Independence march

[Phil MaGlass]

Never heard anything about this before, take it the Scotsman doesnt think its been worthy, or have I just missed it?

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/scottish-independence-thousands-to-descend-on-edinburgh-for-march-1-2540499

Anyway, lets hope it´s not hijacked by Mr Salmond.

[yeezus.]

I read a bit about it online.

It's not exclusively SNP as far as I'm aware. The SSP will there as well as the SRSM, Labour for independence and some other nationalist actors.

[Pretty Boy]

There was a load of guys handing out leaflets around about ER before last weeks game about it.

[Hainan Hibs]

Around 10,000 it seems, decent turnout.

[Mibbes Aye]

Around 10,000 it seems, decent turnout.

It was only half that according to the BBC report.

[Hainan Hibs]

It was only half that according to the BBC report.

Fair enough, was using the figure I got from Twitter.

[steakbake]

It was around 7k by most accounts. Good number of people.

[Mibbes Aye]

It was around 7k by most accounts. Good number of people.

What accounts are these?

The Herald mentions 4,000, the BBC, STV and Scotsman go with 5,000.

More people went to see Doncaster Rovers play Stevenage.

[steakbake]

On the day, I think the view was that it was 7. Anyway, a decent number of people for a political cause. Not sure why it's worth comparing it to a football match though? More people go to A&E on an average day than went to the rally and ER combined!

It was a far larger number than the 2003 and 2006 anti war protest in Edinburgh and the anti cuts protest earlier this year. That's not to say that independence is more popular than these causes which it isn't at least in relation to the Iraq War protest, but as marches through Edinburgh goes, it's a decent size.

[Mibbes Aye]

On the day, I think the view was that it was 7.

Whose view?

Certainly not that of the range of people actually reporting it, who are all saying 4-5,000.


......as marches through Edinburgh goes, it's a decent size.

It wasn't just a march through Edinburgh though.

This was a national event. Transport to Edinburgh being offered from nearly thirty towns and cities across Scotland.

All the pro-independence parties represented, leaders in attendance - the SNP, the Greens, the socialists.

And only a few thousand people were motivated to turn up. You have to admit, it's a bit of a fiasco.

You mentioned other marches. I seem to remember the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh pulled in a quarter of a million people.

But then again that's something a lot of people feel genuinely matters.......

[DaveF]

Whose view?

Certainly not that of the range of people actually reporting it, who are all saying 4-5,000.



It wasn't just a march through Edinburgh though.

This was a national event. Transport to Edinburgh being offered from nearly thirty towns and cities across Scotland.

All the pro-independence parties represented, leaders in attendance - the SNP, the Greens, the socialists.

And only a few thousand people were motivated to turn up. You have to admit, it's a bit of a fiasco.

You mentioned other marches. I seem to remember the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh pulled in a quarter of a million people.

But then again that's something a lot of people feel genuinely matters.......

Fiasco? In what way? Were the marchers facing the wrong way or something :greengrin

I would have been there yesterday but could not make it. Pretty sure there were many, many others in the same boat. Still, if it makes you happy that only 5000 care about Independence you carry on.

Re numbers - There might have been a quarter of a million at the anti poverty march (which was part of a global, not just Scottish) event but 7 years on and what's changed?

[Geo_1875]

Whose view?

Certainly not that of the range of people actually reporting it, who are all saying 4-5,000.



It wasn't just a march through Edinburgh though.

This was a national event. Transport to Edinburgh being offered from nearly thirty towns and cities across Scotland.

All the pro-independence parties represented, leaders in attendance - the SNP, the Greens, the socialists.

And only a few thousand people were motivated to turn up. You have to admit, it's a bit of a fiasco.

You mentioned other marches. I seem to remember the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh pulled in a quarter of a million people.

But then again that's something a lot of people feel genuinely matters.......

Yeah, and 6 million watched hertz parade the Scottish Cup. Reports on attendances at these things can always be taken with a pinch of salt. Opponents will always underestimate to downplay the support for a cause, the police will overestimate to justify the overtime. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yeah, and 6 million watched hertz parade the Scottish Cup. Reports on attendances at these things can always be taken with a pinch of salt. Opponents will always underestimate to downplay the support for a cause, the police will overestimate to justify the overtime. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

The police put it at 5,000.

This crowd is shrinking all the time :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Fiasco? In what way? Were the marchers facing the wrong way or something :greengrin

I would have been there yesterday but could not make it. Pretty sure there were many, many others in the same boat. Still, if it makes you happy that only 5000 care about Independence you carry on.

Re numbers - There might have been a quarter of a million at the anti poverty march (which was part of a global, not just Scottish) event but 7 years on and what's changed?

:agree: I was thinking that too when I typed it, but I suppose that's a completely different debate.

[DaveF]

:agree: I was thinking that too when I typed it, but I suppose that's a completely different debate.

Not really. You said 250,000 turned out because it was something that genuinely mattered to them as if to beat the Independence turnout with a numbers stick.

Practically nothing has changed regarding world poverty and I'd argue that a large % age of the 250,000 who marched that day turned out because they had guilt twinge due to the global coverage the march and other events had in the mainstream media.

If there was 'only' 5000 there yesterday at least you can be 100% certain every single one of them is committed to their goal.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not really. You said 250,000 turned out because it was something that genuinely mattered to them as if to beat the Independence turnout with a numbers stick.

Practically nothing has changed regarding world poverty and I'd argue that a large % age of the 250,000 who marched that day turned out because they had guilt twinge due to the global coverage the march and other events had in the mainstream media.

If there was 'only' 5000 there yesterday at least you can be 100% certain every single one of them is committed to their goal.

Actually yes, really, and all you've done is confirm that.

My point was that a lot of people turned out to march for something it could be presumed mattered to them.

A tiny amount by comparison turned out yesterday - is it reasonable to suggest that means it's an issue that matters less to a lot of people? I think it is.

The relationship between the amount of people turning out for something and how that subsequently leads to real change is a very different debate from the relationship between the amount of people turning out for something and how important an issue that is for the population at large.

[Gatecrasher]

We are getting a vote on it, whats the point in this march?
Sounds like an excuse to clog up the city.

[yeezus.]

We are getting a vote on it, whats the point in this march?
Sounds like an excuse to clog up the city.

:agree:

[hibsbollah]

I know for a fact that they were expecting 12000, (itself quite a low figure really, considering the potential importance of the issue) so no doubt 5000-7000 was a disappoinment.

On the other hand, going on a political march is really about getting together with like minded people, regardless of numbers.

[Future17]

We are getting a vote on it, whats the point in this march?
Sounds like an excuse to clog up the city.

I think it was an early rallying call. There's a lot of work to be done by the independence campaign and I think they were saying it starts now.

Don't think it clogged up the city though.

[Bad Martini]

Makes nae odds. What matters is how people vote come 2014.

Bring on the independent people's republic of Scotland :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

7,000? I had thought this must be an Edinburgh only march but if that is the figure they got for a Scotland wide cross party event they should be worried.

It is entertaining to watch though. Salmond clearly loves being First Minister but has the unfortunate obligation to hold this referendum which he knows he's going to lose badly. The vast majority of people seem to not want it and to feel it is an irrelevance to what is going on in their lives just now. They are going to get a doing for it both in the Referendum and the election to follow.

The policy they have to pursue is the policy no-one wants - they are turning into the political equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses. This slow motion car crash has only one ending and they still have two years of campaigning and talking about this to go through.

[One Day Soon]

Makes nae odds. What matters is how people vote come 2014.

Bring on the independent people's republic of Scotland :greengrin


a) Scotland clearly isn't going to vote for independence

b) Salmond clearly isn't offering a republic, he's offering the Queen as head of state

Other than that, knock yourself out

[marinello59]

Makes nae odds. What matters is how people vote come 2014.

Bring on the independent people's republic of Scotland :greengrin

You will be voting no in this one then. Salmond is planning on keeping the Queen as head of state. And the pound so we will still be economically tied to the rest of the UK. Independence without really being independent.:greengrin

[danhibees1875]

I walked past it in the meadows on my way to the footy ( a better experience than a year or so earlier when I walked through what appeared to be an Orange walk or the like) - couldn't really gauge the size but I did like hearing The Proclaimers being belted out from somewhere. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

Some marchers for the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo&feature=player_detailpage

[One Day Soon]

Some marchers for the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo&feature=player_detailpage


That's quite needlessly offensive and wildly inaccurate. Let's hope the discussion on this is conducted in better terms by both sides than this post implies.

On the other hand this type of thing plays perfectly into the perception of the majority that there is real intolerance of opposing opinion not far below the separatist skin.

[lyonhibs]

Some marchers for the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo&feature=player_detailpage

One of my Facebook acquaintances has got big onto this "Yes" thing - it's quite cute really seeing as it'll never happen - and keeps posting similarly childish, unhelpful and inaccurate generalisations about people who believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

[Betty Boop]

Some marchers for the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo&feature=player_detailpage


Good grief ! Check out the females with the wedding hats ! :greengrin

[yeezus.]

Makes nae odds. What matters is how people vote come 2014.

Bring on the independent people's republic of Scotland :greengrin

An independent republic is highly unlikely and would go down like a led balloon with the Scottish National Party.

[yeezus.]

One of my Facebook acquaintances has got big onto this "Yes" thing - it's quite cute really seeing as it'll never happen - and keeps posting similarly childish, unhelpful and inaccurate generalisations about people who believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

I noticed this in my brief stint within the Yes campaign.

[Glory Lurker]

One of my Facebook acquaintances has got big onto this "Yes" thing - it's quite cute really seeing as it'll never happen - and keeps posting similarly childish, unhelpful and inaccurate generalisations about people who believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

This all depends on the viewpoint of the recipient, I suppose. In my opinion some of the stuff that's coming out of the "no" camp is childish, unhelpful and inaccurate Scottish-cringe writ large!

[lyonhibs]

This all depends on the viewpoint of the recipient, I suppose. In my opinion some of the stuff that's coming out of the "no" camp is childish, unhelpful and inaccurate Scottish-cringe writ large!

I daresay it is, and I'm not a dedicated member of either camp. You get welts at the fringes of either side of any argument I guess. However, there does seem to be a tendency - in my limited experience - for "Yes" campaigners to be uber-keen to use snippets such as the one posted earlier as being somehow representative of all "No" campaigners. Not big or clever, even though it's always done with an overbearing reek of smugness.

[Johnny0762]

This all depends on the viewpoint of the recipient, I suppose. In my opinion some of the stuff that's coming out of the "no" camp is childish, unhelpful and inaccurate Scottish-cringe writ large!

Just this. I actually feel quite torn by the lack of interest in some camps for Scottish Independence. The crap we are fed from the Nae Sayers is embarrassing. If I'm honest there are many of you prepared to let this country down with your Nae votes. Absolute traitors. :greengrin

[marinello59]

Just this. I actually feel quite torn by the lack of interest in some camps for Scottish Independence. The crap we are fed from the Nae Sayers is embarrassing. If I'm honest there are many of you prepared to let this country down with your Nae votes. Absolute traitors. :greengrin

I know you are fishing but hopefully our politicians rise above the emotive nonsense spouted by both sides of the argument. There are benefits to be had from Independence and also from remaining part of the Union. I favour Independence but I would like to have Salmond define just what his version of that actually is before I vote Yes. He has failed to do that so far, what is he scared of?

[Glory Lurker]

I daresay it is, and I'm not a dedicated member of either camp. You get welts at the fringes of either side of any argument I guess. However, there does seem to be a tendency - in my limited experience - for "Yes" campaigners to be uber-keen to use snippets such as the one posted earlier as being somehow representative of all "No" campaigners. Not big or clever, even though it's always done with an overbearing reek of smugness.

Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong. Granted, as you say, there are welts at both fringes. However, it's an inconvenient truth for the "no" camp that in some communities in Scotland this is mainstream unionism.

[yeezus.]

I know you are fishing but hopefully our politicians rise above the emotive nonsense spouted by both sides of the argument. There are benefits to be had from Independence and also from remaining part of the Union. I favour Independence but I would like to have Salmond define just what his version of that actually is before I vote Yes. He has failed to do that so far, what is he scared of?

A lot of people in the Yes camp seem to think we will be an Independent republic - which is far from what Salmond wants.

[Johnny0762]

I know you are fishing but hopefully our politicians rise above the emotive nonsense spouted by both sides of the argument. There are benefits to be had from Independence and also from remaining part of the Union. I favour Independence but I would like to have Salmond define just what his version of that actually is before I vote Yes. He has failed to do that so far, what is he scared of?

More tongue in cheek that fishing marinello but being honest I don't see it too different from your post. That said, can you tell me which benefits you can think of for remaining in the UK which we simply cannot ever have with independence?

Just to add mate, Scottish independence is about far greater men and women than Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.

This country can prosper and thrive long after both mentioned have died and been forgotten about. There's far too much emphasis on liking or not liking the Nats' leaders.

You would not abandon your football team on such decisions, so why your country?

[DaveF]

A lot of people in the Yes camp seem to think we will be an Independent republic - which is far from what Salmond wants.

