Independence march

[Hibbyradge]

He created jobs that didn't exist to cook the books. Tell me what's happening to those public sector jobs now, eh?

lol

[Johnny0762]

Problem is that we have to make an "either ... or" choice. There are benefits to being in Europe which can outweigh the disadvantages. It's a similar situation to remaining in the UK.


It's more a case that I'm waiting to be persuaded that life will be better out of the UK. Until I hear a convincing argument then my view is that my country is better off within the UK.

The positive arguments for that are the UK's size and influence. The UK is better placed to stand up to European interference in our democratic wishes than an independent Scotland - for example our Westminster government is supporting the Scottish government over the minimum pricing issue. The increased size of the UK improves our economic diversity and provides a greater buffer in times of stress (eg the collapse of both RBS and HBoS). And as we have seen with the recent Olympic successes, that size can pay off in other ways as it allows us access to better resources (eg training facilities and coaches) compared to what is affordable on our own which can apply in other areas eg scientific research. Devolution has given us the right to run our own services how we choose without interference from the rest of the UK and the opportunity to compare which approach is best (both sides could learn from each other here). We have seen the ability to vary income tax increased recently which makes us responsible for some of our own revenue (a measure I would like to see go further). Two of the last three prime ministers of the UK have been Scottish (even although we'd both like to deny Blair) and especially under Labour (not a party I vote for) we have healthy Cabinet representation, so Scots are very influential. We have deep cultural and personal ties with the rest of the UK and that emotional link is hard to break without better reasons than have been advanced so far.

Indeed, such is the importance of our union with the rest of the UK that the SNP fall over themselves to tell us that everything will stay the same - the pound, the Queen, Eastenders - that it sometimes feels that the only thing which will change is the Dear Leader's job title.

I'm waiting to hear how an independent Scotland will be run. Will it be a unicameral chamber where one election can give one party all the power for four years (irrelevant which party)? Will this result in a change at local government level as well? What levels of taxation are required to support the current levels of spending and will those levels boost or hinder our economy? How can a sovereign wealth fund be established, and how will it invest? What military can we afford, actually have and do we need rather than the current bleating about "cuts"? Will we be in the EU immediately, or can we be fast-tracked? Will that mean joining the euro, with the loss of sovereignty that entails as our budgets are second-guessed in Brussels?

I have too many questions and a complete lack of answers. Instead I get nonsense about Scotland being Trident-free, Tory-free and everything-paid-by-the-state-free without any explanation of how those can be achieved and whether they are even desirable (eg Tory-free implies outlawing a democratic party, taxpayers have to fund state spending).


Proper post! :top marks

What about the former highlighted piece?

He's talking about a convincing argument for independence but offers no reasoning as to why he would prefer the devil he knows.

He then talks about what military we might need? Well the answer there is simple, if anyone invades Scotland that makes it a threat to dan saf and their military will deal with that threat.

Who in their right mind thinks Scotland will need a defence?

Use what we have got round about us.

[Hibbyradge]

he then talks about what military we might need? well the answer there is simple, if anyone invades scotland that makes it a threat to dan saf and their military will deal with that threat.

who in their right mind thinks scotland will need a defence?


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hibbyradge]

Who in their right mind thinks Scotland will need a defence?

Use what we have got round about us.

Seriously, that's a beauty.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :faf:

Independence until someone has a go at us then we'll come running back to England for help.

I'm convinced. Free Scotland from the English shackles (until we might ever need help or we're asked to help someone else).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are definitely a Yes plant.

[Johnny0762]

Seriously, that's a beauty.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :faf:

Independence until someone has a go at us then we'll come running back to England for help.

I'm convinced. Free Scotland from the English shackles (until we might ever need help or we're asked to help someone else).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are definitely a Yes plant.

Your ferry has sailed without you here.

Firstly, who would, or even could invade Scotland?

Secondly, if we were to be invaded, doesn't that make that an immediate and serious threat to England? We wouldn't have to do any running to anyone.

Just try and think about it.

[Hibbyradge]

Your ferry has sailed without you here.

Firstly, who would, or even could invade Scotland?

Secondly, if we were to be invaded, doesn't that make that an immediate and serious threat to England? We wouldn't have to do any running to anyone.

Just try and think about it.

You're a blast.

There was me thinking you didn't know what you were talking about, but all along you've been at the wind-up.

Good job.

:faf:

[Johnny0762]

You're a blast.

There was me thinking you didn't know what you were talking about, but all along you've been at the wind-up.

Good job.

:faf:

There's always one who thinks he can rumble me. :aok::top marks

[Hibbyradge]

There's always one who thinks he can rumble me. :aok::top marks

I like the idea though.

It's a bit like leaving home for the first time to be independent and getting a flat with you mates.

You go home every week to get your washing and ironing done by your mum and hopefully get a decent dinner while you're there.

:faf:

[Johnny0762]

I like the idea though.

It's a bit like leaving home for the first time to be independent and getting a flat with you mates.

You go home every week to get your washing and ironing done by your mum and hopefully get a decent dinner while you're there.

:faf:

You spoiled brat lol.

[Hibbyradge]

You spoiled brat lol.

Good point again.

I forgot to mention getting a tap till payday fae your dad.

Fantastic analogies. :thumbsup:

[Johnny0762]

Good point again.

I forgot to mention getting a tap till payday fae your dad.

Fantastic analogies. :thumbsup:

Have a pre match pint with me sometime. You'll love it teehee.

I'm out. Night mate.

[tcm1875]

Problem is that we have to make an "either ... or" choice. There are benefits to being in Europe which can outweigh the disadvantages. It's a similar situation to remaining in the UK.


It's more a case that I'm waiting to be persuaded that life will be better out of the UK. Until I hear a convincing argument then my view is that my country is better off within the UK.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/5863-new-figures-reveal-scotland-wealthier-than-rest-of-uk-since-1980


The positive arguments for that are the UK's size and influence. The UK is better placed to stand up to European interference in our democratic wishes than an independent Scotland - for example our Westminster government is supporting the Scottish government over the minimum pricing issue. The increased size of the UK improves our economic diversity and provides a greater buffer in times of stress (eg the collapse of both RBS and HBoS).

Being part of the Union has caused us to get into the mess we are in at the moment....... Would we be in the same mess if independent?....... I'm sure there are plenty of small countries doing well in Europe and even all over the world. Also i seem to remember reading that Scotland would be more self sustaining due to its size. We wouldn't have as high importing costs for food etc. This may not be correct as i haven't looked into it in more detail. It justed seemed to make sense.

And as we have seen with the recent Olympic successes, that size can pay off in other ways as it allows us access to better resources (eg training facilities and coaches) compared to what is affordable on our own which can apply in other areas eg scientific research.

Why don't we have these sporting facilities for our athletes to train in??? We should have. Look at the stadia that have been built down south partly with tax payers money then look at Hampden. Theres just no comparison.Devolution has given us the right to run our own services how we choose without interference from the rest of the UK and the opportunity to compare which approach is best (both sides could learn from each other here). We have seen the ability to vary income tax increased recently which makes us responsible for some of our own revenue (a measure I would like to see go further).

Me too, a lot further. We have control of 12% of revenue at the moment.



Two of the last three prime ministers of the UK have been Scottish (even although we'd both like to deny Blair) and especially under Labour (not a party I vote for) we have healthy Cabinet representation, so Scots are very influential. We have deep cultural and personal ties with the rest of the UK and that emotional link is hard to break without better reasons than have been advanced so far.



Indeed, such is the importance of our union with the rest of the UK that the SNP fall over themselves to tell us that everything will stay the same - the pound, the Queen, Eastenders - that it sometimes feels that the only thing which will change is the Dear Leader's job title.

Yes it is important, thats why westminster wants to keep us. Some of these things may be necessary in the beginning. Theres nothing to say the SNP or AS will be in power, they'll have to fight for my vote just as every other party will.


I'm waiting to hear how an independent Scotland will be run. Will it be a unicameral chamber where one election can give one party all the power for four years (irrelevant which party)? Will this result in a change at local government level as well? What levels of taxation are required to support the current levels of spending and will those levels boost or hinder our economy? How can a sovereign wealth fund be established, and how will it invest? What military can we afford, actually have and do we need rather than the current bleating about "cuts"? Will we be in the EU immediately, or can we be fast-tracked? Will that mean joining the euro, with the loss of sovereignty that entails as our budgets are second-guessed in Brussels?

Yes and if the SNP are serious they will have to provide these answers and a lot more. Will that be enough for some people though?


I have too many questions and a complete lack of answers. Instead I get nonsense about Scotland being Trident-free, Tory-free and everything-paid-by-the-state-free without any explanation of how those can be achieved and whether they are even desirable (eg Tory-free implies outlawing a democratic party, taxpayers have to fund state spending).


One thing we have the answer to is nothing will change if its a no vote. I agree with some of what you are saying though. We should be discussing defense, economy, EU etc. Instead its SNP this, Labour that, Gordon Brown is ****, no hes not, yes he is :-) As much as i find some of it interesting, its not whats needed!!!

[Beefster]

What about the former highlighted piece?

He's talking about a convincing argument for independence but offers no reasoning as to why he would prefer the devil he knows.

He then talks about what military we might need? Well the answer there is simple, if anyone invades Scotland that makes it a threat to dan saf and their military will deal with that threat.

Who in their right mind thinks Scotland will need a defence?

Use what we have got round about us.


Your ferry has sailed without you here.

Firstly, who would, or even could invade Scotland?

Secondly, if we were to be invaded, doesn't that make that an immediate and serious threat to England? We wouldn't have to do any running to anyone.

Just try and think about it.

You have to be at the wind-up.

"What do we want? Independence. When do we want it? Now. Except for currency, interest rate setting, the Head of State and if the UK could defend us too, that would be awesome".

I presume that you want them to bail out our banks too, if it ever comes to that again?

[allmodcons]

So now a low and stable interest rate was not 'Scottish minded? :faf:

You are sooooo right. If only Brown had demonstrated his commitment to Scotland by giving us the high interest rates on our mortgages that we wanted and needed we wouldn't be having this debate. If only Scottish business could have had the costly and unstable investment environment that higher interest rates would have delivered everything would have been so much better.

With regard to my final comment, if you are going to indulge in the utter abject nonsense of trying to portray Brown as not 'Scottish-minded' then I will continue to describe it as the tartan sunglasses nonsense that it plainly is. Crack on though, stronger voices for staying as part of the UK I have not seen in many other places.

I take it you're having a laugh at yourself for not understanding the economics here?

I never, once, said interest rates were low during Labour's reign. My point was quite the opposite (i.e. - interest rates were kept at an artificially high level to peg back inflation and stop the SE economy from overheating). Are you telling me high interest rates are good for the export market? The average interest rate from 1997 - 2008 was approximately 5%, my argument was that it could have been lower if Labour & Brown had not had an eye on the overheating economy in the SE of England.

If you're going to have a laugh at another posters point of view it might be a good idea to understand the economics before you do so.

[allmodcons]

Just like an independent Scotland would have to suffer interest rates set by the BoE but this time around they wouldn't even need to consider Scotland in any way shape or form....so of you think it was bad before then surely it would only be worse when there is zero political influence or consequence?


Not sure how this is relevant, but would be interested to know how you are so sure things would be worse. Typical argument against Independence (i.e. - things would be worse) completely missing the point that a Scottish Government would have complete fiscal autonomy.

[Beefster]

Not sure how this is relevant, but would be interested to know how you are so sure things would be worse. Typical argument against Independence (i.e. - things would be worse) completely missing the point that a Scottish Government would have complete fiscal autonomy.

So why not devo-max, then?

[Hibbyradge]

One thing we have the answer to is nothing will change if its a no vote. I agree with some of what you are saying though. We should be discussing defense, economy, EU etc. Instead its SNP this, Labour that, Gordon Brown is ****, no hes not, yes he is :-) As much as i find some of it interesting, its not whats needed!!!


This is correct.

Until plausible and positive answers to these questions are laid out, the Yes campaign is doomed to fail.

Despite some of the "views" posted on this thread, it is absolutely the pro-independence lobby's responsibility to convince people to vote for change.

Banging on about how we'll be able to make our own decisions, that we'll be a "nation again" and some nonsense about self respect, just won't cut it.

In truth, the average citizen will have as much influence over decisions at an independent Holyrood as they currently have over Westminster policy makers, and, we already know we're Scottish, whether or not there is a union.

Although the following analogy isn't perfect, I think it serves its purpose:

I am a member at Turnhouse Golf Club. Although it has its flaws, I've been a member for some years and I'm comfortable enough there and I'm fairly set in my golfing ways.

If someone wanted me to join a different club, they would have to tell me why it would suit me better.

And, importantly, if there was any possibility that it was going to cost me more, they would really need to convince me that it would be worth it. To me.

Oh, and they'd have to get someone I respected or liked to sell it to me. The importance of personality should not be underestimated.

Just ask Gordon Brown!

[Johnny0762]

So why not devo-max, then?

Because Westminster refuse to allow us to include that question in the referendum.

It's a joke. We're meant to be having a vote amongst the Scottish people on our future, a fair call, but the UK even wants to control what we ask the Scottish people. It's bullying us into the single question, as well as trying to bully us into voting sooner.

Smash the Union. Britannia rules no more. Alba gu bràth. :aok:

[marinello59]

Because Westminster refuse to allow us to include that question in the referendum.

It's a joke. We're meant to be having a vote amongst the Scottish people on our future, a fair call, but the UK even wants to control what we ask the Scottish people. It's bullying us into the single question, as well as trying to bully us into voting sooner.

Smash the Union. Britannia rules no more. Alba gu bràth. :aok:

If that's what you want then why on earth would you want a second question? Salmond wants it there because he is scared he will lose the Independence question. Thats also why the version of Independence he has revealed so far isn't really Independence. Westminster is bullying nobody by the way unless you think Wee Eck and co are soft touches, I don't.

[hughio]

This is correct.

Until plausible and positive answers to these questions are laid out, the Yes campaign is doomed to fail.

Despite some of the "views" posted on this thread, it is absolutely the pro-independence lobby's responsibility to convince people to vote for change.

Banging on about how we'll be able to make our own decisions, that we'll be a "nation again" and some nonsense about self respect, just won't cut it.

In truth, the average citizen will have as much influence over decisions at an independent Holyrood as they currently have over Westminster policy makers, and, we already know we're Scottish, whether or not there is a union.

Although the following analogy isn't perfect, I think it serves its purpose:

I am a member at Turnhouse Golf Club. Although it has its flaws, I've been a member for some years and I'm comfortable enough there and I'm fairly set in my golfing ways.

If someone wanted me to join a different club, they would have to tell me why it would suit me better.

And, importantly, if there was any possibility that it was going to cost me more, they would really need to convince me that it would be worth it. To me.

Oh, and they'd have to get someone I respected or liked to sell it to me. The importance of personality should not be underestimated.

Just ask Gordon Brown!

Your analogy might be more apposite if we imagine Turnhouse being slowly downgraded by unimaginative management by a Captain and board you can no longer respect (or whatever you call the rulers of golf clubs).You then as a Member become frustrated at not being able to better things by your own initiative.So a new regime is proposed to swiftly remove the old bufty and his cronies and to make things better going forward by an ammendment to club rules.

What's not to like?

[marinello59]

Your analogy might be more apposite if we imagine Turnhouse being slowly downgraded by unimaginative management by a Captain and board you can no longer respect (or whatever you call the rulers of golf clubs).You then as a Member become frustrated at not being able to better things by your own initiative.So a new regime is proposed to swiftly remove the old bufty and his cronies and to make things better going forward by an ammendment to club rules.

What's not to like?

Golf. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Not sure how this is relevant, but would be interested to know how you are so sure things would be worse. Typical argument against Independence (i.e. - things would be worse) completely missing the point that a Scottish Government would have complete fiscal autonomy.


It's relevant alright!

You can't have 'complete fiscal autonomy' if you don't have your own currency and have to abide by a Central Bank setting interest rates in a completely seperate country.

To brush over these issues, especially when we have seen the havoc in Europe, as 'typical arguments agaisnt independence' is simply dangerous and probably highly foolish in my opinion. It was exactly these types of arguments that Helmut Khol etc refused to listen to when the Euro was set up...for Scotland to then simply follow this same template with little or no consideration to the impact it may have further down the line would seem like head in the sand stuff to me.

[allmodcons]

It's relevant alright!

You can't have 'complete fiscal autonomy' if you don't have your own currency and have to abide by a Central Bank setting interest rates in a completely seperate country.

To brush over these issues, especially when we have seen the havoc in Europe, as 'typical arguments agaisnt independence' is simply dangerous and probably highly foolish in my opinion. It was exactly these types of arguments that Helmut Khol etc refused to listen to when the Euro was set up...for Scotland to then simply follow this same template with little or no consideration to the impact it may have further down the line would seem like head in the sand stuff to me.

Of course you can! Are you telling me that Eurozone members don't have full fiscal autonomy?
Scotland could quite easliy have full fiscal autonomy in a 'sterling zone' arrangement with the rest of the UK.
France has full fiscal autonomy with Monetary Policy decided by the European Central Bank. Are you saying this is not the case?

Is this information from the Scottish Government website factually incorrect?

4.26 Independence - full fiscal autonomy - would see Scotland with the same responsibility for fiscal and economic policy as other, similar countries.
4.27 This option would return responsibility for raising and collecting all revenues (including North Sea revenues) to the Scottish Parliament, as well as the full range of government expenditures (including welfare and defence). As the government of an independent nation, the Scottish Government would be able to borrow on international capital markets subject to the usual free market constraints faced by other governments.
4.28 Independence would also mean that the Scottish Parliament could determine how it wished monetary policy to be conducted in Scotland. The Scottish Government would retain Sterling on independence and a decision on joining the Euro would be taken based upon economic conditions and only with the approval of the Scottish people in a referendum. This would mean that the decision on the best monetary policy framework for Scotland would be determined by what is in the best interests for Scotland rather than the current situation where the UK Government makes the decision for Scotland.
4.29 In practice, fiscal policy under independence would be subject to intra-national rules and regulations, such as EU directives on competition, tax harmonisation and the EU Single Market. However, unlike the other options outlined above, Scotland's relationship with the international economic and financial community would take place within the context of Scotland acting as an independent sovereign state. Scotland would therefore have the ability to shape and influence policy at the international level ( e.g.EU fisheries policy) - something that is currently not possible.

[Johnny0762]

Golf clubs eh?

There's no fair way to say this bit that's on par with the worst analogies ever. Total bunkerum. Laughing smilie

[Hibbyradge]

Gold clubs eh?

There's no fair way to say this bit that's on par with the worst analogies ever. Total bunkerum. Laughing smilie

I'm convinced. The yes campaign shouldn't have to persuade anyone.

:rolleyes:

You're debating skills aren't very well developed, are they?

Mocking people and their opinions is pretty much the limit.

Thankfully there are others who have some interesting points to make, even if I'm not finding them particularly persuasive as yet.

[ancienthibby]

So why not devo-max, then?

Indeed, Mr Beefster!

It's very disappointing to me that no political party, or even one 'political heavyweight' has picked up the ball on this one (Jeremy Purvis, by the way, is a lightweight, imho). I would have no issues with this being put on the ballot paper in some way because this Scottish nation just cannot afford to trust the empty unionist promises (as in Alex Douglas Home before) and wait another ten years for something to be delivered. My view, though I support full independence, is that some positive change of substance in our ability to manage our affairs with the greatest degree of autonomy must result, otherwise years and maybe even a generation will be wasted.

And then we have the incoherent havering of Johan Lamont wanting a review of universal rights (many of which the Labour Party introduced in Scotland!) while Scotland is forced to pick up an annual tab of nearly £3 billion for the obscene deficiency of having Trident on the Clyde!

[marinello59]

Indeed, Mr Beefster!

It's very disappointing to me that no political party, or even one 'political heavyweight' has picked up the ball on this one (Jeremy Purvis, by the way, is a lightweight, imho). I would have no issues with this being put on the ballot paper in some way because this Scottish nation just cannot afford to trust the empty unionist promises (as in Alex Douglas Home before) and wait another ten years for something to be delivered. My view, though I support full independence, is that some positive change of substance in our ability to manage our affairs with the greatest degree of autonomy must result, otherwise years and maybe even a generation will be wasted.

