester the adults when we really want something.

I suppose the next unionist argument is going to be: but Scotland won't automatically get EU membership (ignoring the existing provisions about successor states). If that's the case, your problem is solved. If its not the case then perhaps you need to form an anti-EU party and ensure it gets elected into Holyrood. UKIP stand most times but I haven't seen them elect an MSP yet.

Until they do, it just seems to be just the usual hobby horsing from a vocal minority.

[hibs0666]

Main benefit: being a proper, sovereign country that can make its own decisions like the many other nations of our size and smaller in the world.

At the moment, we're neither owt nor nowt. A kind of halfway house.

I think this kind of post is symptomatic of the dire level of debate we have had to date over independence.

Sovereignty is a multi-headed beast and, whilst independence would provide increased legal autonomy, the alignment with a foreign currency as proposed by the SNP severely limits the degree of control Scotland would have over its economic affairs. Equally, independence would act to diminish Scotland's place in the world and would see it no longer represented in groupings such as the G8.

A key issue then from a sovereignty perspective is therefore about whether increase legal and legislative control, at the cost of a diminished place in the world, will enhance or diminish the future prospects of Scotland. That discussion hasn't even started.

The previous prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer of the UK was a Scot. That's hardly owt or nowt.

[steakbake]

The previous prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer of the UK was a Scot. That's hardly owt or nowt.

Yes, that worked out very well. What do you think the chances are of that happening again?

[Betty Boop]

A stiiring debate on this subject now on Five Live,with strong feelings from both sides.

[HibeeEmma]

I voted yes although it may be due to increased patriotism living down south. I get the feeling that a lot of English would vote yes as they are not happy contributing to our country.

The whole question over who gets to vote is interesting - Salmond wants 16/17 year olds to vote and i wonder if he will integrate Scottish history or raising awareness of Scottish culture into schooling for those who are 14/15 atm.

If Scotland stepped up the game it could be a very powerful country if independent. They would have to invest a lot into make the country worthwhile for investors and look into renewable sources of energy.

I never liked Alex Salmond, and still think he's a bit arrogant but I would like to see him prove me wrong and bring up some new strategies for independent Scotland.

[steakbake]

One thing is for sure, if/when independence happens, Scotland will have to go into a different gear. It will be sink or swim.

I am totally convinced we would swim very well, but our political and business class would have to step up the game.

[PeeJay]

Rather than independence for Scotland (I voted no) I think the UK - as a whole - would be better served by becoming a republic with certain powers devolved throughout the country to the regions to get away from the overbearing London-centric nature of most things. The Scottish Parliament has shown that devolved power works and Germany, in particular, and other countries have been very successful as republics.

I am not convinced that Scotland would be a 'powerful' nation on the global stage, particularly, as some on here seem to be suggesting if it also leaves the EU. The balance of power (economic and political) is shifting away from the West - one has to wonder what negotiating strength an isolated Scotland would be able to muster at the table.

[HiBremian]

I don't get why some people are so hooked on this "place at the top table" argument. Is it some kind of macho power-wish à la ugly sisters, or a belief that bigger countries provide more benefits for their citizens? Neither stands up to much scrutiny. The biggest economic power in the world, the USA, also has some of the poorest citizens. Meanwhile a country the size of Scotland, Denmark, has little poverty and scores high on the so-called "happiness" index.

My decision (not that I could vote - a Scot in exile since 1971) would be based more on the chances of an independent Scotland becoming a consistently left of centre (and IMO better) country, with the political debate moving further to the left than where it is a present. That would make things like rail renationalisation, investment in renewable energies, better public services, more likely than at present. I see this in Germany. The gvt may be right of centre, but the political debate is way to the left of that in the UK. So for example everyone more or less agrees we should have a Robin Hood Tax, 100% renewables, and reduce social inequalities.

Just my view, of course.

[hibs0666]

Yes, that worked out very well. What do you think the chances are of that happening again?

Sorry, I'm can't predict the future. If I did the Euromillions would be mine and Hibs would be an emerging European force. :wink:

[hibs0666]

I don't get why some people are so hooked on this "place at the top table" argument. Is it some kind of macho power-wish à la ugly sisters, or a belief that bigger countries provide more benefits for their citizens? Neither stands up to much scrutiny. The biggest economic power in the world, the USA, also has some of the poorest citizens. Meanwhile a country the size of Scotland, Denmark, has little poverty and scores high on the so-called "happiness" index.

My decision (not that I could vote - a Scot in exile since 1971) would be based more on the chances of an independent Scotland becoming a consistently left of centre (and IMO better) country, with the political debate moving further to the left than where it is a present. That would make things like rail renationalisation, investment in renewable energies, better public services, more likely than at present. I see this in Germany. The gvt may be right of centre, but the political debate is way to the left of that in the UK. So for example everyone more or less agrees we should have a Robin Hood Tax, 100% renewables, and reduce social inequalities.

Just my view, of course.

You are totally correct - there is a vacuum in UK left of centre politics in terms of its response to the failure of capitalism that we are currently witnessing.

However I don't see any evidence that independence will see this issue coming to the fore - for example, in 2007, Salmond shared a stage with the then-CEO of HBOS espousing the role of the financial sector to the growth of the Scottish economy.

[Beefster]

Not sure about that reasoning at all. We're in a union which is in the EU right now. If we want concessions, or to make a point we have to run it past London first and they'll advance that cause if it is seen to be in the UK - not Scotland's - interests. So if we leave the union and we remain part of the EU, we have our own position at the table, our own member of the council of ministers and our own national ability to negotiate the terms of our membership. Denmark, Sweden, Austria et al all have various clauses, exemptions etc. Where we are right now is that we accept the crumbs from the big table and occasionally try to pester the adults when we really want something.

I suppose the next unionist argument is going to be: but Scotland won't automatically get EU membership (ignoring the existing provisions about successor states). If that's the case, your problem is solved. If its not the case then perhaps you need to form an anti-EU party and ensure it gets elected into Holyrood. UKIP stand most times but I haven't seen them elect an MSP yet.

Until they do, it just seems to be just the usual hobby horsing from a vocal minority.

As far as I know, from Salmond's previous utterings, he wants Scotland to become a full member of the EU (in fact, I think he's all for more powers to Europe) and the Euro. That means having our budgets approved by the EU before our politicians get the chance to debate them. I seem to recall a recent example of Ireland's budget being debated in the Bundestag before the Irish parliament. That's independence?

To be honest though, it seems that the SNP make a lot of policies up as and when they need to so they might now be arguing for no Europe or no Euro.

I've yet to hear a convincing case for independence. The case for it seems to boil down to "let's shut our eyes, take the jump and hope for a soft landing".

[hibs0666]

As far as I know, from Salmond's previous utterings, he wants Scotland to become a full member of the EU (in fact, I think he's all for more powers to Europe) and the Euro. That means having our budgets approved by the EU before our politicians get the chance to debate them. I seem to recall a recent example of Ireland's budget being debated in the Bundestag before the Irish parliament. That's independence?

To be honest though, it seems that the SNP make a lot of policies up as and when they need to so they might now be arguing for no Europe or no Euro.

I've yet to hear a convincing case for independence. The case for it seems to boil down to "let's shut our eyes, take the jump and hope for a soft landing".

The justification for independence is a bit like Blair's justification for the Iraq war - it is a moving feast depending upon whatever argument can sand up to rigour at any given point in time.

The arc of prosperity? Doh, can't say that any more.

Sovereign nation? Need to be careful with that one too cos we're either going to be tied to the pound, the euro, the dollar, the Chinese renminbi or whatever else is politically expedient at the time. And we can't ditch Lizzie and her merry band of parasites or we'll risk starting Balkans Conflict Round 2.

Defence? Well, he's all for opting out of the UK defence umbrella (so long as Scotland continues to host it's fair share of defence bases).

Oil? Well there's always that, so let's just make sure that we keep saying to the populace we'll be the Abu Dhabi of the north when we get our wee fat fingers on Scotland's Oil.

[Speedy]

No for me.

The situation as it is at the moment suits me fine so the potential for it to go balls up outweighs the potential for whatever benefit we may or may not receive.

[puff the dragon]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

[Greentinted]

Not if the wee obsequious, toad-faced Yam barrel persists in proposing Scotland maintains the parasitical dynastic genetic train wreck as head of state. He can do one wi Lizzie Saxe-Coburg Goetha and Phil Battenburg all the way to London, Paris, Berlin or Hamburg and stay there.

[sKipper]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

Probably the most sensible post for the Union on this thread.:rolleyes:

Voting yes myself though. :agree:

[sKipper]

Not if the wee obsequious, toad-faced Yam barrel persists in proposing Scotland maintains the parasitical dynastic genetic train wreck as head of state. He can do one wi Lizzie Saxe-Coburg Goetha and Phil Battenburg all the way to London, Paris, Berlin or Hamburg and stay there.

As I understand it , once independent Scotland would hold a referendum further down the line on whether we wish to stick with the monarchy.

[Gatecrasher]

not if it means going further into europe

[HiBremian]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

Surely the country's IQ is the same before and after polling day....?.?

Maybe Scotland already is a country full of idiots, so why bother debating this..??..?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

I think you should get more involved with the unionists campaign, perhaps going round canvassing would be good for you :greengrin

[HibeeEmma]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

Having a country with low IQ is acceptable, we can work on the education system. However having a country who do not respect others' views is worrying.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

I am a first class idiot

[bighairyfaeleith]

I am a first class idiot

Your not that good:greengrin

[HiBremian]

not if it means going further into europe

For some reason, this post brought Dashing Bob's summary of Saturday to mind..
http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?224947-Could-Have-Been-Considerably-Worse&p=3066254#post3066254

Cannes or Cowdenbeath?

[Eyrie]

The argument that an independent Scotland is better placed to stand up for itself in Europe does not stand up to scrutiny.

We're a nation of 5m in a union of 60m at present. If we can't make our voice heard and stand up for ourselves in the UK, how on earth can we do so as a nation of 5m in a European Union of 500m? Greece has 11m and just saw its democratically elected government deposed by Europe.

I'd rather in that scenario be a 60m nation with the size to defend its interests and resist bullying.

[steakbake]

Stay in a union where we are anonymous or join one where we're even more anonymous? So it's ride on someone's coat tails or be your own man? Are we really no better than being playing a Scottish Richard Hammond to England's Jeremy Clarkson? I'd rather be James May or the Stig.

[Eyrie]

Stay in a union where we are anonymous or join one where we're even more anonymous? So it's ride on someone's coat tails or be your own man?

So does that mean you would prefer independence outside the EU over independence within it?

[puff the dragon]

Having a country with low IQ is acceptable, we can work on the education system. However having a country who do not respect others' views is worrying.


I am a first class idiot


I think you should get more involved with the unionists campaign, perhaps going round canvassing would be good for you :greengrin


Surely the country's IQ is the same before and after polling day....?.?

Maybe Scotland already is a country full of idiots, so why bother debating this..??..?


Probably the most sensible post for the Union on this thread.:rolleyes:

Voting yes myself though. :agree:


There's a reason why the nationalist fools want 16/17 year old children to vote - it's because they are not yet clever enough to make the correct decision and will have their minds made up by a Mel Gibson movie. Something to ponder.

[Westie1875]

I don't understand how anyone can vote yes or no without knowing what would happen, what we would get and what the approach would be with the EU. I genuinely couldn't make a decision at the moment.

[CropleyWasGod]

There's a reason why the nationalist fools want 16/17 year old children to vote - it's because they are not yet clever enough to make the correct decision and will have their minds made up by a Mel Gibson movie. Something to ponder.

I have pondered, and have concluded that that is a patronising and insulting view to take.

[puff the dragon]

I have pondered, and have concluded that that is a patronising and insulting view to take.

but a necessary one. This is far too big a decision for people without the mental capacity to understand the consequences to take.

Democracy does not work - people need to be told what's best for them.

[CropleyWasGod]

but a necessary one. This is far too big a decision for people without the mental capacity to understand the consequences to take.

Democracy does not work - people need to be told what's best for them.

I get you.

Let's also ban all those with mental health issues, those with an IQ of less than 140, and those who have seen Braveheart, Whisky Galore or Thingummyjig.

That should do it.

:rolleyes:

[puff the dragon]

I get you.

Let's also ban all those with mental health issues, those with an IQ of less than 140, and those who have seen Braveheart, Whisky Galore or Thingummyjig.

That should do it.

:rolleyes:

it'll help.

There should certainly be a weighting system on voting as one person one vote does not count.

A person with an IQ of 187 should get 1.87 votes but a person with an IQ of 127 should only get 1.27 votes. That way the people that can comprehend the decision they are making will not be as exposed to the lack of knowledge of the electorate.

[Gatecrasher]

I don't understand how anyone can vote yes or no without knowing what would happen, what we would get and what the approach would be with the EU. I genuinely couldn't make a decision at the moment.
:agree:
So many questions
what happens to the nhs?
Bbc Scotland?
Currency?
National debt?
Tax/VAT percentages
social security
dvla
etc
most people expected to vote will know none of this.

[Jack]

:agree:
So many questions
what happens to the nhs?
Bbc Scotland?
Currency?
National debt?
Tax/VAT percentages
social security
dvla
etc
most people expected to vote will know none of this.

The NHS in Scotland is already very different in the way it operates from the other UK countries - and thank goodness I live in Scotland.

I understand that in the event of independence the NHS will carry on with its current developing model.

[Hibbyradge]

I want the best for myself and the people I care for, not necessarily in that order.

Whether the country in which I live is sovereign or not, doesn't really feature very high on my list of priorities.

Ben Nevis will still be tall, Scotland's prisons will still be full and the climate will still be *****, whether our country is independant or not.

I used to be a member of the SNP, but nowadays, the question to me is almost irrelevant.

[Future17]

it'll help.

There should certainly be a weighting system on voting as one person one vote does not count.

A person with an IQ of 187 should get 1.87 votes but a person with an IQ of 127 should only get 1.27 votes. That way the people that can comprehend the decision they are making will not be as exposed to the lack of knowledge of the electorate.

It's an interesting suggestion, if only because it would render the vote of most politicians virtually worthless. :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

it'll help.

There should certainly be a weighting system on voting as one person one vote does not count.

A person with an IQ of 187 should get 1.87 votes but a person with an IQ of 127 should only get 1.27 votes. That way the people that can comprehend the decision they are making will not be as exposed to the lack of knowledge of the electorate.

Oh my word, I sincerely hope you are the poster child for the unionists:greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't understand how anyone can vote yes or no without knowing what would happen, what we would get and what the approach would be with the EU. I genuinely couldn't make a decision at the moment.

And I reckon you are in the majority, however some people whether unionist or nationalist believe strongly enough in there ideals that it doesn't matter if they have all the answers. For example I believe in an independant scotland and I believe in the ability of the scots to run our own country. I don't really ned to know before the referendum what will happen with BBC one in scotland because I have enough faith that we will be able to sort these things out after the vote. I mean if the scottish government was to say to Westminster we will keep deducting a tv license and hand that cash to the BBC to keep it broadcasting in Scotland, is the UK really going to say NO?

The only unknown for me is how petty the English might be if we vote yes, but Thats like staying with an abusive partner because your scared how they might react when you leave so I'm not getting to worked up about it.

The same goes for the armed forces, England engages in so many stupid wars that it has to be able to defend itself, It's not going to cut it's nose off despite it's face and allow Scotland to be an easy entry point to the country. So they will work with us because it's in there interests. There will be some spats over things like nuclear, but these spats might be good for England as it will show them that there is another way and you never know they might develop as a country.

This is of course just my opinion and the unionist will have a completely different take on it, but hopefully it makes it clearer why I can say yes right now. For the record I have only recently came to these conclusions and was until the last few months wanting more definitive answers on everything before the referendum, and still do to a point I just don't think we can get everything in black and white in advance.

[Geo_1875]

it'll help.

There should certainly be a weighting system on voting as one person one vote does not count.

A person with an IQ of 187 should get 1.87 votes but a person with an IQ of 127 should only get 1.27 votes. That way the people that can comprehend the decision they are making will not be as exposed to the lack of knowledge of the electorate.

But what about "clever" people who don't agree with you. Will they be allowed to vote?

[Lucius Apuleius]

I have always argued that the SNP manifest should be a one word document. Independance. After Independance they should cease to exist. All the unknowns is the very reason we should not rush into an early referendum. Independance is now a possibility. All the Londoncentric (like that word :-) ) services and departments like those mentioned need relocating to a Dennycentric system. :-)

[JeMeSouviens]

The argument that an independent Scotland is better placed to stand up for itself in Europe does not stand up to scrutiny.

We're a nation of 5m in a union of 60m at present. If we can't make our voice heard and stand up for ourselves in the UK, how on earth can we do so as a nation of 5m in a European Union of 500m? Greece has 11m and just saw its democratically elected government deposed by Europe.

I'd rather in that scenario be a 60m nation with the size to defend its interests and resist bullying.

Because the EU has has built in mechanisms (representation on the council of ministers, QM voting) to ensure that the voices of all its member states count for something. Although, naturally, some are considerably more equal than others. The UK, on the other hand, is a unitary state. If Scotland and England have differing interests, the English one will always prevail.

There are currently 3 levels of decision making powers: devolved, uk and european. We currently have total, zero and zero influence. Independence in the EU would change that to total, total and minor.

[JeMeSouviens]

I have always argued that the SNP manifest should be a one word document. Independance. After Independance they should cease to exist. All the unknowns is the very reason we should not rush into an early referendum. Independance is now a possibility. All the Londoncentric (like that word :-) ) services and departments like those mentioned need relocating to a Dennycentric system. :-)

If it's going to be a one word document, could the one word at least be spelled right, please? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

it'll help.