Really? How many?

[marinello59]

Really? How many?

A lot.:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong. Granted, as you say, there are welts at both fringes. However, it's an inconvenient truth for the "no" camp that in some communities in Scotland this is mainstream unionism.


Dearie me. The only place in Scotland where that represents mainstream unionism is inside the heads of people like you where its a nationalist's wet dream view of what the majority of unionists think and how they behave.

Keep peddling the line though, the more you assert to normal punters unsure of what to do that they are like these people if they don't join the independence camp, the more you will make up their minds for them to stay in the union.

[Glory Lurker]

Dearie me. The only place in Scotland where that represents mainstream unionism is inside the heads of people like you where its a nationalist's wet dream view of what the majority of unionists think and how they behave.

Keep peddling the line though, the more you assert to normal punters unsure of what to do that they are like these people if they don't join the independence camp, the more you will make up their minds for them to stay in the union.

Wow. Where do I say anything like that? Feel free to re-read my post......

[One Day Soon]

Wow. Where do I say anything like that? Feel free to re-read my post......

Well, right here:

"Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong. Granted, as you say, there are welts at both fringes. However, it's an inconvenient truth for the "no" camp that in some communities in Scotland this is mainstream unionism."

There is no part of Scotland where this is mainstream unionism.

[Johnny0762]

Well, right here:

"Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong. Granted, as you say, there are welts at both fringes. However, it's an inconvenient truth for the "no" camp that in some communities in Scotland this is mainstream unionism."

There is no part of Scotland where this is mainstream unionism.

I may have mis-read your post but from where I'm standing there are lots of people in lots of Scottish communities who are vehemently mainstream unionist. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country, predominantly protestants who will vote to keep the union no matter what, purely and simply because they believe this republicanism, this Scottish Independence is somewhat in the same camp as a united Ireland.

That's what's wrong with this country. Sick as a pig it is.

[Glory Lurker]

Well, right here:

"Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong. Granted, as you say, there are welts at both fringes. However, it's an inconvenient truth for the "no" camp that in some communities in Scotland this is mainstream unionism."

There is no part of Scotland where this is mainstream unionism.

I'm not talking about it being the main show in town, but you know as well as I do that there are parts of Scotland where this sort of thing is popular and considered acceptable - that's all that mainstream is. However, I would stress the other part of my quote which you have now missed twice - "Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong".

[One Day Soon]

I may have mis-read your post but from where I'm standing there are lots of people in lots of Scottish communities who are vehemently mainstream unionist. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country, predominantly protestants who will vote to keep the union no matter what, purely and simply because they believe this republicanism, this Scottish Independence is somewhat in the same camp as a united Ireland.

That's what's wrong with this country. Sick as a pig it is.


Are you claiming that the video link posted shows what can be regarded as 'mainstream' unionists?

I'd love you or someone in the Yes camp to get on a public platform and openly repeat the claptrap highlighted above. This crude version of 'four legs good, two legs bad' is pretty pathetic.

Oh and it isn't republicanism. Salmond wants a queen, as it were.

[Johnny0762]

Are you claiming that the video link posted shows what can be regarded as 'mainstream' unionists?

I'd love you or someone in the Yes camp to get on a public platform and openly repeat the claptrap highlighted above. This crude version of 'four legs good, two legs bad' is pretty pathetic.

Oh and it isn't republicanism. Salmond wants a queen, as it were.

Salmond wants a queen my arse. Are you that blind you cannot see he is playing for votes he might otherwise not get? All politicians lie about their manifesto.

And no, I'm claiming nothing about the video link but I stand by every word I said previously about the protestants who think this is a catholic conspiracy.

[One Day Soon]

I'm not talking about it being the main show in town, but you know as well as I do that there are parts of Scotland where this sort of thing is popular and considered acceptable - that's all that mainstream is. However, I would stress the other part of my quote which you have now missed twice - "Bovril doesn't say it's representative of all "No" campaigners, and I agree that if anyone does, then they are just plain wrong".


I have ignored the part you quote because it is self-evidently true that the video does not show something "representative of all "No" campaigners".

Since you are now splitting hairs on the interpretation of mainstream I will say this. There is no part of Scotland where this kind of march is considered mainstream. It is a minority event for people who are in a very small minority. More fundamentally it is also not about unionism, but religion.

Trying to associate unionist political views, particularly the wide range of those in the No campaign opposing separatism, with this rubbish is Orwellian, dishonest and pretty puerile.

[Johnny0762]

I have ignored the part you quote because it is self-evidently true that the video does not show something "representative of all "No" campaigners".

Since you are now splitting hairs on the interpretation of mainstream I will say this. There is no part of Scotland where this kind of march is considered mainstream. It is a minority event for people who are in a very small minority. More fundamentally it is also not about unionism, but religion.

Trying to associate unionist political views, particularly the wide range of those in the No campaign opposing separatism, with this rubbish is Orwellian, dishonest and pretty puerile.

Do you believe that one third of Scots represents "a very small minority"?

[One Day Soon]

Salmond wants a queen my arse. Are you that blind you cannot see he is playing for votes he might otherwise not get? All politicians lie about their manifesto.

And no, I'm claiming nothing about the video link but I stand by every word I said previously about the protestants who think this is a catholic conspiracy.


So basically every word that comes out of Salmond's mouth is now to be considered a lie? Yeah, let's vote for him then and everything he tells us about the bright new dawn of an independent Scotland...

[One Day Soon]

Do you believe that one third of Scots represents "a very small minority"?


Where do you get that figure from? One third of Scots are what exactly?

Are you seriously claiming that one third of Scots either go on - or support - marches of the sort linked to in this thread?

[Johnny0762]

So basically every word that comes out of Salmond's mouth is now to be considered a lie? Yeah, let's vote for him then and everything he tells us about the bright new dawn of an independent Scotland...

How naive.:confused:

[Johnny0762]

I have ignored the part you quote because it is self-evidently true that the video does not show something "representative of all "No" campaigners".

Since you are now splitting hairs on the interpretation of mainstream I will say this. There is no part of Scotland where this kind of march is considered mainstream. It is a minority event for people who are in a very small minority. More fundamentally it is also not about unionism, but religion.

Trying to associate unionist political views, particularly the wide range of those in the No campaign opposing separatism, with this rubbish is Orwellian, dishonest and pretty puerile.

I'm certainly in agreement with you here.

[Glory Lurker]

I have ignored the part you quote because it is self-evidently true that the video does not show something "representative of all "No" campaigners".

Read the post from Lyonhibs that I was replying to.

Since you are now splitting hairs on the interpretation of mainstream I will say this. There is no part of Scotland where this kind of march is considered mainstream. It is a minority event for people who are in a very small minority. More fundamentally it is also not about unionism, but religion.

It is as much about unionism as religion. The former to protect the latter.

Trying to associate unionist political views, particularly the wide range of those in the No campaign opposing separatism, with this rubbish is Orwellian, dishonest and pretty puerile.

The Orange Lodge has made clear its opposition to independence and no doubt will be providing support to the campaign (if not as an organisation, then through its members). Let me make one thing absolutely clear here, though (although I am at a loss as to how this has eluded you) - I am NOT saying that the Orange Lodge is even remotely representative of the No campaign, rather that they will no doubt be making their views clear. They will form a part (albeit an admittedly small one) of the "wide range" you refer to. It's up to the No campaign to decide how it takes that support.

[Johnny0762]

Where do you get that figure from? One third of Scots are what exactly?

Are you seriously claiming that one third of Scots either go on - or support - marches of the sort linked to in this thread?

No, I meant that the marchers were representative of one third of Scots who currently back the Yes campaign. Hardly a small minority.

[Hibbyradge]

No, I meant that the marchers were representative of one third of Scots who currently back the Yes campaign. Hardly a small minority.

It is a minority, though.

And quite a small one.

[Johnny0762]

It is a minority, though.

And quite a small one.

I think your point is fundamentally incorrect. I don't think a third of any population is considered quite a small minority.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Hi guys.

The truth of my post before is that I have just learned how to post links on the computer and I was just looking for a bit of practice what I was going to post was a clip of the marchers on Saturday, but I came across that one first. We all know that every argument has its extremists ... that just happens to be the no sides.

Perhaps a poor choice this time from me .... I wasnt trying to suggest that the clip was representative of the no folk in general.

[Beefster]

Some marchers for the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo&feature=player_detailpage

This seems to be representative of most of the debate so far. As a Catholic who hasn't even remotely been convinced of the merits of 'independence', it's the first time that someone has implied that I'm akin to a member of the Orange Order so congrats on that I suppose.

[marinello59]

More tongue in cheek that fishing marinello but being honest I don't see it too different from your post. That said, can you tell me which benefits you can think of for remaining in the UK which we simply cannot ever have with independence?

Just to add mate, Scottish independence is about far greater men and women than Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.

This country can prosper and thrive long after both mentioned have died and been forgotten about. There's far too much emphasis on liking or not liking the Nats' leaders.

You would not abandon your football team on such decisions, so why your country?

I am not going to go down the line of ''Yes, but what has the Union ever done for us apart from.....'' :greengrin I would say that the UK is probably one of the best places in the world to live which indicates something worked OK. That's not to say that things can't be better if power was concentrated in Scotland of course but Independence has to be seen as the start of something, not an end in itself.
I wouldn't single out Salmond and Sturgeon for particular contempt, I feel the same for politicians of every party. They may start out with the best of intentions but somewhere along the line serving the country becomes serving the party.
How am I abandoning my country by not voting for something which hasn't been laid out in detail? Just because something is tagged as independence it doesn't mean it actually is. Salmond needs to clarify just how much control he proposes to leave with the Bank of England in his version of an Independent Scotland. If it ain't really Independence then what's the point?

[hibsbollah]

Salmond wants a queen my arse.



:aok: good work.

[hibsbollah]

Our true Scottish king is this boy; Franz Bonaventura Adelbert Maria von Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria.
http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/francis2.htm

Interesting that the Jacobite line bears such a close facial resemblance to Sven Goran Ericsson.
Its time Salmond started campaigning for the current usurper to be knocked off her perch. Funny how theyre always Germans...

[Johnny0762]

I am not going to go down the line of ''Yes, but what has the Union ever done for us apart from.....'' :greengrin I would say that the UK is probably one of the best places in the world to live which indicates something worked OK. That's not to say that things can't be better if power was concentrated in Scotland of course but Independence has to be seen as the start of something, not an end in itself.
I wouldn't single out Salmond and Sturgeon for particular contempt, I feel the same for politicians of every party. They may start out with the best of intentions but somewhere along the line serving the country becomes serving the party.
How am I abandoning my country by not voting for something which hasn't been laid out in detail? Just because something is tagged as independence it doesn't mean it actually is. Salmond needs to clarify just how much control he proposes to leave with the Bank of England in his version of an Independent Scotland. If it ain't really Independence then what's the point?

Sorry, it was meant as a general question and not particularly aimed at youself.

I understand that the economies of India and Hong Kong haven't suffered being independent from Britain.

There is also no doubt in my mind that if Scotland was such a financial burden on the rest of the UK that we would be on a state sponsored transition period to independence.

Also, trying to find a Coulport or Faslane down south is probably a logistic impossibility.

Another important point is that in a few short decades England will pay a premium for fresh water which they have almost no back up supplies, whilst we have more water in one loch than they have put together.

The Hun is the real danger to Scottish prosperity. How ironic seeing as they would rather forsake their whole country to spite a minority catholic population. Thick as **** that notion is.

[Eyrie]

How am I abandoning my country by not voting for something which hasn't been laid out in detail? Just because something is tagged as independence it doesn't mean it actually is. Salmond needs to clarify just how much control he proposes to leave with the Bank of England in his version of an Independent Scotland. If it ain't really Independence then what's the point?
This.

All we are being given is a referendum on the fuzzy idea of independence whout any detail, and what detail is offered by the "yes" camp is carefully selected to ensure that it defuses any potential concerns that floating voters may have.

And if we do vote in favour of this unclear idea, we then have no say over the negotiations between Holyrood and the rest of the UK over the actual terms of our departure from the UK. We have no idea what conditions will be attached to any settlement and the Westminster government will be negotiating every bit as determinedly as the Scottish Parliament to protect its resulting position. They would be negligent in the extreme to simply accept every demand made by us.

It would have been far better for the SNP to use their successful campaign to achieve a majority in Holyrood as the basis for negotiations which could then be put to a referendum of the Scottish people, or at least for there to be a second vote once the negotiations are complete.

[Johnny0762]

This.

All we are being given is a referendum on the fuzzy idea of independence whout any detail, and what detail is offered by the "yes" camp is carefully selected to ensure that it defuses any potential concerns that floating voters may have.

And if we do vote in favour of this unclear idea, we then have no say over the negotiations between Holyrood and the rest of the UK over the actual terms of our departure from the UK. We have no idea what conditions will be attached to any settlement and the Westminster government will be negotiating every bit as determinedly as the Scottish Parliament to protect its resulting position. They would be negligent in the extreme to simply accept every demand made by us.