And then we have the incoherent havering of Johan the Lamentable wanting a review of universal rights (many of which the Labour Party introduced in Scotland!) while Scotland is forced to pick up an annual tab of nearly £3 billion for the obscene deficiency of having Trident on the Clyde!

Is it so hard for you to refer to any politician who is not a member of the SNP by their name rather than yet another unfunny pun? It makes any point you make hard to take seriously.
Lamont is right by the way, the giveaway populist politics has to end. However I agree, it's a bit rich for a Labour politician to deliver that message. Hopefully one benefit of Independence will be the emergence of a genuine opposition in this country to counter the big government tendencies of both SNP and Labour. An SNP run Independent Scotland won't deliver more power to the Scottish people, it's centralist nature will merely shift the levers to Holyrood making no difference to our ability to control our own day to day affairs.

[Johnny0762]

I'm convinced. The yes campaign shouldn't have to persuade anyone.

:rolleyes:

You're debating skills aren't very well developed, are they?

Mocking people and their opinions is pretty much the limit.

Thankfully there are others who have some interesting points to make, even if I'm not finding them particularly persuasive as yet.

Read the post again before you make yourself sound even dafter.

I hope this doesn't drive a wedge between us. Let's iron out our differences now.

[RyeSloan]

Of course you can! Are you telling me that Eurozone members don't have full fiscal autonomy?
Scotland could quite easliy have full fiscal autonomy in a 'sterling zone' arrangement with the rest of the UK.
France has full fiscal autonomy with Monetary Policy decided by the European Central Bank. Are you saying this is not the case?

Is this information from the Scottish Government website factually incorrect?

4.26 Independence - full fiscal autonomy - would see Scotland with the same responsibility for fiscal and economic policy as other, similar countries.
4.27 This option would return responsibility for raising and collecting all revenues (including North Sea revenues) to the Scottish Parliament, as well as the full range of government expenditures (including welfare and defence). As the government of an independent nation, the Scottish Government would be able to borrow on international capital markets subject to the usual free market constraints faced by other governments.
4.28 Independence would also mean that the Scottish Parliament could determine how it wished monetary policy to be conducted in Scotland. The Scottish Government would retain Sterling on independence and a decision on joining the Euro would be taken based upon economic conditions and only with the approval of the Scottish people in a referendum. This would mean that the decision on the best monetary policy framework for Scotland would be determined by what is in the best interests for Scotland rather than the current situation where the UK Government makes the decision for Scotland.
4.29 In practice, fiscal policy under independence would be subject to intra-national rules and regulations, such as EU directives on competition, tax harmonisation and the EU Single Market. However, unlike the other options outlined above, Scotland's relationship with the international economic and financial community would take place within the context of Scotland acting as an independent sovereign state. Scotland would therefore have the ability to shape and influence policy at the international level ( e.g.EU fisheries policy) - something that is currently not possible.

I would argue that it is:

Can you have full control on your economic policy if you can't control money supply or base rates?
Can you really have full fiscal autonomy if you don't have control of your monetary policy or currency....surely the two are inextricably linked?
How can an independent Scotland "determine how it wished monetary policy to be conducted in Scotland" when it won't control some of the basic levers of that policy?

Does Greece have full fiscal autonomy? No. Why? Because those that set the monetary policy (i.e France and Germany via the ECB) have restricted their ability to take the actions a truely independent nation would have...which probalby would have been a currency devaluation. It also allowed Greece to borrow at cheaper rates than it should have...great for a while until it all goes south.

Did Ireland have full control over their economy during the boom years? No it overheated massively because the interest rate of the currency they used was controlled by the ECB mainly for the 'core's' advantage.

Being able to control the money supply, the base rate and the exchange rate your currency relative to the rest of the world seem to be pretty key for most countries...The Swiss Central bank has a specific target of trying to manage the exchange rate to protect it's economy, the BoJ seems to have the same. The Fed supplied liquidity to the US market when it was about to run dry....you might not agree with these approaches and there is plenty of debate as to there efficacy but at least they have the choice to take these actions or not. An independent Scotland will have nothing, zero, nada infulence on the BoE and Englands monetary policy..that could have a dramatic impact on Scotland as a whole and therefore a substantial impact on the 'full fiscal autonomy' that will be claimed.
A rather simple scenario to imagine is this:

Scotland’s economy starts to motor in it's post independence days (say on a surge in oil revenue)...the economy starts to overheat quite rapidly and inflation become severe....the most basic action any nation would take is to raise interest rates. Scotland though won't be able to do so and therefore cheap money and credit would continue to flood the nation and before you know it we have a bubble of Irish proportions.

All bubbles eventually pop (say on a worldwide slump in oil and whiskey prices) yet this is exactly when England’s economy starts to gain traction through it’s bigger emphasis on services, their economy gets quite warm so the BoE starts raising interest rates at the exact time Scotland needs them to come down. Scotland suffers a lack of credit, capital flight and rising interest rates in times of rising unemployment and drooping government revenue.

A simple scenario but hardly a fanciful one …where is the Independence and Fiscal Autonomy and Scottish monetary policy in all of that?

[Hibbyradge]

Read the post again before you make yourself sound even dafter.

I hope this doesn't drive a wedge between us. Let's iron out our differences now.

Ah jeezo, how very green of me. It's not like me to end up in a hole. I need to get a grip.

My apologies, I pitched my reply all wrong. I read your post too quickly and thought you were trying to shaft. Obviously, I wanted to swing for you.

I'll have to wear this like an albatross around my neck for a while now.

Like you, I hope we can putt this behind us.

[allmodcons]

I would argue that it is:

Can you have full control on your economic policy if you can't control money supply or base rates?
Can you really have full fiscal autonomy if you don't have control of your monetary policy or currency....surely the two are inextricably linked?
How can an independent Scotland "determine how it wished monetary policy to be conducted in Scotland" when it won't control some of the basic levers of that policy?

Does Greece have full fiscal autonomy? No. Why? Because those that set the monetary policy (i.e France and Germany via the ECB) have restricted their ability to take the actions a truely independent nation would have...which probalby would have been a currency devaluation. It also allowed Greece to borrow at cheaper rates than it should have...great for a while until it all goes south.

Did Ireland have full control over their economy during the boom years? No it overheated massively because the interest rate of the currency they used was controlled by the ECB mainly for the 'core's' advantage.

Being able to control the money supply, the base rate and the exchange rate your currency relative to the rest of the world seem to be pretty key for most countries...The Swiss Central bank has a specific target of trying to manage the exchange rate to protect it's economy, the BoJ seems to have the same. The Fed supplied liquidity to the US market when it was about to run dry....you might not agree with these approaches and there is plenty of debate as to there efficacy but at least they have the choice to take these actions or not. An independent Scotland will have nothing, zero, nada infulence on the BoE and Englands monetary policy..that could have a dramatic impact on Scotland as a whole and therefore a substantial impact on the 'full fiscal autonomy' that will be claimed.
A rather simple scenario to imagine is this:

Scotland’s economy starts to motor in it's post independence days (say on a surge in oil revenue)...the economy starts to overheat quite rapidly and inflation become severe....the most basic action any nation would take is to raise interest rates. Scotland though won't be able to do so and therefore cheap money and credit would continue to flood the nation and before you know it we have a bubble of Irish proportions.

All bubbles eventually pop (say on a worldwide slump in oil and whiskey prices) yet this is exactly when England’s economy starts to gain traction through it’s bigger emphasis on services, their economy gets quite warm so the BoE starts raising interest rates at the exact time Scotland needs them to come down. Scotland suffers a lack of credit, capital flight and rising interest rates in times of rising unemployment and drooping government revenue.

A simple scenario but hardly a fanciful one …where is the Independence and Fiscal Autonomy and Scottish monetary policy in all of that?

You make some fair points in your support of the Union but, unfortunately, you base them around the bland assumption, well supported by the media, that England is the UK.

Are we not currently supposed to be equal partners with England, Wales & Northern Ireland in the Union?

Here is an alternative and less subservient view of Scotland's position in the Union and Monetary Policy post Independence:-


Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.

[Eyrie]

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-uk-since-1980 (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/5863-new-figures-reveal-scotland-wealthier-than-rest-of-uk-since-1980)
And numbers can be produced that state the opposite. There is a lack of clarity on the issue because it is damned difficult to quantify, meaning that both sides can provide convincing numbers that support their case.


Being part of the Union has caused us to get into the mess we are in at the moment....... Would we be in the same mess if independent?....... I'm sure there are plenty of small countries doing well in Europe and even all over the world. Also i seem to remember reading that Scotland would be more self sustaining due to its size. We wouldn't have as high importing costs for food etc. This may not be correct as i haven't looked into it in more detail. It justed seemed to make sense.
Such as Ireland and Iceland? Don't know about the food thing, but could it be due to us having a lower population density? Actually a good thing from an environmental point of view.


Why don't we have these sporting facilities for our athletes to train in??? We should have. Look at the stadia that have been built down south partly with tax payers money then look at Hampden. Theres just no comparison.
My point is that these facilities (sporting, scientific etc) cost a lot of money, not just to build but to run - particularly the cost of attracting the top coaches. A larger country can afford more of these facilities and better coaches, then bring together a larger number of elite athletes to bring out the best in each other. A smaller country would have to focus its attentions on excelling at only a few sports or would spread its efforts too thinly.
Me too, a lot further. We have control of 12% of revenue at the moment.
We're in agreement to an extent here :aok: Only difference is that I believe we can increase that revenue raising with more devolution and don't need to go the whole way to independence.


Yes it is important, thats why westminster wants to keep us. Some of these things may be necessary in the beginning. Theres nothing to say the SNP or AS will be in power, they'll have to fight for my vote just as every other party will.
You've drawn the wrong conclusion here. It is the independence movement that wants to keep these things despite wanting to separate from the UK. Logically we should be moving on with our own currency, slimmed down monarchy/republic and home grown TV shows.


Yes and if the SNP are serious they will have to provide these answers and a lot more. Will that be enough for some people though?
That depends on how well their answers withstand scrutiny. I'm not jeopardising my country for glib soundbites.


One thing we have the answer to is nothing will change if its a no vote. I agree with some of what you are saying though. We should be discussing defense, economy, EU etc. Instead its SNP this, Labour that, Gordon Brown is ****, no hes not, yes he is :-) As much as i find some of it interesting, its not whats needed!!!
Of course things can change. In the event of a vote in favour of remaining within the UK it is likely that there will be further devolution of powers to Scotland. If anyone can articulate a comprehensive devo-max package (rather than simply the fuzzy name) then we could even go to that stage, although it is likely to need changes to the rest of the UK as well as so would need support in Wales, Northern Ireland and possibly the English regions if they show an appetite for devolution.

And yes, the debate needs to kept above the level that Johnny0762 is comfortable with. He should stick to football.

[Johnny0762]

And numbers can be produced that state the opposite. There is a lack of clarity on the issue because it is damned difficult to quantify, meaning that both sides can provide convincing numbers that support their case.


Such as Ireland and Iceland? Don't know about the food thing, but could it be due to us having a lower population density? Actually a good thing from an environmental point of view.


My point is that these facilities (sporting, scientific etc) cost a lot of money, not just to build but to run - particularly the cost of attracting the top coaches. A larger country can afford more of these facilities and better coaches, then bring together a larger number of elite athletes to bring out the best in each other. A smaller country would have to focus its attentions on excelling at only a few sports or would spread its efforts too thinly.
We're in agreement to an extent here :aok: Only difference is that I believe we can increase that revenue raising with more devolution and don't need to go the whole way to independence.


You've drawn the wrong conclusion here. It is the independence movement that wants to keep these things despite wanting to separate from the UK. Logically we should be moving on with our own currency, slimmed down monarchy/republic and home grown TV shows.


That depends on how well their answers withstand scrutiny. I'm not jeopardising my country for glib soundbites.


Of course things can change. In the event of a vote in favour of remaining within the UK it is likely that there will be further devolution of powers to Scotland. If anyone can articulate a comprehensive devo-max package (rather than simply the fuzzy name) then we could even go to that stage, although it is likely to need changes to the rest of the UK as well as so would need support in Wales, Northern Ireland and possibly the English regions if they show an appetite for devolution.

And yes, the debate needs to kept above the level that Johnny0762 is comfortable with. He should stick to football.

From the man who considers that independence might jeopardise his country which is already in jeopardy as part of the union.

Personal insults just make you look stupid, intolerant and typically akin to someone who will kick their wife/dog when things don't go their way.

[One Day Soon]

I take it you're having a laugh at yourself for not understanding the economics here?

I think you may need to revisit your basic economics. See below.


I never, once, said interest rates were low during Labour's reign. My point was quite the opposite (i.e. - interest rates were kept at an artificially high level to peg back inflation and stop the SE economy from overheating). Are you telling me high interest rates are good for the export market? The average interest rate from 1997 - 2008 was approximately 5%, my argument was that it could have been lower if Labour & Brown had not had an eye on the overheating economy in the SE of England.

I said that interest rates were low under Labour. You implied that they were high.

One:
Average interest rates in the UK between 1971 and 2012 were 8.3%. If we take your own estimate of 5% between 1997 - 2008 under Brown as accurate, then by any objective measure interest rates were indeed historically low. And stable, but more of that later.

Two:
You claim that interest rates could have been lower if Labour & Brown had not had an eye on the overheating economy in the SE of England. It appears to have escaped your attention that interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, not by the Government or the Chancellor. As you may be aware the first action Brown took when he became Chancellor in 1997 was to pass control of interest rates to the Bank. This means that he demonstrably did not and could not have had any control over the interest rate as you claim.

Incidentally the SNP proposal under independence is to leave the setting of interest rates with, you've guessed it, the Bank of England. To put it another way, Scotland's interest rates would be at the mercy of the Bank of England - an institution whose duty would be exclusively to the economies of the new United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but not to the foreign nation of Scotland. The only term I can think of to adequately describe this SNP policy is - completely radge.

Three:
You dismiss the freezing of whisky duties for a decade - that's an entire decade - as a red herring because it doesn't fit the obsessive Separatist agenda of 'All things London bad, all things Scotland good. And it directly contradicts the assertion that Brown was not 'Scotland-minded'.

Four:
Low and stable interest rates - for that is what they were under Labour & Brown - benefit two core economic groups: homeowners and business. Homeowners are able to use their higher disposable income to spend in the wider economy thereby supporting growth and employment. Business is able to confidently predict the cost of investment - capital investment in particular - on the kind of items which bring real competitive advantage such as new machinery, new factories and, er, new bottling plants.


If you're going to have a laugh at another posters point of view it might be a good idea to understand the economics before you do so.

I understand the economics alright. I also understand the Separatist subtext that, as has been observed elsewhere, you can only be legitimately patriotic if you take the SNP point of view. That's why this thread is full of intolerant, dishonest, tribal and deliberately divisive suggestions that those who are pro the Union are part of some Orange plot, deliberately lying about Scotland, complicit political village idiots or agents of some wider and longer conspiracy against Scotland.

From the uplifting collective joy and glory of Team GB during the Olympics, to this dismal and narrow snapshot of how Separatists view the world is a depressing and sobering fall.

[Johnny0762]

I understand the economics alright. I also understand the Separatist subtext that, as has been observed elsewhere, you can only be legitimately patriotic if you take the SNP point of view. That's why this thread is full of intolerant, dishonest, tribal and deliberately divisive suggestions that those who are pro the Union are part of some Orange plot, deliberately lying about Scotland, complicit political village idiots or agents of some wider and longer conspiracy against Scotland.

From the uplifting collective joy and glory of Team GB during the Olympics, to this dismal and narrow snapshot of how Separatists view the world is a depressing and sobering fall.


Intolerant - British Army murdered 13 people in Derry for daring to march for civil rights.

Dishonest - They lied about it for four decades.

Tribal - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.

Divisive - See all of the above


Well done you. :aok:

[One Day Soon]

Because Westminster refuse to allow us to include that question in the referendum.

It's a joke. We're meant to be having a vote amongst the Scottish people on our future, a fair call, but the UK even wants to control what we ask the Scottish people. It's bullying us into the single question, as well as trying to bully us into voting sooner.

Smash the Union. Britannia rules no more. Alba gu bràth. :aok:


I really hope you rise to a prominent role in the Yes campaign.

The present Scottish Government - AKA the SNP - did not get elected on a manifesto commitment to 'Devo-Max'. They were elected on an independence manifesto and a referendum on independence is what they will hold.

If you want a devo-based constitutional change you will need to have a Government elected on that ticket - which these days includes Labour, Lib-Dems and Tories. Pretty simple and fair democratic politics really.

For the record the SNP has in its entire history delivered no constititional change for Scotland whatsoever. We currently have a Scottish Parliament because Blair's first Labour government of 1997 to 2001 kept its manifesto promise to legislate for a Scottish Parliament following a referendum of the Scottish people. Elected in 1997, delivered the Parliament up and running by 1999.

[Johnny0762]

I really hope you rise to a prominent role in the Yes campaign.

The present Scottish Government - AKA the SNP - did not get elected on a manifesto commitment to 'Devo-Max'. They were elected on an independence manifesto and a referendum on independence is what they will hold.

If you want a devo-based constitutional change you will need to have a Government elected on that ticket - which these days includes Labour, Lib-Dems and Tories. Pretty simple and fair democratic politics really.

For the record the SNP has in its entire history delivered no constititional change for Scotland whatsoever. We currently have a Scottish Parliament because Blair's first Labour government of 1997 to 2001 kept its manifesto promise to legislate for a Scottish Parliament following a referendum of the Scottish people. Elected in 1997, delivered the Parliament up and running by 1999.

How naive of you to think the SNP, or any political party must stick to their election promises.

Where have you been?

[One Day Soon]

Intolerant - British Army murdered 13 people in Derry for daring to march for civil rights.

Dishonest - They lied about it for four decades.

Tribal - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.

Divisive - See all of the above


Well done you. :aok:


So far then you seem to think that Obama isn't really black or is a token black, xenophobes have the redeeming feature of acting in their own interests, England will rescue us if anybody hard messes with us and people who want Scotland to stay in Britain have Irish civil rights blood on their hands?

You should absolutely start your own blog.

[One Day Soon]

How naive of you to think the SNP, or any political party must stick to their election promises.

Where have you been?


I think I get it at last. You are Michael Forsyth, Jim Murphy or Nick Clegg and I claim my £10 prize.

[Johnny0762]

So far then you seem to think that Obama isn't really black or is a token black, xenophobes have the redeeming feature of acting in their own interests, England will rescue us if anybody hard messes with us and people who want Scotland to stay in Britain have Irish civil rights blood on their hands?

You should absolutely start your own blog.

I already explained what I meant about the Obama post.

You have decided to twist my comments, still, to make them laced with racist overtones.

For that, your post has been reported.

It's not on pal.

[One Day Soon]

I already explained what I meant about the Obama post.

You have decided to twist my comments, still, to make them laced with racist overtones.

For that, your post has been reported.

It's not on pal.


Hey, I'm happy to apologise if I have misinterpreted your comments quoted below and I haven't called you racist, I have simply referred back to our previous exchange.

"It was in response to the comment that Scotland has been well represented in Westminster with even a Scottish prime minister, and comparable with the irony of America having a black president.

Now don't get all hot and bothered about my last sentence, for it is true that many people, and many Americans feel it is a token gesture in a multicultural but inherently racist country."

[marinello59]

Intolerant - British Army murdered 13 people in Derry for daring to march for civil rights.

Dishonest - They lied about it for four decades.

Tribal - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.

Divisive - See all of the above


Well done you. :aok:

Yet again you bring Irish politics in to the debate. Funny that.

[J-C]

I think most people don't understand the history of the Act of Union, hence why they struggle to to accept why many people wish to have their country back again.


In the late 13th early 14th centuries, England attempted to take over Scotland by military force, Queen Mary of Scots promised a peaceful union and although England and Scotland were ruled by the same King, James vi / i in 1603, the two countries remained separate until 1707.

Since Scotland had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme, many of the hierarchy had lost a vast amount of their fortunes in the scheme, so large bribes and monies were given to these hierarchy in exchange for the voting in of the act of union.