There should certainly be a weighting system on voting as one person one vote does not count.

A person with an IQ of 187 should get 1.87 votes but a person with an IQ of 127 should only get 1.27 votes. That way the people that can comprehend the decision they are making will not be as exposed to the lack of knowledge of the electorate.

1. You do realise that the whole point of IQ scores was to compare children against the expected average for their chronological age?

2. History is littered with people of above average intelligence who were absolute shop fronts, eg. http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/grady/nazi.html , and Wallace Mercer wasn't thick either. :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

If it's going to be a one word document, could the one word at least be spelled right, please? :wink:

you cannae expext a natinalist to be brite ken

[Hainan Hibs]

It will be an AYE from me.

[Leicester Fan]

Don't go lads.:confused:

[HiBremian]

There's a reason why the nationalist fools want 16/17 year old children to vote - it's because they are not yet clever enough to make the correct decision and will have their minds made up by a Mel Gibson movie. Something to ponder.

Or maybe because they might just be thinking longer term than where the next loan for the next flashy car is coming from? Our last election here in Bremen gave 16/17 year olds the vote, and the result was over 50% of them voting for Greens who were offering less consumerism and more social provision. Which generation has f*****d the economy/environment up big time? And which will have to pay?

[--------]

:agree:
So many questions
what happens to the nhs?
Bbc Scotland?
Currency?
National debt?
Tax/VAT percentages
social security
dvla
etc
most people expected to vote will know none of this.


NHS? Already asked and answered.

BBC Scotland? Well, maybe if Scottish broadcasting becomes something other than the minor offshoot of an English-based, English-focussed broadcasting system, it'll improve, because right now the standards in BBC Scotland's programming are abysmal. Certainly couldn't be any worse.

Currency? Taxation and Social Security? Defence? National Debt? Surely these are matters that are either already changing in line with the changing balance of the UK's 'unwritten constitution' or can only be worked out in detail once the principle of independence (spelling, guys) has been approved and determined?

DVLA? We can't organise our vehicle and driver licensing ourselves? How stupid do you think your fellow-countrymen are?

One thing about defence - without the Scots regiments around, maybe someone else will have to do the dirty jobs for the Westminster ToryLibLab political establishment? Like ENGLISH regiments? :wink:

[--------]

There's a reason why the nationalist fools want 16/17 year old children to vote - it's because they are not yet clever enough to make the correct decision and will have their minds made up by a Mel Gibson movie. Something to ponder.


The arrogance of this post is mind-boggling.

If you can't discuss something without calling folks who disagree with you 'fools' - I'd take that as a sign you either don't know as much as you're pretending you do, or you know that your position's a false one.

And frankly I know plenty of 16- and 17-year-olds who have a more than adequate understanding of the realities of life. And they're able to discuss those realities without calling those who disagree with them names.

Why don't you read what you wrote again, PONDER it for a while, and then admit that writing off teenagers as stupid just because they're teenagers says a lot more about YOUR level of intelligence than theirs?

[Gatecrasher]

The NHS in Scotland is already very different in the way it operates from the other UK countries - and thank goodness I live in Scotland.

I understand that in the event of independence the NHS will carry on with its current developing model.


NHS? Already asked and answered.

BBC Scotland? Well, maybe if Scottish broadcasting becomes something other than the minor offshoot of an English-based, English-focussed broadcasting system, it'll improve, because right now the standards in BBC Scotland's programming are abysmal. Certainly couldn't be any worse.

Currency? Taxation and Social Security? Defence? National Debt? Surely these are matters that are either already changing in line with the changing balance of the UK's 'unwritten constitution' or can only be worked out in detail once the principle of independence (spelling, guys) has been approved and determined?

DVLA? We can't organise our vehicle and driver licensing ourselves? How stupid do you think your fellow-countrymen are?

One thing about defence - without the Scots regiments around, maybe someone else will have to do the dirty jobs for the Westminster ToryLibLab political establishment? Like ENGLISH regiments? :wink:

Thanks for the answers. The main point of the post is that questions like those need to be answered to the masses before people can be expected to make a decision. Its such a huge thing to vote for that people will need to be reassured about key services within the country IMO

[Jack]

Thanks for the answers. The main point of the post is that questions like those need to be answered to the masses before people can be expected to make a decision. Its such a huge thing to vote for that people will need to be reassured about key services within the country IMO

You're absolutely right and I was seeking to assure you, from my knowledge, what is expected to happen around the NHS in Scotland.

As it is constantly evolving, moving forward, it wouldn’t be correct, strictly speaking, to say it will be the same. The ethos of the organisation(s) will however be the same.

… and can I just say once again that I am so glad to be under the care of the Scottish NHS. What the NHS in Scotland has done, is doing and hopes to achieve in the future fills me with confidence that our health needs in the years ahead are as much in the bag as they can be.

[Betty Boop]

I think we will probably end up with Devo max.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think we will probably end up with Devo max.

Is that like Pepsi Max, except that we'll all be singing "I can't get no satisfaction". ? :greengrin

[Hainan Hibs]

Thanks for the answers. The main point of the post is that questions like those need to be answered to the masses before people can be expected to make a decision. Its such a huge thing to vote for that people will need to be reassured about key services within the country IMO

:agree: And for the SNP and independence supporters as a whole to win the referendum, they must win the undecided vote, who will vote yes if the Yes group can answer sufficiently well questions like you have asked.

Polls show the SNP can rely on around a third to go out and vote yes, maybe more on the day, with the undecided vote between 15-20%. To win the referendum the SNP has to convince that group to vote yes, and with a few swings from the no camp they could pull it off.

[Betty Boop]

Is that like Pepsi Max, except that we'll all be singing "I can't get no satisfaction". ? :greengrin


Yip ! :greengrin I think everything is devolved to Scotland, except defence and foregn affairs.

[steakbake]

I think we will probably end up with Devo max.

Yes, I suspect some kind of fudge whereby we end up with a really close referendum result.

If the "No" camp wins, there'll be frantic attempts to not just shoot the nationalists' fox but also to stamp on its head and hack off its tail and wear it like a hat. Cue a fairly cack-handed process of introducing devolution max.

If the "Yes" camp wins, the reality is that we'll end up with something like devo max anyway, just with a slightly different name and approach.

[Lucius Apuleius]

If it's going to be a one word document, could the one word at least be spelled right, please? :wink:

It would if it was typed on a computer with a spellchecker instead of my mobile :greengrin

See, that is why we need independence. Scottish education has gone to the dogs. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

It would if it was typed on a computer with a spellchecker instead of my mobile :greengrin

See, that is why we need independence. Scottish education has gone to the dogs. :greengrin

DUGS!!!!

ffs....:rolleyes:

[Lucius Apuleius]

DUGS!!!!

ffs....:rolleyes:

Rhyming slang fur JUGS? :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

I think we will probably end up with Devo max.

I think that would be quite likely, if only some credible people/organisations were to gather together and take it on!!

Will not get on the ballot paper otherwise.

And right now, none of Liebor, Tories of hapless LibDems seem inclined, as they are too thralled to their Westminster masters.

Yesterday we had the CallMeDave/ED coalition agreeing that the Westminster way was the way ahead; today we had opposition parties in Holyrood pleading to be let in to Scottisg Government alternatives so that another way forward could be found - and their London masters have already sold them out!! What a parcel of rogues in a nation!

[Golden Bear]

It's not for me.

The SNP are doing a good enough job at Holyrood but full blown independance is a different ball game.

They want a divorce from Westminster but for some reason they seem keen enough to jump into bed with the Eurocrats.

Bizarre indeed.

[bighairyfaeleith]

apparently 68% of scots want devo max option, yet london say we shouldn't get the chance to vote on that.:confused:

[Beefster]

apparently 68% of scots want devo max option, yet london say we shouldn't get the chance to vote on that.:confused:

Why can't that be a separate question if and when the independence referendum is settled?

[ancienthibby]

Why can't that be a separate question if and when the independence referendum is settled?

Because that would take another length of time, perhaps with different parties in power in both capitals and add even more debate and wrangling before extended powers can be devolved.

Given that the referendum is almost 3 years away, it makes absolute sense to have 2 questions on the ballot paper, so that we don't waste much of the debate we're having anyway!

[HiBremian]

apparently 68% of scots want devo max option, yet london say we shouldn't get the chance to vote on that.:confused:

And in a way this is the interesting question that politicians are pondering. London takes the stance of "you can't have that choice", while the SNP say you can. If London then forces the issue about the legal standing of the referendum (only Westminster can sanction a legally binding vote, whilst Holyrood alone would be "advisory") and insists on ignoring the results of an advisory vote, what happens next? UDI? Right now, it's probably early days and just political posturing, but it shows how difficult it is to follow a purely "legal" route. Maybe due to the fact that the original Treaty of Union was agreed by two fat landowners, their lawyers and their dogs, whilst there was rioting in the streets of Edinburgh.....

[Greentinted]

As I understand it , once independent Scotland would hold a referendum further down the line on whether we wish to stick with the monarchy.

I hadn't heard or read that but if that is indeed part of the overall proposal then fair enough. I'm in.

[Greentinted]

Anybody who votes 'yes' clearly does not have a high enough IQ to vote.

If the majority of Scots decide to vote yes then we are left with a country full of abosulte idiots!

Right, aw well, that'll be me off to my weekly workshop in fingernail chewing, velcro shoe-strap fastening and drooling-control then.

Last time I was tested I had an IQ of 151 (just a statement of fact in response to your spectacularly ignorant sweeping generalisation - not a boast, its no that big a deal really), have just completed a joint honours MA at a globally recognised 1st class university and considered by my peers and pals as being both street smart and book smart.

One of the main reasons I enjoy participating on this forum is that there are many interesting and obviously highly intelligent posters with a wide variety of views, opinions and debating styles and expertise in various fields - obviously none, however, as highly gifted as someone who glibly refers to opponents of their opinions as 'idiots'; that stellar level of blinding insight and acumen on every topic of interest and immeasurably bloated faculties of erudition, logic and overall genius is beyond the ken of us humble, flawed and obviously catatonically imbecilic morons (or 'normal punters who err and fail sometimes' in plain language).

And for the record, while I may not agree with anyone who chooses to vote 'No' in this impending referendum, I would never deem myself so ignorant or indeed bereft of cognisant and linear thought to refer to them as 'idiots'.

But clearly, whilst pacing the floors of your Palace of Perspicacity built on your intellectually aloof high-ground (which I assume is a very lonely place for your meta-clever self) I suppose to your intellectually enlightened self, I, like so many other dullards am merely a card-carrying, windae-lickin, half-wit claiming 'no right money' fi the DWP.

Well, thanks awfully for your weighty and thought-provoking contribution, and of course your condescending, myopically injudicious sloganeering. Being a bit thick, I suppose I'll have to live with being subordinate to such an awe inspiring dialectic genius, (but I am mindful - or would have pretensions to be if indeed I had a mind -that all this is just my opinion; maybe us 'idiots', in your opinion, should be humanely 'evacuated' in order to 'cleanse' the gene-pool you clearly find so contemptible given that it appears to you to be corrupted by simpletons with opinions you disagree with...)

Oh and if I may be so bold, would you, or someone of similar intelligence to yourself that you may perhaps be acquainted with, be available to attend my PhD graduation ceremony as I'll be needing someone really clever to help me put the gown on the right way round? I'll give you plenty of notice...

[--------]

but a necessary one. This is far too big a decision for people without the mental capacity to understand the consequences to take.

Democracy does not work - people need to be told what's best for them.


Does your keeper know you've got your hands on a computer?

You're not Tam Dalyell by any chance? :rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

Because that would take another length of time, perhaps with different parties in power in both capitals and add even more debate and wrangling before extended powers can be devolved.

Given that the referendum is almost 3 years away, it makes absolute sense to have 2 questions on the ballot paper, so that we don't waste much of the debate we're having anyway!


Even by your standards your last two contributions on this theme are spectacularly dishonest and misleading.

The reason why Salmond and your fellow separatists don't want a simple yes or no question on independence is because they know they will lose it.

The reason why they want a Devo plus option included is because they hope and expect that by doing so they may split the 'no' vote sufficiently to allow the independence option to come out on top. If they don't manage that they hope that the outcome will be a yes to Devo plus which will a) get them closer to the full independence they desire and b) spare Salmond's blushes on having failed to deliver independence.

Salmond's separatists have no mandate to ask a question on Devo plus - it wasn't in their manifesto. They have a mandate and an obligation to ask the Scottish people whether or not they want independence. It is for the pro-devolution parties to bring forward a proposal on devo plus, win a mandate on that in a democratic election and then present their own referendum.

The notion that holding a subsequent ballot on devo plus would "add even more debate and wrangling before extended powers can be devolved" is hilarious. We've only just got the debate started (it took a Tory Prime Minister in London to force Salmond to actually set a date and start talking about it FFS) and, typically, you want to shut it down. The right to this kind of debate is exactly what Syrians and Libyans are literally dying for. The SNP have been in power for five years already, want to take another three before a referendum and you're arguing that after the eight years it will have taken them to get the finger out there's somehow some reason why the Devo plus possibilities need to be rushed along?

Incidentally Donald Dewar managed to put through legislation and hold a referendum on setting up the Scottish Parliament within one year of coming to power in 1997, so what's Salmond's excuse for taking three times as long in the case of this parliament or eight times as long if you count the full period of time he will have been running Scotland by 2014?

I look forward to your usual weird diet of ignoring the questions, trite insults of all non Nationalists and exclamation mark incontinence all over your reply.

[Beefster]

If the SNP fail to win the referendum, are they finished as a political party or does the 'struggle' continue?

[Eyrie]

I'd expect the SNP to continue as an alternative to Labour, but they will have to campaign on their ability to govern rather than independence. If they lose their referendum, then there will be ten years of relative peace before they start on about another attempt which will be in 15-20 years time.

Should they win their referendum, I'd still expect them to continue. In an ideal scenario the Tories would fold and a new centre right party would form without any baggage which may include some of the SNP right. I don't think anyone would expect such a party to win power any time soon, but it would provide both an alternative to compare with the current centre left consensus and policy based scrutiny of the Labour or SNP government.

[Beefster]

Found this amusing.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/independent-scotland-could-be-exactly-the-same%252c-warn-experts-201201114752/

[Jack]

Found this amusing.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/independent-scotland-could-be-exactly-the-same%252c-warn-experts-201201114752/

Even funnier if it wasn't so true ;-)

[heretoday]

If the SNP fail to win the referendum, are they finished as a political party or does the 'struggle' continue?

And when Salmond goes, do they have anyone with the charisma to keep the thing going? John Swinney anyone? Sturgeon?

It's all down to Salmond.

[--------]

And when Salmond goes, do they have anyone with the charisma to keep the thing going? John Swinney anyone? Sturgeon?

It's all down to Salmond.


That may be - though I don't think a 'no' vote in the referendum means that Alec Salmond would be forced to resign - but a measure of the political realities at Holyrood is the question of how many Scots could name the leaders of the other main parties without googling them or looking them up on the Parliamentary website?

The referendum is about testing the water and allowing people to say what they think, as opposed to the Unionist position of telling us what's good for us and insisting we think the way they want us to.

What's so terrible about asking th electorate what they think?

Unless, of course, you hold the electorate in contempt and don't care what they think ...

[lucky]

When Wee Eck finally trusts the Scottish people to decide our future then it must be a straight yes/no vote. If there is the will to devolve further powers under a Devo Max settlement then that should be a separate referendum. Whoever runs these referendums must be independent and it should take place under the current election rules.

[lucky]

That may be - though I don't think a 'no' vote in the referendum means that Alec Salmond would be forced to resign - but a measure of the political realities at Holyrood is the question of how many Scots could name the leaders of the other main parties without googling them or looking them up on the Parliamentary website?

The referendum is about testing the water and allowing people to say what they think, as opposed to the Unionist position of telling us what's good for us and insisting we think the way they want us to.

What's so terrible about asking th electorate what they think?

Unless, of course, you hold the electorate in contempt and don't care what they think ...

Absolute tosh.

How is the referendum about testing the water? if its yes then we will become separate from the rest of the UK, its final.
If there is nothing terrible about about asking the people why not get on with it? after its the whole point of the existence of the SNP

The contempt is clearly from Wee Eck and his refusal to hold the referendum or answer key points what independence means for Scotland

[Eyrie]

So which party is in favour of Devo Max, and which has worked out a proper set of detailed proposals?

At the moment Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are lined up behind the Scotland Bill, which will be a new law by the time of the referendum, with the SNP, Greens and various Socialist factions backing independence.

Seems to be rather pointless having an option on the ballot paper that no-one is arguing for.

[--------]

Absolute tosh.

How is the referendum about testing the water? if its yes then we will become separate from the rest of the UK, its final.
If there is nothing terrible about about asking the people why not get on with it? after its the whole point of the existence of the SNP

The contempt is clearly from Wee Eck and his refusal to hold the referendum or answer key points what independence means for Scotland


The referendum will NOT automatically mean separation. It will simply mean that the Scottish Government either has or has not a mandate from the Scottish people to begin negotiating a dissolution of the Union. There are two parties to any Treaty and the very details that YOU say you want clarified would be the subject of those negotiations - matters of how the National Debt will be resolved, where exactly the boundary line between the Scottish and English sectors of the North Sea oilfields will lie (according to international law, that is, not according to where David Cameron and his shyster Chancellor think it should be), the question of defence, the question of how quickly the government of the rump of the UK will remove their nuclear weaponry from Scottish waters and so on. I would have thought that a member of a party with such a long experience of government would have realised this, but of course no distortion's too simplistic when you're bad-mouthing your own country, is it?