It would have been far better for the SNP to use their successful campaign to achieve a majority in Holyrood as the basis for negotiations which could then be put to a referendum of the Scottish people, or at least for there to be a second vote once the negotiations are complete.

I find it striking that you speak of independence as an uncertainty in terms of where we go from that point. Civilisation currently faces the biggest uncertain times in history. The current political set up allowed the rich to get even richer at the completely outrageous expense of Everyone else. Vote to keep that and I think you're either clueless or a sectarian bigot.

[Eyrie]

I find it striking that you speak of independence as an uncertainty in terms of where we go from that point. Civilisation currently faces the biggest uncertain times in history. The current political set up allowed the rich to get even richer at the completely outrageous expense of Everyone else. Vote to keep that and I think you're either clueless or a sectarian bigot.
Wrong on both counts, although I do find it interesting that you want to characterise this as a sectarian debate. This is about whether Scotland would be better off continuing as part of the UK or as an independent country, not debating the merits of Protestantism and Catholicism (both of which are irrelevant to an atheist like myself).

It's entirely naturally to expect the case for change to made rather than to expect a successful leap in the dark. If you're so convinced about the benefits of independence then you should be able to explain them clearly to those of us who are undecided.

[marinello59]

Sorry, it was meant as a general question and not particularly aimed at youself.

I understand that the economies of India and Hong Kong haven't suffered being independent from Britain.

There is also no doubt in my mind that if Scotland was such a financial burden on the rest of the UK that we would be on a state sponsored transition period to independence.

Also, trying to find a Coulport or Faslane down south is probably a logistic impossibility.

Another important point is that in a few short decades England will pay a premium for fresh water which they have almost no back up supplies, whilst we have more water in one loch than they have put together.

The Hun is the real danger to Scottish prosperity. How ironic seeing as they would rather forsake their whole country to spite a minority catholic population. Thick as **** that notion is.

You seem determined to make this a sectarian discuassion for some reason. Give it a rest, it is nothing of the sort.

[marinello59]

I find it striking that you speak of independence as an uncertainty in terms of where we go from that point. Civilisation currently faces the biggest uncertain times in history. The current political set up allowed the rich to get even richer at the completely outrageous expense of Everyone else. Vote to keep that and I think you're either clueless or a sectarian bigot.

There was some reasoned debate going on here..............think I will withdraw now and leave you to it.

[Johnny0762]

You seem determined to make this a sectarian discuassion for some reason. Give it a rest, it is nothing of the sort.

No its not turning into a sectarian discussion but it is a sectarian dilema. The most vocal nae sayers ate sectarian driven.

[Hibbyradge]

No its not turning into a sectarian discussion but it is a sectarian dilema. The most vocal nae sayers ate sectarian driven.

Utter nonsense.

Your awareness of the reasons people may not want to separate from the rest of the country in which they have lived all there lives is remarkably narrow and ill informed.

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.

Nothing at all to do with your sectarian paranoid view.

Also, why do you have to condescendingly label people as "Nae sayers", like you're somehow superior to those with a different outlook?

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.

[Johnny0762]

Utter nonsense.

Your awareness of the reasons people may not want to separate from the rest of the country in which they have lived all there lives is remarkably narrow and ill informed.

Really? You go delve out some information and come back up your claim. I'll do the very same.

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

No, realistic.

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

You're entitled to your vote.

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

Seriously, please do some research on some Rangers message boards. If you think the views on this board represent the Hibs fans commenting then you should also take as Gospel what's written elsewhere.

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

Nonsense mate. Here's some good reasons, North sea oil & gas, aquaculture exports, alcohol exports, and water.

Nothing at all to do with your sectarian paranoid view.

Paranoia is an unreasonable fear. As I said in my first reply, let's present the evidence and see who's paranoid. It certainly isn't me. It's the Huns whom I speak of who are paranoid and are convinced this is the first step in stripping Scotland of it's heritage. It's available for you to read, if you want to.

Also, why do you have to condescendingly label people as "Nae sayers", like you're somehow superior to those with a different outlook?

Oh dear, you're rather sensitive today. There is no conspiracy in my terminology, them that vote for a yes or no (usually in any discussion) are colloquially referred to as Yae and Nae Sayers. Or did I make that up too? :greengrin

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.

That is the biggest pile of pish I've heard for any man's self reasoning in my entirety. That was very poor mate. This is exactly what I am talking about with the Huns, basing their vote not on intelligence, but on how other voters make them feel personally. You'd be as well as abstaining man.

Tsk!!

[Hibbyradge]

Tsk!!


That is the biggest pile of pish I've heard for any man's self reasoning in my entirety. That was very poor mate. This is exactly what I am talking about with the Huns, basing their vote not on intelligence, but on how other voters make them feel personally. You'd be as well as abstaining man.

And there we have it.

Superciliousness in its purest form. You're not related to Andrew Mitchell, by any chance?

I'll be voting No, and for the reasons I described. Economics, and nothing at all to do with religion.

However, I'm becoming more entrenched in that position because of the attitudes of people like you.


That is the biggest pile of pish I've heard for any man's self reasoning in my entirety. That was very poor mate. This is exactly what I am talking about with the Huns, basing their vote not on intelligence, but on how other voters make them feel personally. You'd be as well as abstaining man.

I thought you said the huns were opposed to Independence because they think it's a Catholic conspiracy.

If you want to use Follow Follow etc as your barometer for your political thinking, go ahead.

It's utterly absurd, but it's your choice.

A bit like suggesting Anders Behring Breivik's views represent those of the majority of Christians.

[Johnny0762]

And there we have it.

Superciliousness in its purest form. You're not related to Andrew Mitchell, by any chance?

I'll be voting No, and for the reasons I described. Economics, and nothing at all to do with religion.

However, I'm becoming more entrenched in that position because of the attitudes of people like you.



I thought you said the huns were opposed to Independence because they think it's a Catholic conspiracy.

If you want to use Follow Follow etc as your barometer for your political thinking, go ahead.

It's utterly absurd, but it's your choice.

A bit like suggesting Anders Behring Breivik's views represent those of the majority of Christians.

You can mock that example all you want, but it really is real. It really is happening. Whether or not you give their websites any credibility or not changes nothing. They're still who they are, voting for what they are, and not what they could or should be. But you carry on dismissing them as whatever, but the fact is they will be at the polls.

I think you're siding with them anyway by all accounts.

[Hibbyradge]

Oh, I nearly forgot...


Oh dear, you're rather sensitive today. There is no conspiracy in my terminology, them that vote for a yes or no (usually in any discussion) are colloquially referred to as Yae and Nae Sayers. Or did I make that up too?

Well, yes, you did make it up.

Naysayer is not a neutral term.

It's like calling someone a wet-blanket or a killjoy.

It is a criticism, particularly in the context of your condescending oratory.

[Johnny0762]

Oh, I nearly forgot...



Well, yes, you did make it up.

Naysayer is not a neutral term.

It's like calling someone a wet-blanket or a killjoy.

It is a criticism, particularly in the context of your condescending oratory.

Oh how could you forget......?

No, it is not a criticism. It is a term for those who vote no.

Anyway, moving on. Independence. What is it you are frightened of?

[Hibbyradge]

I think you're siding with them anyway by all accounts.

No you don't. Your ridiculous argument is getting ripped to pieces so you've resorted to childish jibes.

Anyway, just I'm clear on your position, and presumably that of the er, Yaay sayers, do you still stand by these remarks?


The most vocal nae sayers ate sectarian driven.


Vote [no] and I think you're either clueless or a sectarian bigot.?

[Hibbyradge]

Oh how could you forget......?

No, it is not a criticism. It is a term for those who vote no.



Aye, ok.




What is it you are frightened of?

Another condescending question. You just can't stop yourself. :faf:

Like Salmond and Sturgeon, rather then attempt to persuade those with differing views, your natural predilection is to demean and belittle.

Like with the "nay-sayer" jibe, you'll defend this as an honest question, but it's just another put-down. Sneaky stuff.

As a matter of interest and since you ask, however, people with views like yours frighten me.

People with the views you like to read on Follow Follow frighten me too, funnily enough.

[Johnny0762]

Aye, ok.



Another condescending question. You just can't stop yourself. :faf:

Like Salmond and Sturgeon, rather then attempt to persuade those with differing views, your natural predilection is to demean and belittle.

Like with the "nay-sayer" jibe, you'll defend this as an honest question, but it's just another put-down. Sneaky stuff.

As a matter of interest and since you ask, however, people with views like yours frighten me.

People with the views you like to read on Follow Follow frighten me too, funnily enough.

I don't like to read about these views. They disgust me. And being disgusted by bigots doesn't make me a bigot. However, at least we agree on something. :aok:

On the other hand I've got the feeling that no matter which question you are asked, in whichever manner, will still offend you and belittle you. Time to grow a pair mate, this is a big decision.

[RyeSloan]

Nonsense mate. Here's some good reasons, North sea oil & gas, aquaculture exports, alcohol exports, and water.

What? That list is a good reason to vote for independence? Why?

Also how does a Yes vote actually give any independence when effectively it's a vote to join (as a junior member) a currency union...which considering how well that's worked out in Europe would seem to require a bit more of an explanation that your rather lame list above.

[Hibbyradge]

On the other hand I've got the feeling that no matter which question you are asked, in whichever manner, will still offend you and belittle you.


Time to grow a pair mate

:faf: :faf: :faf:

Forgive him Father, he knows not what he does!

:faf:

[yeezus.]

Really? How many?

Loads. The SRSM, the SSP and other socialists.

[Johnny0762]

:faf: :faf: :faf:

Forgive him Father, he knows not what he does!

:faf:

This is a waste of both our time eh? It's never going to get back on topic and we're only ever going to be able to argue about how questions have been put.

Okay, I'll make one last effort. :greengrin:greengrin

I would suggest that anyone who is voting Nae (note that's as factual as I can be without saying Nae-sayer which is the same thing but made into something else by yourself) must have reasons (or fears, which makes the question "what are you frightened of?" a legitimate question which you also turned into an insult on you) for thinking that we're best off remaining as we are.

Is there any chance, pretty please, that you could offer us some advice based on why you think we are better off remaining as we are?:confused:

[Hibbyradge]

This is a waste of both our time eh? It's never going to get back on topic and we're only ever going to be able to argue about how questions have been put.

Okay, I'll make one last effort. :greengrin:greengrin

I would suggest that anyone who is voting Nae (note that's as factual as I can be without saying Nae-sayer which is the same thing but made into something else by yourself) must have reasons (or fears, which makes the question "what are you frightened of?" a legitimate question which you also turned into an insult on you) for thinking that we're best off remaining as we are.

Is there any chance, pretty please, that you could offer us some advice based on why you think we are better off remaining as we are?:confused:

Back on topic?

I entered the debate to express exception to your bizarre tirade that "No" voters were either Bigots or clueless, and that most No voters were sectarian driven.

That's the topic for me.

However, "What are you frightened of" is not a legitimate question. It's condescending and it's not even appropriate.

Surely someone of your intellect can come up with a way to engage people in conversation which is open and disarming, instead of one loaded with negative implication?

In any case, I don't have to justify my position. I don't want to change things as they are. It's your job is to convince me away from that.

This is what the SNP just don't get. Independence is not the default position for the vast majority of Scots. Union, as uncomfortable as it may be, is.

Salmond and Sturgeon's sneering "We're right and your wrong" type attitude will just continue to alienate the very people they need to get on side.

By the way, "Why are you frightened of the union?" would be a much more legitimate question.

[Johnny0762]

Back on topic?

I entered the debate to express exception to your bizarre tirade that "No" voters were either Bigots or clueless, and that most No voters were sectarian driven.

That's the topic for me.

However, "What are you frightened of" is not a legitimate question. It's condescending and it's not even appropriate.

Surely someone of your intellect can come up with a way to engage people in conversation which is open and disarming, instead of one loaded with negative implication?

In any case, I don't have to justify my position. I don't want to change things as they are. It's your job is to convince me away from that.

This is what the SNP just don't get. Independence is not the default position for the vast majority of Scots. Union, as uncomfortable as it may be, is.

Salmond and Sturgeon's sneering "We're right and your wrong" type attitude will just continue to alienate the very people they need to get on side.

By the way, "Why are you frightened of the union?" would be a much more legitimate question.

Okay, don't you feel one tiny bit pissed off, ever, that we are not in control of our own affairs?

Doesn't it piss you off that this is our question, our vote, our choice, yet the ******** are defying us to write and present to our country our own question?

Don't you think we should at least be afforded control over our own question? Or are you happy having the concept of self control taken away from you?

[Hibbyradge]

Okay, don't you feel one tiny bit pissed off, ever, that we are not in control of our own affairs?



Not particularly. I think devolution has given me as much control as I need. Devo-max would give a bit more.




Doesn't it piss you off that this is our question, our vote, our choice, yet the ******** are defying us to write and present to our country our own question?


I wouldn't refer to Welsh, Irish and English people as *******s.

However, given that the break up of the Union would affect an additional 60 million people in the UK, I think it's only right that they're involved in the process.

It would also be utterly remiss of our elected Westminster MP's not to involve themselves.