Since the same monarch had presided over both countries for almost a century, England were worried that a different monarch in Scotland might have made alliances against England.

The 1707 treaty was regarded as very unpopular amongst the Scots with petitions from shires, burghs and parishes. There was massive unrest in Edinburgh and several Scottish parishes the day the treaty was passed, with the parliament imposing martial law.

This is just a brief account but to understand why many want independence, first of all you have to understand how the union itself came about.

[Johnny0762]

Yet again you bring Irish politics in to the debate. Funny that.

I think you'll find that Derry is geographically and politically part of the united kingdom of great Britain therefore part of the union and therefore British.

[One Day Soon]

I think you'll find that Derry is geographically and politically part of the united kingdom of great Britain therefore part of the union and therefore British.


Johnny, you have a PM

[Beefster]

Intolerant - British Army murdered 13 people in Derry for daring to march for civil rights.

Dishonest - They lied about it for four decades.

Tribal - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.

Divisive - See all of the above


Well done you. :aok:

You really hate the UK, huh? Every country has its episodes of shame. Well done for pointing them out though. I don't get the relevance to a debate on Scottish independence, unless you're claiming that the UK is evil and Scotland should leave before we get tainted by aforementioned evilness?


I think most people don't understand the history of the Act of Union, hence why they struggle to to accept why many people wish to have their country back again.


In the late 13th early 14th centuries, England attempted to take over Scotland by military force, Queen Mary of Scots promised a peaceful union and although England and Scotland were ruled by the same King, James vi / i in 1603, the two countries remained separate until 1707.

Since Scotland had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme, many of the hierarchy had lost a vast amount of their fortunes in the scheme, so large bribes and monies were given to these hierarchy in exchange for the voting in of the act of union.

Since the same monarch had presided over both countries for almost a century, England were worried that a different monarch in Scotland might have made alliances against England.

The 1707 treaty was regarded as very unpopular amongst the Scots with petitions from shires, burghs and parishes. There was massive unrest in Edinburgh and several Scottish parishes the day the treaty was passed, with the parliament imposing martial law.

This is just a brief account but to understand why many want independence, first of all you have to understand how the union itself came about.

Folk want independence in 2012 because of something that happened before Rabbie Burns was born? Is anyone really that crazy that they'd let something that long ago colour their opinions today?

[marinello59]

I think you'll find that Derry is geographically and politically part of the united kingdom of great Britain therefore part of the union and therefore British.

Your input on this threads can only have two explanations. You are either on the wind up or....... I am too polite to give the other reason. I am out of this one now.

[Johnny0762]

You really hate the UK, huh? Every country has its episodes of shame. Well done for pointing them out though. I don't get the relevance to a debate on Scottish independence, unless you're claiming that the UK is evil and Scotland should leave before we get tainted by aforementioned evilness?



Folk want independence in 2012 because of something that happened before Rabbie Burns was born? Is anyone really that crazy that they'd let something that long ago colour their opinions today?


I don't hate the Uk. I love Scotland..

Let's scrap Burns Night celebration eh?

[Johnny0762]

Your input on this threads can only have two explanations. You are either on the wind up or....... I am too polite to give the other reason. I am out of this one now.

You just cannot stick to the facts, can you?

[J-C]

You really hate the UK, huh? Every country has its episodes of shame. Well done for pointing them out though. I don't get the relevance to a debate on Scottish independence, unless you're claiming that the UK is evil and Scotland should leave before we get tainted by aforementioned evilness?



Folk want independence in 2012 because of something that happened before Rabbie Burns was born? Is anyone really that crazy that they'd let something that long ago colour their opinions today?


Open your mind and eyes, surely what happened in the past has effected the future, England was a country who enjoyed steamrollering into other countries, hence why there was an Empire, they had on numerous occasions came into our country during the 13-14th centuries ( which was very independent with our own monarchy ) with force and imposed their rule. We fought back to regain our independence from them( Bannockburn ) Why?? because it is our country and we wanted it back for the people of Scotland.

We have differing laws, education and a different race of people, yes made not so much now as we have, since ww2 became more multicultural but we still have a very large % of the population which is from pure Scot/Celt/Pict descendancy.

As for Robert Burns?? well I can't see where I even mentioned him, you've just added that yourself,he wasn't born till 1759 so he only knew the union but since you brought him up, funnily enough he was also a very strong nationalist.

[allmodcons]

I understand the economics alright. I also understand the Separatist subtext that, as has been observed elsewhere, you can only be legitimately patriotic if you take the SNP point of view. That's why this thread is full of intolerant, dishonest, tribal and deliberately divisive suggestions that those who are pro the Union are part of some Orange plot, deliberately lying about Scotland, complicit political village idiots or agents of some wider and longer conspiracy against Scotland.

From the uplifting collective joy and glory of Team GB during the Olympics, to this dismal and narrow snapshot of how Separatists view the world is a depressing and sobering fall.


In response to the points you raise and make very eloquently.


I said that interest rates were low under Labour. You implied that they were high.

I did indeed imply that they were too high for the Scottish Economy and yet you responded in a sarcastic manner with a comment that read 'so now a low and stable interest rate was not Scottish minded' :faf: . Yet that was precisely my point (i.e. - interest rates were not low enough). Never mind if you missed the point just change the narrative.


One:
Average interest rates in the UK between 1971 and 2012 were 8.3%. If we take your own estimate of 5% between 1997 - 2008 under Brown as accurate, then by any objective measure interest rates were indeed historically low. And stable, but more of that later.

I don't dispute that. My point was that they could have been lower but for the concerns centred around the ecomony of SE England overheating.


Two:
You claim that interest rates could have been lower if Labour & Brown had not had an eye on the overheating economy in the SE of England. It appears to have escaped your attention that interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, not by the Government or the Chancellor. As you may be aware the first action Brown took when he became Chancellor in 1997 was to pass control of interest rates to the Bank. This means that he demonstrably did not and could not have had any control over the interest rate as you claim.

I agree, yet ,in an earlier post, you managed to give Brown all the credit for what you term a low and stable interest rate. Of course, this isn't the whole story. The main aim of the MPC is to set interest rates with a view to achieving price stability (by law) in line with, wait for it, government inflation targets and their other function is, wait for it, to support government economic policy (i.e. - the MPC is not as independent as you make out).

Incidentally the SNP proposal under independence is to leave the setting of interest rates with, you've guessed it, the Bank of England. To put it another way, Scotland's interest rates would be at the mercy of the Bank of England - an institution whose duty would be exclusively to the economies of the new United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but not to the foreign nation of Scotland. The only term I can think of to adequately describe this SNP policy is - completely radge.

This comment is just a nonsense view of an Independent Scotland in monteray union with the rest of the UK. Read my reply to SiMar on Monetary Union post Independence.

Three:
You dismiss the freezing of whisky duties for a decade - that's an entire decade - as a red herring because it doesn't fit the obsessive Separatist agenda of 'All things London bad, all things Scotland good. And it directly contradicts the assertion that Brown was not 'Scotland-minded'.

Apologies for ignoring the duty freeze. I do have a Separatist agenda, but it's certainly not obsessive.


Four:
Low and stable interest rates - for that is what they were under Labour & Brown - benefit two core economic groups: homeowners and business. Homeowners are able to use their higher disposable income to spend in the wider economy thereby supporting growth and employment. Business is able to confidently predict the cost of investment - capital investment in particular - on the kind of items which bring real competitive advantage such as new machinery, new factories and, er, new bottling plants.

You have an unbelievably blinkered view of the UK economy under the last Labour Government. It would appear we lived in a land of 'milk and honey' for 13 years. Yet the gap between rich and poor got wider (Labour, the party of the people, had 13 years to address this) and, of course, the 'elephant in the room' of net debt in the region £750billion was all down to the global recession.

[ancienthibby]

I think most people don't understand the history of the Act of Union, hence why they struggle to to accept why many people wish to have their country back again.


In the late 13th early 14th centuries, England attempted to take over Scotland by military force, Queen Mary of Scots promised a peaceful union and although England and Scotland were ruled by the same King, James vi / i in 1603, the two countries remained separate until 1707.

Since Scotland had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme, many of the hierarchy had lost a vast amount of their fortunes in the scheme, so large bribes and monies were given to these hierarchy in exchange for the voting in of the act of union.

Since the same monarch had presided over both countries for almost a century, England were worried that a different monarch in Scotland might have made alliances against England.

The 1707 treaty was regarded as very unpopular amongst the Scots with petitions from shires, burghs and parishes. There was massive unrest in Edinburgh and several Scottish parishes the day the treaty was passed, with the parliament imposing martial law.

This is just a brief account but to understand why many want independence, first of all you have to understand how the union itself came about.


Good post, Sir,

Though we all need to be careful with respect to 'Empire' claims since the Scots of yesteryear were hugely involved in that!

Like yourself, I claim Celtic/Pictish ancestry since my ancestors fought at Culloden, so Scottish nationalism is in my blood!

Unlike others (and they are right to stake their claim!) I have no overwhelming case to make on economic grounds, though, of course, many rightly do so.

Then again you listen to Ed Miliband at the Liebor Conference telling us Scots that we are the 'soul' of their view of the UK. Two days later that view will be in the dustbin as we have seen time and time again!

Why do we allow ourselves to be fooled by self-serving unionists??

[Johnny0762]

Good post, Sir,

Though we all need to be careful with respect to 'Empire' claims since the Scots of yesteryear were hugely involved in that!

Like yourself, I claim Celtic/Pictish ancestry since my ancestors fought at Culloden, so Scottish nationalism is in my blood!

Unlike others (and they are right to stake their claim!) I have no overwhelming case to make on economic grounds, though, of course, many rightly do so.

Then again you listen to Ed Miliband at the Liebor Conference telling us Scots that we are the 'soul' of their view of the UK. Two days later that view will be in the dustbin as we have seen time and time again!

Why do we allow ourselves to be fooled by self-serving unionists??

Apathy, a constant depressive state which we're kept in, which surmounts to a genuine lack of self respect for anyone voting for these UK governments.

I know a few of you will find that offensive, but I guarantee you that a psychologist sitting questioning Mr or Mrs average would come to those conclusions.

[Beefster]

Apathy, a constant depressive state which we're kept in, which surmounts to a genuine lack of self respect for anyone voting for these UK governments.

I know a few of you will find that offensive, but I guarantee you that a psychologist sitting questioning Mr or Mrs average would come to those conclusions.

Where did you read Psychology?

Your debating skills are woeful, by the way.

[Johnny0762]

Where did you read Psychology?

Your debating skills are woeful, by the way.

This is a message board, for Hibs related subjects. Everything else is just a side track and half the guff written here by those that are pro-union and those claiming to still be undecided is what is truly awful. My input here is nothing more than quips and jibes, and some of the abuse directed at me deserves nothing more than that. If you seriously think this is my attempt at debating then your observational skills leave a lot to be desired.

Nothing will be decided regarding independence on Hibs.net, so take a hold of yourself.

I see a lot of comments directed at me, suggesting that I'm definitely not helping persuade anyone towards independence. Big effin wow pal. Like I said, if people don't already have an idea which way they're going to vote, and the reasons for that, then I remain by my stance that they lack a certain amount of self respect, literally, by the fact that they're looking to others to help make up their minds.

[Johnny0762]

And for those that refuse to believe that certain aspects of society have a sectarian attitude towards Scottish independence then have a read at what the Ulster Orange Order are demanding.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19710873

[Eyrie]

Personal insults just make you look stupid, intolerant and typically akin to someone who will kick their wife/dog when things don't go their way.


half the guff written here by those that are pro-union and those claiming to still be undecided is what is truly awful. My input here is nothing more than quips and jibes

I'll leave you to it then since you consider me to be truly awful for thinking that someone should be willing to have a sensible discussion about such an important matter rather than taking the p*** out of those he disagrees with.

[Johnny0762]

I'll leave you to it then since you consider me to be truly awful for thinking that someone should be willing to have a sensible discussion about such an important matter rather than taking the p*** out of those he disagrees with.

Not only have you taken it completely out of context but you're in such a strop you have decided to mis-quote me. No wonder I react with jibes. :aok:

By the way, I never started with the jibes, I only reacted to them aimed my way, but you won't see that as you don't want to see it. :cb

[Eyrie]

Strop? You're flattering yourself.

I make a post agreeing with someone that we need to discuss the issues and comment that you prefer to trivialise the thread, so you misrepresent it as a personal attack. All I've done put the record straight and used your own admission regarding your posts as support.

Anyway, I'll leave you to your quips and jibes.

[Johnny0762]

Strop? You're flattering yourself.

I make a post agreeing with someone that we need to discuss the issues and comment that you prefer to trivialise the thread, so you misrepresent it as a personal attack. All I've done put the record straight and used your own admission regarding your posts as support.

Anyway, I'll leave you to your quips and jibes.

LMAO :na na:

[marinello59]

This is a message board, for Hibs related subjects. Everything else is just a side track and half the guff written here by those that are pro-union and those claiming to still be undecided is what is truly awful. My input here is nothing more than quips and jibes, and some of the abuse directed at me deserves nothing more than that. If you seriously think this is my attempt at debating then your observational skills leave a lot to be desired.

Nothing will be decided regarding independence on Hibs.net, so take a hold of yourself.

I see a lot of comments directed at me, suggesting that I'm definitely not helping persuade anyone towards independence. Big effin wow pal. Like I said, if people don't already have an idea which way they're going to vote, and the reasons for that, then I remain by my stance that they lack a certain amount of self respect, literally, by the fact that they're looking to others to help make up their minds.
If as you admit yourself you don't want to debate anything on here and are only here to throw out quips and jibes why don't you leave this thread to those who do wish to engage in reasoned debate. Sound reasonable?

[Johnny0762]

If as you admit yourself you don't want to debate anything on here and are only here to throw out quips and jibes why don't you leave this thread to those who do wish to engage in reasoned debate. Sound reasonable?


That is clearly not what I said.

Anyway you sound like a Westminster MP, trying to dictate what I can and cannot talk about regarding the Scottish question. :na na:

[marinello59]

That is clearly not what I said.

Anyway you sound like a Westminster MP, trying to dictate what I can and cannot talk about regarding the Scottish question. :na na:

It was a friendly suggestion. Ignore it if you want.

[Hibbyradge]

I see a lot of comments directed at me, suggesting that I'm definitely not helping persuade anyone towards independence. Big effin wow pal. Like I said, if people don't already have an idea which way they're going to vote, and the reasons for that, then I remain by my stance that they lack a certain amount of self respect, literally, by the fact that they're looking to others to help make up their minds.

:faf:

No one wants others to help make up their minds for them.

They want information to make the best decision for themselves and their families.

Folk who make up their minds about major decisions without bothering to do so are either gullible or irresponsible.

Those terms aren't accurate enough for you though. The only information you needed to make your mind up about our country's future, seemingly, was that the Orange Order want ex-pat Scots in Ulster to get a vote.

By the way, although your words quoted above betray a huge lack of insight, and are still utterly wrong, your earlier argument was even more arrogant.

In a style Nick Griffin of which would have approved, you pronounced anyone who was inclined to vote No as lacking self respect.

I'm glad you've had the sense to move position on that nonsense.

[Johnny0762]

:faf:

No one wants others to help make up their minds for them.

They want information to make the best decision for themselves and their families.

Folk who make up their minds about major decisions without bothering to do so are either gullible or irresponsible.

Those terms aren't accurate enough for you though. The only information you needed to make your mind up about our country's future, seemingly, was that the Orange Order want ex-pat Scots in Ulster to get a vote.

By the way, although your words quoted above betray a huge lack of insight, and are still utterly wrong, your earlier argument was even more arrogant.

In a style Nick Griffin of which would have approved, you pronounced anyone who was inclined to vote No as lacking self respect.

I'm glad you've had the sense to move position on that nonsense.

Nick Griffin eh? What next? Godwin's?

As for the highlighted text, you're such a hypocrite that you don't even realise what you're saying.

[Hibbyradge]

Nick Griffin eh? What next? Godwin's?

As for the highlighted text, you're such a hypocrite that you don't even realise what you're saying.

I thought that might touch a nerve.

Just a "jibe" Johnny. Just a "jibe".




As for the highlighted text, you're such a hypocrite that you don't even realise what you're saying.

Oh, I thought about that one long and hard before I posted it.

No hypocrisy here.

[Johnny0762]

I thought that might touch a nerve.

Just a "jibe" Johnny. Just a "jibe".



Oh, I thought about that one long and hard before I posted it.

No hypocrisy here.

LMAO you said the exact same as what you're criticising me for, only in different words.:aok:

[Hibbyradge]

LMAO you said the exact same as what you're criticising me for, only in different words.:aok:

Come come, Johnny, I understood perfectly what you meant, but there's no comparison.

You said that No voters lacked self respect. Arrogance in the extreme, specifically directed at people with whom you disagree, and utter nonsense.

My point was generic and I would have thought that most folk would agree with it.

Those who don't bother finding out about an issue before making a decision are gambling, so they're either irresponsible or they're gullible.

The type of people all con artists love. :aok:

[Johnny0762]

Come come, Johnny, I understood perfectly what you meant, but there's no comparison.

You said that No voters lacked self respect. Arrogance in the extreme, specifically directed at people with whom you disagree, and utter nonsense.

My point was generic and I would have thought that most folk would agree with it.

Those who don't bother finding out about an issue before making a decision are gambling, so they're either irresponsible or they're gullible.

The type of people all con artists love. :aok:

And irresponsible people generally lack self respect. Fact. Night mate. :wink:

[Beefster]

And irresponsible people generally lack self respect. Fact.

By irresponsible people, I presume you mean risk-takers. If so, the exact opposite is generally true. Risk-takers usually have lots of self-respect/esteem.

I'm starting to suspect that you didn't read psychology after all....

[Johnny0762]

By irresponsible people, I presume you mean risk-takers. If so, the exact opposite is generally true. Risk-takers usually have lots of self-respect/esteem.

I'm starting to suspect that you didn't read psychology after all....

Yes you must be right. Alcoholics, drug addicts and wreckless gamblers have high self esteem and self respect. Of course they do. Tsk!

[Johnny0762]

I understand the present UK government plan to raise the threshold for Legal Aid awards. Another fine example of the poor being denied their basic human rights. All this to save a few quid at a time when the poorest are supporting the country with their unavoidable income tax, whilst the rich become when wealthier with their tax avoidance. Vote for the Union at your peril.

[Hibbyradge]

By irresponsible people, I presume you mean risk-takers. If so, the exact opposite is generally true. Risk-takers usually have lots of self-respect/esteem.

I'm starting to suspect that you didn't read psychology after all....


Yes you must be right. Alcoholics, drug addicts and wreckless gamblers have high self esteem and self respect. Of course they do. Tsk!

This is getting surreal.

Tangents R us!

My point was that people who make big decisions without thinking them through first, are being irresponsible. That was in response to Johnny Jibe and quip's criticism of people who wanted to weigh up the facts before committing their vote on independence.

At no point did I suggest that all Yes voters intravenously took class A drugs, whilst tanning a couple of bottles of vodka every night in the bog at Ladbrokes.

Clearly from this thread, that does apply at least one of them...:greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

I understand the present UK government plan to raise the threshold for Legal Aid awards. Another fine example of the poor being denied their basic human rights. All this to save a few quid at a time when the poorest are supporting the country with their unavoidable income tax, whilst the rich become when wealthier with their tax avoidance. Vote for the Union at your peril.

Have the Scottish parties declared their position on Legal Aid, post independence?

In other news, it's currently a beautiful day in Edinburgh, but it's raining in Eastbourne (possibly). Vote for Independence!

[Beefster]

Yes you must be right. Alcoholics, drug addicts and wreckless gamblers have high self esteem and self respect. Of course they do. Tsk!

Wait, what?

I think you mean self-destructive people rather than risk-takers. Either that or you're categorising all folk thinking of voting no as junkies, alcoholics or degenerate gamblers. Is that really what you think about the majority of Scots?

[J-C]

As you will see, I am pro independence, but I must distance myself from johnny0762.

I have had a few words exchanged with this poster on another thread and although we are both pro independence we are poles apart when it comes to our attitudes towards other people and posters.