It's easy seen you're a Labourite - doublethink comes so naturally to you. Before the election you guys were baying for the referendum to be brought forward while promising that it would never get past the vote in Parliament. You seemed to expect the Government to do a sort of kamikaze operation just to satisfy the ineptitude of Messrs Gray, Scott and Goldie. It wasn't the SNP who delayed the referendum - it was the Scottish LabLibTory opposition. Because you had the nasty feeling that Alec Salmond and the SNP might just have got their mandate.

And then you criticise Alec Salmond for not bringing it to Parliament to be voted down by your promised majority - a majority hell-bent on denying the people the opportunity to make their opinion, whatever side of the question that opinion may fall, known. Fine example of democracy - "Bring on the Referendum Bill so we can all get together to vote it down". Where's the contempt exactly? You really think people are THAT stupid that they can't see how those people despise them?

What the electorate thought of your hypocritical shenanigans was made VERY clear in the election - you got your asses well-kicked and now Gray, Scott, and Goldie are no more - replaced by the Faceless Three whose names no one can ever remember. Who exactly are they again?

Now the Westminster Government claims that it would be illegal for the Scottish Government to hold the referendum - that's the Tories and Liberals, backed by the Labour Opposition, all agreed for once in their lives, surprise, surprise. ToryLibLab this time.

Why is the Labour Party lined up with the government? Could it be because they foresee an eternity in opposition without the Scottish Labour MP's? Could it be that Labour's Scottish members foresee the likelihood of their snouts being permanently barred from the rich Westminster trough? Do they really despise their electors that much?

Until the negotiations regarding the dissolution of the Union begin, NO ONE can answer the "key points what independence means for Scotland". (BTW, if you want to be English I suggest you brush up on your English grammar, old boy.) To do so would be to engage in baseless and profitless speculation - which is EXACTLY what the Unionists would start yelling about if Alec Salmond were stupid enough to oblige you. Which of course he isn't. Very far from it.

Why not get on with it? It's very clear to me that the obstacles to "getting on with it" are all coming from the Unionist side - we'll vote you down, it's illegal, we'll cut you off without a penny, we'll grab all the oil, if you really get serious we'll screw you in Brussels. Fine friends to be "united " with they are.

And in case you haven't noticed, a major part of the reason for the existence of the Scottish National Party right now is governing Scotland - something the Scottish electorate clearly didn't trust your lot to do.

Who's guilty of contempt? What about Scottish politicians who have so low an opinion of their fellow-countrymen and women that they refuse to contemplate the possibility that those fellow-countrymen and women are capable of running their own country and forging their own future untrammelled by the shabby machinations of a UK Parliament that has become a by-word for corruption and grasping self-interest, and a government bent on screwing the last drop of blood out of the poorest members of the community while pandering to the self-indulgence of the wealthiest and most powerful? Helped on by the Party of the People remodelled by Blair and Brown into something its founders would repudiate with horror if they were around to see what it's become.

Suppose the referendum returns a resounding 'yes' vote? Do you seriously think the the following day Alec Salmond would have the border posts up, the barbed-wire fences from the Solway to the Tweed, martial law and a unilateral declaration of independence backed by armed force? A 'yes' vote would be the beginning of the process of detachment from one Union while preserving Scotland's place in another - the European Union of which we're part right now and from which there's no reason to think we'd be expelled - unless of course Westminster decided to play rough. But then maybe the Auld Alliance would kick in, and we'd find friends and allies among the other nations of Europe? We might find that the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians and the rest of the EU have a better and higher opinion of what Scotland contributes to the UK, the EU and the world than you do?

All you Unionists are doing by vilifying Alec Salmond and issuing threats is making it very clear that deep down you're scared stiff that your prophecies and prognostications of doom will be shown up to be what they are - scaremongering arising out of a deep, deep contempt for your own people.

[Beefster]

The referendum will NOT automatically mean separation. It will simply mean that the Scottish Government either has or has not a mandate from the Scottish people to begin negotiating a dissolution of the Union. There are two parties to any Treaty and the very details that YOU say you want clarified would be the subject of those negotiations - matters of how the National Debt will be resolved, where exactly the boundary line between the Scottish and English sectors of the North Sea oilfields will lie (according to international law, that is, not according to where David Cameron and his shyster Chancellor think it should be), the question of defence, the question of how quickly the government of the rump of the UK will remove their nuclear weaponry from Scottish waters and so on.

...

All you Unionists are doing by vilifying Alec Salmond and issuing threats is making it very clear that deep down you're scared stiff that your prophecies and prognostications of doom will be shown up to be what they are - scaremongering arising out of a deep, deep contempt for your own people.

So we'll be asked to vote for independence with a worrying amount of questions about the consequences unanswered?

I don't think it's so much about worrying that 'prophecies' are shown up. I'm more worried about the consequences to, primarily, my family and then the nation/prosperity and so on. I see that this whole "ah but if you're against independence then you have a contempt for Scots" seems to be prevalent in the pro-nationalist argument though. That could be flipped by moaning about nationalists dismissing the Scotland's impact and influence on the UK but I'm more interested in debating the actual issues rather than trying to mimic the politicians.

[bighairyfaeleith]

So we'll be asked to vote for independence with a worrying amount of questions about the consequences unanswered?

I don't think it's so much about worrying that 'prophecies' are shown up. I'm more worried about the consequences to, primarily, my family and then the nation/prosperity and so on. I see that this whole "ah but if you're against independence then you have a contempt for Scots" seems to be prevalent in the pro-nationalist argument though. That could be flipped by moaning about nationalists dismissing the Scotland's impact and influence on the UK but I'm more interested in debating the actual issues rather than trying to mimic the politicians.

aah so you want us to enter into a negotiaton with all our cards shown?

Thats smart:rolleyes:

[Beefster]

aah so you want us to enter into a negotiaton with all our cards shown?

Thats smart:rolleyes:

Ah, so you want the Scottish people to make the biggest decision of their lifetimes with all the details missing?

That's smart.

As I've said before "Close your eyes, jump and hope for a soft landing".

Edit: Wait, why are we having to wait 30 odd months for the referendum if we're not going to get any detail?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Ah, so you want the Scottish people to make the biggest decision of their lifetimes with all the details missing?

That's smart.

As I've said before "Close your eyes, jump and hope for a soft landing".

Edit: Wait, why are we having to wait 30 odd months for the referendum if we're not going to get any detail?

nobody is saying you won't get any detail but how can you say this is what will happen before you even negotiate. London is trying to make out that the SNP have to set out there stall prior to a referendum yet London is not doing the same. What will the London governments stand be on

1. Currency - Will they allow us to continue to use sterling
2. Defense - How will the army be split, what will happen to the army bases in scotland, will they all be moved down south even if we are happy to keep them in scotland?
3. RBS - What does the UK government want to do with RBS?

The UK government needs to stop the negativity about how incapable scotland is and start telling us what they plan to do if we vote yes!

[Beefster]

nobody is saying you won't get any detail but how can you say this is what will happen before you even negotiate. London is trying to make out that the SNP have to set out there stall prior to a referendum yet London is not doing the same. What will the London governments stand be on

1. Currency - Will they allow us to continue to use sterling
2. Defense - How will the army be split, what will happen to the army bases in scotland, will they all be moved down south even if we are happy to keep them in scotland?
3. RBS - What does the UK government want to do with RBS?

The UK government needs to stop the negativity about how incapable scotland is and start telling us what they plan to do if we vote yes!

I don't see how these types of things can't be sorted out, in principle, before the referendum.

I think it's unreasonable to be asking the UK government to spell out their stance in the event of independence until the SNP does. It's pointless even putting resources into stuff like working out how a currency union would work (is Scotland happy leaving the B of E to control monetary policy) until the SNP set out their vision of an independent Scotland (e.g. do they want to join the Euro or the Pound). I can see why the SNP would want Westminster to take the first step though ("The English trying to dictate the terms of independence" etc etc etc).

The danger for the SNP is that, outwith those who are currently pro-independence by instinct, few people will vote for it if they're asked to vote for an abstract idea with few details IMO.

My worry is that the debate is going to be more about politics than our future post-independence.

[--------]

So we'll be asked to vote for independence with a worrying amount of questions about the consequences unanswered?

I don't think it's so much about worrying that 'prophecies' are shown up. I'm more worried about the consequences to, primarily, my family and then the nation/prosperity and so on. I see that this whole "ah but if you're against independence then you have a contempt for Scots" seems to be prevalent in the pro-nationalist argument though. That could be flipped by moaning about nationalists dismissing the Scotland's impact and influence on the UK but I'm more interested in debating the actual issues rather than trying to mimic the politicians.


That's not what I said, Beefster. I know that some others do, but the people I had in mind are the politicians in Westminster and Holyrood whose tactics seem to me to be perfectly plainly rooted in self-interest and contempt for the electorate whom they want to vote for them, and a small number of Unionist posters on here who habitually refer to "nationalist fools" and "idiots who vote for independence".

I was responding to the assumption, made by one of those posters, that when the referendum happens and the vote comes through as (say) 51% 'yes' to independence, abracadabra, we'll be independent. No negotiation, no discussion, just gone. Nearly half the Scottish electorate railroaded into something they don't want. That's not going to be the way things proceed, and they know it. But they'll take any stick to beat Alec Salmond and the SNP.

The Union between Scotland and England is based in a Treaty negotiated over several years in the early 18th century. Dissolving that Union would clearly take negotiation (possibly over a number of years, though hopefully less thanks to modern communications) - there absolutely no evidence that Alec Salmond or the rest of his party are contemplating UDI on the lines of Ian Smith and Rhodesia back in the 1960's.

As I see it, for a long time now the SNP has been committed to a gradualist approach to independence. The proposed referendum is part of this. It seems to me simple enough that if a majority (or a sizeable minority - in the 40% range) of Scots voters are opposed to independence, then it would be very difficult for the SNP to force independence through in disregard of their wishes.

But if a sizeable majority were to vote in favour of pursuing separation, then it would seem to me that in a democracy the Scottish Government would have the mandate to go forward and bring the issue before the UK government.

The very fact that as soon as the real possibility of a referendum taking place became real - only 2 years away - the UK government raised the issue of the legality of such a move by the Scottish Government. Well, the question's been around since the SNP formed a government two elections ago, so why has this issue only been raised now?

Bear in mind that the case would be decided in the UK Supreme Court - a Court created in defiance of the fact that one of the issues guaranteed to Scotland in 1707 was the independence of our judiciary. The supreme Scottish Court of Appeal has always been the High Court of Justiciary - but a Labour government in Westminster placed this court above it, between the Scots legal system and the proper Supreme Court of Appeal in the EU, the one in Strasbourg.

And in regard to economics and the consequences for families, in regard to defence issues, citizenship issues, social services, law and order issues, tax codes and education at all levels - can we really look back on the years of Thatcher/Major/Blair/Brown, blue Tories and red Tories blending into some sort of sickly shade of purply-orange Tories under Cameron and Clegg, as years of unerringly wise and compassionate government?

And what went before was arguably worse - Grocer Heath and Uncle Jim Callaghan? How did Scotland REALLY fare in those years?

As a nationalist I'm far from dismissing Scotland's influence on the United Kingdom over the last 400 years.

(TBH, I'm not sure how they rest of the UK would have managed without us. Joke.)

But I wouldn't dismiss the positive influence of the Welsh and Irish either. Nor would I suggest that there weren't benefits for Scotland in the Union throughout the 18th, 19th and much of the 20th centiuries. But we're now part of a much larger, European Union, and I believe it's time for Scots - that is, the people living in Scotland today; I'm not talking ethnic racial purity or anything like that - to re-assess their position in the world and realise that yes, we can make it as equal, independent partners in a wider European union.

Of course the nuts and bolts have to be clarified, but do you seriously think that the present opposition parties in Holyrood are prepared to do that?

Check out some of the posts on this thread from people who are members of those parties. Mature and considered? Hardly. How prepared are those parties to discuss these matters maturely and responsibly?

How far CAN they, when their bosses in Westminster are so opposed to even the mention of the possibility of further devolution of powers to Holyrood, never mind complete autonomy?

Right now it appears to me that the only serious voice Scotland has, either in the UK or in Europe, is the voice of the present Scottish Government. At least when Alec Salmond or one of his ministers goes to Brussels for meetings on fisheries or energy or whatever we can give credence to the idea that they represent Scotland and the interests of the people who live here. Representatives from Westminster may say they're there to fight Scotland's corner, but how often do they trade off our interests to get a benefit for the folks south of the border - they don't rock the boat on fishing quotas and France and Germany don't take a hard line on our relationship to the Eurozone? You might very possibly think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

There have been referenda on similar topics in other European countries - Norway on the question of entering the EU comes to mind. (I seem to recall that the ever-so democratic UK government didn't allow the UK electorate the option of such a consultation. We were just bounced in regardless of the sort of concerns you mention.) Typically the date for the referendum is fixed, the practicalities of organising the vote are addressed, and the two sides of the question line up and start the argument. You have a 'yes' campaign, and a 'no' campaign. Those campaigns have wide media coverage - newspapers, TV, Internet, whatever. That's when the nuts and bolts that concern us all get thrashed out. And THEN the people vote,after the issues have been fully debated.

That's how it's happened in Norway, in Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe. So why not here? Not part of our traditional political culture? That's the same as saying, "Well, we've never done it THAT way before!" Well, why not do it that way now?

The matter of holding the referendum in the first place - do we ask the people the question? - comes first.

The very fact that the Scottish electorate returned an SNP government in full knowledge that the SNP are a Nationalist, seperatist party, and always have been - and gave that government an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament in spite of a voting system heavily weighted to prevent any party ever achieving that absolute majority - seems to me to be at least a starting-place from which to approach a referendum on the question of Scotland's position in the UK, in Europe, and in the world.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't see how these types of things can't be sorted out, in principle, before the referendum.

I think it's unreasonable to be asking the UK government to spell out their stance in the event of independence until the SNP does. It's pointless even putting resources into stuff like working out how a currency union would work (is Scotland happy leaving the B of E to control monetary policy) until the SNP set out their vision of an independent Scotland (e.g. do they want to join the Euro or the Pound). I can see why the SNP would want Westminster to take the first step though ("The English trying to dictate the terms of independence" etc etc etc).

The danger for the SNP is that, outwith those who are currently pro-independence by instinct, few people will vote for it if they're asked to vote for an abstract idea with few details IMO.

My worry is that the debate is going to be more about politics than our future post-independence.

I agree, but thats what London is expecting the SNP to do, how can we vote if we only have the story from one side, assuming the SNP tell everyone prior to the referendum?

London can't have it all ways.

[ancienthibby]

Even by your standards your last two contributions on this theme are spectacularly dishonest and misleading.

The reason why Salmond and your fellow separatists don't want a simple yes or no question on independence is because they know they will lose it.

The reason why they want a Devo plus option included is because they hope and expect that by doing so they may split the 'no' vote sufficiently to allow the independence option to come out on top. If they don't manage that they hope that the outcome will be a yes to Devo plus which will a) get them closer to the full independence they desire and b) spare Salmond's blushes on having failed to deliver independence.

Salmond's separatists have no mandate to ask a question on Devo plus - it wasn't in their manifesto. They have a mandate and an obligation to ask the Scottish people whether or not they want independence. It is for the pro-devolution parties to bring forward a proposal on devo plus, win a mandate on that in a democratic election and then present their own referendum.

The notion that holding a subsequent ballot on devo plus would "add even more debate and wrangling before extended powers can be devolved" is hilarious. We've only just got the debate started (it took a Tory Prime Minister in London to force Salmond to actually set a date and start talking about it FFS) and, typically, you want to shut it down. The right to this kind of debate is exactly what Syrians and Libyans are literally dying for. The SNP have been in power for five years already, want to take another three before a referendum and you're arguing that after the eight years it will have taken them to get the finger out there's somehow some reason why the Devo plus possibilities need to be rushed along?

Incidentally Donald Dewar managed to put through legislation and hold a referendum on setting up the Scottish Parliament within one year of coming to power in 1997, so what's Salmond's excuse for taking three times as long in the case of this parliament or eight times as long if you count the full period of time he will have been running Scotland by 2014?

I look forward to your usual weird diet of ignoring the questions, trite insults of all non Nationalists and exclamation mark incontinence all over your reply.

You have really lost the plot when you try and compare the independence/referendum debate in Scotland with the position of the Syrians and Libyans.

And you tap that very selective Labour Party memory bank which fails to recognise that devolution under the late Donald Dewar was made only as a sop to try and keep the rising tide of support for the SNP in a box. And boy was that a spectacular failure, as was the now infamous comment by George Robertson that 'devolution would kill the Nats stone dead'.

So much of your post shows up your fundamental lack of understanding that the people of Scotland have left the Labour Party behind and every day, some hapless Labourite just adds to that gap.

Witness the recent leadership contest with three candidates - you could not make one decent candidate out of the lot. And now over the weekend, we have one failed candidate in the person of Tom Harris signing his own political deathnote with his offensive and hapless video about the First Minister.

Witness the Dave and Ed love-in with the lemmings of the Labour Party rushing to support Westminster over Scotland, by jumping into bed with the so-called 'toxic' Tories. Toxic is now a word that can be applied to the Labour Party in Scotland.