If negotiating an agreed question is too difficult for our politicians, then I despair at the thought of them in charge of an independent Scotland.




Don't you think we should at least be afforded control over our own question? Or are you happy having the concept of self control taken away from you?

Idiotic questions, loaded again with sarcasm and condescension.

You just can't do it, can you. You're unable to discuss this issue without insulting, and alienating, anyone who may have a different point of view.

Being happy with the way the question is decided, does not equate to being happy with the ridiculous and hypothetical prospect of loss of the self control.

Far from it. I want plenty control.

For a start, I want the control to keep Salmond and Sturgeon from having sole control over the terms of the referendum question.

I trust them even less than I trust deluded Hibs fans who think all "No" voters are either bigots or clueless or both.

By the way, were those questions your attempt at convincing me?

[Johnny0762]

Not particularly. I think devolution has given me as much control as I need. Devo-max would give a bit more.

LOL. How can you need more than you need?


I wouldn't refer to Welsh, Irish and English people as *******s.

I think you would be mistaken to assume that the Irish and Welsh have any control over Westminster.

However, given that the break up of the Union would affect an additional 60 million people in the UK, I think it's only right that they're involved in the process.

Well Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

It would also be utterly remiss of our elected Westminster MP's not to involve themselves.

See above.

If negotiating an agreed question is too difficult for our politicians, then I despair at the thought of them in charge of an independent Scotland.

It's not the Scottish MPs who have a problem with the question though.



Idiotic questions, loaded again with sarcasm and condescension.

See all above. Idiotic questions? I'm in knots here mate. You have presented yourself as a "NO" with absolutely nothing to tell me why. And you seriously cannot complain about my condescension when the first word you use to describe my questions is "idiotic". Unlike yourself I haven't resorted to personal slurs.

You just can't do it, can you. You're unable to discuss this issue without insulting, and alienating, anyone who may have a different point of view.

You do seem awfully sensitive to other views whilst still not offering any credible argument to your stance.

Being happy with the way the question is decided, does not equate to being happy with the ridiculous and hypothetical prospect of loss of the self control.

Far from it. I want plenty control.

No you don't. You have already stated that devolution has given you enough of a warm fuzzy glow inside.

For a start, I want the control to keep Salmond and Sturgeon from having sole control over the terms of the referendum question.

If we gain independence it could last for centuries or more. You fail to see the bigger picture. You are stuck, entombed and immortalised in your dislike for certain political figureheads.

I trust them even less than I trust deluded Hibs fans who think all "No" voters are either bigots or clueless or both.

You just lost your argument about insults. Tsk!

By the way, were those questions your attempt at convincing me?

There is no convincing you. You've already made your mind up with ... no hold on wait... What evidence was it you have made your mind up upon?

I'm not trying to be funny here, but I am still waiting on you presenting a credible case for being a Quisling Nae-Sayer. :greengrin:na na:

[marinello59]

There is no convincing you. You've already made your mind up with ... no hold on wait... What evidence was it you have made your mind up upon?

I'm not trying to be funny here, but I am still waiting on you presenting a credible case for being a Quisling Nae-Sayer. :greengrin:na na:

I think you are a plant from the No campaign to thoroughly discredit the Yes campaign. It's working too. :greengrin

[Beefster]

The most vocal nae sayers ate sectarian driven.

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.

[Johnny0762]

I think you are a plant from the No campaign to thoroughly discredit the Yes campaign. It's working too. :greengrin

My guess is you were quite creative and artistic as a child.:greengrin

[Johnny0762]

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.

Who are these some people Beefster? Is it me you refer to?

[Hibbyradge]

Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Not particularly. I think devolution has given me as much control as I need. Devo-max would give a bit more.

LOL. How can you need more than you need?

Seriously?

If I give you a large pizza, you may have as much as you need. If I give you 2 large pizzas and some garlic bread, that would be more, no?


I wouldn't refer to Welsh, Irish and English people as *******s.

I think you would be mistaken to assume that the Irish and Welsh have any control over Westminster.

Ah, it's just the English you think are ********. What was that you said about sectarianism?

However, given that the break up of the Union would affect an additional 60 million people in the UK, I think it's only right that they're involved in the process.

Well Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Seriously? Is that really your response to a valid point? A hackneyed cliché! :rolleyes:

It would also be utterly remiss of our elected Westminster MP's not to involve themselves.

See above.

If negotiating an agreed question is too difficult for our politicians, then I despair at the thought of them in charge of an independent Scotland.

It's not the Scottish MPs who have a problem with the question though.

You mean, the SNP MP's.

Idiotic questions, loaded again with sarcasm and condescension.

See all above. Idiotic questions? I'm in knots here mate. You have presented yourself as a "NO" with absolutely nothing to tell me why. And you seriously cannot complain about my condescension when the first word you use to describe my questions is "idiotic". Unlike yourself I haven't resorted to personal slurs.

You're right. I shouldn't have called you deluded when I referred to your paranoid idea that all No voters were either bigots or clueless. Although, I do think that your ideas are deluded.

You just can't do it, can you. You're unable to discuss this issue without insulting, and alienating, anyone who may have a different point of view.

You do seem awfully sensitive to other views whilst still not offering any credible argument to your stance.

I fully answered your questions. You ignored or mocked the inconvenient replies.

Being happy with the way the question is decided, does not equate to being happy with the ridiculous and hypothetical prospect of loss of the self control.

Far from it. I want plenty control.

No you don't. You have already stated that devolution has given you enough of a warm fuzzy glow inside.

Nice touch. Ask me a question loaded with sarcasm, then just flatly contradict my reply and mock me for it. That's a winning strategy. lol

For a start, I want the control to keep Salmond and Sturgeon from having sole control over the terms of the referendum question.

If we gain independence it could last for centuries or more. You fail to see the bigger picture. You are stuck, entombed and immortalised in your dislike for certain political figureheads.

If we get independence, it will probably last for ever. That's why I want to go into a fair referendum, fully informed, not hoodwinked by ruthless, single minded politicians.

I trust them even less than I trust deluded Hibs fans who think all "No" voters are either bigots or clueless or both.

You just lost your argument about insults. Tsk!

See above. I know some of Alex Salmond's civil service team. I'll ask them, off the record, if Alex would agree with you about No voters being either bigots or clueless, or if he would think that your ideas were deluded. I really will and I'll let you know.

By the way, were those questions your attempt at convincing me?

There is no convincing you. You've already made your mind up with ... no hold on wait... What evidence was it you have made your mind up upon?

I'm not trying to be funny here, but I am still waiting on you presenting a credible case for being a Quisling Nae-Sayer.

Dear oh dear.

I've clearly been crediting you with more political acumen than you deserve.

I don't have to present any type of case for the status quo. I'm not trying to convince you to vote against change. There are already enough people who will do that.

You asked me questions and I answered them.

Your predictable response was to either mock them, ignore them or deliberately misrepresent them.

No persuasive arguments from you. No arguments for Independence at all, actually.

Just more condescension and the continuing ludicrous paranoia that "No" voters are all bigots or clueless.

I've enjoyed this wee interlude though. You've just confirmed what I've thought about the SNP since I left membership many years ago.

More fool you. The more you adopt this attitude, the more you drive people from your cause.

If you don't understand that, you should maybe stay away from politics altogether.

Or maybe you're actually a fifth columnist, in which case, you're doing a fine job, sir. :aok:

If the SNP gave a single credible argument that the population would be economically secure in a separate country, not even better off, they might move forward from the derisory percentage of yes votes they currently have.

I won't be holding my breath though.

[Hibbyradge]

I think you are a plant from the No campaign to thoroughly discredit the Yes campaign. It's working too. :greengrin

:greengrin

I just wrote something very similar in my lengthy reply!

But I wasn't particularly creative as a bairn. :wink:

[Johnny0762]

Dear oh dear.

I've clearly been crediting you with more political acumen than you deserve.

I don't have to present any type of case for the status quo. I'm not trying to convince you to vote against change. There are already enough people who will do that.

You asked me questions and I answered them.

Your predictable response was to either mock them, ignore them or deliberately misrepresent them.

No persuasive arguments from you. No arguments for Independence at all, actually.

Just more condescension and the continuing ludicrous paranoia that "No" voters are all bigots or clueless.

I've enjoyed this wee interlude though. You've just confirmed what I've thought about the SNP since I left membership many years ago.

More fool you. The more you adopt this attitude, the more you drive people from your cause.

If you don't understand that, you should maybe stay away from politics altogether.

Or maybe you're actually a fifth columnist, in which case, you're doing a fine job, sir. :aok:

If the SNP gave a single credible argument that the population would be economically secure in a separate country, not even better off, they might move forward from the derisory percentage of yes votes they currently have.

I won't be holding my breath though.

What is it about the SNP membership which made you leave? You keep making hints but never actually say anything.

You are wrong to suggest that I have offered nothing in my argument for independence. And you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring points?

Your point about economic security must surely be a joke, right? Either that or you are suitably financially insulated form the rest of us and our current problems.

[Hibbyradge]

What is it about the SNP membership which made you leave? You keep making hints but never actually say anything.

You are wrong to suggest that I have offered nothing in my argument for independence. And you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring points?

Your point about economic security must surely be a joke, right? Either that or you are suitably financially insulated form the rest of us and our current problems.

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




You are wrong to suggest that I have offered nothing in my argument for independence. And you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring points?



You have offered absolutely nothing positive in favour of independence. Just a few loaded questions and some stuff about bigots. I'm paying good attention to your points.




Your point about economic security must surely be a joke, right? Either that or you are suitably financially insulated form the rest of us and our current problems.

:faf: Fantastic! You're nothing if not consistent!

Do you have a special sarcasm app or are you just a natural? :hilarious

Mock away. And, just like the SNP, hide from all the economic questions.

My local SNP candidate did the same on the phone during the build up to the last election, so I'm not in the least surprised.

[Johnny0762]

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



You have offered absolutely nothing positive in favour of independence. Just a few loaded questions and some stuff about bigots. I'm paying good attention to your points.



:faf: Fantastic! You're nothing if not consistent!

Do you have a special sarcasm app or are you just a natural? :hilarious

Mock away. And, just like the SNP, hide from all the economic questions.

My local SNP candidate did the same on the phone during the build up to the last election, so I'm not in the least surprised.

You aren't paying that much attention then or you wouldn't have missed the point I made about oil, salmon, whisky and water.

Not only do we have commodities sought after the world over to export, but we have one which seems so insignificant right now, but in years to come will play a major part in the survival of those living south of this border. We have more water in one loch up here than they have in all their rivers and lakes put together. In years to come they're going to be needing to import water in. So we'll sell them water. Is that a problem for you, or do you think this is pie in the sky too?

We invented the antibiotics we all require to fight off infection. We invented the telephone and television, amongst a host of other things. So tell me why you think we don't have what it takes to do better on our own?

Are you now voting Conservative by any chance?

[ancienthibby]

Dear oh dear.

I've clearly been crediting you with more political acumen than you deserve.

I don't have to present any type of case for the status quo. I'm not trying to convince you to vote against change. There are already enough people who will do that.

You asked me questions and I answered them.

Your predictable response was to either mock them, ignore them or deliberately misrepresent them.

No persuasive arguments from you. No arguments for Independence at all, actually.

Just more condescension and the continuing ludicrous paranoia that "No" voters are all bigots or clueless.

I've enjoyed this wee interlude though. You've just confirmed what I've thought about the SNP since I left membership many years ago.

More fool you. The more you adopt this attitude, the more you drive people from your cause.

If you don't understand that, you should maybe stay away from politics altogether.

Or maybe you're actually a fifth columnist, in which case, you're doing a fine job, sir. :aok:

If the SNP gave a single credible argument that the population would be economically secure in a separate country, not even better off, they might move forward from the derisory percentage of yes votes they currently have.

I won't be holding my breath though.

Afternoon Mr Radge!

Hope you are doing well.

I have been watching your debate with the interloper with interest as I think it would be worthwhile to get this debate back on the real tracks without the ongoing slagging match which takes the debate nowhere.

Let me first say that I am not now and never have been a member of any political party.

But I have been an 'indenpendatiste' for almost 50 years of my adult life. It started when I was a wee laddie and my mother came home from voting in a general election and said that she had voted for 'the nationalist mannie'. That turned out to be John Campbell Bannerman of the Liberal Home Rule Party, an honest, respectable Home Rule politician, whose legacy shames the current FibDems.

Independence for Scotland is, therefore, in my blood. I do not see it purely in terms of one issue. To me it is hugely varied and multi-faceted.

Top of the list for me instead of economics is one major issue - Trident. Scotland has the only nuclear site in the whole of the UK and I, for one, never want anyone in Scotland to be at risk from that evil, when others south of the border do not share the same risk!

Then I would add the huge under-representation that being allied to Westminster gives.

For example, we have no voice at the UN - no voice to object to Irag and Ufghanistan.

Add to that, we never get an independant Scottish Fisheries voice represented through Westminster in Europe, when that is one of our fundamental industries.