I think the majority of people here like a good debate, without it turning into a slagging match but he seems to enjoy winding up folk and posting just to get a reaction, please don't think all SNP minded people are like this as we are not.

[Johnny0762]

As you will see, I am pro independence, but I must distance myself from johnny0762.

I have had a few words exchanged with this poster on another thread and although we are both pro independence we are poles apart when it comes to our attitudes towards other people and posters.

I think the majority of people here like a good debate, without it turning into a slagging match but he seems to enjoy winding up folk and posting just to get a reaction, please don't think all SNP minded people are like this as we are not.

You're right we're poles apart. When things aren't going your way you resort to personal abuse whilst I'm able to contain my emotions.

[Johnny0762]

Have the Scottish parties declared their position on Legal Aid, post independence?

In other news, it's currently a beautiful day in Edinburgh, but it's raining in Eastbourne (possibly). Vote for Independence!

Wait!by your reasoning an independent Scotland shall lead us into another banking collapse. we'll also start illegal wars too eg?

[J-C]

You're right we're poles apart. When things aren't going your way you resort to personal abuse whilst I'm able to contain my emotions.



Once again you reply with lies, look through every post I made regarding yourself, if you can find personal abuse, then you are a better man than me.

I enjoy debate, you enjoy winding up and snide derogatory remarks, contain your emotion, hahahaha fortunately my ribs are fine and don't ache when I laugh.

[allmodcons]

This is getting surreal.

Tangents R us!

My point was that people who make big decisions without thinking them through first, are being irresponsible. That was in response to Johnny Jibe and quip's criticism of people who wanted to weigh up the facts before committing their vote on independence.

At no point did I suggest that all Yes voters intravenously took class A drugs, whilst tanning a couple of bottles of vodka every night in the bog at Ladbrokes.

Clearly from this thread, that does apply at least one of them...:greengrin

lol. How come you know this much about me?

[Johnny0762]

Once again you reply with lies, look through every post I made regarding yourself, if you can find personal abuse, then you are a better man than me.

I enjoy debate, you enjoy winding up and snide derogatory remarks, contain your emotion, hahahaha fortunately my ribs are fine and don't ache when I laugh.

You're the master of the oxymoron. Check your last paragraph.

[J-C]

You're the master of the oxymoron. Check your last paragraph.



I think the majority of people here like a good debate, without it turning into a slagging match but he seems to enjoy winding up folk and posting just to get a reaction, please don't think all SNP minded people are like this as we are not.

This is the last paragraph, ermmm still looking for personal abuse. :confused::confused::confused::na na:

Bye bye you my friend are not worth the effort .

[tcm1875]

And numbers can be produced that state the opposite. There is a lack of clarity on the issue because it is damned difficult to quantify, meaning that both sides can provide convincing numbers that support their case.


Such as Ireland and Iceland? Don't know about the food thing, but could it be due to us having a lower population density? Actually a good thing from an environmental point of view.


My point is that these facilities (sporting, scientific etc) cost a lot of money, not just to build but to run - particularly the cost of attracting the top coaches. A larger country can afford more of these facilities and better coaches, then bring together a larger number of elite athletes to bring out the best in each other. A smaller country would have to focus its attentions on excelling at only a few sports or would spread its efforts too thinly.
We're in agreement to an extent here :aok: Only difference is that I believe we can increase that revenue raising with more devolution and don't need to go the whole way to independence.


You've drawn the wrong conclusion here. It is the independence movement that wants to keep these things despite wanting to separate from the UK. Logically we should be moving on with our own currency, slimmed down monarchy/republic and home grown TV shows.


That depends on how well their answers withstand scrutiny. I'm not jeopardising my country for glib soundbites.


Of course things can change. In the event of a vote in favour of remaining within the UK it is likely that there will be further devolution of powers to Scotland. If anyone can articulate a comprehensive devo-max package (rather than simply the fuzzy name) then we could even go to that stage, although it is likely to need changes to the rest of the UK as well as so would need support in Wales, Northern Ireland and possibly the English regions if they show an appetite for devolution.

And yes, the debate needs to kept above the level that Johnny0762 is comfortable with. He should stick to football.



Where can i see the opposite numbers? I would be interested to see them. The facts are that plenty of unionist politicians have said that Scotland pays it way and could go it alone, including david cameron. If that is the case and Scotland isn't subsidised then surely we already pay for everything we have got. If thats not the case, then i need to see the numbers so i can re think my decision.......


Those 2 not doing so well at the moment. Which countries are doing well, surely theres some. Food thing - So if true another positive for independence....... :greengrin



We should have, at the very least a national football stadium to be proud of. I suppose 1/4 of it is decent.......



Would having our own currency etc make a difference to how you would vote.......?


Correct, all the facts available should be available from both sides.......



There is no evidence to suggest there will be more powers. If there is i need to have the available facts so i can make a decision. Anyway why have 20%, 30%, 40% even 90% when 100% is on the table. Its right there....... Vote YES

[J-C]

Where can i see the opposite numbers? I would be interested to see them. The facts are that plenty of unionist politicians have said that Scotland pays it way and could go it alone, including david cameron. If that is the case and Scotland isn't subsidised then surely we already pay for everything we have got. If thats not the case, then i need to see the numbers so i can re think my decision.......


Those 2 not doing so well at the moment. Which countries are doing well, surely theres some. Food thing - So if true another positive for independence....... :greengrin



We should have, at the very least a national football stadium to be proud of. I suppose 1/4 of it is decent.......



Would having our own currency etc make a difference to how you would vote.......?


Correct, all the facts available should be available from both sides.......



There is no evidence to suggest there will be more powers. If there is i need to have the available facts so i can make a decision. Anyway why have 20%, 30%, 40% even 90% when 100% is on the table. Its right there....... Vote YES


We had our own pound pre 1707, it was linked with the English pound to stop it from devaluing, remember at that time we had lost almost everything due to the Darien disaster.


The pound Scots (Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language): Pund Scots) was the national unit of currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency) in the Kingdom of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland) before the country entered into political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_union) andcurrency union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_union) with the Kingdom of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) in 1707 (see Acts of Union 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707)). It was introduced by David I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland), in the 12th century, on the model ofEnglish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) and French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) money, divided into 20 shillings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilling) each of 12 pence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny). The Scottish currency was later debased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement) relative to sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_pound) and, by the time of James III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Scotland), the pound sterling was valued at four pounds Scots.

[southfieldhibby]

It also seems, your views are bordering on the bigoted.

I'm a Catholic and I'm proud to be Scottish, but I won't be voting for separation.

Most people won't vote for separation because the Yes campaign have singularly failed to make the economic argument to do so.

They have failed to give any credible reason to separate apart from some romantic notion of being a nation again.


Until fairly recently, I was firmly in the "don't know" camp and, as an ex-member of the SNP, I was definitely open to persuasion.

However, people with supercilious and self-righteous attitudes like yours have pushed me away.

The attitude you refer to is limited to few extremist's on the far left/right of the Yes campaign, one which is hopefully going to be marginalised by the sensible majority over the coming months.

I'd hope this whole debate can be removed from party politics as I know good Labour supporters who are keen to explore independence, and even a couple of (not so good :wink:) torys. Scotland, whether independent or not, should represent everyone's views (apart from the mentalists on either side)


This is one of the [many] reasons that I fear for an independent Scotland. One of the most monumental decisions our country has taken for generations and some folk are trying to turn it into yet another sectarian issue.

And it's a disgrace.Whoever wins, sectarianism is a blight on our country and should be driven out.


I left the SNP because they became irrelevant after the referendum.



Not just yet, there is still one hurdle.If Yes wins, I agree, they become irrelevant.Their one central tenant will have been achieved and I'd even though I'd expect them to win the first general election post-yes, Scotland would no doubt revert to being a Labour strong hold.



How much will a Scottish NHS and welfare state cost?

How much will we pay for our Civil Service, our Education system, Transport system, Pensions, Policing, Fire Service and our Courts?

How much will we be taxed to pay for it all?

What will our standard of living be like?

How will we replace the Barnett Formula billions?

I'd guess NHS Scotland would be funded just as it is now, much like the welfare state and all the other things you mention?We contribute more than we get, that's pretty much agreed by all parties....9.3% of Govt spending received thru Barnett, 9.6% contributed ( excluding excise duty/VAT/Oil-I think, maybe someone could clarify?)


If 16 year olds are allowed to vote in this referundum as salmond wants then that will give the Yes vote a hefty boost. I will give Salmond his due here, he is one of the cleverest political operators around.

Indeed, that's the biggy.If he can get that he's looking good ( for a fat **** tramp).It's an interesting one...are they too young to appreciate the gravity of their vote, or is it their future we're deciding so they merit having a say?




Most of Scotland voted SNP in the general election

Oh dear, wrong on many levels...do you mean General Election or Holyrood? Either way, its factually wrong. I've read this thread (quickly, I admit) and you do the yes campaign no favours.Fortunately, I believe you are in the minority when it comes to those seeking independence and the debate will be resolved by those 'central' on either side, those willing to concede ground as well as take it, to admit that we'll not be living in a utopia if we win and the hard yards start after any victory.You're the poster boy for the no vote, just as the yes vote can call on Labour/Tory politicos to boost our cause


Intolerant - British Army murdered 13 people in Derry for daring to march for civil rights.

Dishonest - They lied about it for four decades.

Tribal - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.



Incredible that this type of thing is allowed on this debate.Shameful.


I've enjoyed most of this thread, some great points made on both sides.The debate comes down to both head and heart choices.Financially, I believe Scotland can achieve more alone.We're currently over contributing to The UK pot, we're contributing to The Olympics (£6Billion over budget...Westminster will contribute nothing to Glasgow commie games) Trident,HS2,Refurbishing The Palace of Westminster,Boris Island/Heathrow,London sewage/underground...all receiving contributions from number 11, so inturn, we're giving 10% of that, it's probably over £20Billion over 30 years.Incredible numbers.

We own 10 % of all UK assets, whether it's the central bank :wink:,embassies,overseas territories,armed forces or debt, we're in for 10%.But there is wiggle room in there for the fat jambo, he'll not be interested some of it, he'll be very interested in other parts.

I do agree that there is an over-dependence of state hand outs in Scotland ( highly over-egged by the tory lassie) and it has to be addressed, whether as an indy country or as UK.Get these people trained and working, contributing to the revenues we need.

I look at Norway and their $640 Billion sovereign wealth fund, only started in 1990 on the back of their oil.The biggest in the world, bigger than the fancy-dans from Abu Dhabi.Now they have more oil and gas than us, but it shows what's possible...here's a table of wealth funds...can someone point out where The UK is,please?
http://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/

As for heart, I believe in self-determination, the ability to make our own choices,to choose where to send out soldiers to maybe die on a field somewhere.To strike deals with China or Brasil.To not have a party with less Scottish representation than we have pandas set our agenda financially and internationally,to remove nuclear weapons from our country, to have the choice on joining Europe or NATO.

And speaking of coulport/faslane, this is Wee fat ecks ace.Nowhere else in the entire UK can they be stored.I've read it would take over 20(?) years to build a new one.If we get a yes vote, he'll call the shots on any deal as rUK need coulport.

[One Day Soon]

An opinion poll by TNS BMRB, published in the Herald on Monday, showed a continuing slump in support for independence, with those prepared to vote Yes put at 28% while those voting No were put at 53% – a 25 point gulf.

Earlier this year, the same polling company had put the Yes vote at 38%, compared to 44% for a No vote.


So basically since the Nats launched the Yes campaign and began actively pursuing the separatist message the support in Scotland for breaking up the UK has plummeted.

They are political Jehovah's Witnesses: no-one wants them at their door and when they do get the door open no-one likes their message. Two more years of this will see Salmond consigned to history and the Nats at each other's throats internally over the failed strategy when they realise that after almost ten years in power running Scotland they will have changed the constitution not one iota.

[Johnny0762]

An opinion poll by TNS BMRB, published in the Herald on Monday, showed a continuing slump in support for independence, with those prepared to vote Yes put at 28% while those voting No were put at 53% – a 25 point gulf.

Earlier this year, the same polling company had put the Yes vote at 38%, compared to 44% for a No vote.


So basically since the Nats launched the Yes campaign and began actively pursuing the separatist message the support in Scotland for breaking up the UK has plummeted.

They are political Jehovah's Witnesses: no-one wants them at their door and when they do get the door open no-one likes their message. Two more years of this will see Salmond consigned to history and the Nats at each other's throats internally over the failed strategy when they realise that after almost ten years in power running Scotland they will have changed the constitution not one iota.

"TNS UK Ltd. Registered in England and Wales under number: 03073845 Registered Office: TNS House, Westgate, London W5 1UA"

With an office in Edinburgh. Pull the other one, eh!

[Hibbyradge]

"TNS UK Ltd. Registered in England and Wales under number: 03073845 Registered Office: TNS House, Westgate, London W5 1UA"

With an office in Edinburgh. Pull the other one, eh!

Excellent point.

Wait a minute...eh.

[hibsbollah]

"TNS UK Ltd. Registered in England and Wales under number: 03073845 Registered Office: TNS House, Westgate, London W5 1UA"

With an office in Edinburgh. Pull the other one, eh!

Its time to turn out the lights...

[Hainan Hibs]

An opinion poll by TNS BMRB, published in the Herald on Monday, showed a continuing slump in support for independence, with those prepared to vote Yes put at 28% while those voting No were put at 53% – a 25 point gulf.

Earlier this year, the same polling company had put the Yes vote at 38%, compared to 44% for a No vote.


So basically since the Nats launched the Yes campaign and began actively pursuing the separatist message the support in Scotland for breaking up the UK has plummeted.

They are political Jehovah's Witnesses: no-one wants them at their door and when they do get the door open no-one likes their message. Two more years of this will see Salmond consigned to history and the Nats at each other's throats internally over the failed strategy when they realise that after almost ten years in power running Scotland they will have changed the constitution not one iota.

Can I just ask what it is about the snp and independence that gets you so worked up?

Can't help but think that if Labour took a positive approach to the union and not your "I hate fat Eck and Snp" stance they'd have have the referendum already in the bag.

It's nursery level dross like what you spout that turns so many away from the debate or begin to listen to arguments for Indy.

[Beefster]

...or begin to listen to arguments for Indy.

Can you summarise those arguments because some of us have been trying to hear them for months/years?

[Beefster]

"TNS UK Ltd. Registered in England and Wales under number: 03073845 Registered Office: TNS House, Westgate, London W5 1UA"

With an office in Edinburgh. Pull the other one, eh!

What's your point? That everyone in England is part of a massive conspiracy to feed us untruths and propaganda?

Mrs Beefster is an English woman living in Scotland. You don't think she's a plant from the 'No' campaign, do you?

[tcm1875]

An opinion poll by TNS BMRB, published in the Herald on Monday, showed a continuing slump in support for independence, with those prepared to vote Yes put at 28% while those voting No were put at 53% – a 25 point gulf.

Earlier this year, the same polling company had put the Yes vote at 38%, compared to 44% for a No vote.


So basically since the Nats launched the Yes campaign and began actively pursuing the separatist message the support in Scotland for breaking up the UK has plummeted.

They are political Jehovah's Witnesses: no-one wants them at their door and when they do get the door open no-one likes their message. Two more years of this will see Salmond consigned to history and the Nats at each other's throats internally over the failed strategy when they realise that after almost ten years in power running Scotland they will have changed the constitution not one iota.


Check out the poll below on a unionist page. Polls eh!!!

http://noscotland.net/

[Beefster]

Check out the poll below on a unionist page. Polls eh!!!

http://noscotland.net/

On one hand, we have a poll from a proper polling company with experience in ensuring that the respondents are as representative of the electorate as possible. On the other hand, you've given us a poll with the authority of a hibs.net one.

[tcm1875]

On one hand, we have a poll from a proper polling company with experience in ensuring that the respondents are as representative of the electorate as possible. On the other hand, you've given us a poll with the authority of a hibs.net one.

Is that the same polling company's highly experienced in ensuring that the respondents were representative of the electorate that were responsible for predicting the labour victory at the last Scottish election.......

[Beefster]

Is that the same polling company's highly experienced in ensuring that the respondents were representative of the electorate that were responsible for predicting the labour victory at the last Scottish election.......

I've no idea. You do know that polling companies get things right far more than they get it wrong?

[allmodcons]

Can you summarise those arguments because some of us have been trying to hear them for months/years?

Come on Beefster! This is just plain nonsense and you know it! There has been lots of threads on here regarding Scottish Independence with lots of links to arguments for and, indeed, against.

To say you haven't heard anything or can't find any literature that argues the case for Scottish Independence is just not true. You may not be convinced by (or like) what you read, but the information is out there for anyone to form an opinion!

[allmodcons]

An opinion poll by TNS BMRB, published in the Herald on Monday, showed a continuing slump in support for independence, with those prepared to vote Yes put at 28% while those voting No were put at 53% – a 25 point gulf.

Earlier this year, the same polling company had put the Yes vote at 38%, compared to 44% for a No vote.


So basically since the Nats launched the Yes campaign and began actively pursuing the separatist message the support in Scotland for breaking up the UK has plummeted.

They are political Jehovah's Witnesses: no-one wants them at their door and when they do get the door open no-one likes their message. Two more years of this will see Salmond consigned to history and the Nats at each other's throats internally over the failed strategy when they realise that after almost ten years in power running Scotland they will have changed the constitution not one iota.




You are, of course, as always, correct!

To substantiate your argument, you need look no further back than May 2011 to the last Scottish Parliamentary Election and recall how the SNP were the 'political Jehovah's witnesses' whose message was liked by 'no-one' !

As for the rest, when did you morph into Mystic Meg.

[One Day Soon]

Can I just ask what it is about the snp and independence that gets you so worked up?

Certainly you can.

1. I don't want to see my children's future mortgaged to the half-baked bampot economics that the SNP adhere to. Any party that can have the dishonest brass neck to simultaneously claim that Scotland would have a balanced budget AND create an oil based sovereign wealth fund equivalent to that of Norway's cannot be trusted. You can either use oil money to bring revenue closer into line with expenditure OR you can set it aside to create a wealth fund. You cannot use it twice however. So which is it to be, slashing public services and having an oil fund or having no oil fund?

2. Releasing the convicted terrorist responsible for Scotland's biggest ever mass murder at Lockerbie.

3. Alex Salmond advising people in England to vote Lib Dem in the last election (purely out of anti-Labour spite) - look at the good judgment he showed there, picking the party that is now helping the Tories to do their dirty work.

4. Alex Salmond proposing to base our future on an 'Arc of Prosperity' like the Irish and Icelandic models. That worked out well.

5. Proposing an 'independent' Scotland whose interest rates would be set by the Bank of England in a foreign country, whose money supply would be determined by a foreign currency and whose inflation levels would be controlled by a foreign country. In other words let's have the tartan and the saltires while we get less say over the critical matters affecting our economy and jobs.

6. The SNP government pretending that we can afford policies like free medicines for all even in the middle of sustained global recession. Why should the wealthiest be subsidised by the poorest? Why shouldn't they make some contribution to medicines they can afford?

Can't help but think that if Labour took a positive approach to the union and not your "I hate fat Eck and Snp" stance they'd have have the referendum already in the bag.

It IS already in the bag, are you in denial? It has nothing to do with Labour or any other political party. The people of Scotland - you know, the people the SNP purport to care about - clearly and en masse do not want to break up the Union.

It's nursery level dross like what you spout that turns so many away from the debate or begin to listen to arguments for Indy.

Which bit of my post was nuresry 'level dross'? You are the one whose toys are out of the pram - but is that because of the polling figures or because of the inevitable consequences of what the failure to separate will mean?

[tcm1875]

I've no idea. You do know that polling companies get things right far more than they get it wrong?

Agreed.......:greengrin

I wouldn't put to much faith in polls. Theres only one that matters.......

[tcm1875]

1. I don't want to see my children's future mortgaged to the half-baked bampot economics that the SNP adhere to. Any party that can have the dishonest brass neck to simultaneously claim that Scotland would have a balanced budget AND create an oil based sovereign wealth fund equivalent to that of Norway's cannot be trusted. You can either use oil money to bring revenue closer into line with expenditure OR you can set it aside to create a wealth fund. You cannot use it twice however. So which is it to be, slashing public services and having an oil fund or having no oil fund?