Witness all the false bravado about Joan McAlpine's comments about LP politicians being anti-Scottish. She is right, of course, as she made it clear she was not speaking about anyone personally, but in their roles as politicians which, in voting with the Toxic Tories, was utterly shameless.

Witness the antics of Sarwar on Beeb radio last week, acting the weegie hardman trying to take a wee lassie on for a fight.

The people of Scotland have left, and are leaving, the hapless Labour Party behind. The LP has missed its chance to lead the 'devo-max/ffa' position. I believe there is sufficient demand for consideration of that option, that the debate over the next 2 years, will see that option firmly on the ballot paper, as it should be.

[RyeSloan]

I agree, but thats what London is expecting the SNP to do, how can we vote if we only have the story from one side, assuming the SNP tell everyone prior to the referendum?

London can't have it all ways.

London? There is plenty of Scots wanting some answers as well!!

Since this is an SNP policy and the main reason they exist I think it's quite fair and reasonable for them to at least outline what they mean by Independence before they ask the nation to vote on it.

For example I see no reasons why they could not put together a draft budget based on certain assumptions and outline their policy approach to the extra powers that would be gained.

Is that really too much to ask?

[bighairyfaeleith]

London? There is plenty of Scots wanting some answers as well!!

Since this is an SNP policy and the main reason they exist I think it's quite fair and reasonable for them to at least outline what they mean by Independence before they ask the nation to vote on it.

For example I see no reasons why they could not put together a draft budget based on certain assumptions and outline their policy approach to the extra powers that would be gained.

Is that really too much to ask?

But we shouldn't ask London how they are going to deal with a scotland that wants to be independant?

[Dashing Bob S]

If we want it, we'll have it, if we don't, we won't. Simple as that. It's got nothing to do with 'London' or anybody else.

Of course there would be operational/technical issues to be resolved, but that's no reason for not doing it if we want to, life is full of inconveniences and hassles, and these will crop up whether we stay in the union/Europe etc or not.

[Beefster]

But we shouldn't ask London how they are going to deal with a scotland that wants to be independant?

Yes, but how can they respond to that before they're informed what they're being asked to deal with?

The SNP are instigating this - they must have some idea of how they would like things to be?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Yes, but how can they respond to that before they're informed what they're being asked to deal with?

The SNP are instigating this - they must have some idea of how they would like things to be?

yes and I'm sure they do, but are you trying to tell me the UK government has no plans on how intends to negotiate yet over key items like defense, sterling etc

The british government seem to think the answer is to keep telling scotland how it won't survive on it's own but never backs it up with any real facts, well I want facts from them. i want to know how much of our oil osbourne wants to grab, I want to know how much debt osbourne wants to saddle us. These are not SNP questions, these are questions for the UK government.

Of course the SNP will have there postion going into the negotiation but so will the UK government, so if the SNP must declare then so must the UK government. It's pretty simple stuff really.

[ancienthibby]

yes and I'm sure they do, but are you trying to tell me the UK government has no plans on how intends to negotiate yet over key items like defense, sterling etc

The british government seem to think the answer is to keep telling scotland how it won't survive on it's own but never backs it up with any real facts, well I want facts from them. i want to know how much of our oil osbourne wants to grab, I want to know how much debt osbourne wants to saddle us. These are not SNP questions, these are questions for the UK government.

Of course the SNP will have there postion going into the negotiation but so will the UK government, so if the SNP must declare then so must the UK government. It's pretty simple stuff really.

BHFL and Mr Beefster,

The SNP are publishing a consultative document on 25 January, a week from Wednesday. Many questions will be answered then, I've nae doot!

[Beefster]

yes and I'm sure they do, but are you trying to tell me the UK government has no plans on how intends to negotiate yet over key items like defense, sterling etc

The british government seem to think the answer is to keep telling scotland how it won't survive on it's own but never backs it up with any real facts, well I want facts from them. i want to know how much of our oil osbourne wants to grab, I want to know how much debt osbourne wants to saddle us. These are not SNP questions, these are questions for the UK government.

Of course the SNP will have there postion going into the negotiation but so will the UK government, so if the SNP must declare then so must the UK government. It's pretty simple stuff really.

Yup and I haven't been saying that the UK government shouldn't or won't lay out their position.

[Phil D. Rolls]

A taxi driver in Portugal was asking me about our relations with England, last week. I asked how he felt about Spain. He said they are good neighbours - I was actually impressed by the respect and friendliness he held towards Spanish people.

I said we are not good neighbours yet, but we will be. There is a whole lot of stuff to be divided up. Just now the English are being led to believe that we owe everything to them. On the other hand, we haven't spelled o(at one timeut exactly what we have given to the Union: soldiers, oil, (at one time an educated population).

It seems to me there is a battle on,and it is no longer about preserving the Union, rather for each side to get the best deal for them. Dave clearly wants us to go, as he is doing all he can to wind us up. Fair play, the English are very good at bigging themselves up, but they suffer under a delusion that they are better than they are.

It's time for us to look at ourselves and see whether making a go on our own is any worse than being whingers hanging on a fading power's coat tails.

Easier said than done, because we do like a good moan. Being abroad it seems to me that's all Scottish people can do.

[--------]

BHFL and Mr Beefster,

The SNP are publishing a consultative document on 25 January, a week from Wednesday. Many questions will be answered then, I've nae doot!


What a very appropriate date - the anniversary of the birth of one of the most gifted and generally awesome Scotsmen in history.


:devil:

[greenlex]

What a very appropriate date - the anniversary of the birth of one of the most gifted and generally awesome Scotsmen in history.


:devil:
Happy Birthday Doddie.............. oops sorry a bit early but all the best when it comes. :agree:

[--------]

Happy Birthday Doddie.............. oops sorry a bit early but all the best when it comes. :agree:


Thank you, kind sir.


All I want for birthday is a SCOTTISH passport .... :greengrin

[Beefster]

Thank you, kind sir.


All I want for birthday is a SCOTTISH passport .... :greengrin

Your wish is my command.

http://www.goplanetgo.com/sc_images/products/605_large_image.jpg

[bighairyfaeleith]

Your wish is my command.

http://www.goplanetgo.com/sc_images/products/605_large_image.jpg

quite fetching that:greengrin

[--------]

Your wish is my command.

http://www.goplanetgo.com/sc_images/products/605_large_image.jpg

Thanks, Beefster, but I'd like a real one, the right colour - a nice sky blue. Lion Rampant's nice, though - always was fond of the family crest.

[Beefster]

Right, after a wee debate on the main board, can anyone answer either/both of these questions please? They've been asked before but apparently the question keeps changing (maybe I've used 'better' and 'improved' interchangeably, I dunno).

- How will Scotland be better post-independence?

- How will Scotland be more just and fair post-independence?

No woolly stuff about confidence, maturity or whatever. Hard, simple details.

[Eyrie]

Right, after a wee debate on the main board, can anyone answer either/both of these questions please? They've been asked before but apparently the question keeps changing (maybe I've used 'better' and 'improved' interchangeably, I dunno).

- How will Scotland be better post-independence?

- How will Scotland be more just and fair post-independence?

No woolly stuff about confidence, maturity or whatever. Hard, simple details.
And I can I add that independence rather than a change of party should be the difference maker. If it's simply the respondent's belief that an independent Scotland will find it easier to pursue socialist/capitalist policies (delete according to preference) then those policies could be implemented by voting the right party into power in Westminster.

[Westie1875]

aah so you want us to enter into a negotiaton with all our cards shown?

Thats smart:rolleyes:

How can you expect people to make a decision on independence without knowing what the consequences will be?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Right, after a wee debate on the main board, can anyone answer either/both of these questions please? They've been asked before but apparently the question keeps changing (maybe I've used 'better' and 'improved' interchangeably, I dunno).

- How will Scotland be better post-independence?

- How will Scotland be more just and fair post-independence?

No woolly stuff about confidence, maturity or whatever. Hard, simple details.

So we can only answer if the answer meets your criteria?

[bighairyfaeleith]

How can you expect people to make a decision on independence without knowing what the consequences will be?

How can anyone know what all the consequences will be before you negotiate with the other party?

I am sure we will get lits of info before the vote on what the snp's approach will be but what we get will also depend on what England wants as well so we also need cameron and osbourne to declare there intentions as well if we are to make an informed choice.

[Beefster]

So we can only answer if the answer meets your criteria?

I'm not going to get an answer, am I?

[Eyrie]

How can anyone know what all the consequences will be before you negotiate with the other party?

I am sure we will get lits of info before the vote on what the snp's approach will be but what we get will also depend on what England wants as well so we also need cameron and osbourne to declare there intentions as well if we are to make an informed choice.
Cameron and his unionist buddies have already declared that they will be arguing that it is in Scotland's interests to continue the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's up to those in favour of change to explain the advantages and how we will cope with the disadvantages.

[Hibrandenburg]

Right, aw well, that'll be me off to my weekly workshop in fingernail chewing, velcro shoe-strap fastening and drooling-control then.

Last time I was tested I had an IQ of 151 (just a statement of fact in response to your spectacularly ignorant sweeping generalisation - not a boast, its no that big a deal really), have just completed a joint honours MA at a globally recognised 1st class university and considered by my peers and pals as being both street smart and book smart.

One of the main reasons I enjoy participating on this forum is that there are many interesting and obviously highly intelligent posters with a wide variety of views, opinions and debating styles and expertise in various fields - obviously none, however, as highly gifted as someone who glibly refers to opponents of their opinions as 'idiots'; that stellar level of blinding insight and acumen on every topic of interest and immeasurably bloated faculties of erudition, logic and overall genius is beyond the ken of us humble, flawed and obviously catatonically imbecilic morons (or 'normal punters who err and fail sometimes' in plain language).

And for the record, while I may not agree with anyone who chooses to vote 'No' in this impending referendum, I would never deem myself so ignorant or indeed bereft of cognisant and linear thought to refer to them as 'idiots'.

But clearly, whilst pacing the floors of your Palace of Perspicacity built on your intellectually aloof high-ground (which I assume is a very lonely place for your meta-clever self) I suppose to your intellectually enlightened self, I, like so many other dullards am merely a card-carrying, windae-lickin, half-wit claiming 'no right money' fi the DWP.

Well, thanks awfully for your weighty and thought-provoking contribution, and of course your condescending, myopically injudicious sloganeering. Being a bit thick, I suppose I'll have to live with being subordinate to such an awe inspiring dialectic genius, (but I am mindful - or would have pretensions to be if indeed I had a mind -that all this is just my opinion; maybe us 'idiots', in your opinion, should be humanely 'evacuated' in order to 'cleanse' the gene-pool you clearly find so contemptible given that it appears to you to be corrupted by simpletons with opinions you disagree with...)

Oh and if I may be so bold, would you, or someone of similar intelligence to yourself that you may perhaps be acquainted with, be available to attend my PhD graduation ceremony as I'll be needing someone really clever to help me put the gown on the right way round? I'll give you plenty of notice...

4FS kin u no right so thit wi kin awe understand?

[lucky]

Cameron and his unionist buddies have already declared that they will be arguing that it is in Scotland's interests to continue the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's up to those in favour of change to explain the advantages and how we will cope with the disadvantages.

It's for the separatist to tell us how the New Scotland will look. We all know what the UK has to offer, good or bad

[bighairyfaeleith]

Cameron and his unionist buddies have already declared that they will be arguing that it is in Scotland's interests to continue the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's up to those in favour of change to explain the advantages and how we will cope with the disadvantages.

Really so you don't want to know how much of scotlands oil cameron wants to take if we split?

You don't want to know how much of the countries debt cameron wants to give us if we split?

You don't care how much he charges us for cleaning up his own nuclear mess in our country?

You really think we shouldn't be asking the unionists for answers on these and many more questions.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not going to get an answer, am I?

Perhaps you would if you didn't try and set the terms of the question all the time.

[Jack]

Right, after a wee debate on the main board, can anyone answer either/both of these questions please? They've been asked before but apparently the question keeps changing (maybe I've used 'better' and 'improved' interchangeably, I dunno).

- How will Scotland be better post-independence?

- How will Scotland be more just and fair post-independence?

No woolly stuff about confidence, maturity or whatever. Hard, simple details.

Without being either nationalist or unionist would it not be better in a democratic country to be governed by the party who gained most seats/votes rather than being governed by a government elected by the voters of the country next door?

Or is that perhaps too simple a concept?

Or to turn the whole thing on its head. If Scotland was an independent country would we seek to become part of the Union?

[JeMeSouviens]

Right, after a wee debate on the main board, can anyone answer either/both of these questions please? They've been asked before but apparently the question keeps changing (maybe I've used 'better' and 'improved' interchangeably, I dunno).

- How will Scotland be better post-independence?

- How will Scotland be more just and fair post-independence?

No woolly stuff about confidence, maturity or whatever. Hard, simple details.

If you mean in terms of hard, financial figures then nobody can answer that. I don't think there are fundamental inbuilt reasons why either Scotland or the UK should be better or worse off. Each has the potential to be well run and flourish, each has the potential to be completely ****ed up.

For me, we will be better, more just and fair because we will have more sovereignty. In 1707 we made a deal with England. We traded all our sovereignty for access to their market. When that market turned into an empire it seemed like a good deal. Now, that empire has dwindled away and, in any case, we can be independent but stay inside the European single market. We don't get all our sovereignty back, as the UK has swapped some of it for access to Europe, essentially a similar deal to the one we made, but on better terms.

The bottom line is whether or not you think Scotland is a country that should take its own decisions or a region of a larger country and that that larger country should take them instead.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's for the separatist to tell us how the New Scotland will look. We all know what the UK has to offer, good or bad

This is pish. Did anyone in the 70s know that the UK would elect a hard line monetarist government that would deliberately allow manufacturing industry to fail in order to move to a service based economy with a more flexible (or desperate, if you prefer) workforce? That high unemployment and millions brought up outside a working culture altogether would be the norm? Nobody knows what UK governments will do in the future any more than they know what hypothetical Scottish governments would do.

[The_Exile]

There are loads of good points for going it alone, and there are loads of good points for staying within the union, what we need is a lengthy PUBLIC debate on every issue that would face us, only then can anyone make an informed choice, for that reason I voted undecided.

[Dashing Bob S]

There are loads of good points for going it alone, and there are loads of good points for staying within the union, what we need is a lengthy PUBLIC debate on every issue that would face us, only then can anyone make an informed choice, for that reason I voted undecided.

Best post I've read on this. There are so many strong arguments for and against on an emotional, cultural, spiritual, political and economic level. I'm pro independence but would be happy to see a Scotland as a dynamic player in an inclusive, democratic and forward looking United Kingdom, but I can't see the current mess of a country ever turning itself into that.

[RyeSloan]

This is pish. Did anyone in the 70s know that the UK would elect a hard line monetarist government that would deliberately allow manufacturing industry to fail in order to move to a service based economy with a more flexible (or desperate, if you prefer) workforce? That high unemployment and millions brought up outside a working culture altogether would be the norm? Nobody knows what UK governments will do in the future any more than they know what hypothetical Scottish governments would do.

"hard line monetarist government that would deliberately allow manufacturing industry to fail"

Seriously....so it was the UK government’s monetary policy that made manufacturing fail in the UK and nothing what so ever to do with the global market forces?!?

The fact is the SNP are proposing a massive change to Scotland yet seem unable or unwilling to outline why that change would be beneficial and how that change would impact the nations citizens...the rather pathetic response that "Cameron hasn't clarified how much oil we would get to keep" is just that, pathetic. The onus must be on the proposer of change to put forward their case as to why change is required and what the impacts of that change may be. Sure it could be based on a number of assumptions but at least then we would have an idea of the outcome based on those assumptions and be able to critically assess if we like those outcomes and how sensible their assumptions are.

Let's start with a pretty fundamental tenet of Salmonds independence..monetary union with the remaining countries of the UK. Will Mr Salmond, the SNP or any supporter of independence please try and explain how monetary union with newly separate and independent fiscal policies within it will not lead to exactly the same problem as we see with the Euro.

[Beefster]

Perhaps you would if you didn't try and set the terms of the question all the time.

I'm trying to get concrete information that I can use to make the best decision for my family and myself. I didn't think that was a crime, tbh.

[Leicester Fan]

You don't care how much he charges us for cleaning up his own nuclear mess in our country?



I'd just like to point out that any nuclear mess doesn't exclusively belong to England, David Cameron or the conservative party.

[Killiehibbie]

Until the SNP can confirm the details i'm undecided. To vote for independence on what they've told us so far would be like backing Hibs to win, a hopeful punt based on very little substance.

[steakbake]

I'd just like to point out that any nuclear mess doesn't exclusively belong to England, David Cameron or the conservative party.

Im Scotland will sort Westminster out with 10% of the usual costs to transport them to Aldermaston.

[ancienthibby]

Until the SNP can confirm the details i'm undecided. To vote for independence on what they've told us so far would be like backing Hibs to win, a hopeful punt based on very little substance.

If it's not in your soul man, it's not for you!!:aok:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm trying to get concrete information that I can use to make the best decision for my family and myself. I didn't think that was a crime, tbh.

Right so you are trying to get concrete information about scottish independance on a hibs forum

Best of luck with that!!

[Eyrie]

You really think we shouldn't be asking the unionists for answers on these and many more questions.
I really think that the unionists aren't dumb enough to discuss what they will do in the event that they lose the referendum on the basis that they believe they will win the referendum and keep Scotland in the UK.