We are so constantly under/mis-represented at Westminster. For example check out Ian Davidson and his Scottish Affairs Committee who insist on calling the issue of Scottish Independence as 'Separation'. Not a word you'll ever hear an SNP official using, so why not a wee bit of courtesy. Likewise, watch FMQ from Holyrood each Thursday and you'll hear endless numbers of Labour MSP's speaking about the Scottish Administration rather than the Scottish Government which is now the formal name. Such pettiness.

It's that type of demeaning from Westminster-related politicians that I want to see an end to, as well as all the whinge-ing from both sides that 'you're too wee, too small and you cannie survive on your own'!

Hopefully over the months to come you can be persuaded to become a 'Yes Scotland' voter!

[RyeSloan]

What is it about the SNP membership which made you leave? You keep making hints but never actually say anything.

You are wrong to suggest that I have offered nothing in my argument for independence. And you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring points?

Your point about economic security must surely be a joke, right? Either that or you are suitably financially insulated form the rest of us and our current problems.


Care to answer my point about entering a monetary union as a junior partner and all the dangers that brings then?

[Johnny0762]

Care to answer my point about entering a monetary union as a junior partner and all the dangers that brings then?

No I can't, and neither can you nor anyone else. It's all supposed. There isn't a man who can tell us the long term future for our financial situation as a Union, as it stands, never mind something that hasn't yet happened.

[Hibbyradge]

You aren't paying that much attention then or you wouldn't have missed the point I made about oil, salmon, whisky and water.

Not only do we have commodities sought after the world over to export, but we have one which seems so insignificant right now, but in years to come will play a major part in the survival of those living south of this border. We have more water in one loch up here than they have in all their rivers and lakes put together. In years to come they're going to be needing to import water in. So we'll sell them water. Is that a problem for you, or do you think this is pie in the sky too?

We invented the antibiotics we all require to fight off infection. We invented the telephone and television, amongst a host of other things. So tell me why you think we don't have what it takes to do better on our own?

Are you now voting Conservative by any chance?

I saw you mentioned those things.

"We've got oil, fish, whisky and water, and we invented stuff in the past".

Is that an economic argument?

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 want credible numbers, not a list of products and historical achievements.

I'm not prepared just to take a blind leap of faith. Not when things are relatively fine as they are.

I'm proud of what we've achieved as a nation and that's as part of the UK. Being independent won't enhance that.

I've never voted Conservative.

[yeezus.]

The argument that there is only 1 Conservative MP in Scotland (yet we are still Governed by a Tory-led coalition at Westminster) is a very appealing one.

But why have the Yes camp still not laid out the economic case for Independence? For example, an independent Scotland would be dependent on oil for around 20% of it's GDP - meaning it will be subject to shifts in global commodity prices - I also read that North sea oil and gas production has been falling by 10% every year for the past decade.

I want to hear more positive campaigning both sides!

[Johnny0762]

I saw you mentioned those things.

"We've got oil, fish, whisky and water, and we invented stuff in the past".

Is that an economic argument?

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 want credible numbers, not a list of products and historical achievements.

I'm not prepared just to take a blind leap of faith. Not when things are relatively fine as they are.

I've never voted Conservative.

Will you vote Labour whilst there's an independence question then? Or shall you not vote?

[Hibbyradge]

Will you vote Labour whilst there's an independence question then? Or shall you not vote?

I don't understand the question.

[ancienthibby]

The argument that there is only 1 Conservative MP in Scotland (yet we are still Governed by a Tory-led coalition at Westminster) is a very appealing one.

But why have the Yes camp still not laid out the economic case for Independence? For example, an independent Scotland would be dependent on oil for around 20% of it's GDP - meaning it will be subject to shifts in global commodity prices - I also read that North sea oil and gas production has been falling by ^% every year for the past decade.

I want to hear more positive campaigning both sides!

Have you ever heard of a modern country that discovered oil and got poorer according to its nearest neighbour??

Oh yes you have!

You live in it!:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

I saw you mentioned those things.

"We've got oil, fish, whisky and water, and we invented stuff in the past".

Is that an economic argument?

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 want credible numbers, not a list of products and historical achievements.

I'm not prepared just to take a blind leap of faith. Not when things are relatively fine as they are.

I'm proud of what we've achieved as a nation and that's as part of the UK. Being independent won't enhance that.

I've never voted Conservative.

To my surprise I echo johnny's point that you are asking the impossible with those questions. Noone knows the financial reality of independence. Anyone who tells you they do know is a liar. The only sensible way to vote on this matter is on the basis of identity and emotion.

[Hibbyradge]

To my surprise I echo johnny's point that you are asking the impossible with those questions. Noone knows the financial reality of independence. Anyone who tells you they do know is a liar.

And therein lies the SNP's biggest problem.


The only sensible way to vote on this matter is on the basis of identity and emotion.

Sorry, I'll never agree that voting with your heart rather than your head is, in any way, sensible.

We might not be able to get exact economic figures, but at the moment, we're being given nothing and being asked to gamble on everything being fine.

When it comes to making the final decision, loads of folk will vote for safety. Better the devil you know and all that.

The SNP failed to capture the imagination of the electorate in the 70's when oil wealth was new, exciting and abundant. They haven't a chance this time, imo.

[steakbake]

The argument that there is only 1 Conservative MP in Scotland (yet we are still Governed by a Tory-led coalition at Westminster) is a very appealing one.

But why have the Yes camp still not laid out the economic case for Independence? For example, an independent Scotland would be dependent on oil for around 20% of it's GDP - meaning it will be subject to shifts in global commodity prices - I also read that North sea oil and gas production has been falling by ^% every year for the past decade.

I want to hear more positive campaigning both sides!

The middle bit is partly incorrect. The oil and gas will eventually run out, hence the emphasis on trying to become the centre of green energy. However, there have been more licenses issued in the last 10 years than any point previously. There is plenty of oil left: around 50% of assets have still to be realised. 25-30 years of oil extraction left.

Scotland contributes around 9.3% to the UK economy and receives 8.5% back. I'd like to see Barnett scrapped.

Europe: looking at the way things are going, is there any guarantee that the UK will be in the EU in the long term future? So why the emphasis on that? Norway, Switzerland are outside of the EU. I don't see any reason why EU membership or not should reflect the viability of independence.

Anyway, those who have a definite position - like many on this thread on either side - will not be for convincing. It's the votes of 30% or so that are up for grabs who have yet to make their minds up either way or are soft in their support for their current position.

Fundamentally though, independence is a single question. I resent that the SNP are being seen as the ones to define what it means and get to dictate how things will be structured. They have a role but their opponents are affording them far more power to call the shots than is democratic. Historically, the SNP vs the rest axis is created by a denial of viability. The SNP, Greens, some in the Labour and Tory parties know it is viable but it has become a party political thing. If you admit it's viable, it undermines your position. Why not agree that it is viable and build the debate on what suits the interests of the people more? Pooling sovereignty in the UK, or taking all decisions as close as possible to the people they affect? Devolution plus is somewhere compromising between the two.

Margot said quite rightly on Saturday that it's not up to the SNP how things will go - it will be up to the party elected as the first government to take things.

At the moment, everything is theoretical - even what remaining in the union would be like. Devolution is a process and even if full independence (whatever that even means in a globally inter-connected world) doesn't materialise, it's clear that we're having a debate because the status quo is not the answer. Even Cameron recognises this with his devolution plus offer, should people vote no in 2014: if it ain't broke, why is he offering to fix it?

[marinello59]

To my surprise I echo johnny's point that you are asking the impossible with those questions. Noone knows the financial reality of independence. Anyone who tells you they do know is a liar. The only sensible way to vote on this matter is on the basis of identity and emotion.

I am not so sure about that. Would you do the same in a general election. You are right, nobody knows the financial reality of Independence but the very least we should expect is those seeking to make the change to detail just why they think we will be better off. I think the emotional argument for going it alone is incredibly powerful but it won't be enough on it's own to swing a Yes vote.

[marinello59]

Margot said quite rightly on Saturday that it's not up to the SNP how things will go - it will be up to the party elected as the first government to take things.



It IS up to the SNP to tell us soon what they mean by Independence before we say whether we are in favour of it or not though.

[RyeSloan]

No I can't, and neither can you nor anyone else. It's all supposed. There isn't a man who can tell us the long term future for our financial situation as a Union, as it stands, never mind something that hasn't yet happened.

Not entirely true...the record of the Uk is there to see, a good assumption can be taken re tax raising and spending as well as borrowing costs..none of that exists for Scotland.

So the fundamental tenet of "independence" which is to join a currency union while divesting ourselves of any political union is a complete unknown in terms of consequence...and that's meant to encourage a yes vote?

Which would be all well and good maybe apart from the fact that we have seen the consequence of monetary union outside of full political union....it's called the euro crisis.

The approach taken to adopt the pound while abandoning out political capital is all the stranger when you see the possible solutions being presented for the euro now...either full out removal of the country from the monetary union and the massive upheaval that brings or more integration politically and fiscally.

I take Hibsbollah's point...it's not about the detail but the act...sadly when you are talking about a move that could easily bring about the strains we have seen between the euro member states that's hardly an appealing prospect to many and is exactly why the Yes campaign has to do more to explain what independence will really mean.

[Johnny0762]

I don't understand the question.

Oh you understand it just fine. :agree:

[steakbake]

It IS up to the SNP to tell us soon what they mean by Independence before we say whether we are in favour of it or not though.

That's what we're going to end up with, yes. But ideally, this wouldn't be down solely to just the SNP. "Yes Scotland" need to spell it out and that's more than the SNP.

[marinello59]

Oh you understand it just fine. :agree:

I didn't understand the question either. For the benefit of a thicky like me could you explain it. :greengrin

[Johnny0762]

I am not so sure about that. Would you do the same in a general election. You are right, nobody knows the financial reality of Independence but the very least we should expect is those seeking to make the change to detail just why they think we will be better off. I think the emotional argument for going it alone is incredibly powerful but it won't be enough on it's own to swing a Yes vote.

Well to be fair, if you have used your right to vote over the years you will no doubt have voted for people who have gone back on their pre-election manifesto, so yes you've probably done so in a general election, voted for something that was never really going to materialise.

What I don't get is the argument for the stability and sure thing, the devil we know. Aren't we currently in an unprecedented mess, allowed to happen by the very same Unionist governments that the Nae-Sayers would prefer to an independent Scotland? Not much of an argument for the Nae campaigners.

[ancienthibby]

That's what we're going to end up with, yes. But ideally, this wouldn't be down solely to just the SNP. "Yes Scotland" need to spell it out and that's more than the SNP.

And that point applies equally to the 'Bitter Together' campaign as well!:agree:

The politicians who are seemingly in favour of advocating a 'stay in 'the Union' argument have been posted missing so far.

Add to that, the Home Rule party that used to be the Liberals and they are just shamefully bankrupt in this debate so far.

Fine, let's criticise the independent argument as much as we like, but when oh when, will one of the Unionist parties make a cogent argument for staying in the Union??

[Johnny0762]

Also, to those who think Unionist non-Scots should get a say on the question of Scottish independence....

What is this Union? Isn't it a collaboration of nations? Or is it part of the dwindling empire of colonial rule?

You choose. But if non Scots living outwith Scotland should get a say then it isn't a union, it's then forced rule.

Surely a Union is something the members have the right to be part of or not? So why is it pertinent then that non Scots should have a say when it is entirely a question for Scots?

[marinello59]

Well to be fair, if you have used your right to vote over the years you will no doubt have voted for people who have gone back on their pre-election manifesto, so yes you've probably done so in a general election, voted for something that was never really going to materialise. What I don't get is the argument for the stability and sure thing, the devil we know. Aren't we currently in an unprecedented mess, allowed to happen by the very same Unionist governments that the Nae-Sayers would prefer to an independent Scotland? Not much of an argument for the Nae campaigners.

Sorry, this just doesn't make any sense. :confused:
As for your second point, I haven't made the 'devil you know argument' as i naturally favour Independence so I don't see why you have directed it at me.
i

[hibsbollah]

I am not so sure about that. Would you do the same in a general election. You are right, nobody knows the financial reality of Independence but the very least we should expect is those seeking to make the change to detail just why they think we will be better off. I think the emotional argument for going it alone is incredibly powerful but it won't be enough on it's own to swing a Yes vote.

In simple terms, yes i would. Hibbyradges 'heart or head' thing is overly simplistic, but i would always vote on the basis of identity (would the besuited dude do what i would like to think i would do in his shoes) over self interest (would dude a. guarantee me a greater return on my productivity investment over the next 4 years than dude b. would.)


The events of 2008-2012 make this ever more the case. Trying to read the economic runes is just a fools errand, we're all at the mercy of external events. Stephanie Flanders is very entertaining but she really doesnt have any idea whats going to happen. Politically, It makes more logical sense to me to follow Joseph Stiglitzs model of growing a domestic economy in times of recession, but it could be doomed to failure. Thats why politics is a REAL science, economics is just a load of snake oil salesmen :greengrin

[Johnny0762]

I didn't understand the question either. For the benefit of a thicky like me could you explain it. :greengrin

It really is quite simple but I'll change the question. Will He vote at the next general election, and who will He vote for?