Surely you use what you can to start creating a wealth fund. You have to start somewhere. Better than what its being used for just now.

2. Releasing the convicted terrorist responsible for Scotland's biggest ever mass murder at Lockerbie.

The then uk labour government were also very very keen on his release.......!!!!!!!

3. Alex Salmond advising people in England to vote Lib Dem in the last election (purely out of anti-Labour spite) - look at the good judgment he showed there, picking the party that is now helping the Tories to do their dirty work.

Aw boo hoo.......

4. Alex Salmond proposing to base our future on an 'Arc of Prosperity' like the Irish and Icelandic models. That worked out well.

Hindsight, isn't it beautiful.......


It IS already in the bag, are you in denial? It has nothing to do with Labour or any other political party. The people of Scotland - you know, the people the SNP purport to care about - clearly and en masse do not want to break up the Union.

We will see.......


Vote YES.......

[One Day Soon]

1. I don't want to see my children's future mortgaged to the half-baked bampot economics that the SNP adhere to. Any party that can have the dishonest brass neck to simultaneously claim that Scotland would have a balanced budget AND create an oil based sovereign wealth fund equivalent to that of Norway's cannot be trusted. You can either use oil money to bring revenue closer into line with expenditure OR you can set it aside to create a wealth fund. You cannot use it twice however. So which is it to be, slashing public services and having an oil fund or having no oil fund?

Surely you use what you can to start creating a wealth fund. You have to start somewhere. Better than what its being used for just now.

2. Releasing the convicted terrorist responsible for Scotland's biggest ever mass murder at Lockerbie.

The then uk labour government were also very very keen on his release.......!!!!!!!

3. Alex Salmond advising people in England to vote Lib Dem in the last election (purely out of anti-Labour spite) - look at the good judgment he showed there, picking the party that is now helping the Tories to do their dirty work.

Aw boo hoo.......

4. Alex Salmond proposing to base our future on an 'Arc of Prosperity' like the Irish and Icelandic models. That worked out well.

Hindsight, isn't it beautiful.......


It IS already in the bag, are you in denial? It has nothing to do with Labour or any other political party. The people of Scotland - you know, the people the SNP purport to care about - clearly and en masse do not want to break up the Union.

We will see.......


Vote YES.......


It that all you've got? Jesus that's thin.

No wonder Separatism is being horsed senseless by the Scottish people.

[One Day Soon]

Agreed.......:greengrin

I wouldn't put to much faith in polls. Theres only one that matters.......

:pray: Keep telling yourself that. There's a slow train coming ...

[Beefster]

Hindsight, isn't it beautiful.......

Funnily enough, those are the exact words that some of us are desperate to avoid hearing a few years after the vote.

[tcm1875]

:pray: Keep telling yourself that. There's a slow train coming ...

From the same poll in the small print not reported - a further 34% want the SG to have full control of all taxes raised and spending as well as pensions and welfare. Add the two together and fully 2 thirds of Scots want out of Westminster control.......

[One Day Soon]

From the same poll in the small print not reported - a further 34% want the SG to have full control of all taxes raised and spending as well as pensions and welfare. Add the two together and fully 2 thirds of Scots want out of Westminster control.......


Wow. That kind of specious reasoning is straight from the book of Yamanomics.

If they wanted out of Westminster control they'd be saying they wanted separation when offered the choice in the polling. But they don't, so....they don't.

Tick tock...

[ancienthibby]

Wow. That kind of specious reasoning is straight from the book of Yamanomics.

If they wanted out of Westminster control they'd be saying they wanted separation when offered the choice in the polling. But they don't, so....they don't.

Tick tock...

First, any kind of reasoning does not exist in Yamanomics.

Second, separation is a unionist phenomenon. Have you ever heard of the American Day of Separation? Thought not.

Third, all your labouritie tendencies got a huge waloper in the chops when the SNP proved every pollster wrong in the 2011 election.

Labour Party of Westminister in Scotland is going tickety-tock, tickety-tock, oops oblivion has arrived!

[One Day Soon]

First, any kind of reasoning does not exist in Yamanomics.

Precisely, that's the whole point of the parallel. There's not a lot of reasoning in the Nat case that counts the oil money twice.

Second, separation is a unionist phenomenon. Have you ever heard of the American Day of Separation? Thought not.

You want to separate Scotand from the union of England, Northern Ireland and Wales. You are Separatists.

Third, all your labouritie tendencies got a huge waloper in the chops when the SNP proved every pollster wrong in the 2011 election.

This has nothing to do with Labour. It is entirely about an emotional desire to separate Scotland from the Union without the economic case to back it up. The people of Scotland are clearly going to tear the separatists a new one so large that it is unlikley to ever heal up. This seems to be what is most toxic to the Nats and their fellow travellers. This is a case of the SNP versus Scotland - and Scotland is clearly saying "You don't speak for us".

Labour Party of Westminister in Scotland is going tickety-tock, tickety-tock, oops oblivion has arrived!

Two years to the referendum and the Nats have no choice but to keep talking about and campaigning on the policy that Scotland is already saying it doesn't want. Its a perfect 5hitstorm. Five months since the Yes campaign launched and coincidentally the polling figures over that period have plummeted.

Tick tock...

[hibsbollah]

ODS, what makes you think 'the lack of an economic case' to back up independence is the reason why (so far) a majority of Scots are against it? My feeling is that they maybe just dont think that their Scottish identity is compromised by being part of the Union, or that they feel more comfortable being part of the Union, or they maybe feel an independent Scotland would lose influence internationally. I personally doubt that the unclear economic implications have that much to do with it. No real evidence for that, just an opinion.

Id like to see a deeper poll from yougov next time as to why people are polling the way they are.

[Geo_1875]

It's funny how people pin their hopes on opinion polls when they support their argument and rubbish them when they don't. I'm pretty sure the current administration in Scotland was meant to be a coalition and the Tories were meant have a majority in Westminster.

I think I'll wait for the result of the referendum before I declare an interest.

[marinello59]

It's funny how people pin their hopes on opinion polls when they support their argument and rubbish them when they don't. I'm pretty sure the current administration in Scotland was meant to be a coalition and the Tories were meant have a majority in Westminster.

I think I'll wait for the result of the referendum before I declare an interest.

You are right of course. The only poll that matters is the actual votes.
The polls in the last Scottish election did predict that the SNP would be the biggest party and the Tories were signalled as winners in the General Election. Which does suggest that they are not far off when it comes to predicting a straight Yes or No vote.

[Future17]

You are right of course. The only poll that matters is the actual votes.
The polls in the last Scottish election did predict that the SNP would be the biggest party and the Tories were signalled as winners in the General Election. Which does suggest that they are not far off when it comes to predicting a straight Yes or No vote.

True. But we're 2 years away from the vote. In both of the examples you have cited, the polls predicted different results at this stage.

[One Day Soon]

ODS, what makes you think 'the lack of an economic case' to back up independence is the reason why (so far) a majority of Scots are against it? My feeling is that they maybe just dont think that their Scottish identity is compromised by being part of the Union, or that they feel more comfortable being part of the Union, or they maybe feel an independent Scotland would lose influence internationally. I personally doubt that the unclear economic implications have that much to do with it. No real evidence for that, just an opinion.

Id like to see a deeper poll from yougov next time as to why people are polling the way they are.

I think all you say on identity is correct. However I also think that Carville and Clinton's nostrum is generally correct in that it is 'the economy, stupid' that drives the bottom line. As this isn't just about the usual question on which set of jokers get a shot at screwing things up for the next 4 years but an irrevocable proposal to smash up the country we all live in, I think people are needing to see a very clear economic case before they will consider touching it with a barge pole. Focus group or polling evidence on the why would be interesting.

The Nats, awash with cash as they are, will already have that focus group knowledge. One thing it is certainly telling them is that people really don't like or trust Salmond, which is why we have seen Sturgeon handed the starring role.

[One Day Soon]

True. But we're 2 years away from the vote. In both of the examples you have cited, the polls predicted different results at this stage.


That would be pertinent if it were true but it is not - in the case of Holyrood and the SNP at any rate. At this stage two years before the 2011 vote the polls predicted the SNP well ahead of Labour on 41% to 29% and 37% to 30% in April 2009, 39% to 26% and 39% to 32% in June 2009.

What is at least as important if not more so is the direction of the polls on separatism. And on that the Nats are going down like a lead balloon as the gap widens.

[Future17]

That would be pertinent if it were true but it is not - in the case of Holyrood and the SNP at any rate. At this stage two years before the 2011 vote the polls predicted the SNP well ahead of Labour on 41% to 29% and 37% to 30% in April 2009, 39% to 26% and 39% to 32% in June 2009.

What is at least as important if not more so is the direction of the polls on separatism. And on that the Nats are going down like a lead balloon as the gap widens.

But the direction doesn't matter just now. A lot can happen in 2 years so there's no need for you to panic or get complacent yet.

[allmodcons]

ODS, what makes you think 'the lack of an economic case' to back up independence is the reason why (so far) a majority of Scots are against it? My feeling is that they maybe just dont think that their Scottish identity is compromised by being part of the Union, or that they feel more comfortable being part of the Union, or they maybe feel an independent Scotland would lose influence internationally. I personally doubt that the unclear economic implications have that much to do with it. No real evidence for that, just an opinion.

Id like to see a deeper poll from yougov next time as to why people are polling the way they are.


You'll not get much sense out of ODS just now, he's far too excited about the latest TNS poll on 'smashing up our country'.
ODS used to make some decent considered posts around the Independence debate, but his hatred of all things SNP (a major failing of Labour in Scotland) have seen him take a more extreme viewpoint in recent times, witnessed by his OTT language in recent posts.

Here's an alternative take on the question you ask. Author isn't 100% correct IMO, but he's not nearly as blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged as ODS.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6039-forget-the-economy-for-scots-its-security-stupid

The next link is for ODS who, earlier this week, referred to the SNP as the Jehovah Witnesses of politics. It would appear that the word of Jehovah was rather well received just over a year ago at the last Scottish Parliamentary election. Dare you to take a peak ODS, or is the pain too much too bare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm

[hibsbollah]

You'll not get much sense out of ODS just now, he's far too excited about the latest TNS poll on 'smashing up our country'.
ODS used to make some decent considered posts around the Independence debate, but his hatred of all things SNP (a major failing of Labour in Scotland) have seen him take a more extreme viewpoint in recent times, witnessed by his OTT language in recent posts.

Here's an alternative take on the question you ask. Author isn't 100% correct IMO, but he's not nearly as blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged as ODS.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6039-forget-the-economy-for-scots-its-security-stupid

The next link is for ODS who, earlier this week, referred to the SNP as the Jehovah Witnesses of politics. It would appear that the word of Jehovah was rather well received just over a year ago at the last Scottish Parliamentary election. Dare you to take a peak ODS, or is the pain too much too bare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm

Trust me, ODS used to be worse. He's mellowed with age, or maybe we're finding common ground on issues occasionally :greengrin

The Kerevan piece is very interesting, but is a little too generous to Salmond and the 'spectacular vote of confidence' they supposedly have from the current numbers. The bottom line is that support for independence is at 28% in the TNS poll. Way behind. And the 34%+28%=62% ergo SNP win equation is fanciful nonsense, those 34% (who say they want more taxpowers from London but dont want independence) will have other issues that could determine where their vote goes, theyre not going to 'move over' en masse. The 34% could be polling that way because it falls in the 'moderate' position, ie-they want to be seen as not partisan, (a popular place to be, especially with women voters I would guess).

Where Kerevan is spot on is on defence, the weakness of the NATO membership argument and the good sense in reaching out to the women vote. If Salmond/Sturgeon can make a good case on,their Trident policy, or find something new to invigorate them it could shift the numbers.

ODS, youre right that 'its the economy stupid' is normally the best guide as to how a votes going to go. Be more trusted on the economy than the next guy. But that fails to take account the events of the last four years, and the perception that economists and politicians, because of their failure to plan for or foresee the financial crisis, don't have a clue whats going on or how to stop it. I think economics will play a smaller role than normal, precisely BECAUSE we're in such a mess economically. And next year and the year after (10-15% food price rises, 5-10% utility price rises combined with real terms pay cuts and approx 75% of the Govt spending cuts still to hit) its going to get much worse. The independence vote is going to take place in the middle of bad times, especially for the poor. Which is probably good news for Salmond.

Its not over yet :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

But the direction doesn't matter just now. A lot can happen in 2 years so there's no need for you to panic or get complacent yet.


You said: "But we're 2 years away from the vote. In both of the examples you have cited, the polls predicted different results at this stage." but that was wrong.

Two years before the 2011 Holyrood elections the polls were predicting an SNP win and they were right. All they got wrong was the spectacular margin of the win. We are two years before the separation Referendum and the polls are predicting a deafeat for the Separatists buy a huge and growing margin.

The direction absolutely matters - to win a vote of this magnitude the Yes campaign need to be level or ahead at this stage. If Miliband was behind the Tories by any margin at this stage of the electoral cycle the commentators would rightly be laying out his failure and those with an interest would be calling for his head.

In this context the polling waters are not muddied by a range of party political electoral choices - it is a black and white choice. The gulf in the numbers is all the more emphatic precisely because there is no margin for doubt as to what people are thinking when confronted with a plain 'stay or go' decision.

[tcm1875]

Here's the full poll with questions asked.......

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/assets-uploaded/documents/data-tables-independence-poll-oct-2012_1349695328.pdf

How do tns choose what people to interview.......? Anyone know?

YouGov - have been very open, saying that it means they tend to include more prosperous voters, more broadsheet readers, older voters, who are slightly more Conservative and sometimes more male-dominated than the voting population as a whole.


ComRes doesn't weight to viewers but to the voting population profile.
Look at how the ComRes poll sample for last night worked. They polled people who expressed their voting preference as 35 per cent Conservative, 24 per cent Labour and 36 per cent Liberal Democrat.

[hibsbollah]

Here's the full poll with questions asked.......

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/assets-uploaded/documents/data-tables-independence-poll-oct-2012_1349695328.pdf

How do tns choose what people to interview.......? Anyone know?

YouGov - have been very open, saying that it means they tend to include more prosperous voters, more broadsheet readers, older voters, who are slightly more Conservative and sometimes more male-dominated than the voting population as a whole.


ComRes doesn't weight to viewers but to the voting population profile.
Look at how the ComRes poll sample for last night worked. They polled people who expressed their voting preference as 35 per cent Conservative, 24 per cent Labour and 36 per cent Liberal Democrat.


Nothing massively surprising...Higher number of 'still undecided' women voters (21%), who could be swung by a better run campaign, potential there for a bit of upward movement. Much lower support for independence from voters 65 yo+, who are more likely to go out and vote. Thats bad news for Eck. Hence the vote being extended for 16 and 17 year olds. Someone at the SNP has been reading the high numbers for 18 year olds .

Id still like to see a 'What factors will influence your decision?' type question, from a list of ten. Perhaps thats something thats limited to the focus groups.

[One Day Soon]

You'll not get much sense out of ODS just now, he's far too excited about the latest TNS poll on 'smashing up our country'.
ODS used to make some decent considered posts around the Independence debate, but his hatred of all things SNP (a major failing of Labour in Scotland) have seen him take a more extreme viewpoint in recent times, witnessed by his OTT language in recent posts.

That's a tad harsh AMC, I think you are letting your anxiety get the better of you.

Here's an alternative take on the question you ask. Author isn't 100% correct IMO, but he's not nearly as blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged as ODS.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6039-forget-the-economy-for-scots-its-security-stupid

George Kerevan - the author of the piece you link to - is a former SNP Parliamentary candidate. The site he writes for in this link is, I believe, a pro-independence website. I think we can therefore dispense with the notion that he is somehow an objective observer. His analysis in the piece is essentially a dressed up version of what we have seen elsewhere on this thread - ie: if only we can persuade those who are against separation but want more powers to somehow decide to vote for separation then we will have a majority. That's firmly in the 'if my auntie had baws, she'd be my uncle' category.

As to my being "blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged", isn't that a near perfect description of the McGlashan tendency within the SNP - some of whose views have manifested pretty intolerantly and unpleasantly as the separatism debate unfolds?

Your reaction to direct challenge on points of fact and policy seems now to have turned to dismissing the source as unreasonable. That's fine where .net and a handful of keyboarders are concerned, but it won't wash with the people of Scotland. And that's why the separatists are taking such a spanking right now from the very people they need to persuade - the Scottish people whose votes they are losing hand over fist.

The next link is for ODS who, earlier this week, referred to the SNP as the Jehovah Witnesses of politics. It would appear that the word of Jehovah was rather well received just over a year ago at the last Scottish Parliamentary election. Dare you to take a peak ODS, or is the pain too much too bare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm

Why on earth would the election results of 2011 cause me any problem? Though looking at them is a good reminder of how dangerous it is for politicians and parties to believe that an electoral mandate gives carte blanche on every issue. The SNP won handsomely and there is no qualification to that. One point worth noting though. Salmond and the SNP have effectively faced no opposition whatsoever in Scotland since 2007. A clear run for 5 years is only now beginning to be challenged and it will be interesting to see over time what impact that has.

Perhaps you missed my point - the policy that the SNP MUST talk about for the next two years is the policy that the people of Scotland DON'T WANT. That is what makes them political Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you seriously think that the SNP winning an overall majority in a multi-party alternative vote Parliamentary election can be equated in any way with winning a separation Referendum where there are just two choices, then the post-Referendum pain for the SNP and fellow travellers is going to be all the more extreme for the surprise involved.

[allmodcons]

Trust me, ODS used to be worse. He's mellowed with age, or maybe we're finding common ground on issues occasionally :greengrin

The Kerevan piece is very interesting, but is a little too generous to Salmond and the 'spectacular vote of confidence' they supposedly have from the current numbers. The bottom line is that support for independence is at 28% in the TNS poll. Way behind. And the 34%+28%=62% ergo SNP win equation is fanciful nonsense, those 34% (who say they want more taxpowers from London but dont want independence) will have other issues that could determine where their vote goes, theyre not going to 'move over' en masse. The 34% could be polling that way because it falls in the 'moderate' position, ie-they want to be seen as not partisan, (a popular place to be, especially with women voters I would guess).

Where Kerevan is spot on is on defence, the weakness of the NATO membership argument and the good sense in reaching out to the women vote. If Salmond/Sturgeon can make a good case on,their Trident policy, or find something new to invigorate them it could shift the numbers.

ODS, youre right that 'its the economy stupid' is normally the best guide as to how a votes going to go. Be more trusted on the economy than the next guy. But that fails to take account the events of the last four years, and the perception that economists and politicians, because of their failure to plan for or foresee the financial crisis, don't have a clue whats going on or how to stop it. I think economics will play a smaller role than normal, precisely BECAUSE we're in such a mess economically. And next year and the year after (10-15% food price rises, 5-10% utility price rises combined with real terms pay cuts and approx 75% of the Govt spending cuts still to hit) its going to get much worse. The independence vote is going to take place in the middle of bad times, especially for the poor. Which is probably good news for Salmond.

Its not over yet :greengrin

Regarding the bit in bold, in fairness to Kerevan he is making reference to the Scottish Parliamentary Election voting intentions and saying (fairly) that a 13 point over their main challenger 5 years into government is a spectacular vote of confidence in the SNP at Holyrood. He then goes on to say that the latest poll on Independence shows a 'steady shift against Independence over the summer'.

[allmodcons]

You'll not get much sense out of ODS just now, he's far too excited about the latest TNS poll on 'smashing up our country'.
ODS used to make some decent considered posts around the Independence debate, but his hatred of all things SNP (a major failing of Labour in Scotland) have seen him take a more extreme viewpoint in recent times, witnessed by his OTT language in recent posts.

That's a tad harsh AMC, I think you are letting your anxiety get the better of you.

Here's an alternative take on the question you ask. Author isn't 100% correct IMO, but he's not nearly as blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged as ODS.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...ecurity-stupid (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6039-forget-the-economy-for-scots-its-security-stupid)

George Kerevan - the author of the piece you link to - is a former SNP Parliamentary candidate. The site he writes for in this link is, I believe, a pro-independence website. I think we can therefore dispense with the notion that he is somehow an objective observer. His analysis in the piece is essentially a dressed up version of what we have seen elsewhere on this thread - ie: if only we can persuade those who are against separation but want more powers to somehow decide to vote for separation then we will have a majority. That's firmly in the 'if my auntie had baws, she'd be my uncle' category.