Without being either nationalist or unionist would it not be better in a democratic country to be governed by the party who gained most seats/votes rather than being governed by a government elected by the voters of the country next door?
Where do we draw the line? How wealthy would Shetland be if it decided to declare independence from Scotland?


Or to turn the whole thing on its head. If Scotland was an independent country would we seek to become part of the Union?
Hate to be awkward, but that is exactly what the SNP propose we do. It's just that rather than being in a political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland they'd like us to be in a currency union instead. And their end game is currency union with Europe, which means a loss of national sovereignty as the Greeks found out.

[Jack]

Good points, I don't know.

[JeMeSouviens]

"hard line monetarist government that would deliberately allow manufacturing industry to fail"

Seriously....so it was the UK government’s monetary policy that made manufacturing fail in the UK and nothing what so ever to do with the global market forces?!?


That's not what I said. :wink: The same global market forces were surely at work in Germany, Switzerland, etc, etc however. The Tories were faced with a big chunk of industry in desperate need of modernisation (my take on the reasons: decades of underinvestment, union intransigence and knee jerk reaction against any modernisation of working practices and just rank bad management). They chose to let it fail instead, and you can't deny that their monetarist economic policy was one of the main factors in that decision.



Let's start with a pretty fundamental tenet of Salmonds independence..monetary union with the remaining countries of the UK. Will Mr Salmond, the SNP or any supporter of independence please try and explain how monetary union with newly separate and independent fiscal policies within it will not lead to exactly the same problem as we see with the Euro.

Well for one thing, the constraints imposed by following the pound are a hell of a lot less restrictive than trying to stay with the Greater Deutsche mark. :wink: But yes, our fiscal policy would be constrained. Personally, I'd rather have the ability to make my own decisions within constraints than have someone else make them for me entirely. YMMV.

[JeMeSouviens]

I really think that the unionists aren't dumb enough to discuss what they will do in the event that they lose the referendum on the basis that they believe they will win the referendum and keep Scotland in the UK.


They are dropping dark hints all over the place about what they could do, mostly without explaining how. Keeping us out of the pound, stop us breaking up the armed forces, stop us joining the EU, etc. etc.



Where do we draw the line? How wealthy would Shetland be if it decided to declare independence from Scotland?


Very. Shetland didn't enter a political union with Scotland like Scotland did with England. Interesting question how Scotland would respond to a clear expression of Shetland independence though!



Hate to be awkward, but that is exactly what the SNP propose we do. It's just that rather than being in a political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland they'd like us to be in a currency union instead. And their end game is currency union with Europe, which means a loss of national sovereignty as the Greeks found out.

We currently have zero national sovereignty to lose. We gave it all up to gain access to the English trading empire. Now we can have that access + the rest of the European market on the same partial sovereignty loss as the other EU members. Seems like a much better deal to me.

[RyeSloan]

That's not what I said. :wink: The same global market forces were surely at work in Germany, Switzerland, etc, etc however. The Tories were faced with a big chunk of industry in desperate need of modernisation (my take on the reasons: decades of underinvestment, union intransigence and knee jerk reaction against any modernisation of working practices and just rank bad management). They chose to let it fail instead, and you can't deny that their monetarist economic policy was one of the main factors in that decision.

Thanks for the reply and I know this is a bit off topic but despite all the reasons you have stated for the chronic under competitiveness of British industry you come to the conclusion that it was the Tories that let the industry die? Sorry still not getting that...how does a monetarist economic policy cause specific industries to fail and how do you get to the conclusion that it was the Tories fault? Could it not be suggested that it was actually the lack of an effective monetarist policy that was one of the main reasons Britain suffered so much in the 70's?


Well for one thing, the constraints imposed by following the pound are a hell of a lot less restrictive than trying to stay with the Greater Deutsche mark. :wink: But yes, our fiscal policy would be constrained. Personally, I'd rather have the ability to make my own decisions within constraints than have someone else make them for me entirely. YMMV.

But can you really make your own decisions within a monetary union? The Euro zone issues would appear to say otherwise. While on the face of it we may be able to make our own decisions our fate within that union will still be explicitly tied to the other countries within it. The cost of borrowing, the level of interest rates and the ability to control money supply will be completely outwith our control so what 'own decision' will we actually be able to make? Also who's to say Scotland might be very frugal while England does a Greece..we end up in a worse situation than now while having absolutelty no control over our monetary union members actions what so ever.

I'm not saying there might not be some answers to all of these issues but I sure as hell ain't seen any coming out of Salmonds mouth.




We currently have zero national sovereignty to lose. We gave it all up to gain access to the English trading empire. Now we can have that access + the rest of the European market on the same partial sovereignty loss as the other EU members. Seems like a much better deal to me.

Well at least you are brave enough to admit it. Independence is a misnomer...it's a move to replace one political union with another slightly less onerous (currently) but substantially less democratic one, add in the restrictions placed on Scotland via it's monetary union with our previous political union partners and really what's left? Nothing that resembles the traditional description of Independence that's for sure!

Surely we have to stop and ask if what's left going to be worth the substantial upheaval and risk...at this point I've seen nothing that convinces me that there will be and nothing that wouldn't largely be gained through a much less onerous and lower risk approach of Devo Max.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thanks for the reply and I know this is a bit off topic but despite all the reasons you have stated for the chronic under competitiveness of British industry you come to the conclusion that it was the Tories that let the industry die? Sorry still not getting that...how does a monetarist economic policy cause specific industries to fail and how do you get to the conclusion that it was the Tories fault? Could it not be suggested that it was actually the lack of an effective monetarist policy that was one of the main reasons Britain suffered so much in the 70's?


I shall reply with a crap analogy. You come upon a man having a heart attack. You know that he brought this upon himself through years of booze and fags. You also know he has a large family depending on him. He requires expensive emergency treatment and you are a bit skint yourself. The Tory answer was to give him a swift boot to finish him off. Labour would probably have treated him and sent him back to the pub. A good answer might have been to treat him and put him in rehab.

Anyway, as you say, off topic. It is relevant though in so far as it illustrates that dramatic changes in UK policy not necessarily endorsed by the Scottish electorate can have direct and far reaching consequences that might be most keenly felt in Scotland (or at least as keenly felt as anywhere). Staying in the Union has risks as well.




But can you really make your own decisions within a monetary union? The Euro zone issues would appear to say otherwise. While on the face of it we may be able to make our own decisions our fate within that union will still be explicitly tied to the other countries within it. The cost of borrowing, the level of interest rates and the ability to control money supply will be completely outwith our control so what 'own decision' will we actually be able to make? Also who's to say Scotland might be very frugal while England does a Greece..we end up in a worse situation than now while having absolutelty no control over our monetary union members actions what so ever.


I think you have a point but are overstating it. There are many possible combinations of tax and spend that get you to the same level of deficit. At the moment we have partial control of spending and almost no control of taxation. An unbalanced, almost impotent and unsustainable position imo.



I'm not saying there might not be some answers to all of these issues but I sure as hell ain't seen any coming out of Salmonds mouth.


Is he being asked the right questions and being given a platform to answer these questions though? Most of the coverage at the moment is nine day wonder media froth, particularly while the focus of the London media is temporarily diverted here. Over such a long campaign the arguments must surely be heard. There is no hiding place for either side. Actually I think this is one of the SNP's reasons for playing such a long game. It is harder for the Unionists to spring scare story surprises when the nationalists have plenty of time to put the counter arguments.

[lucky]

Nothing for any non separatist to say because its the status quo that they are proposing. But I'm amazed the separatists have not answered how the new Scotland will look.

[allmodcons]

Nothing for any non separatist to say because its the status quo that they are proposing. But I'm amazed the separatists have not answered how the new Scotland will look.


You're asking someone to write a dissertation on a fans forum!

If you really want to take off those blinkers follow this link and read the book that's being reviewed. It'll give you a good grounding on something I can tell
you're desperate to learn more about.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04/08/book-review-a-nation-again-why-independence-will-be-good-for-scotland-and-england-too-edited-by-paul-henderson-scott/

Sorry, but I couldn't resist adding this quote.

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly.”

[lucky]

Never asked for a dissertation to be written but a few simple answers to the questions raised on this fans forum. You and your separatists colleagues are asking the people of Scotland to vote to separate but refuse to answer basic questions on the subject.

[allmodcons]

Never asked for a dissertation to be written but a few simple answers to the questions raised on this fans forum. You and your separatists colleagues are asking the people of Scotland to vote to separate but refuse to answer basic questions on the subject.

Read the book, you'll get more than a 'basic' understanding. These academic types can explain it much better than me.
If you can't be arsed reading about the other side of the argument for yourself, I would suggest that says more about you than you realise.

[ancienthibby]

Never asked for a dissertation to be written but a few simple answers to the questions raised on this fans forum. You and your separatists colleagues are asking the people of Scotland to vote to separate but refuse to answer basic questions on the subject.

Thanks to amc's post I have now ordered PH Scott's book.

I would recommended anything he writes as worthwhile reading, although he is now 'well ancient' but he has been a diplomat abroad, a lifelong supporter of Scottish Independence, and a 'bonny fechter'!

Spend the £8 - you will benefit enormously, I've no doubt!

[Pete]

I'm trying to get concrete information that I can use to make the best decision for my family and myself. I didn't think that was a crime, tbh.

Far from being a crime, I think your post captures the mood of the majority of voters in Scotland and the whole of the UK.

Things like national identity are irrelevant in times like this. People are fighting to keep their heads above water and I will vote with whoever presents the best policies and gives me the most for the least outlay.... financially.

Personally I think luxuries like independence can be discussed at a later date. Right now the tried and tested methods of the Union shouldn't be meddled with. It might be a safety in numbers mentality but the key word is safety. Flags don't pay my mortgage.

Referendums on Scottish Independence or on Europe are the last thing on my mind right now.

What people want is stability and certainty and I think the SNP should can it until the economic situation improves. If they don't and press ahead it will prove to me they are all about ego's and will almost certainly lose my vote on that basis alone.

[Beefster]

Far from being a crime, I think your post captures the mood of the majority of voters in Scotland and the whole of the UK.

Things like national identity are irrelevant in times like this. People are fighting to keep their heads above water and I will vote with whoever presents the best policies and gives me the most for the least outlay.... financially.

Personally I think luxuries like independence can be discussed at a later date. Right now the tried and tested methods of the Union shouldn't be meddled with. It might be a safety in numbers mentality but the key word is safety. Flags don't pay my mortgage.

Referendums on Scottish Independence or on Europe are the last thing on my mind right now.

What people want is stability and certainty and I think the SNP should can it until the economic situation improves. If they don't and press ahead it will prove to me they are all about ego's and will almost certainly lose my vote on that basis alone.

Thanks. You've articulated my views far better than I can. That's exactly where I am.

[Hibbyradge]

Without being either nationalist or unionist would it not be better in a democratic country to be governed by the party who gained most seats/votes rather than being governed by a government elected by the voters of the country next door?




Next door and in Scotland and in Wales and in Northern Ireland.




Or to turn the whole thing on its head. If Scotland was an independent country would we seek to become part of the Union?

Yes.

I'm absolutely certain there would be a political movement trying to take us into a union with the other 3 constituent countries.

They would be trying to persuade people to their view by expounding the benefits.

Unlike what the nationalists currently seem to be able to do.

[Lost_Mackem]

As a proud Englishman I thought I would give my views here, please refrain from abuse!

I'm split on this, do I want Scotland to be independent? Part of me says yes because I long for the day when there is a return of a sense of an English national identity down here, I'm really quite jealous of you in that department because the Scottish national identity is quite strong. Down here, it just seems like too many people don't give a **** anymore. You have people from the north of England hating people from the south and vice versa, me being from the north east I probably have more in common with you Scots than I do with my own countrymen who are from Eton, Cambridge etc...

At the end of the day I'm from a working class background, my grandfather worked down the pit for 30 years, he'd be up every morning at 07:00 coughing his guts up with the damage working down there did to his lungs and body. A staunch labour supporter, he was a proud man up until his death from cancer in 2006, can anyone tell me what that man who spent most of his life in the Durham coalfield struggling to make enough money to keep his family from going hungry has in common with the likes of David Cameron?

And thats one reason I don't want Scottish independence, without the Scottish voting Labour, the Tories will be in power forever and a day down here.

Some people on here might hate the English, they might hate the idea of being British. But people must remember that English and Scottish soldiers stood side by side in two world wars, we fought, laughed, cried and bled beside each other in wars and battles far bigger and far more important than the likes of Bannockburn or Culloden. Surely that means something?

Its a lot to think about and I'm just glad that I don't have to make up my mind and actually vote on it!

[Jack]

I put this up on another thread but its a useful read for this one too.

www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound

[Hibrandenburg]

I put this up on another thread but its a useful read for this one too.

www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound

Interesting. Been bleeding us dry for centuries and keeping the books under lock and key.

[Beefster]

I put this up on another thread but its a useful read for this one too.

www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/4235-would-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound

No offence but, without reference to the actual stats, that article is no better than one of those "9/11 was the CIA" type posts on a conspiracy theory website. I did a quick search for the letter from the Commons that he refers to and the only references to it (as far as Google are aware) are from nationalists posting comments online. A self-perpetuating myth?

If the case for us being better off is out there in black and white, why don't the SNP publish it?

[allmodcons]

No offence but, without reference to the actual stats, that article is no better than one of those "9/11 was the CIA" type posts on a conspiracy theory website. I did a quick search for the letter from the Commons that he refers to and the only references to it (as far as Google are aware) are from nationalists posting comments online. A self-perpetuating myth?

If the case for us being better off is out there in black and white, why don't the SNP publish it?


There's lots of literature in the public domain that makes a good case for Scotland going it alone as an Independent country. Bottom line is you as an individual are not interested in reading it (i.e. - your mind is made up on matter regardless of what is put in front of you). The SNP's biggest challenge is going to be in persuading those without blinkers to vote Yes in the referendum and to be honest trying to convince dyed in the wool Unionists to change their mind won't be very high on the SNP agenda.

I've already posted this link earlier in the thread.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/04/08/book-review-a-nation-again-why-independence-will-be-good-for-scotland-and-england-too-edited-by-paul-henderson-scott/

The book under review is a short, concise read outlining the merits of an Independent Scotland. It will not sway you, but the case made in the book is typical of the arguments the SNP will have to convey to the wider electorate if they are to secure a Yes vote.

[One Day Soon]

No offence but, without reference to the actual stats, that article is no better than one of those "9/11 was the CIA" type posts on a conspiracy theory website. I did a quick search for the letter from the Commons that he refers to and the only references to it (as far as Google are aware) are from nationalists posting comments online. A self-perpetuating myth?

If the case for us being better off is out there in black and white, why don't the SNP publish it?


I think the term we are looking for is confabulation.

A Nat "news site" pushing Nat "news" for Nat readers to imbibe and repeat uncritically. It would be a bit like - no in fact it would be exactly like - someone against separatism giving a link to a story on a Labour or Tory web site and claiming that the story and facts were in some way reasoned and unbiased.

And you're right, the article is straight out of the playbook from "9/11 was the CIA" type posts on a conspiracy theory website. The dead give away is the lengthy explanation of how 'senior' a civil servant the author once was - the trademark desperate attempt to give credibility to a ragbag of unreferenced assertions.

[JeMeSouviens]

No offence but, without reference to the actual stats, that article is no better than one of those "9/11 was the CIA" type posts on a conspiracy theory website. I did a quick search for the letter from the Commons that he refers to and the only references to it (as far as Google are aware) are from nationalists posting comments online. A self-perpetuating myth?

If the case for us being better off is out there in black and white, why don't the SNP publish it?

Ummm, they have. Or rather they have instructed the Civil Service to do so on their behalf: GERS reports. They are never done banging on about them so maybe you just don't believe them?



The aims and objectives of GERS

The aim of GERS is to enhance public understanding of fiscal issues in Scotland. The primary objective is to estimate a set of public sector accounts for Scotland through detailed analysis of official UK and Scottish Government finance statistics. GERS estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland toward the goods and services provided for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The report is designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland's fiscal position under different scenarios.

GERS captures the entire public sector in Scotland and includes activity by each of the constituent sub-sectors of the public sector: central government, local government and public corporations. In addition to providing an analysis of aggregate expenditure and revenue, the report contains a detailed breakdown according to individual expenditure and revenue components.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/Publications

Easy to google if you want the spin but my summary:

- include North Sea Oil we're doing quite nicely thank you, coming in and out of surplus/deficit over the last few years, certainly proportionately a lot better off than the UK as a whole.

- exclude NSO, we're ****ed, possibly slightly even more ****ed than the UK as a whole.

[One Day Soon]

Ummm, they have. Or rather they have instructed the Civil Service to do so on their behalf: GERS reports. They are never done banging on about them so maybe you just don't believe them?



http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/Publications

Easy to google if you want the spin but my summary:

- include North Sea Oil we're doing quite nicely thank you, coming in and out of surplus/deficit over the last few years, certainly proportionately a lot better off than the UK as a whole.

- exclude NSO, we're ****ed, possibly slightly even more ****ed than the UK as a whole.


There are a whole set of issues around GERS. Including, though I may be mistaken, changes to the way in which it is calculated which were ordered when the SNP came to power.

However regardless of that I must say that I'm a fan of your style of summation. I think civil servants should adopt this mode of succint expression. It would make the news a whole lot more interesting.