[lyonhibs]

Will you vote Labour whilst there's an independence question then? Or shall you not vote?

In any argument in life,when you start asking banal questions instead of answering those posed to you, you've lost.

[Johnny0762]

In any argument in life,when you start asking banal questions instead of answering those posed to you, you've lost.

That's exactly how politicians operate. Where am I going wrong?

[One Day Soon]

I have been reading through all of the thread contributions quite carefully and I have come to a clear conclusion. The Nats are going to get absolutely horsed in this referendum.

And the more they talk about it the worse the mess they make of their case and the more political innocent bystanders they are going to alienate.

Salmond and co have no choice but to keep banging this particular drum for another two years. It will make the death of a thousand cuts seem like swift deliverance by comparison with what this will slowly do to bleed both the Yes and the Nat votes away.

[steakbake]

I have been reading through all of the thread contributions quite carefully and I have come to a clear conclusion. The Nats are going to get absolutely horsed in this referendum.

And the more they talk about it the worse the mess they make of their case and the more political innocent bystanders they are going to alienate.

Salmond and co have no choice but to keep banging this particular drum for another two years. It will make the death of a thousand cuts seem like swift deliverance by comparison with what this will slowly do to bleed both the Yes and the Nat votes away.

Can you tell us next week's lottery numbers as well?

[Johnny0762]

I have been reading through all of the thread contributions quite carefully and I have come to a clear conclusion. The Nats are going to get absolutely horsed in this referendum.

And the more they talk about it the worse the mess they make of their case and the more political innocent bystanders they are going to alienate.

Salmond and co have no choice but to keep banging this particular drum for another two years. It will make the death of a thousand cuts seem like swift deliverance by comparison with what this will slowly do to bleed both the Yes and the Nat votes away.

I tend to agree that the Nats could have done a helluva lot more publishing figures and convincing Scots that we really are receiving the short end of the stick, and I think they should have done this before announcing a referendum, but the seeds have been sown for Scottish independence and it will happen, even if not this time around.

The Nats should have been cuter about this and picked away at devolved powers until they eventually got to the devo-max scenario. From there on in independence would be a formality.

[One Day Soon]

Can you tell us next week's lottery numbers as well?


This is typical Nat lack of clarity and inaccuracy. You want me to tell you the lottery numbers for next week but you can't even be clear about which day's lottery you want?

[One Day Soon]

I tend to agree that the Nats could have done a helluva lot more publishing figures and convincing Scots that we really are receiving the short end of the stick, and I think they should have done this before announcing a referendum, but the seeds have been sown for Scottish independence and it will happen, even if not this time around.

The Nats should have been cuter about this and picked away at devolved powers until they eventually got to the devo-max scenario. From there on in independence would be a formality.


Well they have been in power and running Scotland for 5 and a half years. That should have been plenty time to have made a case if there was one to make, no?

[Johnny0762]

Well they have been in power and running Scotland for 5 and a half years. That should have been plenty time to have made a case if there was one to make, no?

Don't you think there is a case for independence?

[Eyrie]

Don't you think there is a case for independence?
I do, but only under certain circumstances which I consider very unlikely to happen.

Do you think there is a case for continuing as part of the UK?

[Johnny0762]

I do, but only under certain circumstances which I consider very unlikely to happen.

Do you think there is a case for continuing as part of the UK?

Only if the UK government can allow us to raise our own taxes and distribute our own wealth, allow us economic control of our own seabeds, and disarm the nuclear arsenal, or take it away down south. But therein lies the true crux of the issue.

Let me ask you this, if there were no missiles clouding the issue, in this day & age of economic uncertainty, if we are such a financial burden on the rest of the UK, don't you think they would be keen to allow us to go off on our own?

And... I'll say it again. UK government scientists and meteorologists will be closely looking at the water situation. We have it in abundance and they will run dry at certain periods of the year in decades to come. Scotland is basically one huge dam wall sitting over England.

In 50 years time it is estimated that there will be serious food shortages due to global warming and population growth. Things are changing dramatically and we should be protecting what we have for ourselves, like every other country with goods exporting our resources and goods to prosper financially.

That's exactly how the English politicians view Scotland and her resources. That's why they don't want the Union broken up. The Union is more parasitic than symbiotic.

[Hibbyradge]

Oh you understand it just fine. :agree:

Are you just going to contradict me all the time? WTF is the point in that?

No, I do not understand your question or else I'd answer it.

[RyeSloan]

Only if the UK government can allow us to raise our own taxes and distribute our own wealth, allow us economic control of our own seabeds, and disarm the nuclear arsenal, or take it away down south. But therein lies the true crux of the issue.

Let me ask you this, if there were no missiles clouding the issue, in this day & age of economic uncertainty, if we are such a financial burden on the rest of the UK, don't you think they would be keen to allow us to go off on our own?

And... I'll say it again. UK government scientists and meteorologists will be closely looking at the water situation. We have it in abundance and they will run dry at certain periods of the year in decades to come. Scotland is basically one huge dam wall sitting over England.

In 50 years time it is estimated that there will be serious food shortages due to global warming and population growth. Things are changing dramatically and we should be protecting what we have for ourselves, like every other country with goods exporting our resources and goods to prosper financially.

That's exactly how the English politicians view Scotland and her resources. That's why they don't want the Union broken up. The Union is more parasitic than symbiotic.

This made me laugh.

If this is the 'case' for Independence then you can forget it.

You clearly have limited understanding of some of your favourite topics:


Water: Little or no indication that 'England' will run dry...they actually have plenty of water just some of it happens to be in the wrong place. A rather inexpensive solution of more storage capacity and improved conservation should see them OK without paying billions to Scotland for it's water behind the dam. Even if they DID need Scottish water do you have any idea of the economics involved and if it would in any way be a significant revenue to the nation?

World Food: World population growth does not mean food shortages. US and other nations policies on bio fuels have had a more significant impact than probably anything else on food prices. Better farming methods (see Brazil for an example of how to increase prodution many fold) alongside a new wave of GM crops backed up by waste reduction (see India for a perfect example of how much scope there is to reduce this) and we can see there will probably be plenty of scope to feed the world...it merely needs the market forces to make it happen. Finally fertility rates are dropping across the globe and most forecasts see the world population peaking then dropping back...indeed this has pretty much happened in the developed world aleady and all signs are that developing countires are following the same path with some transition countries about to prove the point.

So all in all while some of your points actually are quite interesting from a macro view of the world I don't see any real relevance to Scotland being part of a union with the rest of the UK or not.

[RyeSloan]

Only if the UK government can allow us to raise our own taxes and distribute our own wealth, allow us economic control of our own seabeds, and disarm the nuclear arsenal, or take it away down south. But therein lies the true crux of the issue.

Let me ask you this, if there were no missiles clouding the issue, in this day & age of economic uncertainty, if we are such a financial burden on the rest of the UK, don't you think they would be keen to allow us to go off on our own?

And... I'll say it again. UK government scientists and meteorologists will be closely looking at the water situation. We have it in abundance and they will run dry at certain periods of the year in decades to come. Scotland is basically one huge dam wall sitting over England.

In 50 years time it is estimated that there will be serious food shortages due to global warming and population growth. Things are changing dramatically and we should be protecting what we have for ourselves, like every other country with goods exporting our resources and goods to prosper financially.

That's exactly how the English politicians view Scotland and her resources. That's why they don't want the Union broken up. The Union is more parasitic than symbiotic.


Oh forgot to mention that you are somewhat fixated on physical resources. I would suggest that neither Scotland nor England is especially rich in either and that other resources will be significantly more important over the next 50 years...resources like intellectual property and the ability to export services...yes non physical things....considering that about 70% of the UK economy is based on services (despite still being about the 7th biggest manufacturer in the world) I would be much more enthused to hear what Independence will to our knowledge culture and how this will benefit the nation as a whole...sadly you conversation so far has comprised of fish, missiles and oil, an intriguing mix I must admit but again does little or nothing to give sound justification for independence....

I also see a lot of "well why don't the No vote state the case for staying in the union'....the answer is quite clear. Despite current issues Scotland within the union has seen unprecedented growth and progress (almost from the start with the great enlightenment…something that would almost certainly not have happened under Jacobean rule) compared to any other period in it's history. It's future prospects are clearly significantly linked to our largest trading partner so while we are in a currency union a political one of some degree also makes a lot of sense. It is up to the Yes vote to explain why this arrangement should change and the clear and undisputed benefits change will bring....I'm totally open to hear these and totally open to voting Yes if a good enough argument is presented. However just sabre rattling about 'being a nation again' does nothing for me and frankly find it all a bit last century. :greengrin

[steakbake]

Just watched Johann Lamont on Newsnight being asked about Labour's policies in Scotland. Lots of talk about "we'll be looking at xyz" but very little detail. She got a relatively easy ride for someone so evasive.

What are Labour's policies just now? Did they publish an alternative budget? Have they made any stated aims about what Johann Lamont stands for? Honestly asked questions to those who might know.

I'm disappointed with her so far. I want to know what the opposition stand for because it is vital that the opposition is strong. Or is opposition just to oppose any ideas the SNP bring forward?

She's been in the job a year, surely by now she's figured out what she's about?

[Johnny0762]

Some of you are asking the hypothetical questions about the feasibility of a lone Scots' economy. It is just that, hypothetical, anyone's guess, but one current example we could look at is the fact that there are no Scottish NHS Trusts on the verge of requiring bail-outs to prevent them from going titties-up. Looking down south, the future isn't quite as bright.

There's a lot that can happen between now and 2014 which could sway the majority of Scots to independence. On the other hand, things could just as easily go wrong up here.

We'll see though. :wink:

[marinello59]

Just watched Johann Lamont on Newsnight being asked about Labour's policies in Scotland. Lots of talk about "we'll be looking at xyz" but very little detail. She got a relatively easy ride for someone so evasive.

What are Labour's policies just now? Did they publish an alternative budget? Have they made any stated aims about what Johann Lamont stands for? Honestly asked questions to those who might know.

I'm disappointed with her so far. I want to know what the opposition stand for because it is vital that the opposition is strong. Or is opposition just to oppose any ideas the SNP bring forward?

She's been in the job a year, surely by now she's figured out what she's about?

This is a seperate subject worthy of a thread of its own.

[RyeSloan]

Some of you are asking the hypothetical questions about the feasibility of a lone Scots' economy. It is just that, hypothetical, anyone's guess, but one current example we could look at is the fact that there are no Scottish NHS Trusts on the verge of requiring bail-outs to prevent them from going titties-up. Looking down south, the future isn't quite as bright.

There's a lot that can happen between now and 2014 which could sway the majority of Scots to independence. On the other hand, things could just as easily go wrong up here.

We'll see though. :wink:

OK I get your slant here. Don't ask any questions about the impact of Independence because it's all hypothetical so no one knows...just vote for it because.

What a compelling argument you have made for change.


As for your NHS statement...sure there has been plenty of financial issues in Scottish NHS trusts in the past has there not?

Even if there isn't now you should be asking the questions as to why? Some of those questions might be:

Is it because there is better financial discipline or structure

Is it because of greater funding levels

Is that greater funding actually providing greater productivity or just funding a less efficient service?

If funding is greater is that sustainable under the current Barnet formula and what is being sacrificed to pay for it?

What would be the projected funding costs after Independence and how certain are we that Scottish only taxation revenue would support it

If current taxation revenue would not support current or greater spending (spiralling cost of universal personal care?) how much will it cost the Nation to borrow the amounts required.

How would increased borrowing impact future budgets across Scotland?


But your point seems to be "nooooo what's the point? All of that would be hypothetical so lets not bother even asking the question, no matter answer it. Just vote for Independence because"

Fact is though a lot of people will want answers to some of these questions otherwise they will revert to the status quo…why vote for change when no one has taken the time to articulate what that change will mean. It’s such a fundamental change that I’m constantly amazed at the shrugging of shoulders and the buck passing re the impact of this shift (we won’t know until after…justify the status quo..it’s all hypothetical so why bother…it’s our oil….etc etc)

[tcm1875]

I do, but only under certain circumstances which I consider very unlikely to happen.

Do you think there is a case for continuing as part of the UK?


There is no case for remaining in the UK, they've had their chance and made a mess of it. Time for change.

[marinello59]

There is no case for remaining in the UK, they've had their chance and made a mess of it. Time for change.

You are either being dishonest with that remark of are failing to see the whole picture. If the Yes campaign is to have any chance of winning then hopefully our politicians have a better case to put than this. There are pros and cons in any choice isn't there?

[tcm1875]

You are either being dishonest with that remark of are failing to see the whole picture. If the Yes campaign is to have any chance of winning then hopefully our politicians have a better case to put than this. There are pros and cons in any choice isn't there?


I'm not being dishonest in any way. I can see the mess they've made and are continuing to make. What are the pros to remaining? I've yet to see any that we couldn't have with full independence.

The No campaign will also have to put a better case. After all if its a no vote, as Alistair Darling said yesterday, nothing will change, there will be no more powers for Scotland.