I know GK's background. My point is, even as a former SNP candidate, he's not as extreme in his views as you are. From what I could see his piece was fairly balanced. For the record, the article first appeared in the Scotsman (hardly a supporter of the SNP or Independence!). With regard to trying to persuade people to vote for Independence surely this is what it's all about for both sides (i.e.- winning the argument and ultimately the vote).


As to my being "blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged", isn't that a near perfect description of the McGlashan tendency within the SNP - some of whose views have manifested pretty intolerantly and unpleasantly as the separatism debate unfolds?

I know there are extreme views on either side. Does that it make it alright for you adopt extreme views?

Your reaction to direct challenge on points of fact and policy seems now to have turned to dismissing the source as unreasonable. That's fine where .net and a handful of keyboarders are concerned, but it won't wash with the people of Scotland. And that's why the separatists are taking such a spanking right now from the very people they need to persuade - the Scottish people whose votes they are losing hand over fist.

I'm happy to argue the points of fact (when I can find the time). I say again, the point I'm making is that your latest posts are extreme.

This link is for ODS who, earlier this week, referred to the SNP as the Jehovah Witnesses of politics. It would appear that the word of Jehovah was rather well received just over a year ago at the last Scottish Parliamentary election. Dare you to take a peak ODS, or is the pain too much too bare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/el...l/scotland.stm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm)

Why on earth would the election results of 2011 cause me any problem? Though looking at them is a good reminder of how dangerous it is for politicians and parties to believe that an electoral mandate gives carte blanche on every issue. The SNP won handsomely and there is no qualification to that. One point worth noting though. Salmond and the SNP have effectively faced no opposition whatsoever in Scotland since 2007. A clear run for 5 years is only now beginning to be challenged and it will be interesting to see over time what impact that has.

Are you serious? The SNP were in a MINORITY government from 2007 - 2011.


Perhaps you missed my point - the policy that the SNP MUST talk about for the next two years is the policy that the people of Scotland DON'T WANT. That is what makes them political Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you seriously think that the SNP winning an overall majority in a multi-party alternative vote Parliamentary election can be equated in any way with winning a separation Referendum where there are just two choices, then the post-Referendum pain for the SNP and fellow travellers is going to be all the more extreme for the surprise involved.

I don't doubt it will be difficult for the Independence Movement to win a majority vote in 2014. What I will say though is that it'll be a lot closer than the latest poll suggests. Not at all anxious, happy to accept the democratic will of the Scottish People, just hoping that this time they will grasp the nettle.

[Eyrie]

I don't doubt it will be difficult for the Independence Movement to win a majority vote in 2014. What I will say though is that it'll be a lot closer than the latest poll suggests. Not at all anxious, happy to accept the democratic will of the Scottish People, just hoping that this time they will grasp the nettle. A good analogy since if you grasp a nettle then you will get stung.

[hibsbollah]

A good analogy since if you grasp a nettle then you will get stung.

Not necessarily. You just avoid touching the hairy bits.

[Eyrie]

Not necessarily. You just avoid touching the hairy bits.That's the problem with independence - you have to grasp the whole plant and not just the nice bits.

[steakbake]

Pfft only another two years of partisan bickering to go.

Fine that those who have an opinion are debating it - though I usually see no point in two people who have fixed opinions debating because there's no conclusion other than agreeing to disagree.

Any chance Independence can have its own board?

[One Day Soon]

Pfft only another two years of partisan bickering to go.

Fine that those who have an opinion are debating it - though I usually see no point in two people who have fixed opinions debating because there's no conclusion other than agreeing to disagree.

Any chance Independence can have its own board?

Only if it is called the Separatism Board :whistle:

[hibsbollah]

That's the problem with independence - you have to grasp the whole plant and not just the nice bits.

But you could wear those thick gardening gloves:confused: Maybe thats the devo-max metaphor.

[One Day Soon]

Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=3381602#post3381602) You'll not get much sense out of ODS just now, he's far too excited about the latest TNS poll on 'smashing up our country'.
ODS used to make some decent considered posts around the Independence debate, but his hatred of all things SNP (a major failing of Labour in Scotland) have seen him take a more extreme viewpoint in recent times, witnessed by his OTT language in recent posts.

That's a tad harsh AMC, I think you are letting your anxiety get the better of you.

Here's an alternative take on the question you ask. Author isn't 100% correct IMO, but he's not nearly as blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged as ODS.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...ecurity-stupid (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6039-forget-the-economy-for-scots-its-security-stupid)

George Kerevan - the author of the piece you link to - is a former SNP Parliamentary candidate. The site he writes for in this link is, I believe, a pro-independence website. I think we can therefore dispense with the notion that he is somehow an objective observer. His analysis in the piece is essentially a dressed up version of what we have seen elsewhere on this thread - ie: if only we can persuade those who are against separation but want more powers to somehow decide to vote for separation then we will have a majority. That's firmly in the 'if my auntie had baws, she'd be my uncle' category.

I know GK's background. My point is, even as a former SNP candidate, he's not as extreme in his views as you are. From what I could see his piece was fairly balanced. For the record, the article first appeared in the Scotsman (hardly a supporter of the SNP or Independence!). With regard to trying to persuade people to vote for Independence surely this is what it's all about for both sides (i.e.- winning the argument and ultimately the vote).

In what way is my view extreme? I have stated that the figures show a caning in the offing for the separatists. That's not extreme - its what the polls are, in terms, showing.


As to my being "blinkered, hate fuelled and enraged", isn't that a near perfect description of the McGlashan tendency within the SNP - some of whose views have manifested pretty intolerantly and unpleasantly as the separatism debate unfolds?

I know there are extreme views on either side. Does that it make it alright for you adopt extreme views?

What exactly are my extreme views which you would juxtapose against those on the Nat side? To be explicit we have seen those who support the union being variously characterised as bigoted Orangemen, village idiots who simply don't understand what they are doing and willing conspirators trying to do Scotland down. I don't think I have been even remotely that vicious and certainly not used dishonesty of that sort. Had I described Nationalists as proto-fascists, jackbooted would-be totalitarians or deluded morons then you could have legitimately described my views as extreme. But I have not, so you cannot. I am aggressive in my challenges on points of fact, policy and politics and expect the same in return. Disagreeing with you does not make me extreme.


Your reaction to direct challenge on points of fact and policy seems now to have turned to dismissing the source as unreasonable. That's fine where .net and a handful of keyboarders are concerned, but it won't wash with the people of Scotland. And that's why the separatists are taking such a spanking right now from the very people they need to persuade - the Scottish people whose votes they are losing hand over fist.

I'm happy to argue the points of fact (when I can find the time). I say again, the point I'm making is that your latest posts are extreme.

The last exchange you and me had on this thread was in relation to Gordon Brown and UK interest rates in the context of another extreme Separatist claim that Brown was anti-Scottish in his thinking. I contend that you were manifestly wrong in what you said and I think I demonstrated that with the facts on historic UK interest rates. I'm certainly not going to be shy in challenging myth politics when they are being peddled as is all too often the case in this subject area. If I know complete cobblers is being talked about Scotland's economy, its public expenditure and the deal we get from being part of Team GB then I will say so. I'm sure you will do the same if you feel that there are counter positions from a Nationalist perspective.

This link is for ODS who, earlier this week, referred to the SNP as the Jehovah Witnesses of politics. It would appear that the word of Jehovah was rather well received just over a year ago at the last Scottish Parliamentary election. Dare you to take a peak ODS, or is the pain too much too bare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/el...l/scotland.stm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm)

Why on earth would the election results of 2011 cause me any problem? Though looking at them is a good reminder of how dangerous it is for politicians and parties to believe that an electoral mandate gives carte blanche on every issue. The SNP won handsomely and there is no qualification to that. One point worth noting though. Salmond and the SNP have effectively faced no opposition whatsoever in Scotland since 2007. A clear run for 5 years is only now beginning to be challenged and it will be interesting to see over time what impact that has.

Are you serious? The SNP were in a MINORITY government from 2007 - 2011.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying here. There has been no effective political opposition to Salmond and the SNP for the period since 2007. Yes there have been opposition leaders and parties but they have been non-functioning. There has been no individual able to take on Salmond and there has been no coherent political opposition. Equally the media has been very gentle in its handling of this exciting new political development. They have effectivley had a free pass for 5 years. But for all politicians and political parties there is a shelf life and we are only now just beginning to enter into that period for this SNP government. I think that the gradual disintegration of the separation campaign over the next two years will simultaneously take the teflon off Salmond and the SNP.

Perhaps you missed my point - the policy that the SNP MUST talk about for the next two years is the policy that the people of Scotland DON'T WANT. That is what makes them political Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you seriously think that the SNP winning an overall majority in a multi-party alternative vote Parliamentary election can be equated in any way with winning a separation Referendum where there are just two choices, then the post-Referendum pain for the SNP and fellow travellers is going to be all the more extreme for the surprise involved.

I don't doubt it will be difficult for the Independence Movement to win a majority vote in 2014. What I will say though is that it'll be a lot closer than the latest poll suggests. Not at all anxious, happy to accept the democratic will of the Scottish People, just hoping that this time they will grasp the nettle.

I think they will grasp the nettle alright, just not to go for splitting up the UK. The good thing is that one of us will be right and the other will be wrong and we can then get on with real life. Either way all this pi5h can then be put to one side so we can focus on jobs and the economy.

[steakbake]

Only if it is called the Separatism Board :whistle:

Flagrantly biased wording!

[One Day Soon]

Flagrantly biased wording!

I think you may have summarised the next two years of debate in just three words.

[yeezus.]

I'm voting No in 2014. As many of you have already pointed out, the Yes camp have yet to spell out an economic argument why we would be better off.

An independent Scotland inside the EU, with the same head of state and an interest rate set by the Bank of England? No thanks.

[steakbake]

I'm voting No in 2014. As many of you have already pointed out, the Yes camp have yet to spell out an economic argument why we would be better off.

An independent Scotland inside the EU, with the same head of state and an interest rate set by the Bank of England? No thanks.

It looks like they'll have a couple of years to spell it out, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

The EU issue is a complete red-herring: if the Tories get their way as we've seen this weekend, the UK might not be in the EU for terribly much longer, which begs the question really, if the UK looking for independence from a social, political and trade Union that accounts for around 80% of trade and that is a valid stand point, why is Scotland any different?

As for the head of state one: NZ, AUS, Canada all have ER2 as head of state yet I don't think that compromises their claim to be sovereign nations.

The financial issue is the biggest one and Yes Scotland have to spell out what the situation much more clearly than they have so far.

[allmodcons]

A good analogy since if you grasp a nettle then you will get stung.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/grasp-the-nettle.html

[allmodcons]

I'm voting No in 2014. As many of you have already pointed out, the Yes camp have yet to spell out an economic argument why we would be better off.

An independent Scotland inside the EU, with the same head of state and an interest rate set by the Bank of England? No thanks.



This is where the debate starts to go round and round and round. IMO we have less power now (i.e. - zero input) over interest rates than we would have with an Independent Scotland in a 'sterling zone'.

To go back to an earlier post, IMO your argument is based around the bland assumption, well supported by the media, that England is the UK.

Are we not currently supposed to be equal partners with England, Wales & Northern Ireland in the Union?

ARE WE SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT'S SHARE OF ALL THE UNION LIABILITIES AND NOT GET A SHARE OF THE UNION ASSETS.

Here is an alternative and less subservient view of Scotland's position in the Union and Monetary Policy post Independence:-


Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.

[Scouse Hibee]

Alex Salmond :faf: what a clown that man is. Time will tell believe me.

[RyeSloan]

This is where the debate starts to go round and round and round. IMO we have less power now (i.e. - zero input) over interest rates than we would have with an Independent Scotland in a 'sterling zone'.

To go back to an earlier post, IMO your argument is based around the bland assumption, well supported by the media, that England is the UK.

Are we not currently supposed to be equal partners with England, Wales & Northern Ireland in the Union?

ARE WE SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT'S SHARE OF ALL THE UNION LIABILITIES AND NOT GET A SHARE OF THE UNION ASSETS.

Here is an alternative and less subservient view of Scotland's position in the Union and Monetary Policy post Independence:-


Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.



This is certainly a good point however whether or not Scotland gets a 'share' of the BoE or representation on the Board do you seriously believe that would make any difference what so ever?

Surely the fact is an Independent Scotland could substially increase the risk of a 'two pace' economy, especially considering potential oil revenues (so huge that there will be providing for all services and overflowing into a soverign wealth fund!), and therefore the monetary union proposal does raise all the potential Euro issues whether or not Scotland has a nominal seat on the BoE Board or not??

[Eyrie]

But you could wear those thick gardening gloves:confused: Maybe thats the devo-max metaphor.
Like it! :not worth



This is where the debate starts to go round and round and round. IMO we have less power now (i.e. - zero input) over interest rates than we would have with an Independent Scotland in a 'sterling zone'.

To go back to an earlier post, IMO your argument is based around the bland assumption, well supported by the media, that England is the UK.

Are we not currently supposed to be equal partners with England, Wales & Northern Ireland in the Union?

ARE WE SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT'S SHARE OF ALL THE UNION LIABILITIES AND NOT GET A SHARE OF THE UNION ASSETS.

Here is an alternative and less subservient view of Scotland's position in the Union and Monetary Policy post Independence:-


Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.

An independent Scotland would have a claim on the assets and liabilities of the Bank of England, but why would it be entitled to a say in the running of the Bank of England after independence? The Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the UK which, as you point out, will continue in the form of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst there are countries out there that use another nation's currency, how many of them have a seat on its central bank?

But let's assume that Scotland does get a seat. It will be one seat of seven and therefore easily outvoted by the six UK representatives. That would mean that we face having our currency run by a foreign power and that will constrain our ability to run our own economy. To put this in perspective, the most likely government for the rest of the UK would be a Conservative one, which means that we would a foreign power pursuing different economic objectives to the cuddly left-of-centre consensus that exists in Scottish politics.

If you want to know about having your currency run from beyond your own borders, ask the Irish, the Spanish or the Greeks how it works. Or ask the EU what the logical end game of a shared is - a federal Europe.

If we vote for independence then we need to have our own currency to be independent.

[tcm1875]

Is this how an independent Scotland would defend itself.......?


http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N507BDE949F81D/#.UHyALxK9LCS

[J-C]

Like it! :not worth



An independent Scotland would have a claim on the assets and liabilities of the Bank of England, but why would it be entitled to a say in the running of the Bank of England after independence? The Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the UK which, as you point out, will continue in the form of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst there are countries out there that use another nation's currency, how many of them have a seat on its central bank?

But let's assume that Scotland does get a seat. It will be one seat of seven and therefore easily outvoted by the six UK representatives. That would mean that we face having our currency run by a foreign power and that will constrain our ability to run our own economy. To put this in perspective, the most likely government for the rest of the UK would be a Conservative one, which means that we would a foreign power pursuing different economic objectives to the cuddly left-of-centre consensus that exists in Scottish politics.

If you want to know about having your currency run from beyond your own borders, ask the Irish, the Spanish or the Greeks how it works. Or ask the EU what the logical end game of a shared is - a federal Europe.

If we vote for independence then we need to have our own currency to be independent.


In 1707 all Scottish assets were transferred to the Bank of England due to the merging of the Parliaments ( note that it was only parliaments and not countries that were merged ). If we as a people choose to go back to independence ( having a separate parliament ) we would be entitled to take our share of the Bank of England, since we have our assets tied up with them.

We already have our own currency, it's called the pound which we had for many a long year before 1707, it was valued a little less than the English one and was brought into line with them when the parliaments merged.

[J-C]

Alex Salmond :faf: what a clown that man is. Time will tell believe me.


Unless you can add something to that statement, you are looking more like a clown, just to come out with this without justifying it is a nonsense.

Why???

What has he done???

What has he said???

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=SiMar;3382372]This is certainly a good point however whether or not Scotland gets a 'share' of the BoE or representation on the Board do you seriously believe that would make any difference what so ever?

I believe that some representation is better than none at all. So yes, I do think it would make a difference.

Surely the fact is an Independent Scotland could substially increase the risk of a 'two pace' economy, especially considering potential oil revenues (so huge that there will be providing for all services and overflowing into a soverign wealth fund!), and therefore the monetary union proposal does raise all the potential Euro issues whether or not Scotland has a nominal seat on the BoE Board or not??


We already have what you term a '2 pace ecomony'. That is why the Conservative vote has held so well in the South East of England for the last 30 years.

No seriously minded Nationalist believes Scotland would be a land of 'milk & honey' come Independence (this is nonsense put about by Unionists to try and demean the Independence argument). Nobody is suggesting we would be awash with cash! The 'oil fund' is an idea that has been mooted by the SNP. What's wrong with the logic that says save a little in the good times for a rainy day.

Monetary Union in a 'sterling zone' cannot be compared to the Eurozone. The proposed sterling zone would include 2 countries with almost identical outputs (i.e. - Scotland and the rest of the UK) whereas Eurozone outputs country to country have huge differentials.

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=Eyrie;3382610]

An independent Scotland would have a claim on the assets and liabilities of the Bank of England, but why would it be entitled to a say in the running of the Bank of England after independence? The Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the UK which, as you point out, will continue in the form of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst there are countries out there that use another nation's currency, how many of them have a seat on its central bank?

You're missing the point a little here. The Bank of England is 'part owned' by Scotland as an 'equal' partner in the Union. What makes you so confident Scotland won't get representation post Independence, when our country is already a part owner of the asset.


But let's assume that Scotland does get a seat. It will be one seat of seven and therefore easily outvoted by the six UK representatives. That would mean that we face having our currency run by a foreign power and that will constrain our ability to run our own economy. To put this in perspective, the most likely government for the rest of the UK would be a Conservative one, which means that we would a foreign power pursuing different economic objectives to the cuddly left-of-centre consensus that exists in Scottish politics.

This is precisely how things work at the moment, except of course that in the current arrangement we have zero representation and next to no control over our own fiscal affairs (i.e. - we get pocket money from London).

If you want to know about having your currency run from beyond your own borders, ask the Irish, the Spanish or the Greeks how it works. Or ask the EU what the logical end game of a shared is - a federal Europe.

As I said in an earlier post I do not believe that Monetary Union in a 'sterling zone' can be compared to the Eurozone. The proposed sterling zone would include 2 countries with almost identical outputs (i.e. - Scotland and the rest of the UK) whereas Eurozone outputs country to country have huge differentials.

By the way can I ask why you chose to mention Ireland, Spain and Greece instead of (?) The Netherlands, Austria or Finland?


If we vote for independence then we need to have our own currency to be independent.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point I'm afraid. Retaining the pound in a sterling zone is the best option for me by far. That said, who's to say Scotland will not want it's own currency 15, 20 or 25 years from now. At least as an Independent nation state Scotland will be able to make the decision that best suits our interest at that time rather than, for example, the narrow interest of Tory backbenchers in the Commons.

[steakbake]

Unless you can add something to that statement, you are looking more like a clown, just to come out with this without justifying it is a nonsense.

Why???

What has he done???

What has he said???

:agree:

I'm not his biggest fan at all but it would be a mistake to write him off as some kind of clown. That he most definitely is not.

When we set out on devolution, did anyone seriously expect that within a decade, there would be an SNP minority administration? That within 12 years there would be an SNP majority administration - something apparently not supposed to be possible in the way the devolution parliament was set up? That within 15 years, there would be a referendum taking Scotland to the brink of independence?

That has happened on Salmond's watch. Devolution has given him the tools to achieve what he has sought his whole political life. I really would not bet against him achieving what seems at the moment, to be the unthinkable. In light of the above, I think anyone who thinks this guy is just a fool doesn't know anything about Scottish politics.

[Scouse Hibee]

Unless you can add something to that statement, you are looking more like a clown, just to come out with this without justifying it is a nonsense.

Why???

What has he done???

What has he said???

If I want to post on here that I think he is a clown then I will, I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else. If you think I am a clown for posting it then fair enough each to their own.