[Beefster]

As if to prove my point that's it's practically impossible to get an unbiased view from anyone, an ex-adviser (and academic) criticises the SNP's spinning of the figures.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/ex_adviser_condemns_snp_spin_in_official_documents _1_2093518

I like the idea of the OBR doing the figures.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ummm, they have. Or rather they have instructed the Civil Service to do so on their behalf: GERS reports. They are never done banging on about them so maybe you just don't believe them?



http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/Publications

Easy to google if you want the spin but my summary:

- include North Sea Oil we're doing quite nicely thank you, coming in and out of surplus/deficit over the last few years, certainly proportionately a lot better off than the UK as a whole.

- exclude NSO, we're ****ed, possibly slightly even more ****ed than the UK as a whole.

There is no way that Scotland would be running a deficit if it had sole ownership of North Sea Oil.

Norway, a country with a similar population to Scotland and less national produce has managed to amass several hundred billion £'s surplus. Their surplus is so great that the financial recession has skipped them by.

Taking this into account I'd like to know why we can barely make ends meet when you calculate our oil reserves in, do we have diamond extracts in our cornflakes or is it not more likely that Westminster is being inventive with their figures?

[JeMeSouviens]

There are a whole set of issues around GERS.

Mainly that they don't say what you want them to, I'd imagine. :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

Taking this into account I'd like to know why we can barely make ends meet when you calculate our oil reserves in

Barely making ends meet is pretty good going in the middle of a particularly nasty recession. There won't be many countries in surplus last year. The UK as a whole (remember that land of milk and honey economy that props up us puir wee lambs) is nowhere near making ends meet in recent years.

[JeMeSouviens]

I like the idea of the OBR doing the figures.

The OBR is made up of seconded treasury officials and is answerable to the UK government. So you don't trust "politically independent" figures from Scottish civil servants but you do trust "politically independent" figures from UK civil servants. Why? You don't think the UK government has any stake or bias in this? It's not as if nobody's ever questioned the independence of the OBR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/09/office-budget-responsibility-job-losses?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

I'm sure the SNP do their utmost to get some spin on the GERS figures. I'm just as sure the Tories would do their damnedest to get the opposite spin on any figures coming from the OBR.

The fundamentals will not change: with oil we are far better off than the UK as a whole. Without oil we are a little worse off than the UK as a whole.

[Jack]

As if to prove my point that's it's practically impossible to get an unbiased view from anyone, an ex-adviser (and academic) criticises the SNP's spinning of the figures.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/ex_adviser_condemns_snp_spin_in_official_documents _1_2093518

I like the idea of the OBR doing the figures.

The most important part of that article is;

"A spokesman for finance secretary John Swinney said that while GERS was a Scottish Government publication, it carried the National Statistics kitemark, meaning it was prepared without any political or ministerial input.

He also defended Scottish Government reports and publications as being of the highest quality."

Opposition parties of whatever colour chuck muck at these figures, the civil servants who produce them just keep their heads down and get on with it.

[Beefster]

The fundamentals will not change: with oil we are far better off than the UK as a whole. Without oil we are a little worse off than the UK as a whole.

Do you know off-hand how much of the oil the SNP are expecting us to get in the event of independence?

[JeMeSouviens]

Do you know off-hand how much of the oil the SNP are expecting us to get in the event of independence?

I think it's about 85%, I'll check ...

[Beefster]

I think it's about 85%, I'll check ...

Thanks, I hadnt been able to find a concrete answer.

[JeMeSouviens]

Ok, the assumptions are in here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Economy/17858/ScotShareNorthSeaRevenue

Rough shares (projected for 2013 in 2008) are Scot/Resto***: Oil 95/5, Gas 65/35, Total 85/15.

The study was produced by Alexander Kemp and Linda Stephen of Aberdeen Uni, who appear to be the acknowledged experts in the field. However, the study was done in 2008 and uses oil prices in the range $60-75. The current price is $112 and has been in the range $100-125 over the last year. (Things look rosier in terms of not only revenue/barrel but also amount of viably exploitable oil as the price increases.)

Incidentally, while googling that I found an interesting snippet in one of their more recent papers (Kemp, AG. & Stephen, L. (2011). 'The Short and Long Term Prospects for Activity in the UK Continental Shelf: the 2011 Perspective'.):



The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has recently published a long term production projection based on a simple extrapolation of a historic decline rate of 5% per year to 2040. This results in cumulative production of 12 bnboe over the period. This should be regarded as a disappointing outcome and well below the obtainable potential.

[JeMeSouviens]

As if to prove my point that's it's practically impossible to get an unbiased view from anyone, an ex-adviser (and academic) criticises the SNP's spinning of the figures.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/ex_adviser_condemns_snp_spin_in_official_documents _1_2093518

I like the idea of the OBR doing the figures.

Here's an interesting letter to the Scotsman from a previous time Prof Midwinter entered the debate on the economics of the Union:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/the_economic_case_for_independence_is_argued_cogen tly_at_the_highest_level_1_681914



The economic case for independence is argued cogently at the highest level


Published on Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:08

I am rather bemused by the coverage in The Scotsman and other newspapers describing Professor Arthur Midwinter as an "economist" and leading "expert", who has debunked the economic case for an independent Scotland. My understanding is that Prof Midwinter has a background in political science, indeed is a former professor of politics and a specialist in local government finance.

It is, therefore, perhaps a step too far to saddle him with the label "economist", let alone describe him as an "expert" in the field. And, in fairness, I cannot recall him ever describing himself as an economist.

If it is wished to have a mature debate on the economics of independence, I would sooner put weight on the opinion of Professor David Simpson, a qualified and highly experienced economist of the highest calibre, who cogently argued the economic case for independence in another newspaper this week.

For what it is worth, I am pleased to second Professor Simpson's opinion that the economic arguments favour independence for Scotland.

If we are taking a tally of professional economists' opinion, so far that makes two for and none against.

(PROF) NEIL KAY, Department of Economics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

[One Day Soon]

Mainly that they don't say what you want them to, I'd imagine. :agree:

No, mainly that it is not that difficult to manipulate them to get the outcome that you would like. And that is true regardless of which party is in power. At present it is the SNP who are holding the reigns, so GERS basically says what they want ie Scottish surplus

[SteveHFC]

The first edition of the Scottish Sun on Sunday has claimed to name the date of the independence referendum.
The headline reads "Day of destiny" with Saturday 18 October 2014 named as the date the referendum is to be held.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17170131

[Eyrie]

So Salmond has told Murdoch the date that he won't tell the Scottish people.

Still don't see why it can't be this autumn - it only took Dewar a few months to organise the referendum on devolution, and surely the SNP have worked out all the details by now? It is their raison d'etre after all.

[marinello59]

So Salmond has told Murdoch the date that he won't tell the Scottish people.

Still don't see why it can't be this autumn - it only took Dewar a few months to organise the referendum on devolution, and surely the SNP have worked out all the details by now? It is their raison d'etre after all.

I can't wait to hear Ancients take on this after revelling in Murdochs empire being the mouthpiece of the Labour Party. :greengrin.

[Hibs Class]

I know the October 2014 date suggested isn't a definite date and it would seem strange to schedule it for a Saturday to increase turn out, but to then choose a Saturday in school hols. I don't get Salmond's comment about avoiding September because the Ryder Cup is on - what connection could the refrendum have with a three day golf event?

[Eyrie]

Being charitable, Salmond is a golf fan so will have better things to do during the Ryder Cup than campaign.

Being uncharitable, the Ryder Cup is an opportunity for him to grandstand in his role of Glorious Leader and he won't want a mere sporting event competing with his referendum for the headlines.

[Sick Boy]

A good read on the Guardian website tackling some of the questions raised by the proposed independence vote.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/feb/27/scotland-independent-debt-deficit

[Hainan Hibs]

No, mainly that it is not that difficult to manipulate them to get the outcome that you would like. And that is true regardless of which party is in power. At present it is the SNP who are holding the reigns, so GERS basically says what they want ie Scottish surplus

:faf: :faf:

You have came out with some corkers before but this has stripped any credibility you had as a poster like paint stripper.

GERS says Scotland has a surplus because the SNP makes them :faf:

[One Day Soon]

:faf: :faf:

You have came out with some corkers before but this has stripped any credibility you had as a poster like paint stripper.

GERS says Scotland has a surplus because the SNP makes them :faf:


That should read "You have come out with some corkers...." etc. Not 'came'.

Does using three 'Hilarious' icons have the same debate ending powers as placing 'End of' after a post?

You will find fiscal instruction here: http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_223892_en.pdf

I'd stick to your enthusiasm for ****ging if I were you.

[RyeSloan]

That should read "You have come out with some corkers...." etc. Not 'came'.

Does using three 'Hilarious' icons have the same debate ending powers as placing 'End of' after a post?

You will find fiscal instruction here: http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_223892_en.pdf

I'd stick to your enthusiasm for ****ging if I were you.

Ignoring the bickering that is quite an interesting link that raises some good questions.

[One Day Soon]

Ignoring the bickering that is quite an interesting link that raises some good questions.

Awe, come on. The bickering is the best bit!

[Beefster]

SNP to end poverty if we vote for independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17328681

I'm predicting that they'll have promised us all free Sky TV and a free weekly shop from Waitrose before the debate is up.

[greenlex]

SNP to end poverty if we vote for independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17328681

I'm predicting that they'll have promised us all free Sky TV and a free weekly shop from Waitrose before the debate is up.
Would get my vote.

[Eyrie]

SNP to end poverty if we vote for independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17328681

I'm predicting that they'll have promised us all free Sky TV and a free weekly shop from Waitrose before the debate is up.

I never understand such pledges. Surely this is a policy matter which should be left up to whichever party we elect as the government of an independent Scotland and cannot be guaranteed by a glib soundbite during a referendum campaign? To be honest, it's a meaningless statement since all political parties want to raise living standards for the poorest in our society - it's just that they have different solutions for the problem and if any of them actually worked then poverty would have been eliminated some time ago.

Which then raises the question of what is meant by "poverty". Someone living in relative poverty in Scotland today still has a much better standard of living than a century ago. And they are substantially better off than someone eaking out a subsistence lifestyle in sub-Saharan Africa today for example.

[yeezus.]

A great chance to govern ourselves and elect our own Government.

I'm sick of successive Tory government's giving us the raw end of the deal because of the votes of the south of England.

1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland will soon be 0 with the incoming boundary changes.

[HiBremian]

I never understand such pledges. Surely this is a policy matter which should be left up to whichever party we elect as the government of an independent Scotland and cannot be guaranteed by a glib soundbite during a referendum campaign? To be honest, it's a meaningless statement since all political parties want to raise living standards for the poorest in our society - it's just that they have different solutions for the problem and if any of them actually worked then poverty would have been eliminated some time ago.

Which then raises the question of what is meant by "poverty". Someone living in relative poverty in Scotland today still has a much better standard of living than a century ago. And they are substantially better off than someone eaking out a subsistence lifestyle in sub-Saharan Africa today for example.

True, but poverty is not the core problem, it's the result of gross inequalities in wealth. Different solutions have and do exist. But politics is not an intellectual exercise. It's primarily a power game. And the powerful don't want us to pursue these solutions. The financial crisis is a clear case in point. There are many economists currently proposing clearly costed and logical strategies for getting us out of the current mess through economic growth. But the required taxing of wealth at the top end is a taboo subject for the rich and powerful who control our society.

[Eyrie]

So should we interpret Sturgeon's remark to mean that an independent Scotland will be a socialist state, as desired by andrewmackay?

Fair enough, but will that then be guaranteed by the constitution?

[Beefster]

A great chance to govern ourselves and elect our own Government.

I'm sick of successive Tory government's giving us the raw end of the deal because of the votes of the south of England.

1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland will soon be 0 with the incoming boundary changes.

"I hate the Tories". The independence argument in a sentence.

By the way, I know it's hard to keep up but we just had a three-term Labour government and currently have a Coalition government. We haven't had successive Tory governments since the 1990's.

[One Day Soon]

"I hate the Tories". The independence argument in a sentence.

By the way, I know it's hard to keep up but we just had a three-term Labour government and currently have a Coalition government. We haven't had successive Tory governments since the 1990's.


Careful there Beefster, you'll get in bother for introducing some facts and rational arguments to the proceedings.

[MB62]

"I hate the Tories". The independence argument in a sentence.

By the way, I know it's hard to keep up but we just had a three-term Labour government and currently have a Coalition government. We haven't had successive Tory governments since the 1990's.

If you care to read the comment again, you will find out that there was no time period stated regarding successive Tory Governments. However, many believe that the three terms of the New Labour government was just like having the Tories back in power anyway.

Could somebody tell me a few good reasons why we shouldn't be independent?

[Beefster]

If you care to read the comment again, you will find out that there was no time period stated regarding successive Tory Governments. However, many believe that the three terms of the New Labour government was just like having the Tories back in power anyway.

So he's sick of governments from 1987 and 1992. Right. Seems like a good enough reason for independence in 2014 then.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly for Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 so I'm not sure how anyone could blame the south of England for Labour's three terms.

[marinello59]

If you care to read the comment again, you will find out that there was no time period stated regarding successive Tory Governments. However, many believe that the three terms of the New Labour government was just like having the Tories back in power anyway.

Could somebody tell me a few good reasons why we shouldn't be independent?

Voted for by a large majority of Scots. So we got the Government at Westminster we wanted didn't we? Three times.
I am pro-Independence but some of the arguments put forward for it are total nonsense. At least let's have an honest debate.

[MB62]

Voted for by a large majority of Scots. So we got the Government at Westminster we wanted didn't we? Three times.
I am pro-Independence but some of the arguments put forward for it are total nonsense. At least let's have an honest debate.

As had always been the case, but the only reason WE got the government WE wanted was because ENGLAND changed allegiances away from the Tories and voted New Labour, very little to do with the Scottish vote.

As for why the SNP is not holding the vote until 2014, it is really obvious and straight forward. Having now gained overall control of running Scotland, SNP are trying to show the people of Scotland that they can in fact run the country successfully, they just need this time to prove it to people. If they make an erky of it then they will not win the vote in 2014, if they make a good job of it then maybe there is a chance.
I believe those that are desperately wanting the vote to be held now are terrified the SNP will do a better job than they have done previously and therefore are trying to deny people the chance to see what can be done.

2014 is fine by me and if the SNP have done the job, which I think they have so far, then they have a far better chance of winning.

Some people used to say a vote for SNP was a wasted vote, I wonder what they are saying now?

[marinello59]

As had always been the case, but the only reason WE got the government WE wanted was because ENGLAND changed allegiances away from the Tories and voted New Labour, very little to do with the Scottish vote.

As for why the SNP is not holding the vote until 2014, it is really obvious and straight forward. Having now gained overall control of running Scotland, SNP are trying to show the people of Scotland that they can in fact run the country successfully, they just need this time to prove it to people. If they make an erky of it then they will not win the vote in 2014, if they make a good job of it then maybe there is a chance.
I believe those that are desperately wanting the vote to be held now are terrified the SNP will do a better job than they have done previously and therefore are trying to deny people the chance to see what can be done.

2014 is fine by me and if the SNP have done the job, which I think they have so far, then they have a far better chance of winning.

Some people used to say a vote for SNP was a wasted vote, I wonder what they are saying now?

Personally I call it a means to an end. I find the SNP just as duplicitous and self serving as all the other parties, worse in some ways. Hopefully they disband if and when we get Independence.

[Beefster]

Having now gained overall control of running Scotland, SNP are trying to show the people of Scotland that they can in fact run the country successfully, they just need this time to prove it to people. If they make an erky of it then they will not win the vote in 2014, if they make a good job of it then maybe there is a chance.

What's the performance of the SNP got to do with voting for independence? We're voting on the future of the nation, not to put the SNP in power forever.

I'd like to think that no-one is short-sighted enough to vote for something as monumental as this because a political party has performed okay for a couple of years but, considering some of the arguments put forward for independence, who knows.

[sKipper]

Voted for by a large majority of Scots. So we got the Government at Westminster we wanted didn't we? Three times.


Not true. Labour have never had a majority of the Scots vote.

They don't even get a majority of those that turn out to vote. The average Labour vote in Scotland in the early 90s was around 42% of those that voted.

It may surprise you but in the 1992 General Election Labour only got 39% of the vote.

[sKipper]

What's the performance of the SNP got to do with voting for independence? We're voting on the future of the nation, not to put the SNP in power forever.

I'd like to think that no-one is short-sighted enough to vote for something as monumental as this because a political party has performed okay for a couple of years but, considering some of the arguments put forward for independence, who knows.

There are loads of very persuasive arguments for voting for independence. The last 2 years is irrelevant.

The performance of the SNP is still important though as they need to show that Scotland is viable and can work within even the devolved budget. It wasn't so long ago Labour were trumpeting that if the SNP won in Holyrood it would cost every man, woman and child in Scotland £5000 each.

Absolute rubbish of course, much like many of their current day arguments.

[MB62]

What's the performance of the SNP got to do with voting for independence? We're voting on the future of the nation, not to put the SNP in power forever.

I'd like to think that no-one is short-sighted enough to vote for something as monumental as this because a political party has performed okay for a couple of years but, considering some of the arguments put forward for independence, who knows.

Where did I mention that the SNP was going to be in power forever? The people of Scotland will determine who that will be in any given Scottish general election. It might mean that the SNP are in power of course, and technically it could be forever, although highly unlikely.

Of course nobody is going to vote for Independence merely on what has happened over the past two years, and again, I never suggested it was the case. I would suggest though that it is one of the many questions that people will have 'do we have the ability to run our own affairs'? and I tried to give this as one reason on why the SNP were holding off until 2014. That might not be the case of course, I am not privy to what they are thinking, it is merely my opinion.