[marinello59]

I'm not being dishonest in any way. I can see the mess they've made and are continuing to make. What are the pros to remaining? I've yet to see any that we couldn't have with full independence.

The No campaign will also have to put a better case. After all if its a no vote, as Alistair Darling said yesterday, nothing will change, there will be no more powers for Scotland.

You don't need too convince me that independence is a good idea, I am in favour. It's the don't knows that need to be won over. As for the No campaign, it's well ahead in the opinion polls. A four legs good, two legs bad style argument won't turn that around and any chance of a seperate scotland will be gone for a generation.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not being dishonest in any way. I can see the mess they've made and are continuing to make. What are the pros to remaining? I've yet to see any that we couldn't have with full independence.

The No campaign will also have to put a better case. After all if its a no vote, as Alistair Darling said yesterday, nothing will change, there will be no more powers for Scotland.

At the moment, the No campaign have to do very little.

According to recent opinion polls, most people in Scotland don't want Independence.

If the Yes campaign were going to win, current poll figures would need to be reversed because, when it comes to casting their vote, many of those who currently say they do want change, will bottle it and opt for the safety of the status quo.

That doesn't happen the other way round. No-one opts for the safety of the unknown.

Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

[tcm1875]

You don't need too convince me that independence is a good idea, I am in favour. It's the don't knows that need to be won over. As for the No campaign, it's well ahead in the opinion polls. A four legs good, two legs bad style argument won't turn that around and any chance of a seperate scotland will be gone for a generation.



That's great!! Why are you in favour then? What information do you have that the don't knows need? :greengrin

The opinion polls can get it wrong as we seen at the last Scottish election, by the time the vote comes everyone will have all the information they need.

[tcm1875]

At the moment, the No campaign have to do very little.

According to recent opinion polls, most people in Scotland don't want Independence.

If the Yes campaign were going to win, current poll figures would need to be reversed because, when it comes to casting their vote, many of those who currently say they do want change, will bottle it and opt for the safety of the status quo.

That doesn't happen the other way round. No-one opts for the safety of the unknown.

Stranger things have happened, I suppose.


If i was part of the no campaign i would be out there making sure though. The Yes group have 2 years to recruit voters, even today they were out on a local high street handing out leaflets, talking to people, getting email addresses. Over 100,000 signatures so far.......

From what your saying it sounds like the no group are being very complacent.

[JimBHibees]

I have been reading through all of the thread contributions quite carefully and I have come to a clear conclusion. The Nats are going to get absolutely horsed in this referendum.

And the more they talk about it the worse the mess they make of their case and the more political innocent bystanders they are going to alienate.

Salmond and co have no choice but to keep banging this particular drum for another two years. It will make the death of a thousand cuts seem like swift deliverance by comparison with what this will slowly do to bleed both the Yes and the Nat votes away.

Yeah but you were predicting Labour would win both the last General and Scottish elections so I wouldn't be putting my money on your predictions just yet. :greengrin

[ancienthibby]

That's great!! Why are you in favour then? What information do you have that the don't knows need? :greengrin

The opinion polls can get it wrong as we seen at the last Scottish election, by the time the vote comes everyone will have all the information they need.

tcm,

You are a newcomer to this board and thread. As an oldtimer can I offer you a few pointers to help make your case.

Like Mr Marinello, I do not need to be convinced about independence for my country. I have been a supporter since I was knee high to a grasshopper!

One of the things I like to do is look at the pros and cons slightly differently. For example, when unionists talk about the 'union dividend', my thoughts immediately turn to the 'union deficit'.

Why don't you construct lists of your own inputs to these lists?

Here are a couple of suggestions to get you started:

Union Dividend: None.

Union Deficit:

Trident;

Trident;

Trident;

Irag Invasion;

Afghanistan Invasion;

40 Years of lies about North Sea Oil;

Diminishing of North Sea boundaries against Scotland at the time of devolution (utter barstewards);

The Liebor Party of Westminister in Scotland and its thralldom to England;

The utter uselessness of sending Liebor MP's to Westminster;

The equation of Britain equals England in the eyes of the World;

The pathetic stance of D Cameroon telling us how valuable Scotland is to the UK yet denies every opportunity to even remotely represent our interests ex-the UK, as in fisheries and the UN.

Johan Lamentable, who has as much charisma as a sooked lemon;

You get the idea!?

[One Day Soon]

Yeah but you were predicting Labour would win both the last General and Scottish elections so I wouldn't be putting my money on your predictions just yet. :greengrin


Was I? I remember arguing for Labour, but not predicting them winning. You may be right. Oh well, you must take your comfort where you can.

In any event there is no ambiguity about the opinion polls on this. The people of Scotland are clearly going to tear Salmond and the SNP a new one over this. Like I say, the policy the Nats have to campaign on for the next two years is the policy no-one wants. They will be like political Jehovah's Witnesses, always turning up to pester you about stuff you don't want to know about and usually wrong about anything you do take an interest in.

And now there's going to be no diversionary third question to rescue them from a clear cut outcome either....

[tcm1875]

tcm,

You are a newcomer to this board and thread. As an oldtimer can I offer you a few pointers to help make your case.

Like Mr Marinello, I do not need to be convinced about independence for my country. I have been a supporter since I was knee high to a grasshopper!

One of the things I like to do is look at the pros and cons slightly differently. For example, when unionists talk about the 'union dividend', my thoughts immediately turn to the 'union deficit'.

Why don't you construct lists of your own inputs to these lists?

Here are a couple of suggestions to get you started:

Union Dividend: None.

Union Deficit:

Trident;

Trident;

Trident;

Irag Invasion;

Afghanistan Invasion;

40 Years of lies about North Sea Oil;

Diminishing of North Sea boundaries against Scotland at the time of devolution (utter barstewards);

The Liebor Party of Westminister in Scotland and its thralldom to England;

The utter uselessness of sending Liebor MP's to Westminster;

The equation of Britain equals England in the eyes of the World;

The pathetic stance of D Cameroon telling us how valuable Scotland is to the UK yet denies every opportunity to even remotely represent our interests ex-the UK, as in fisheries and the UN.

Johan Lamentable, who has as much charisma as a sooked lemon;

You get the idea!?


Hi Ancient, Its only really my user name thats new, for some reason i couldn't sign in with my old one.

These are all pros for voting yes, for getting out of the union. I would also like to see the cons. I would like to see both sides of the debate. Reasons for me to think, am i doing the right thing....
So far not one of the reasons stands up to scrutiny for staying in........ There must be one surely?

[Johnny0762]

Hi Ancient, Its only really my user name thats new, for some reason i couldn't sign in with my old one.

These are all pros for voting yes, for getting out of the union. I would also like to see the cons. I would like to see both sides of the debate. Reasons for me to think, am i doing the right thing....
So far not one of the reasons stands up to scrutiny for staying in........ There must be one surely?

As others have said, why can no one here, nor elsewhere come up with any real great reasons for remaining within the union? Why aren't the Unionists trumpeting out these reasons?

Because the game is up, that's why.

The Scottish people are wakening up to the constant lies and deceit, misrepresentation and self serving gluttony of successive UK governments, which the rest of us have been harping on about for years.

[RyeSloan]

As others have said, why can no one here, nor elsewhere come up with any real great reasons for remaining within the union? Why aren't the Unionists trumpeting out these reasons?

Because the game is up, that's why.

The Scottish people are wakening up to the constant lies and deceit, misrepresentation and self serving gluttony of successive UK governments, which the rest of us have been harping on about for years.

Keep repeating it if you wish but simply saying the current set up is rubbish so independence must be better is NOT going to convince the people the Yes campaign needs.

[Johnny0762]

OK I get your slant here. Don't ask any questions about the impact of Independence because it's all hypothetical so no one knows...just vote for it because.

What a compelling argument you have made for change.


As for your NHS statement...sure there has been plenty of financial issues in Scottish NHS trusts in the past has there not?

Even if there isn't now you should be asking the questions as to why? Some of those questions might be:

Is it because there is better financial discipline or structure

Is it because of greater funding levels

Is that greater funding actually providing greater productivity or just funding a less efficient service?

If funding is greater is that sustainable under the current Barnet formula and what is being sacrificed to pay for it?

What would be the projected funding costs after Independence and how certain are we that Scottish only taxation revenue would support it

If current taxation revenue would not support current or greater spending (spiralling cost of universal personal care?) how much will it cost the Nation to borrow the amounts required.

How would increased borrowing impact future budgets across Scotland?


But your point seems to be "nooooo what's the point? All of that would be hypothetical so lets not bother even asking the question, no matter answer it. Just vote for Independence because"

Fact is though a lot of people will want answers to some of these questions otherwise they will revert to the status quo…why vote for change when no one has taken the time to articulate what that change will mean. It’s such a fundamental change that I’m constantly amazed at the shrugging of shoulders and the buck passing re the impact of this shift (we won’t know until after…justify the status quo..it’s all hypothetical so why bother…it’s our oil….etc etc)


You keep taking simplified points and attempt to twist them into ignominious tripe with your uber waffle. I'm only a pleb mate, so I don't have all, much, in fact I don't really have any answers to the questions you keep asking, but as I and others have pointed out, there really are no magic figures. All we have is a will, a longing, a desire to do better than we're doing under English rule but you seem to have been permanently left embarrassed since you watched Braveheart for the first and probably only time. :greengrin

Also, your dismissive views on an impending future water shortage issue will come back to bite your bum, if you are still around by then. Your point about the logistics of transporting water over great distances is really a moot point considering the distances and geographical issues involving current oil and gas supplies. You make it sound like it's something that can't be done. Well it is a very real possibility that it will HAVE to be done. Unless, are you a civil engineer, or a hydrologist??:na na:

And I didn't at any point lay claim to that potential issue being a reason for leaving the Union. What I did mean was that it remains a real topic of discussion in the minds of Unionist (and non) scientists, civil engineers and meteorologists for keeping Scotland under Westminster control. So are the missiles, another glaringly obvious fact which you also chose to rubbish.

But, you'll no doubt keep telling me that I know nothing thus my reasons are unjustified in voting for independence. What are your reasons for staying in the Union?

I think you're really a true hairy, tartan clad, uber Nat, but just fishing on here. :thumbsup::top marks

[One Day Soon]

You keep taking simplified points and attempt to twist them into ignominious tripe with your uber waffle. I'm only a pleb mate, so I don't have all, much, in fact I don't really have any answers to the questions you keep asking, but as I and others have pointed out, there really are no magic figures. All we have is a will, a longing, a desire to do better than we're doing under English rule but you seem to have been permanently left embarrassed since you watched Braveheart for the first and probably only time. :greengrin

Also, your dismissive views on an impending future water shortage issue will come back to bite your bum, if you are still around by then. Your point about the logistics of transporting water over great distances is really a moot point considering the distances and geographical issues involving current oil and gas supplies. You make it sound like it's something that can't be done. Well it is a very real possibility that it will HAVE to be done. Unless, are you a civil engineer, or a hydrologist??:na na:

And I didn't at any point lay claim to that potential issue being a reason for leaving the Union. What I did mean was that it remains a real topic of discussion in the minds of Unionist (and non) scientists, civil engineers and meteorologists for keeping Scotland under Westminster control. So are the missiles, another glaringly obvious fact which you also chose to rubbish.

But, you'll no doubt keep telling me that I know nothing thus my reasons are unjustified in voting for independence. What are your reasons for staying in the Union?

I think you're really a true hairy, tartan clad, uber Nat, but just fishing on here. :thumbsup::top marks


Good grief. :rolleyes:

[Eyrie]

At least HKHibby's posts raise a smile.

[Johnny0762]

Good grief. :rolleyes:

Is that it? An emotionally charged interjection?

Any chance you'd care to elaborate? :aok:

[tcm1875]

Actual attendance.......

The facts are that our attendance was 9,500. We counted the marchers as the entered the gardens at two points along the path towards the Ross Band Stand (where rally was held) - we used clickers to record and we had two people independent of one another - there totals were only 70 apart from each other.

That is the reality of Saturday, not the extremely inaccurate and adhoc method employed by an 'official' at the Meadows.

The figure released to the police was derived by a cursory glance and calculation based on that glance - from the top of our bus by an Edinburgh Council official. Yes it was that arbitrary and unscientific!!!

[Hibbyradge]

Are we certain that a post independence Scotland would get rid of its nuclear capability?

[Johnny0762]

Are we certain that a post independence Scotland would get rid of its nuclear capability?

Scotland doesn't have, nor has it ever had, "it's" nuclear capability. It belongs to the UK government which we would no longer be part of.

[tcm1875]

Are we certain that a post independence Scotland would get rid of its nuclear capability?

I'm sure it would depend on which party was in power after independence. We have 0% chance of getting rid of it unless independant.

@Johnny - Surely we own our share of it, we have paid for it after all.......

[Johnny0762]

I'm sure it would depend on which party was in power after independence. We have 0% chance of getting rid of it unless independant.

@Johnny - Surely we own our share of it, we have paid for it after all.......