[Hibs Class]

:agree:

I'm not his biggest fan at all but it would be a mistake to write him off as some kind of clown. That he most definitely is not.

When we set out on devolution, did anyone seriously expect that within a decade, there would be an SNP minority administration? That within 12 years there would be an SNP majority administration - something apparently not supposed to be possible in the way the devolution parliament was set up? That within 15 years, there would be a referendum taking Scotland to the brink of independence?

That has happened on Salmond's watch. Devolution has given him the tools to achieve what he has sought his whole political life. I really would not bet against him achieving what seems at the moment, to be the unthinkable. In light of the above, I think anyone who thinks this guy is just a fool doesn't know anything about Scottish politics.


Completely agree. Whether you agree with his politics or not there's no escaping that he is by far the most capable politician in Scotland. That is a reflection on his talent but also on the dearth of broader talent both within his own party and beyond. The more capable members of the UK parties continue to prefer a Westminster career whilst the SNP lacks any strength in depth beyond Salmond - a look around the cabinet shows some talent (as well as highlighting the lack of strength) whilst the non-cabinet SNP MSPs are pretty forgettable. Salmond is the only capable leader in the party, as illustrated by the severe dip in their fortune in the brief period he wasn't party leader. The SNP are well aware of that and, in the same way as the regional candidates at the last election were presented as a "vote for Salmond for First Minister" choice, so the referendum will be presented as synonymous with a vote for Salmond.

[ancienthibby]

Completely agree. Whether you agree with his politics or not there's no escaping that he is by far the most capable politician in Scotland. That is a reflection on his talent but also on the dearth of broader talent both within his own party and beyond. The more capable members of the UK parties continue to prefer a Westminster career whilst the SNP lacks any strength in depth beyond Salmond - a look around the cabinet shows some talent (as well as highlighting the lack of strength) whilst the non-cabinet SNP MSPs are pretty forgettable. Salmond is the only capable leader in the party, as illustrated by the severe dip in their fortune in the brief period he wasn't party leader. The SNP are well aware of that and, in the same way as the regional candidates at the last election were presented as a "vote for Salmond for First Minister" choice, so the referendum will be presented as synonymous with a vote for Salmond.

You are striking a chord there Mr HC, though I'd like to offer some variations on that theme.

For my sins, I am a regular watcher of FMQ's and I find that forum highly informative.

First why do so many MSP's act is if there no one in the visitors gallery, never mind the TV cameras that bring the programme to us.

For example, why do former leaders of the Fib-Dems and the Conservatives think that their chairs are actually sun-loungers.

Second, why do many members of the Labour Party act as slacked-jawed desk-thumpers, led by the member for Greenock?

Third, why do so many members of all parties remain anonymous i.e. never, ever, ask a question?

Anyone who has not made a habit of watching FMQ's, and especially the contribution (or not) of MSP's from all parties, will get a real eye-opener as to who contributes in that forum.

Fourth, when FMQ's ends at 12.30 pm or thereabouts, some other business is scheduled. For the most part, maybe 10 MSP's in total from all parties will remain in the chamber. Just what is the point??

Importantly though, the business managers in Holyrood are not doing democracy much good if the Chamber on a Thursday lunchtime is the evidence!

There is talent in all parties, but it is limited. Beyond the SNP Cabinet, I think there is some talent in the SNP benches, led by Keith Brown, supported by Michael Mathieson, Jamie Hepburn, Aileen Campbell, and Derek Mackay. There is rawness amongst that group but Brown has impressed since he took over from the hapless Stewart Stevenson. I look at the other benches and see mostly old folks drawn from the pensioners' home and any number of angry young women not in control of their emotions.

Do have a look at FMQ's!

[RyeSloan]

[QUOTE=SiMar;3382372]This is certainly a good point however whether or not Scotland gets a 'share' of the BoE or representation on the Board do you seriously believe that would make any difference what so ever?

I believe that some representation is better than none at all. So yes, I do think it would make a difference.

Surely the fact is an Independent Scotland could substially increase the risk of a 'two pace' economy, especially considering potential oil revenues (so huge that there will be providing for all services and overflowing into a soverign wealth fund!), and therefore the monetary union proposal does raise all the potential Euro issues whether or not Scotland has a nominal seat on the BoE Board or not??


We already have what you term a '2 pace ecomony'. That is why the Conservative vote has held so well in the South East of England for the last 30 years.

No seriously minded Nationalist believes Scotland would be a land of 'milk & honey' come Independence (this is nonsense put about by Unionists to try and demean the Independence argument). Nobody is suggesting we would be awash with cash! The 'oil fund' is an idea that has been mooted by the SNP. What's wrong with the logic that says save a little in the good times for a rainy day.

Monetary Union in a 'sterling zone' cannot be compared to the Eurozone. The proposed sterling zone would include 2 countries with almost identical outputs (i.e. - Scotland and the rest of the UK) whereas Eurozone outputs country to country have huge differentials.




You can't say we already have a two pace economy then state the Sterling zone will contain 2 countries with almost identical outputs...is that not somewhat an oxymoron?

Also if we are saying Independence will not materially impact the economic path of the country do we not lose a reasonably large part of the reason for said Independence?

The 'oil fund' idea is a whole different conversation :greengrin

[steakbake]

Completely agree. Whether you agree with his politics or not there's no escaping that he is by far the most capable politician in Scotland. That is a reflection on his talent but also on the dearth of broader talent both within his own party and beyond. The more capable members of the UK parties continue to prefer a Westminster career whilst the SNP lacks any strength in depth beyond Salmond - a look around the cabinet shows some talent (as well as highlighting the lack of strength) whilst the non-cabinet SNP MSPs are pretty forgettable. Salmond is the only capable leader in the party, as illustrated by the severe dip in their fortune in the brief period he wasn't party leader. The SNP are well aware of that and, in the same way as the regional candidates at the last election were presented as a "vote for Salmond for First Minister" choice, so the referendum will be presented as synonymous with a vote for Salmond.

...or Sturgeon, who is herself a very capable campaigner though I am not sure she'd necessarily be FM material, though I could be wrong.

[Eyrie]

[QUOTE=Eyrie;3382610]
An independent Scotland would have a claim on the assets and liabilities of the Bank of England, but why would it be entitled to a say in the running of the Bank of England after independence? The Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the UK which, as you point out, will continue in the form of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst there are countries out there that use another nation's currency, how many of them have a seat on its central bank?

You're missing the point a little here. The Bank of England is 'part owned' by Scotland as an 'equal' partner in the Union. What makes you
so confident Scotland won't get representation post Independence, when our country is already a part owner of the asset.
I didn't say we wouldn't, but I note that you were unable to provide an example where this happens.


But let's assume that Scotland does get a seat. It will be one seat of seven and therefore easily outvoted by the six UK representatives. That would mean that we face having our currency run by a foreign power and that will constrain our ability to run our own economy. To put this in perspective, the most likely government for the rest of the UK would be a Conservative one, which means that we would a foreign power pursuing different economic objectives to the cuddly left-of-centre consensus that exists in Scottish politics.

This is precisely how things work at the moment, except of course that in the current arrangement we have zero representation and next to no control over our own fiscal affairs (i.e. - we get pocket money from London).
Two of the last three Chancellors of the Exchequer have been Scots, who give the BofE a target for inflation and leave the BofE to set interest rates accordingly. We do have control over our own fiscal affairs by being over-represented at Westminster and therefore able to influence its policies. I agree though that the Scottish Parliament should have to raise more of its income and the recent legislation to allow it to levy some income tax is a step in the right direction.


If you want to know about having your currency run from beyond your own borders, ask the Irish, the Spanish or the Greeks how it works. Or ask the EU what the logical end game of a shared is - a federal Europe.

As I said in an earlier post I do not believe that Monetary Union in a 'sterling zone' can be compared to the Eurozone. The proposed sterling zone would include 2 countries with almost identical outputs (i.e. - Scotland and the rest of the UK) whereas Eurozone outputs country to country have huge differentials.

By the way can I ask why you chose to mention Ireland, Spain and Greece instead of (?) The Netherlands, Austria or Finland?
As SiMar has pointed out, you're contradicting yourself since you think that the Scottish economy is out of step with the rest of the UK. But surely you believe that one of the benefits of independence will be the ability to run our economy how we want? In that case we are unlikely to be in step with a right of centre UK, which explains why I chose countries that are out of step. And a nationalist can hardly complain about the choice of Ireland, given that for years it was held up as an example of what an independent Scotland could be like.

However, if we are in step with the rest of the UK, then that makes a common currency an even more obvious step towards a common economic policy which in turn leads to a federal structure. The EU sees this clearly and is open about the ultimate aim of a common currency being a full union - the exact opposite of what is proposed for Scotland keeping the pound.


If we vote for independence then we need to have our own currency to be independent.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point I'm afraid. Retaining the pound in a sterling zone is the best option for me by far. That said, who's to say Scotland will not want it's own currency 15, 20 or 25 years from now. At least as an Independent nation state Scotland will be able to make the decision that best suits our interest at that time rather than, for example, the narrow interest of Tory backbenchers in the Commons.
And again you contradict yourself. As very much the smaller party in a currency union with the UK we will have to attempt to shadow the UK to retain our seat on the BofE. And that means being dictated to by a foreign country. At least at the moment it's possible to get rid of a Tory majority in the UK, largely using Scottish seats.

Given your preference for a sterling zone, I'm beginning to think that I'm more of a nationalist than you since I'd go the whole hog :na na:

[J-C]

[QUOTE=allmodcons;3383064]
[/B]I didn't say we wouldn't, but I note that you were unable to provide an example where this happens.


[/B]Two of the last three Chancellors of the Exchequer have been Scots, who give the BofE a target for inflation and leave the BofE to set interest rates accordingly. We do have control over our own fiscal affairs by being over-represented at Westminster and therefore able to influence its policies. I agree though that the Scottish Parliament should have to raise more of its income and the recent legislation to allow it to levy some income tax is a step in the right direction.


[/B]As SiMar has pointed out, you're contradicting yourself since you think that the Scottish economy is out of step with the rest of the UK. But surely you believe that one of the benefits of independence will be the ability to run our economy how we want? In that case we are unlikely to be in step with a right of centre UK, which explains why I chose countries that are out of step. And a nationalist can hardly complain about the choice of Ireland, given that for years it was held up as an example of what an independent Scotland could be like.

However, if we are in step with the rest of the UK, then that makes a common currency an even more obvious step towards a common economic policy which in turn leads to a federal structure. The EU sees this clearly and is open about the ultimate aim of a common currency being a full union - the exact opposite of what is proposed for Scotland keeping the pound.


And again you contradict yourself. As very much the smaller party in a currency union with the UK we will have to attempt to shadow the UK to retain our seat on the BofE. And that means being dictated to by a foreign country. At least at the moment it's possible to get rid of a Tory majority in the UK, largely using Scottish seats.

Given your preference for a sterling zone, I'm beginning to think that I'm more of a nationalist than you since I'd go the whole hog :na na:


http://nationalcollective.com/2012/01/14/scottish-independence-fair-share/

Paragraph 5 :wink:

Chancellors of the exchequer no matter where they come from, do their job for the good of Britain, the last to being Scottish has no bearing as these 2 Scots are not pro independence and as such will do what is best for the whole of Britain and not favouring Scotland.

Prior to the merging of the 2 parliaments in 1707, the Scottish Pound was re valued to bring it into line with the English pound, as has been said we have had the pound for a good few hundred years, the new pound may be re valued.

Remember, many of our major companies are connected to English and even multi national companies, we will have to keep the pound fairly strong.

This is a reply to Eyrie but due to the way he posted his last post, I cannot reply with his quote.

[One Day Soon]

[QUOTE=Eyrie;3383392]


http://nationalcollective.com/2012/01/14/scottish-independence-fair-share/

Paragraph 5 :wink:

Chancellors of the exchequer no matter where they come from, do their job for the good of Britain, the last to being Scottish has no bearing as these 2 Scots are not pro independence and as such will do what is best for the whole of Britain and not favouring Scotland.

Prior to the merging of the 2 parliaments in 1707, the Scottish Pound was re valued to bring it into line with the English pound, as has been said we have had the pound for a good few hundred years, the new pound may be re valued.

Remember, many of our major companies are connected to English and even multi national companies, we will have to keep the pound fairly strong.

This is a reply to Eyrie but due to the way he posted his last post, I cannot reply with his quote.


It is absolute crap that only those who are pro-separatism can be favouring Scotland.

It is either extremely foolish or very deliberately malign to assert that you cannot be a patriot without being a separatist. The vast majority of Scots are not pro-separatism but are extremely pro-Scottish.

For those of us who see the merits of being part of Team GB far outweighing any disadvantages - which at present is most Scots - it is very clear that Britain and Scotland's interests are united.

[marinello59]

[QUOTE=jc1;3383544]


It is absolute crap that only those who are pro-separatism can be favouring Scotland.
.

I'd have to agree with that, it's bordering on the offensive. I don't think the SNP leadership would peddle that line though.

[J-C]

My point was that whether or not they were Scottish, they couldn't be seen to be favouring Scotland as they were part of a British government, their stance as part of either a Labour or Tory party is for a united kingdom and cannot be seen go favour one country over another. So the point about then being Scottish is irrelevant.

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=SiMar;3383268][QUOTE=allmodcons;3383034]


You can't say we already have a two pace economy then state the Sterling zone will contain 2 countries with almost identical outputs...is that not somewhat an oxymoron?

I think if you read my post properly you'll see that the initial comparison I made was between the economy in the South East of England and the rest of the UK including Scotland (i.e. - regional variations already exist). What I then went on say was that Scotland has almost indentical ouputs to the rest of UK taken as whole (i.e . - England, Wales & NI) where GDP per head of popoulation is the same. So no contradiction there.

Also if we are saying Independence will not materially impact the economic path of the country do we not lose a reasonably large part of the reason for said Independence?

'We' as you put it are not saying anything of the kind. Can you show me where I stated that Independence 'will not materially impact the ecomonic path Scotland'.

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=Eyrie;3383392][QUOTE=allmodcons;3383064]

I didn't say we wouldn't, but I note that you were unable to provide an example where this happens.

In the eurozone every member state has a representative on the Governing Council of the ECB.


[/B]As SiMar has pointed out, you're contradicting yourself since you think that the Scottish economy is out of step with the rest of the UK. But surely you believe that one of the benefits of independence will be the ability to run our economy how we want? In that case we are unlikely to be in step with a right of centre UK, which explains why I chose countries that are out of step. And a nationalist can hardly complain about the choice of Ireland, given that for years it was held up as an example of what an independent Scotland could be like.

I think if you read my post properly you'll see that the initial comparison I made was between the economy in the South East of England and the rest of the UK including Scotland (i.e. - regional variations already exist). What I then went on say was that Scotland has almost indentical ouputs to the rest of UK taken as whole (i.e . - England, Wales & NI) where GDP per head of popoulation is the same. So no contradiction there.

By the way, you chose Greece, Spain and Ireland because they were the worst examples you could think of, no other reason. As I said, I could just as easily point to 3 good examples in The Netherlands, Austria and Finland.


However, if we are in step with the rest of the UK, then that makes a common currency an even more obvious step towards a common economic policy which in turn leads to a federal structure.

We do appear to have different views as to what constitutes a federal structure. The Lib Dems are (today) providing proposals for a federal structure for the UK. They, themselves, say this is something short of full fiscal automony which, in turn, falls short of the SNP's vision of Independence.


And again you contradict yourself. As very much the smaller party in a currency union with the UK we will have to attempt to shadow the UK to retain our seat on the BofE. And that means being dictated to by a foreign country. At least at the moment it's possible to get rid of a Tory majority in the UK, largely using Scottish seats.

Where's the contradiction? Are you seriously suggesting that an Independent Scotland would have less chance of changing it's currency at future date than Scotland would as part of the Union? If so, then you've completely lost me with that one!!


Given your preference for a sterling zone, I'm beginning to think that I'm more of a nationalist than you since I'd go the whole hog :na na:

Good! On that basis you'll be voting yes in 2014.

[Eyrie]

My point was that whether or not they were Scottish, they couldn't be seen to be favouring Scotland as they were part of a British government, their stance as part of either a Labour or Tory party is for a united kingdom and cannot be seen go favour one country over another. So the point about then being Scottish is irrelevant.
It's extremely relevant as it means that they are aware of the impact of their policies on Scotland, rather than focussing on the needs of the SE of England. We're not being forgotten about.



In the eurozone every member state has a representative on the Governing Council of the ECB.And much good that did Greece, Spain and Ireland. Mind you, that example isn't entirely accurate, since it doesn't have 6/7ths of its council appointed by just one country able to outvote the rest.

I think if you read my post properly you'll see that the initial comparison I made was between the economy in the South East of England and the rest of the UK including Scotland (i.e. - regional variations already exist). What I then went on say was that Scotland has almost indentical ouputs to the rest of UK taken as whole (i.e . - England, Wales & NI) where GDP per head of popoulation is the same. So no contradication there.
It's a fair point that we have more in common with some English regions than they do with the SE of England (see my reply to jc1 above)


By the way, you chose Greece, Spain and Ireland because they were the worst examples you could think of, no other reason. As I said, I could just as easily point to 3 good examples in The Netherlands, Austria and Finland.
No, I chose them because they show what can happen when a country has unsuitable interest and exchange rates for its economy. It's often claimed that one of the great triumphs of independence will be that we can be free of Tory policies and economic decisions suitable for the SE of England. But by attempting to maintain a common currency with the UK we will be pursuing different objectives to the UK, which will of course continue to run its economy to suit the SE of England and we will be adversely affected by that difference regardless of whether our policies are good or bad.

However if you think they were chosen as worst examples, surely it is only sensible to consider what could go wrong? If we knew that everything would work out perfectly, then there would be no need for a referendum as the demand for independence would be overwhelming.


We do appear to have different views as to what constitutes a federal structure. The Lib Dems are (today) providing proposals for a federal structure for the UK. They, themselves, say this is something short of full fiscal automony which, in turn, falls short of the SNP's vision of Independence.
We've seen the first steps towards a federal Europe with the creation of a single currency, moves towards common military forces and the appointment of an EU foreign minister. The solution to the problems caused by a single currency all involve greater integration and alignment of policy and tax rates.

There is no appetite in England for regional assemblies which are essential for a federal UK, regardless of whether that would be desirable.


Good! On that basis you'll be voting yes in 2014.
My views could change but at the moment that is unlikely. Partly because I'm not convinced by the answers to my questions (although I do appreciate you taking the time to respond) and partly because I don't think Scotland's interests are advanced by the terms being discussed.

[allmodcons]

My views could change but at the moment that is unlikely. Partly because I'm not convinced by the answers to my questions (although I do appreciate you taking the time to respond) and partly because I don't think Scotland's interests are advanced by the terms being discussed.

Reading your posts it's difficult to ascertain what your stance is on the referendum. I wonder if you play devils advocate at times? Are you serious about an Independent Scotland having it's own currency and, if so, would complete control of monetary policy persuade you to vote yes ?

[J-C]

Can't see much difference here


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



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



We ( well some of us ) wish to leave one and the person trying to stop us wishes to leave the other.:wink:

[Eyrie]

Reading your posts it's difficult to ascertain what your stance is on the referendum. I wonder if you play devils advocate at times? Are you serious about an Independent Scotland having it's own currency and, if so, would complete control of monetary policy persuade you to vote yes ?
If the referendum was held tomorrow then I'd vote to continue in the UK.

I'm serious that for independence to mean independence, rather than simply replacing Westminster with Brussels, then we should have our own currency in a similar manner to Norway. It would take more than that for me to vote yes though.

[Hainan Hibs]

If the referendum was held tomorrow then I'd vote to continue in the UK.

I'm serious that for independence to mean independence, rather than simply replacing Westminster with Brussels, then we should have our own currency in a similar manner to Norway. It would take more than that for me to vote yes though.

Can you point me towards anything that says we will take the powers reserved at Westminster and give them all to Brussels?

[LeighLoyal]

I support the notion of independence, but not so much the SNP version. For a start I don't want to keep the English monarchy. Are we going to have an independent parliament that has a foreign head of state? :confused: There should be a referenda on becoming a republic. Freedom should mean freedom.