I don't understand what the big fear is about being in charge of our own affairs. The one big factor I keep hearing is that we cannot afford it, so does that mean we have been spunging of the English for the last few hundred years? As somone who likes being able to pay my own way in life, I am happy to put an end to that situation, even if it does cost me a few extra quid, and that is certainly far from being proven to be the outcome.

[yeezus.]

So he's sick of governments from 1987 and 1992. Right. Seems like a good enough reason for independence in 2014 then.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly for Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 so I'm not sure how anyone could blame the south of England for Labour's three terms.


13 years of Labour wasn't an awful lot better.

I happen to think we should have full control over our own policies. The fact that we would never have to live under a Tory government again is an added bonus.

[marinello59]

Not true. Labour have never had a majority of the Scots vote.

They don't even get a majority of those that turn out to vote. The average Labour vote in Scotland in the early 90s was around 42% of those that voted.

It may surprise you but in the 1992 General Election Labour only got 39% of the vote.

You know what I meant, under the first past the post system we returned shed loads of Labour MPs.
If you want to go down that route the SNP. 'only' got 46% of the vote in the Scottish elections, not a majority, yet nobody would seriously argue we hadn't given them a resounding victory.
Scotland voted Labour and got the Government we asked for at Westminster. Pretending otherwise adds nothing to an honest debate about independence.

[Beefster]

13 years of Labour wasn't an awful lot better.

I happen to think we should have full control over our own policies. The fact that we would never have to live under a Tory government again is an added bonus.

So, if you can't blame the Tories, can't blame the south of England and don't like it when we get a three-term government that we did vote for, what is your argument for independence? Being generous, "I don't like the Tories" isn't up to much.

In an independent Scotland, you may find that a centre-right party, with no links to the UK Tory party, does significantly better than the Tories currently do in Scotland. As I said before though, independence is too big a decision to make based on who might or might not be in power, short-term, afterwards.

[yeezus.]

So, if you can't blame the Tories, can't blame the south of England and don't like it when we get a three-term government that we did vote for, what is your argument for independence? Being generous, "I don't like the Tories" isn't up to much.

In an independent Scotland, you may find that a centre-right party, with no links to the UK Tory party, does significantly better than the Tories currently do in Scotland. As I said before though, independence is too big a decision to make based on who might or might not be in power, short-term, afterwards.


I'm voting for independence because we are being robbed of our resources. We have the financial capability to be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. NO Centre right party will do well in Scotland.

Independence is natural - the unionist media can throw all they want at us, but we'll be far better off if we have full control over our resources.

The other point I am making is that David Cameron has no mandate to govern Scotland. We overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative party!

[yeezus.]

The unionist campaign won't win - mainly because they have conceded that Scotland can more than manage on it's own... so why wouldn't we want to be able to have a say on our own affairs.

[Beefster]

I'm voting for independence because we are being robbed of our resources. We have the financial capability to be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. NO Centre right party will do well in Scotland.

Independence is natural - the unionist media can throw all they want at us, but we'll be far better off if we have full control over our resources.

The other point I am making is that David Cameron has no mandate to govern Scotland. We overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative party!

I'm losing the will to live with this referendum. Only 2.5 years to go of utter pish being spouted on both sides.

I'm only asking this because I want your take on it - how would an independent Scotland have prevented the collapse of RBS and HBoS?

[Beefster]

The unionist campaign won't win - mainly because they have conceded that Scotland can more than manage on it's own... so why wouldn't we want to be able to have a say on our own affairs.

You're starting from the false position that we don't have a say in our own affairs.

[steakbake]

I'm losing the will to live with this referendum. Only 2.5 years to go of utter pish being spouted on both sides.

I'm only asking this because I want your take on it - how would an independent Scotland have prevented the collapse of RBS and HBoS?

*Sigh*

We can go back over any number of events in history to examine "How would Scotland have coped if...".

[yeezus.]

You're starting from the false position that we don't have a say in our own affairs.

Devolution is hardly much of a say when it's terms are dictated to by London.

David Cameron has already said Scotland can manage on it's own.

Unfortunately you are going to have to listen to garbage from both sides if you come on a thread relating to Scotland's right to govern itself (fully).

[yeezus.]

I'm losing the will to live with this referendum. Only 2.5 years to go of utter pish being spouted on both sides.

I'm only asking this because I want your take on it - how would an independent Scotland have prevented the collapse of RBS and HBoS?

Well if the 1979 referendum wasn't rigged and we got our freedom maybe we could've had a say on the banking sector and we wouldn't have had the bank deregulated!

These are non-issues "what if's" - the truth is, we can manage on our own and would be far wealthier on our own.

[Eyrie]

the truth is, we can manage on our own and would be far wealthier on our own.
So would Shetland. Maybe they should apply for independence from Scotland.

We're better off in the UK with a larger, more diversified economy than an oil-dependent Scotland that even Salmond has conceded can't afford to build up an oil fund without cutting back the current spending levels. We're better off being part of a currency that considers our needs, instead of using a neighbour's currency that we have no say over or a continental currency that we would be unable to influence and which (as the Greeks have already found out) represents a threat to our democratic sovereignty.

And if the union with the rest of the United Kingdom is so bad, why should an independent Scotland be part of the much larger European Union? We can manage on our own after all.

[yeezus.]

So would Shetland. Maybe they should apply for independence from Scotland.

We're better off in the UK with a larger, more diversified economy than an oil-dependent Scotland that even Salmond has conceded can't afford to build up an oil fund without cutting back the current spending levels. We're better off being part of a currency that considers our needs, instead of using a neighbour's currency that we have no say over or a continental currency that we would be unable to influence and which (as the Greeks have already found out) represents a threat to our democratic sovereignty.

And if the union with the rest of the United Kingdom is so bad, why should an independent Scotland be part of the much larger European Union? We can manage on our own after all.

That would be for the people of Scotland to decide... I want a Scottish republic... so that would mean we wouldn't be in the EU.

[Beefster]

*Sigh*

We can go back over any number of events in history to examine "How would Scotland have coped if...".

Not many recent 'what if' events would have potentially bankrupted the nation. I think it's a fair question and the type that the pro-independence lobby/SNP are going to have to address if they want 'undecided' voters to vote their way.

And *sigh* is exactly my thought when I read more pish about how everything will be magic (the eradication of poverty being a particular beauty) after independence without much to back it up.

[Beefster]

Well if the 1979 referendum wasn't rigged and we got our freedom maybe we could've had a say on the banking sector and we wouldn't have had the bank deregulated!

These are non-issues "what if's" - the truth is, we can manage on our own and would be far wealthier on our own.

The 1979 referendum was on the subject of devolution.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not many recent 'what if' events would have potentially bankrupted the nation. I think it's a fair question and the type that the pro-independence lobby/SNP are going to have to address if they want 'undecided' voters to vote their way.

And *sigh* is exactly my thought when I read more pish about how everything will be magic (the eradication of poverty being a particular beauty) after independence without much to back it up.

okay I'll bite

If scotland is not capable of being a proper country, our banks would never have grown so big, because who would bank with a ****ty little scottish bank. A mighty english bank would never have been bought over by one of ours, so our banks failing wouldn't have been such an issue as it turned out be, or perhaps it would have been.

It's all impossible to predict because no one decision is taken in isolation, so there is no way to know what state our banks would be in if we had became independent 20 years ago. We also don't know what we would have done with north sea oil, we may have wasted all the revenue and still be no better off, but then maybe we would.

The point is whatever happened would have been our decision, and our decision alone. We would have no one to blame, and no one to thank. We fail or succeed based on our own ability as a country.

Your right, we need to base the vote on facts, unfortunately your not presenting any.

[Beefster]

okay I'll bite

If scotland is not capable of being a proper country, our banks would never have grown so big, because who would bank with a ****ty little scottish bank. A mighty english bank would never have been bought over by one of ours, so our banks failing wouldn't have been such an issue as it turned out be, or perhaps it would have been.

It's all impossible to predict because no one decision is taken in isolation, so there is no way to know what state our banks would be in if we had became independent 20 years ago. We also don't know what we would have done with north sea oil, we may have wasted all the revenue and still be no better off, but then maybe we would.

The point is whatever happened would have been our decision, and our decision alone. We would have no one to blame, and no one to thank. We fail or succeed based on our own ability as a country.

Your right, we need to base the vote on facts, unfortunately your not presenting any.

I'm not trying to present any facts. I'm trying to get some myself on why I should vote for independence and the impact on my family. I've explained this before and have trying to get some information beyond "we'll be able to make our own decisions" (which ignores the fact that we have a disproportionate voice within the UK). JeMeSouviens is generally the only pro-independence poster who has presented any hard facts AFAIK.

By the rationale of some on here though, we can't discuss what might have happened if we had been independent, we can't know the desired terms of the break and we can't tell what life will be like if we become independent. Not much of a case/debate so far.

It's obvious that I'm naturally for the status quo. However, if the case was made about how the nation, society, my family and my children's futures would be better then I'd happily vote for it (and I'm talking about a wee bit more of a case than Nicola Sturgeon just randomly claiming that poverty will be eradicated). Whether it is a UK Prime Minister, a Scottish First Minister, a Scottish President or whoever that takes the decisions matters not a jot to me though.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not trying to present any facts. I'm trying to get some myself on why I should vote for independence and the impact on my family. I've explained this before and have trying to get some information beyond "we'll be able to make our own decisions" (which ignores the fact that we have a disproportionate voice within the UK). JeMeSouviens is generally the only pro-independence poster who has presented any hard facts AFAIK.

By the rationale of some on here though, we can't discuss what might have happened if we had been independent, we can't know the desired terms of the break and we can't tell what life will be like if we become independent. Not much of a case/debate so far.

It's obvious that I'm naturally for the status quo. However, if the case was made about how the nation, society, my family and my children's futures would be better then I'd happily vote for it (and I'm talking about a wee bit more of a case than Nicola Sturgeon just randomly claiming that poverty will be eradicated). Whether it is a UK Prime Minister, a Scottish First Minister, a Scottish President or whoever that takes the decisions matters not a jot to me though.

Ok I'm not sure that anyone on here is a spokesperson for the SNP and I'm also not sure that hibs.net is really the best place to seek facts about independence for scotland, but I suspect you know that.

You can discuss any scenario you want, but lets at least be honest that no one can change one thing in history and comfortably predict what would have happened thereafter. It's like saying if only that goal was not disallowed we would have won. You can't be sure of that because if the goal was allowed a kick off from the centre circle would have followed rather than a free kick, so all the rest of the play in the game would have changed, therefore subsequent goals wouldn't have happened in the same manner if at all.

It's just not possible to predict every scenario, but of course it suits your argument to keep banging the drum about the banking crisis because you know it can never genuinely be answered, by either side I might add although the unionists will say they can.

Also "we'll be able to make our own decisions" is actually quite important to a lot of people, the fact we can make some decisions now doesn't mean we should keep quiet in the corner, it means we should be pushing to make more and devo max or full blown independence will both deliver this to different degrees. The unionists really need to realise that this will never be a normal campaign based upon facts, it will have a large emotional part as well because this issue invokes huge emotions in a lot of people. To dismiss that will be very dangerous for the unionists.

The facts I'm still interested in are what will labour, lib dems and the tories do if we vote for independance, will they still seek to be political parties in scotland?

If so what will there policies be to make an independant scotland a success or do they not have any?

Hopefully some sort of spokesperson for the unionists will come along and answer these questions for me:wink:

[allmodcons]

I'm losing the will to live with this referendum. Only 2.5 years to go of utter pish being spouted on both sides.

I'm only asking this because I want your take on it - how would an independent Scotland have prevented the collapse of RBS and HBoS?

I could just as easily ask you what successive Tory & Labour UK Governments would have done without North Sea oil revenues, when they've managed
to run up a defict of £100bn with oil revenues?

The future is what we should be discussing, you can dress it up how you like but it was the UK (yes UK) Government that presided over the banking crisis.

There is a pile of literature available to you (and anyone who is interested) that makes a good cause for Scotland becoming Independent. The SNP will not
be concerning themselves with politically blinkered individuals like your good self, making the case to those how are unsure or uncertain is where they'll be
concentrating their efforts.

You can't preach to the converted. Whatever argument is put in front of you wouldn't matter because (like me) your mind is already made up on the matter.

[allmodcons]

I'm not trying to present any facts. I'm trying to get some myself on why I should vote for independence and the impact on my family. I've explained this before and have trying to get some information beyond "we'll be able to make our own decisions" (which ignores the fact that we have a disproportionate voice within the UK). JeMeSouviens is generally the only pro-independence poster who has presented any hard facts AFAIK.

By the rationale of some on here though, we can't discuss what might have happened if we had been independent, we can't know the desired terms of the break and we can't tell what life will be like if we become independent. Not much of a case/debate so far.

It's obvious that I'm naturally for the status quo. However, if the case was made about how the nation, society, my family and my children's futures would be better then I'd happily vote for it (and I'm talking about a wee bit more of a case than Nicola Sturgeon just randomly claiming that poverty will be eradicated). Whether it is a UK Prime Minister, a Scottish First Minister, a Scottish President or whoever that takes the decisions matters not a jot to me though.

If you're serious about considering the case for Independence (which of course you are most definitely not) why don't you go and seek the literature that
makes the case. I can give you some references if you like, but can also guarantee you won't follow them up. Asking someone one Hibs.net to present the
case for Independence is like asking them to write a book for you. Surely by now you've come to realise that most of the answers to the questions you raise
on Hibs.net are short and concise and, by their very nature, are never going to provide the 'case' for Scottish Independence that you are so desire to see.

[Beefster]

If you're serious about considering the case for Independence (which of course you are most definitely not)

I give up. You win.

[Lost_Mackem]

A few weeks ago I posted in this thread saying I wasn't sure if I would support Scottish independence or not, being an Englishman.

Now, I am all for it. I have had my viewpoint altered quite a way.

What right do Scottish MP's have to vote on things which only effect England? About as much right as David Cameron has to stick his nose into politics north of the border which should only concern Scots.

What is the British identity? There isn't one, it is a political illusion, anyone can be British these days, turn up at Dover hidden under a ships tarpaulin and you can be British.

Britain isn't a nation, it is a group of Islands with countries tucked in.

The English have a seperate identity to that of Scots, Welsh, Irish etc...

My ancestry is Germanic, my surname is Saxon and I am very proud of that. I am no Celt, nor am I Athenglynse, I am Anglo-Saxon and therefore English. It is my ethnicity, my language, my homeland, my culture and my ancestry.

If Scotland gets independence, hopefully the shackles which currently bind my country will be cut away.

[bighairyfaeleith]

A few weeks ago I posted in this thread saying I wasn't sure if I would support Scottish independence or not, being an Englishman.

Now, I am all for it. I have had my viewpoint altered quite a way.

What right do Scottish MP's have to vote on things which only effect England? About as much right as David Cameron has to stick his nose into politics north of the border which should only concern Scots.

What is the British identity? There isn't one, it is a political illusion, anyone can be British these days, turn up at Dover hidden under a ships tarpaulin and you can be British.

Britain isn't a nation, it is a group of Islands with countries tucked in.

The English have a seperate identity to that of Scots, Welsh, Irish etc...

My ancestry is Germanic, my surname is Saxon and I am very proud of that. I am no Celt, nor am I Athenglynse, I am Anglo-Saxon and therefore English. It is my ethnicity, my language, my homeland, my culture and my ancestry.

If Scotland gets independence, hopefully the shackles which currently bind my country will be cut away.

Problem you guys have is that you will still be part of britain. It's only scotland that will be independent. Possibly a start towards the complete break up of the uk but its a long way from that happening i reckon.

[ancienthibby]

Problem you guys have is that you will still be part of britain. It's only scotland that will be independent. Possibly a start towards the complete break up of the uk but its a long way from that happening i reckon.

Did you not see what the 'Lost M' wrote?:


'My ancestry is Germanic, my surname is Saxon and I am very proud of that. I am no Celt, nor am I Athenglynse, I am Anglo-Saxon and therefore English. It is my ethnicity, my language, my homeland, my culture and my ancestry'.


Well said that man - every opinion like that will only serve to promote Independence for Scotland! Bring 'en on!!

[yeezus.]

I'm not trying to present any facts. I'm trying to get some myself on why I should vote for independence and the impact on my family. I've explained this before and have trying to get some information beyond "we'll be able to make our own decisions" (which ignores the fact that we have a disproportionate voice within the UK). JeMeSouviens is generally the only pro-independence poster who has presented any hard facts AFAIK.

By the rationale of some on here though, we can't discuss what might have happened if we had been independent, we can't know the desired terms of the break and we can't tell what life will be like if we become independent. Not much of a case/debate so far.

It's obvious that I'm naturally for the status quo. However, if the case was made about how the nation, society, my family and my children's futures would be better then I'd happily vote for it (and I'm talking about a wee bit more of a case than Nicola Sturgeon just randomly claiming that poverty will be eradicated). Whether it is a UK Prime Minister, a Scottish First Minister, a Scottish President or whoever that takes the decisions matters not a jot to me though.

Having control of our own wealth, avoidance of the inevitable privatisation of the NHS (as we are in the EU, we would get free insurance in other EU countries), protection of free tuition, start high speed rail schemes without the permission of London and Scotland would itself be having a say on the world stage.

Salmond would be Prime Minister, although I'd rather not have the head of state be the head of the Church of England..

[yeezus.]

Problem you guys have is that you will still be part of britain. It's only scotland that will be independent. Possibly a start towards the complete break up of the uk but its a long way from that happening i reckon.

Well hopefully the 6 counties may eventually be re-unified and Wales and England may become independent as well... we'd all be better off.

[RyeSloan]

Well hopefully the 6 counties may eventually be re-unified and Wales and England may become independent as well... we'd all be better off.

Why?

[yeezus.]

Why?

Because if there is no United Kingdom, the legitimacy of the 6 counties and Wales will be brought into question and I think there will be a nationalist/republican increase in votes.

[Hibs Class]

Because if there is no United Kingdom, the legitimacy of the 6 counties and Wales will be brought into question and I think there will be a nationalist/republican increase in votes.


What does "the legitimacy of...Wales" mean, who are "we", and how would we "all be better off"?

[marinello59]

Did you not see what the 'Lost M' wrote?:


'My ancestry is Germanic, my surname is Saxon and I am very proud of that. I am no Celt, nor am I Athenglynse, I am Anglo-Saxon and therefore English. It is my ethnicity, my language, my homeland, my culture and my ancestry'.


Well said that man - every opinion like that will only serve to promote Independence for Scotland! Bring 'en on!!

You reckon?
Dog whistles spring to mind.

[HKhibby]

As far as I know, from Salmond's previous utterings, he wants Scotland to become a full member of the EU (in fact, I think he's all for more powers to Europe) and the Euro. That means having our budgets approved by the EU before our politicians get the chance to debate them. I seem to recall a recent example of Ireland's budget being debated in the Bundestag before the Irish parliament. That's independence?

To be honest though, it seems that the SNP make a lot of policies up as and when they need to so they might now be arguing for no Europe or no Euro.

I've yet to hear a convincing case for independence. The case for it seems to boil down to "let's shut our eyes, take the jump and hope for a soft landing".

Scotland will not be independant!, down to one little word why it wont be!...Money! small word but a big thing!, where would Scotland go?, deeper into the EU-SSR thats for sure!, which currency would it have?...the Euro! thats for sure!, and why would you want a currency that is going to fail or fall apart in its present form anyway?, a currency that was doomed from the start just like the EU is!, thats only 2 things of the big equation when it comes down to money!, and if it all fell apart...where would you run to then for help?....the U.S? to align to the Dollar? sure the yanks would love it in the beginning! then when you cant give them anything back?....drop you soon as look at you!...then what? back to the UK and the Pound?....i think not!

One other question on the subject to all the pro independance people, where is it that creates most of the business that keeps the whole of the UK going? answer....Canary Wharf for the finacial services, The City Of London, again for financial services and the stock markets, and Heathrow Airport...for import/export, cargo etc..passenger flights/connections etc.., all in London! like it or not.

[RyeSloan]

Because if there is no United Kingdom, the legitimacy of the 6 counties and Wales will be brought into question and I think there will be a nationalist/republican increase in votes.

OK but you then stated that when that comes to pass "we'd all be better off" I was curious as to why you were so certain of that and what you actually meant by "we'd all be better off"...

[Part/Time Supporter]

I find it curious that people demand to know what the tax rates would be in an independent Scotland in 5-10 years time, when nobody seems to have a clue what the UK tax rates will be tomorrow.

[Beefster]

Having control of our own wealth, avoidance of the inevitable privatisation of the NHS (as we are in the EU, we would get free insurance in other EU countries), protection of free tuition, start high speed rail schemes without the permission of London and Scotland would itself be having a say on the world stage.

Salmond would be Prime Minister, although I'd rather not have the head of state be the head of the Church of England..

Argh...this is getting ridiculous.

1. The NHS is devolved.
2. Education is devolved.
3. We already get free (or reduced cost) health treatment in the EU.
4. Transport is devolved.

I'm with you on getting rid of the Monarch though.

[Mibbes Aye]

If you're serious about considering the case for Independence (which of course you are most definitely not) why don't you go and seek the literature that
makes the case. I can give you some references if you like, but can also guarantee you won't follow them up. Asking someone one Hibs.net to present the
case for Independence is like asking them to write a book for you. Surely by now you've come to realise that most of the answers to the questions you raise
on Hibs.net are short and concise and, by their very nature, are never going to provide the 'case' for Scottish Independence that you are so desire to see.

Being honest I think this is a bit of a cop-out. If this board was just about putting up references to texts then it wouldn't be much cop at all. Was it you who put up a link to a review of the texts you're alluding to a wee while back, one by Kevin Williamson? I read the review and if that's indicative of the quality of writing then the intellectual argument for independence is in trouble.

Without taking sides in the debate, I think it's fair to say that for change to happen people have to sign up to it, and for that to happen there needs to be a short, clear vision of why the change is good. I think the problem for the Nats, and the problem you've been facing responding to Beefster, is that the short, clear messages that have been floated, or can be pinned to the Nationalist argument are easily refutable or lead you into dangerous territory.

Namely, "we will be more prosperous" - the feature run by The Guardian linked to somewhere above showed that we would have a significant national debt and a pretty big budget deficit, even with a geographical share of the oil money.

"We would control our own destiny" - the areas that are critical to our communities - health, education, social care, housing - are already in our own hands. In fact we have made some innovative changes through the Lab/Lib coalition and the SNP administration in these areas.

The third unspoken one is "We'll be free of English oppression" - this is unfortunately typical of the petty, borderline xenophobic, lowest common denominator guff that nationalist movements throughout history have used, to justify their bizarre desire to fly a different-patterned flag on their town halls. It's just about creating an 'other', nurturing feelings of self-inadequacy and fostering resentment of the 'other' to fuel your cause. If that's the best we're capable of, God help us.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Scotland will not be independant!, down to one little word why it wont be!...Money! small word but a big thing!, where would Scotland go?, deeper into the EU-SSR thats for sure!, which currency would it have?...the Euro! thats for sure!, and why would you want a currency that is going to fail or fall apart in its present form anyway?, a currency that was doomed from the start just like the EU is!, thats only 2 things of the big equation when it comes down to money!, and if it all fell apart...where would you run to then for help?....the U.S? to align to the Dollar? sure the yanks would love it in the beginning! then when you cant give them anything back?....drop you soon as look at you!...then what? back to the UK and the Pound?....i think not!

One other question on the subject to all the pro independance people, where is it that creates most of the business that keeps the whole of the UK going? answer....Canary Wharf for the finacial services, The City Of London, again for financial services and the stock markets, and Heathrow Airport...for import/export, cargo etc..passenger flights/connections etc.., all in London! like it or not.

That is exactly why the country is in such a deep recession, because financial services got us into this mess. We need to move away from emphasising soft subjects in schools and universities and go back to pushing the science/technology/mathematics to produce highly skilled scientists and engineers to manufacture high quality products that we can sell globally.

[RyeSloan]

That is exactly why the country is in such a deep recession, because financial services got us into this mess. We need to move away from emphasising soft subjects in schools and universities and go back to pushing the science/technology/mathematics to produce highly skilled scientists and engineers to manufacture high quality products that we can sell globally.


But how much value is actually added in manufacture? Pick up an Apple product and it will say designed in Cupertino, manufactured in China.

This obssesion of making things in factories is somewhat bizzare and anyway with 3D printing technology already starting to change manufacturing at a fundamental level it's maybe not the best thing to be betting our future on!

[Eyrie]

That is exactly why the country is in such a deep recession, because financial services got us into this mess. We need to move away from emphasising soft subjects in schools and universities and go back to pushing the science/technology/mathematics to produce highly skilled scientists and engineers to manufacture high quality products that we can sell globally.

I'd think we'd all be in favour of a better educated population in highly skilled jobs, but the mechanisms exist in a devolved Scotland to achieve this through setting education policies. I don't see that independence will make any difference here.

[Lost_Mackem]

Just vote for independence please.

[ginger_rice]

Argh...this is getting ridiculous.

1. The NHS is devolved.
2. Education is devolved.
3. We already get free (or reduced cost) health treatment in the EU.
4. Transport is devolved.

I'm with you on getting rid of the Monarch though.

The big problem is that someone else holds the purse strings, and Cameron/Osbourne have already told the Scottish Government that if they don't fall in line with Westminster over pensions they will pull some IIRC £8m per month from the Scottish budget.

[ginger_rice]

Scotland will not be independant!, down to one little word why it wont be!...Money! small word but a big thing!, where would Scotland go?, deeper into the EU-SSR thats for sure!, which currency would it have?...the Euro! thats for sure!, and why would you want a currency that is going to fail or fall apart in its present form anyway?, a currency that was doomed from the start just like the EU is!, thats only 2 things of the big equation when it comes down to money!, and if it all fell apart...where would you run to then for help?....the U.S? to align to the Dollar? sure the yanks would love it in the beginning! then when you cant give them anything back?....drop you soon as look at you!...then what? back to the UK and the Pound?....i think not!

One other question on the subject to all the pro independance people, where is it that creates most of the business that keeps the whole of the UK going? answer....Canary Wharf for the finacial services, The City Of London, again for financial services and the stock markets, and Heathrow Airport...for import/export, cargo etc..passenger flights/connections etc.., all in London! like it or not.

Do you mind if I ask you a question...........you don't write the front page headlines for the Daily Mail do you :greengrin

[Lucius Apuleius]

Do you mind if I ask you a question...........you don't write the front page headlines for the Daily Mail do you :greengrin

Personal viewpoint? I think he is actually writing the headlines for the Oriental Daily News then using Google translate to put it into a form of engerlish. There may be life Jim, but not as we know it.

[steakbake]

Surprise surprise, leading Tory captured on tape saying they "have to be seen" to support the union, even if the outcome doesn't really matter to them.

[Eyrie]

They'd be the permanent party of government down there if they could get rid of Scotkand and its embarrassing tendency to return Labour MPs, so hardly surprising that some Tories have mixed views on the Union.

Fortunately they won't get a vote since they don't live here.

[TheUsualSuspect]

At the moment i'm for INDEPENDENCE!! but i could be swayed if the unionists were to give a decent arguement, unforutately I can't see that happening. Then again the indie's aren't doing that great a job of keeping me :greengrin.

I would be interested to know what could be done to persuade the unionists to go for independence and vice versa?

I thought of some points which i want to hear the politicians discuss. The mid to long term for Scotland for Scotland or the UK and how we all fit in, yes us the people of Scotland. No point having a UK if all the best jobs will be in London, or like me abroad. No point having an independant Scotland if we don't have a job for the people we're educating.

Investment in future areas - will we invest more in future areas that will make us more attractive and have a foot hold in certain sectors.

Spread of wealth - now i'm not talking about communism! i'm mean at the moment (according to HKHibby) all the wealth is generated in London. Uk or Scotland this has to stop! The spread of power has to be spread throughout the country, making the system less imperialist and more 21st century.

Transport - It's terrible needs to be sorted! roads, trians, boats etc we need to be better at it and stop having a second rate system, just because most of us don;t know any better it does make it ok.

Manufacturing - i woul like the government to help the manufacturing industry more than it is.

Transparent Government - speaks for its self really!

More choice of government - first past the post is a joke! and it's not real demecracy. but hey-ho we've had a vote

No privatisation - Well really the NHS. You see what appears to be happening down south and i don't want that for us!

Taxation rules - stop the loopholes that allow people to make stupid money when they shouldn't be. eg starting there own company living on minimum wage but paying monthly divedends to themselves.

Benefits - come up with a better system. I'm not fan of giving people money, i'd rather give them a tax break etc.

These are some of the things I want to hear about. There is no point talking oil money etc, and who did what, and how long it's been OK for. This is a time to make sure we get the best for our future.

We need a debate about the 25 or so things that matter most to the Scottish public, and how the UK government is going to acheive these things. We can the have the Scottish parliment do the same. Then after they have stated there plans for Scotland they can have a debate about how crap each other's plans are.

Why argue over oil money just now if the UK is the only group wanting to do what the Scottish people really want!

Sorry for the rant, bad spelling and grammer. However we are going with what most of us have been brought up to think, not what will be best for the future generations.

[Beefster]

They'd be the permanent party of government down there if they could get rid of Scotkand and its embarrassing tendency to return Labour MPs, so hardly surprising that some Tories have mixed views on the Union.

Fortunately they won't get a vote since they don't live here.

That's not true. The recent three-term Labour government would have still happened without Scotland.

[marinello59]

That's not true. The recent three-term Labour government would have still happened without Scotland.
That's just typical of our bully boy neighbours, forcing a Labour Government on us.

[Eyrie]

At the moment i'm for INDEPENDENCE!! but i could be swayed if the unionists were to give a decent arguement, unforutately I can't see that happening. Then again the indie's aren't doing that great a job of keeping me :greengrin.

I would be interested to know what could be done to persuade the unionists to go for independence and vice versa?

I thought of some points which i want to hear the politicians discuss. The mid to long term for Scotland for Scotland or the UK and how we all fit in, yes us the people of Scotland. No point having a UK if all the best jobs will be in London, or like me abroad. No point having an independant Scotland if we don't have a job for the people we're educating.

Investment in future areas - will we invest more in future areas that will make us more attractive and have a foot hold in certain sectors.

Spread of wealth - now i'm not talking about communism! i'm mean at the moment (according to HKHibby) all the wealth is generated in London. Uk or Scotland this has to stop! The spread of power has to be spread throughout the country, making the system less imperialist and more 21st century.

Transport - It's terrible needs to be sorted! roads, trians, boats etc we need to be better at it and stop having a second rate system, just because most of us don;t know any better it does make it ok.

Manufacturing - i woul like the government to help the manufacturing industry more than it is.

Transparent Government - speaks for its self really!

More choice of government - first past the post is a joke! and it's not real demecracy. but hey-ho we've had a vote

No privatisation - Well really the NHS. You see what appears to be happening down south and i don't want that for us!

Taxation rules - stop the loopholes that allow people to make stupid money when they shouldn't be. eg starting there own company living on minimum wage but paying monthly divedends to themselves.

Benefits - come up with a better system. I'm not fan of giving people money, i'd rather give them a tax break etc.

These are some of the things I want to hear about. There is no point talking oil money etc, and who did what, and how long it's been OK for. This is a time to make sure we get the best for our future.

We need a debate about the 25 or so things that matter most to the Scottish public, and how the UK government is going to acheive these things. We can the have the Scottish parliment do the same. Then after they have stated there plans for Scotland they can have a debate about how crap each other's plans are.

Why argue over oil money just now if the UK is the only group wanting to do what the Scottish people really want!

Sorry for the rant, bad spelling and grammer. However we are going with what most of us have been brought up to think, not what will be best for the future generations.

Many of the issues you raise are dependant on the policies of whichever party is elected to office in an independent Scotland, but the one in bold caught my eye.

Under the present system there is one election where the winner takes everything - parliamentary majority, First Minister and domination of the committees which were supposed to provide a check on government.

Whether we get independence or not, I'd like to see the First Minister directly elected for a four year term with the power to appoint departmental ministers who would be responsible for introducing legislation. The parliament would also be elected for four years, but two years after the First Minister, and would be responsible for reviewing legislation and holding ministers to account. It would be elected on a proportional basis (eg AMS) with perhaps 20 constituencies returning 6-7 MSPs each based on the population.

Such a system would provide leadership which is strong, accountable and identifiable, provide a control over its powers without the need for a second chamber and mean that all MSPs would serve their constituents without the distraction of a ministerial portfolio. Conversely ministers could be appointed from a wider pool than only MSPs, and could be selected based on knowledge of their portfolio.

[RyeSloan]

Many of the issues you raise are dependant on the policies of whichever party is elected to office in an independent Scotland, but the one in bold caught my eye.

Under the present system there is one election where the winner takes everything - parliamentary majority, First Minister and domination of the committees which were supposed to provide a check on government.

Whether we get independence or not, I'd like to see the First Minister directly elected for a four year term with the power to appoint departmental ministers who would be responsible for introducing legislation. The parliament would also be elected for four years, but two years after the First Minister, and would be responsible for reviewing legislation and holding ministers to account. It would be elected on a proportional basis (eg AMS) with perhaps 20 constituencies returning 6-7 MSPs each based on the population.

Such a system would provide leadership which is strong, accountable and identifiable, provide a control over its powers without the need for a second chamber and mean that all MSPs would serve their constituents without the distraction of a ministerial portfolio. Conversely ministers could be appointed from a wider pool than only MSPs, and could be selected based on knowledge of their portfolio.


Sounds like you are proposing an American style of government. Putting the focus on one person (the FM) to be responsbile for the direction of all legislation is wrong in my eyes and should be avoided at all costs.

I actually think the current voting set up for the Scottish parliament is quite good and should be retained in any Independent Scotland.

[Eyrie]

That one person would have their legislation subject to the scrutiny of a proportionately elected parliament. At the moment there is no check on the powers of our Dear Leader as he not only introduces legislation but has the parliamentary majority to force it through for the next four years. At least I'd limit that to two years between elections.

[RyeSloan]

That one person would have their legislation subject to the scrutiny of a proportionately elected parliament. At the moment there is no check on the powers of our Dear Leader as he not only introduces legislation but has the parliamentary majority to force it through for the next four years. At least I'd limit that to two years between elections.

I agree the UK FPTP system is weak in terms of parliamentary oversight however as I said the Scottish Parliament election process is substantially different and looks to apply basic checks and balances by limiting outright victories...only a special set of circumstances has resulted in the SNP having an outright majority this time around.

I fundamentally disagree on the thought of one person being given the right/power to set out a whole legislative agenda as a progressive move for a new Scotland. Your use of 'Dear Leader' is a great example of why...it focuses all the power onto one person when a government and a parliament is meant to be a representation of the people they govern, one person sitting on their legislative throne cannot hope to achieve that.