[Sir David Gray]

Can you point me towards anything that says we will take the powers reserved at Westminster and give them all to Brussels?

The SNP manifesto for starters is quite clear on this particular matter.

I'm sorry but I cannot take any pro-independence party seriously when they're campaigning about taking us out of one system of government that has overall control over what happens in Scotland and then immediately transferring all that to another foreign based government who will have just as much, if not more, interference into Scottish affairs.

A party that claims to be pro-independence cannot possibly be supportive of Scotland joining the European Union. The fact that they are just makes a complete mockery of the SNP's independence stance, in my opinion.

[Sir David Gray]

I support the notion of independence, but not so much the SNP version. For a start I don't want to keep the English monarchy. Are we going to have an independent parliament that has a foreign head of state? :confused: There should be a referenda on becoming a republic. Freedom should mean freedom.

I'm no fan of the SNP but there's lots of nations that are independent of the UK but whose head of state is Elizabeth II. Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name but three and I don't think anyone would argue that they are independent of the UK.

[Beefster]

I support the notion of independence, but not so much the SNP version. For a start I don't want to keep the English monarchy. Are we going to have an independent parliament that has a foreign head of state? :confused: There should be a referenda on becoming a republic. Freedom should mean freedom.

I want rid of the monarchy, whether we remain in the UK or otherwise but can we stop this pish of referring to everything that is a current part of the UK as 'English'? English monarch, English parliament, English this, English that. It's crap chat designed to take advantage of the Anglophobia of some Scots.

[marinello59]

I want rid of the monarchy, whether we remain in the UK or otherwise but can we stop this pish of referring to everything that is a current part of the UK as 'English'? English monarch, English parliament, English this, English that. It's crap chat designed to take advantage of the Anglophobia of some Scots.

Well said.

[Eyrie]

Can you point me towards anything that says we will take the powers reserved at Westminster and give them all to Brussels?
I can't put it any better than FalkirkHibee already has -

The SNP manifesto for starters is quite clear on this particular matter.

I'm sorry but I cannot take any pro-independence party seriously when they're campaigning about taking us out of one system of government that has overall control over what happens in Scotland and then immediately transferring all that to another foreign based government who will have just as much, if not more, interference into Scottish affairs.

A party that claims to be pro-independence cannot possibly be supportive of Scotland joining the European Union. The fact that they are just makes a complete mockery of the SNP's independence stance, in my opinion.

There would be an outcry in our country if Westminster tried to stop the SNP flagship policy of minimum pricing for alcohol, so where is the outrage about the EU's interference (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19757149)in our democratic decision?

[LeighLoyal]

I want rid of the monarchy, whether we remain in the UK or otherwise but can we stop this pish of referring to everything that is a current part of the UK as 'English'? English monarch, English parliament, English this, English that. It's crap chat designed to take advantage of the Anglophobia of some Scots.


It's not Scottish, put it that way then. They are by and large Germans.

[Hibbyradge]

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197553_368111466605834_1760565688_n.jpg

[Hibbyradge]

I want rid of the monarchy, whether we remain in the UK or otherwise but can we stop this pish of referring to everything that is a current part of the UK as 'English'? English monarch, English parliament, English this, English that. It's crap chat designed to take advantage of the Anglophobia of some Scots.

Spot on.

And it's one of the factors that has driven me to the No camp.

[Nuitdelune]

Please excuse my shallow ignorance and thus far not having read the full thread, but what is the answer to those who are scared of voting yes. The idea is attractive but I consider the Scottish Parliament have, in the main, voted in changes for changes sake, trying to make themselves important, and sought to undermine the Scottish legal system in ways that Westminister would never even have thought of. For that reason alone, I would be scared to vote yes

[J-C]

I support the notion of independence, but not so much the SNP version. For a start I don't want to keep the English monarchy. Are we going to have an independent parliament that has a foreign head of state? :confused: There should be a referenda on becoming a republic. Freedom should mean freedom.

I'm no huge fan of the Queen but she is half Scottish, her mother was a very proud Scot, even Charles has said on many occasions that some of his happiest memories have been up here in Scotland, we'd be like Australia/Canada etc the Queen would just be a figure head.

[J-C]

Please excuse my shallow ignorance and thus far not having read the full thread, but what is the answer to those who are scared of voting yes. The idea is attractive but I consider the Scottish Parliament have, in the main, voted in changes for changes sake, trying to make themselves important, and sought to undermine the Scottish legal system in ways that Westminister would never even have thought of. For that reason alone, I would be scared to vote yes


I think that any changes voted in has been for the benefit of the Scottish people, that's what the SNP want, more power for the people of Scotland,

[tcm1875]

Spot on.

And it's one of the factors that has driven me to the No camp.

I've seen it once now (as far as i can remember) in 15 pages of posts. Apologies if wrong... It's hardly rife... The same could be said for no camp.......

[Hibbyradge]

I've seen it once now (as far as i can remember) in 15 pages of posts. Apologies if wrong... It's hardly rife... The same could be said for no camp.......

It's nothing to do with this thread. I'm not going to base my decision on who and what to vote for on a hibs.net debate.

The ABE crowd have shot themselves in the foot. There are people who base their entire identity on hating the English, or some part of England's culture. The Church of Maradona Tartan Army being a very close to home example. (Sorry Ronnie, but I'd rather support something pro-Scotland than something Argentinian and anti England.)

I can not abide the bigotted anti-English sentiment in our country. It's pathetic. "We're victims of big bad England." Bollocks. No we're not. We co-exist perfectly well.

If the Yes camp can't tell us why we'll be better off, emotionally, spiritually or economically, then why on earth should we vote for change?

[Beefster]

It's not Scottish, put it that way then. They are by and large Germans.

How many generations does it take for an immigrant family to become Scottish?

[allmodcons]

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197553_368111466605834_1760565688_n.jpg


This is typical show of double standards by the Unionist camp.

Imagine the uproar amongst Unionists if I stuck up a poster saying 'I love Scotland too much to be a Unionst'.

I can just hear all the responses now. 'Who says you have to be a Nationalist to be patriotic' 'I'm as passionate about Scotland as any Nationalist' blah, blah blah.

Funny how it's acceptable when the 'boots on the other foot'!

[marinello59]

This is typical show of double standards by the Unionist camp.

Imagine the uproar amongst Unionists if I stuck up a poster saying 'I love Scotland too much to be a Unionst'.

I can just hear all the responses now. 'Who says you have to be a Nationalist to be patriotic' 'I'm as passionate about Scotland as any Nationalist' blah, blah blah.

Funny how it's acceptable when the 'boots on the other foot'!

Both sides are capable of double standards, it's typical of nobody.
That poster isn't questioning anyones patriotism by the way so I see nothing wrong with it. I love Scotland enough to Vote yes....that offends nobody really does it so why should the opposite be true. A wee bit of oversensitivity there me thinks.

[hibsbollah]

How many generations does it take for an immigrant family to become Scottish?

It shouldnt be a matter of when you arrive. As soon as you reach the sufficient level of miserable cynicism and borderline suicidal depression you should be considered as pure Scottish.

[One Day Soon]

It shouldnt be a matter of when you arrive. As soon as you reach the sufficient level of miserable cynicism and borderline suicidal depression you should be considered as pure Scottish.

Very good Mr Bollah, very good.

[One Day Soon]

This is typical show of double standards by the Unionist camp.

Imagine the uproar amongst Unionists if I stuck up a poster saying 'I love Scotland too much to be a Unionst'.

I can just hear all the responses now. 'Who says you have to be a Nationalist to be patriotic' 'I'm as passionate about Scotland as any Nationalist' blah, blah blah.

Funny how it's acceptable when the 'boots on the other foot'!


If you did that I would just assume you were a Celtc fan and move on...

[Hibbyradge]

This is typical show of double standards by the Unionist camp.

Imagine the uproar amongst Unionists if I stuck up a poster saying 'I love Scotland too much to be a Unionst'.

I can just hear all the responses now. 'Who says you have to be a Nationalist to be patriotic' 'I'm as passionate about Scotland as any Nationalist' blah, blah blah.

Funny how it's acceptable when the 'boots on the other foot'!

That's brilliant!

You're criticising unionists for theoretically complaining about an imaginary poster you haven't put up. :hilarious

[Just Alf]

Sort of glad this is the 1st time I've looked at this particular "gem" of a thread :-/

[allmodcons]

That's brilliant!

You're criticising unionists for theoretically complaining about an imaginary poster you haven't put up. :hilarious

No, I'm criticising you for posting something that says as a Unionist I'm more passionate about Scotlland than a Nationalist.
Complete playgroung politics and, before you spout anymore nonsense, I know it cuts both ways.
I wouldn't be daft enough to suggest that because I'm a Nationalist I care more about my country than someone who has a different political opinion to mine. For me, that's not what it's about.

[Hibbyradge]

No, I'm criticising you for posting something that says as a Unionist I'm more passionate about Scotlland than a Nationalist.
Complete playgroung politics and, before you spout anymore nonsense, I know it cuts both ways.
I wouldn't be daft enough to suggest that because I'm a Nationalist I care more about my country than someone who has a different political opinion to mine. For me, that's not what it's about.

Reread your post.

You're banging on about what unionists would say if...

Anyway, I don't think the poster says anything about how much or little a Nationalist cares about Scotland.

It says to me that unionists think it would be harmful to separa

If you choose to read it another way in order to further fuel your wrath,then it's you who is indulging in playground politics.

[Hibbyradge]

Reread your post.

You're banging on about what unionists would say if...

Anyway, I don't think the poster says anything about how much or little a Nationalist cares about Scotland.

It says to me that unionists think it would be harmful to separa

If you choose to read it another way in order to further fuel your wrath,then it's you who is indulging in playground politics.

Damm phone.

[tcm1875]

Latest poll it's yes camp at 37% only 8 points behind. From a highly experienced polling company.


http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1153569.ece

[Beefster]

I wouldn't put to much faith in polls. Theres only one that matters.......


Latest poll it's yes camp at 37% only 8 points behind. From a highly experienced polling company.


http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1153569.ece

...

[hibsbollah]

Those online polls are worthless. Easy for 30 trolls to sign up and totally skew the results. Surprised a big paper is running the results tbh.

[tcm1875]

...

Lol, that's why I posted it, it's gone from 22% to 37% in matter of weeks. Obviously the last one was a rogue poll....... :-))

[tcm1875]

Those online polls are worthless. Easy for 30 trolls to sign up and totally skew the results. Surprised a big paper is running the results tbh.


The one I read said people were interviewed from the 9th to the 19th of October.......

[steakbake]

Two MSPs resign from the SNP due to the decision to come under the nuclear umbrella of NATO...

[marinello59]

Two MSPs resign from the SNP due to the decision to come under the nuclear umbrella of NATO...

I disagree witnh the SNP on Trident ( which puts me firmly in the minority in Scotland) but admired the fact the issue was a matter of principle to them. Remaining in NATO would be gross hypocricy on their part.(Although I think it's the right thing to do.) Next you'll be telling me that the reason they didn't want us to know the legal issues surrounding our EU membership was because they hadn't even got round taking any advice in the first place. Which would be negligent in the extreme.

[steakbake]

I dusagree witnh the SNP on Trident ( which puts me firmly in the minority in Scotland) but admired the fact the issue was a matter of principle to them. Remaining in NATO would be gross hypocricy on their part.(Although I think it's the right thing to do.) Next you'll be telling me that the reason they didn't want us to know the legal issues surrounding our EU membership was because they hadn't even got round taking any advice in the first place. Which would be negligent in the extreme.

I won't be telling you anything... I don't speak for the SNP. Unless you mean the 'you' figuratively.

I don't agree with the NATO decision. If we've a chance to set up a new, progressive, forward looking country, it seems unusual we'd throw away a chance of international neutrality and being able to choose which military 'adventures' we get pulled into. Best to give them a wide berth. You can't be against the abomination of weapons of mass destruction and at the same time, seek to shelter under the nuclear umbrella of NATO. That is hypocrisy.

I'm not bothered whether we're in or out of the EU. I don't think we need to be in it to benefit from it. Either way. Being outside means we don't have to pool sovereignty but would have to negotiate associate agreements for free movement of labour and capital etc, something which Norway, Switzerland and others have done.

[marinello59]

I won't be telling you anything... I don't speak for the SNP. Unless you mean the 'you' figuratively.

I don't agree with the NATO decision. If we've a chance to set up a new, progressive, forward looking country, it seems unusual we'd throw away a chance of international neutrality and being able to choose which military 'adventures' we get pulled into. Best to give them a wide berth. You can't be against the abomination of weapons of mass destruction and at the same time, seek to shelter under the nuclear umbrella of NATO. That is hypocrisy.

I'm not bothered whether we're in or out of the EU. I don't think we need to be in it to benefit from it. Either way. Being outside means we don't have to pool sovereignty but would have to negotiate associate agreements for free movement of labour and capital etc, something which Norway, Switzerland and others have done.

I think you are missing the point that I was (badly) making. Whether we remain in the EU or not is not the issue here. The SNP leadership has been shown to be at best 'economical with the truth' over whether they sought specific legal advice over our continued EU membership or not. (information they decided was worth spending money on lawyers to prevent us from knowing.) Being found guilty of hypocrisy and misleading the Scottish people in the same day is disastrous.

[steakbake]

I think you are missing the point that I was (badly) making. Whether we remain in the EU or not is not the issue here. The SNP leadership has been shown to be at best 'economical with the truth' over whether they sought specific legal advice over our continued EU membership or not. (information they decided was worth spending money on lawyers to prevent us from knowing.) Being found guilty of hypocrisy and misleading the Scottish people in the same day is disastrous.

Ahhh, yes, sorry.

It looks like the SNP are trying to spin themselves out of a tricky situation. Getting legal advice about a publication and getting legal advice about a policy (which appears in that publication) seems to be the same. Or if not, it's a bit of a pedantic difference at best.

Equally though, the accusations are being made in the heavily partisan way as has become traditional in our political culture. It's hard to determine whether it's someone trying to make something out of nothing or whether there is a serious point being made which is at risk of being lost in the delivery.

I suspect like a lot of political shenanigans of claims and counter claims that go on, that the vast majority of folk will just see it as more proof, if any were indeed needed, that politicians are a slippery bunch of scheisters.

[marinello59]

Ahhh, yes, sorry.

It looks like the SNP are trying to spin themselves out of a tricky situation. Getting legal advice about a publication and getting legal advice about a policy (which appears in that publication) seems to be the same. Or if not, it's a bit of a pedantic difference at best.

Equally though, the accusations are being made in the heavily partisan way as has become traditional in our political culture. It's hard to determine whether it's someone trying to make something out of nothing or whether there is a serious point being made which is at risk of being lost in the delivery.

I suspect like a lot of political shenanigans of claims and counter claims that go on, that the vast majority of folk will just see it as more proof, if any were indeed needed, that politicians are a slippery bunch of scheisters.

Which is my default position towards them no matter which party they are in. :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Very good Mr Bollah, very good.

In all seriousness, we were talking about the 'are you Scottish yet' question today. Mrs and Miss Bollah are both English born and bred, and have only lived in Scotland for two years, yet they are eligible to vote in the referendum. Both are planning to vote ('no' in both cases, I think) but they both think they shouldn't be allowed a say. Intereresting dilemma.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's nothing to do with this thread. I'm not going to base my decision on who and what to vote for on a hibs.net debate.

The ABE crowd have shot themselves in the foot. There are people who base their entire identity on hating the English, or some part of England's culture. The Church of Maradona Tartan Army being a very close to home example. (Sorry Ronnie, but I'd rather support something pro-Scotland than something Argentinian and anti England.)

I can not abide the bigotted anti-English sentiment in our country. It's pathetic. "We're victims of big bad England." Bollocks. No we're not. We co-exist perfectly well.


I agree with all of the above but I don't see it as a fair or accurate characterisation of the yes campaign or its supporters. If anything, I'd have thought proving we're capable of governing ourselves would help remove that particular chip from the national shoulder?



If the Yes camp can't tell us why we'll be better off, emotionally, spiritually or economically, then why on earth should we vote for change?

Ignoring spiritually (as I've no idea what that means or how you'd measure it), have a look at the country comparisons below. Ask yourself why the small northern european nations show up so often yet the UK punches well below its weight. Obviously there might be a myriad of reasons but I firmly believe that the UK's structure of over centralisation from the SE corner and its legacy post-imperial hangover and increasingly futile attempts to play the great power are major contributory factors.

I want to be part of a smaller, more dynamic country whose government is much more attuned to a much greater percentage of its own citizens, that contributes to the world without seeking to dominate it and whose citizens believe that there is some link between what they put in to their country and what they'll get out of it.

Scotland is incredibly fortunate in terms of its natural resources. We are still suffering the effects of a rapid industrial decline but we could use oil resources to bridge the gap while we set about building a renewed country that's genuinely worth being proud of.

Or we could play it safe, stick with what we know, decide others know best and totally blow it ......... again. (deep sigh). Oh well.

Happiness Index top10: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/happiness-world-bhutan-meeting-denmark.html

Denmark
Finland
Norway
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
Sweden
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland

UK 18th

Education Index top 10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

New Zealand
Finland
Denmark
Australia
Cuba
Canada
Norway
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands

UK 31st

OECD Better Life Index top 10: http://www.businessinsider.com/10-top-countries-oecd-better-life-index-2012-5?op=1

Australia
Norway
US
Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Switzerland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Luxembourg

UK 11th

GDP per capita top10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Luxembourg
Qatar
Norway
Switzerland
Australia
San Marino
UAE
Denmark
Sweden
Canada

UK 23rd

[Hibbyradge]

I agree with all of the above but I don't see it as a fair or accurate characterisation of the yes campaign or its supporters. If anything, I'd have thought proving we're capable of governing ourselves would help remove that particular chip from the national shoulder?
[/url]



I wasn't characterising the whole Yes campaign. I was referring to the ABE brigade, but my perception is that those views and attitudes do seem to be prevalent. Maybe it's empty vessels and all that.

Try eavesdropping any conversation about the referendum in the pub or even the workplace.

It won't be long till some wag pipes up with the hilarious, yet final, "English B******s", "F*** the English" or something as well thought out and convincing.

Any good arguments put by a Yes supporter are immediately lost.

That's what I mean by them shooting themselves (and their cause) in the foot.

I like the idea of a strong and prosperous independent Scotland. I've just never been convinced that we'd get one.

The Yes campaign have got 2 years to convince me.

[J-C]

I agree with all of the above but I don't see it as a fair or accurate characterisation of the yes campaign or its supporters. If anything, I'd have thought proving we're capable of governing ourselves would help remove that particular chip from the national shoulder?



Ignoring spiritually (as I've no idea what that means or how you'd measure it), have a look at the country comparisons below. Ask yourself why the small northern european nations show up so often yet the UK punches well below its weight. Obviously there might be a myriad of reasons but I firmly believe that the UK's structure of over centralisation from the SE corner and its legacy post-imperial hangover and increasingly futile attempts to play the great power are major contributory factors.

I want to be part of a smaller, more dynamic country whose government is much more attuned to a much greater percentage of its own citizens, that contributes to the world without seeking to dominate it and whose citizens believe that there is some link between what they put in to their country and what they'll get out of it.

Scotland is incredibly fortunate in terms of its natural resources. We are still suffering the effects of a rapid industrial decline but we could use oil resources to bridge the gap while we set about building a renewed country that's genuinely worth being proud of.

Or we could play it safe, stick with what we know, decide others know best and totally blow it ......... again. (deep sigh). Oh well.

Happiness Index top10: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/happiness-world-bhutan-meeting-denmark.html

Denmark
Finland
Norway
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
Sweden
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland

UK 18th

Education Index top 10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

New Zealand
Finland
Denmark
Australia
Cuba
Canada
Norway
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands

UK 31st

OECD Better Life Index top 10: http://www.businessinsider.com/10-top-countries-oecd-better-life-index-2012-5?op=1

Australia
Norway
US
Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Switzerland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Luxembourg

UK 11th

GDP per capita top10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Luxembourg
Qatar
Norway
Switzerland
Australia
San Marino
UAE
Denmark
Sweden
Canada

UK 23rd


Where is Scotland on these lists?? would be good to see.