Not quite. Westminster collected in the taxes raised in Scotland and without the support of the Scottish People, or any Scottish Ministerial office, went ahead and built the trident base on our soil.



On another note, I see the Orange Order in Ulster is demanding that Ulster based Scots ex-pats be granted the right to vote in the referendum.

Who says the Unionist campaign is not a sectarian vehicle?:agree:

Anyway, by their reckoning and reasoning it opens a can of worms as we will have to include votes for people in Australia & NZ, Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, India, the Spice Islands. You name it, they all deserve a vote in the Scottish referendum. :cb

[Beefster]

As others have said, why can no one here, nor elsewhere come up with any real great reasons for remaining within the union? Why aren't the Unionists trumpeting out these reasons?

Because the game is up, that's why.

The Scottish people are wakening up to the constant lies and deceit, misrepresentation and self serving gluttony of successive UK governments, which the rest of us have been harping on about for years.


"Shut your eyes, jump and hope for a soft landing". The core message of the 'No' campaign to date.


Scotland doesn't have, nor has it ever had, "it's" nuclear capability. It belongs to the UK government which we would no longer be part of.

The pound, Bank of England and various other selected things 'belong' to the UK (you seem to see the UK as purely the UK Government). We seem to be managing to keep them.

[Beefster]

Who says the Unionist campaign is not a sectarian vehicle?

Probably most of the Catholics currently intending to vote no? Or are you claiming that Cardinal O'Brien backing independence is his attempt to make independence a sectarian issue?

[tcm1875]

Probably most of the Catholics currently intending to vote no? Or are you claiming that Cardinal O'Brien backing independence is his attempt to make independence a sectarian issue?


Nor these guys

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rangers-FC-SNP-Supporters/121113214586741

[Hibbyradge]

On another note, I see the Orange Order in Ulster is demanding that Ulster based Scots ex-pats be granted the right to vote in the referendum.

Who says the Unionist campaign is not a sectarian vehicle?:agree:



Ken Shaw, the president of the Scottish bird watching club is determined to cast his vote in 2014 and he believes it's important for other bird watchers to do the same.

Who says the referendum isn't an ornithological vehicle?

I also believe that hundreds of women, if not more, will be voting.

And asians.

And gay folk.

Loads of vehicles.

[Hibbyradge]

"Shut your eyes, jump and hope for a soft landing". The core message of the 'No' campaign to date.



The pound, Bank of England and various other selected things 'belong' to the UK (you seem to see the UK as purely the UK Government). We seem to be managing to keep them.

The queen?

[Hibbyradge]

I'm sure it would depend on which party was in power after independence. We have 0% chance of getting rid of it unless independant.

@Johnny - Surely we own our share of it, we have paid for it after all.......

Has there ever been a country with has unilaterally disposed of its nuclear weapons?

Or disposed of them at all?

I don't believe any of the parties in Scotland would do so and using the issue as an argument in favour of independence is disingenuous.

[Johnny0762]

"Shut your eyes, jump and hope for a soft landing". The core message of the 'No' campaign to date.



The pound, Bank of England and various other selected things 'belong' to the UK (you seem to see the UK as purely the UK Government). We seem to be managing to keep them.

How silly of me to assume that UK current affairs are handled by the UK government.

[Beefster]

How silly of me to assume that UK current affairs are handled by the UK government.

My point, as I suspect you are well aware of, is that you seem to suggest that an independent Scotland would get rid of nuclear weapons by default because they belong to the UK. That doesn't apply with the other things I mentioned so why is it a given for nuclear weapons?

[Future17]

Ken Shaw, the president of the Scottish bird watching club is determined to cast his vote in 2014 and he believes it's important for other bird watchers to do the same.

Who says the referendum isn't an ornithological vehicle?

I also believe that hundreds of women, if not more, will be voting.

And asians.

And gay folk.

Loads of vehicles.

We should apply a congestion charge to both campaigns - that would raise a few quid!

[tcm1875]

Has there ever been a country with has unilaterally disposed of its nuclear weapons?

Or disposed of them at all?

I don't believe any of the parties in Scotland would do so and using the issue as an argument in favour of independence is disingenuous.

South Africa?

[Hibbyradge]

South Africa?

Aye, right enough.

Oh well, maybe one of Scotland's political parties will promise to get rid of Trident and they might win some more votes.

Unless it's the Lib Dems, of course...

[Hibbyradge]

We should apply a congestion charge to both campaigns - that would raise a few quid!

:thumbsup:

[tcm1875]

If Hearts had 90% control of Hibs affairs and you had a chance to change that, what would you do? How would you vote?

Is it as simple as that? For me it is...... I still like to know both sides of the debate though.

Whats caused not to be that simple for others? Is it the years of negative media?

[Eyrie]

If Hearts had 90% control of Hibs affairs and you had a chance to change that, what would you do? How would you vote?

Is it as simple as that? For me it is...... I still like to know both sides of the debate though.

Whats caused not to be that simple for others? Is it the years of negative media?

Of course it's not that simple. We're not in competition with the rest of the UK, let alone have the sort of rivalry we do with the pub team. And Holyrood means that we control of far more than 10% of our affairs anyway, allowing Scotland to pursue different policies to the rest of the UK.

In any democracy the majority will be able to have its preferred policies implemented. With the current UK government the Conservative/LibDems have a majority and with Holyrood that majority is SNP.

In an independent Scotland the majority of the population would live in the Strathclyde area. Does that mean that they should have no say in how government policies affect Aberdeen or the Western Isles?

And sooner or later an independent Scotland will join the EU and be a far smaller minority than it is in the UK. We'd go from being 10% of the UK, but part of 12% of the EU to being 1% of the EU.

[JimBHibees]

Was I? I remember arguing for Labour, but not predicting them winning. You may be right. Oh well, you must take your comfort where you can.

In any event there is no ambiguity about the opinion polls on this. The people of Scotland are clearly going to tear Salmond and the SNP a new one over this. Like I say, the policy the Nats have to campaign on for the next two years is the policy no-one wants. They will be like political Jehovah's Witnesses, always turning up to pester you about stuff you don't want to know about and usually wrong about anything you do take an interest in.

And now there's going to be no diversionary third question to rescue them from a clear cut outcome either....

Opinion polls 2 years in advance of the event. I think some are struggling to be accurate one day before an event. No poll indicated a landslide SNP victory as happened last time so this IMO is still very much up in the air. It will likely be a No vote however we will see what the next 2 year of a UK Coalition government will bring.

[J-C]

7,000? I had thought this must be an Edinburgh only march but if that is the figure they got for a Scotland wide cross party event they should be worried.

It is entertaining to watch though. Salmond clearly loves being First Minister but has the unfortunate obligation to hold this referendum which he knows he's going to lose badly. The vast majority of people seem to not want it and to feel it is an irrelevance to what is going on in their lives just now. They are going to get a doing for it both in the Referendum and the election to follow.

The policy they have to pursue is the policy no-one wants - they are turning into the political equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses. This slow motion car crash has only one ending and they still have two years of campaigning and talking about this to go through.


How do you know this and do you have figures to back up that statement. :confused:

At the last Scottish elections, the people of Scotland voted in the SNP by quite a large majority, something that shouldn't happen with the voting system in place here.

[Hibs Class]

How do you know this and do you have figures to back up that statement. :confused:

At the last Scottish elections, the people of Scotland voted in the SNP by quite a large majority, something that shouldn't happen with the voting system in place here.

At the last election 45% of constituency votes and 44% of the list votes were for SNP, enough to give a parliamentary majority but not a majority of the votes cast, which themselves were based on a turnout of just over 50%. Difficult to say what you could conclude from that re the independence vote.

[J-C]

At the last election 45% of constituency votes and 44% of the list votes were for SNP, enough to give a parliamentary majority but not a majority of the votes cast, which themselves were based on a turnout of just over 50%. Difficult to say what you could conclude from that re the independence vote.


This is the important piece of evidence, if a larger % vote, the SNP % will also increase, well statistically it should.

[marinello59]

This is the important piece of evidence, if a larger % vote, the SNP % will also increase, well statistically it should.

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.

[One Day Soon]

Not quite. Westminster collected in the taxes raised in Scotland and without the support of the Scottish People, or any Scottish Ministerial office, went ahead and built the trident base on our soil.



On another note, I see the Orange Order in Ulster is demanding that Ulster based Scots ex-pats be granted the right to vote in the referendum.

Who says the Unionist campaign is not a sectarian vehicle?:agree:

Anyway, by their reckoning and reasoning it opens a can of worms as we will have to include votes for people in Australia & NZ, Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, India, the Spice Islands. You name it, they all deserve a vote in the Scottish referendum. :cb


I can't quite decide whether a post like that above is more notable for its stupidity or its malignancy.

[Hibs Class]

This is the important piece of evidence, if a larger % vote, the SNP % will also increase, well statistically it should.

I don't see why that would be the case. I can see allowing 16/17 year Olds a referendum vote having that effect but not sure how the voting intentions of the half of the electorate that didn't turn up the last time can be easily assessed, especially when comparing a holyrood election to an independence referendum.

[RyeSloan]

You keep taking simplified points and attempt to twist them into ignominious tripe with your uber waffle. I'm only a pleb mate, so I don't have all, much, in fact I don't really have any answers to the questions you keep asking, but as I and others have pointed out, there really are no magic figures. All we have is a will, a longing, a desire to do better than we're doing under English rule but you seem to have been permanently left embarrassed since you watched Braveheart for the first and probably only time. :greengrin

Also, your dismissive views on an impending future water shortage issue will come back to bite your bum, if you are still around by then. Your point about the logistics of transporting water over great distances is really a moot point considering the distances and geographical issues involving current oil and gas supplies. You make it sound like it's something that can't be done. Well it is a very real possibility that it will HAVE to be done. Unless, are you a civil engineer, or a hydrologist??:na na:

And I didn't at any point lay claim to that potential issue being a reason for leaving the Union. What I did mean was that it remains a real topic of discussion in the minds of Unionist (and non) scientists, civil engineers and meteorologists for keeping Scotland under Westminster control. So are the missiles, another glaringly obvious fact which you also chose to rubbish.

But, you'll no doubt keep telling me that I know nothing thus my reasons are unjustified in voting for independence. What are your reasons for staying in the Union?

I think you're really a true hairy, tartan clad, uber Nat, but just fishing on here. :thumbsup::top marks

You said it "pleb"; "simplified points"...and there you have it. You are trying to make a case for the most fundamental of changes based on "simplified points"..I'm merely trying to point out to you that this is never going to be enough to persuade the swing vote or the people currently planning to vote No to change their mind. Considering you clearly have a desire for the Yes vote to succeed I’m surprised that you don’t stop for a second and take this on board.

Braveheart – Nice..lets really keep it simple.

Water - There was actually a thread on here recently that talked over the concept of moving substantial amounts of water. I was actually one that proposed ways of doing that. IIRC there was indeed a professional in the field that was part of that discussion and the consensus reached was that the relative cost of moving water far outweighed any economic benefit that could be sought. Oil and gas have a much higher relative value compared to water (hence why there is already a global infrastructure to move it around the globe...the pounds and pence make sense). It was you that was proposing this as some sort of future cash cow for an independent Scotland that would have the English grovelling at ourt "dam" pleading for us to give them some...I was merely pointing out that this prospect was probably very unlikley to ever actually come to pass and gave some good reasons why I thought so, it's called reasoned argument, clearly not something you know much about.

Missiles - It's an interesting question and not one I'm aware of rubbishing. But if you want my opinion any Independent Scotland will end up taking the English silver as compensation for the continuation of the status quo in regards Faslane. The costs of decommissioning the site are almost too large to consider not to mention the economic shock it would give the area if it was to close.

Loved your stereotype of a "Super Nat" though....hilarious.

Finally you've done it again...another post and not one piece of clear evidence to show why independence would make Scotland a better, safer, richer, happier place (apart from the rather pathetic "English rule" comment) and asked me why we should stay in the Union...apart from the fact that I have already touched on why (in simple terms the whole of modern Scotland has been built within the Union and that joining a currency union while ceding the political one seems counter intuitive) let me be absolutely clear here:

He who proposes the change should justify the reasons for change.

[RyeSloan]

I don't see why that would be the case. I can see allowing 16/17 year Olds a referendum vote having that effect but not sure how the voting intentions of the half of the electorate that didn't turn up the last time can be easily assessed, especially when comparing a holyrood election to an independence referendum.

I agree. Using the last Scottish Parliament election as some sort of guide to an Independence vote is pointless.

[Johnny0762]

I agree. Using the last Scottish Parliament election as some sort of guide to an Independence vote is pointless.

The point is.... General elections come around every few years. A vote on independence may never come around again, ever. So it is only cogent that those waiting in the wings to be the next generation of workers are given a choice on the legacy that the ageing and dying will leave them.

That is glaringly obvious to those with their eyes open.

[steakbake]

Water - There was actually a thread on here recently that talked over the concept of moving substantial amounts of water. I was actually one that proposed ways of doing that. IIRC there was indeed a professional in the field that was part of that discussion and the consensus reached was that the relative cost of moving water far outweighed any economic benefit that could be sought. Oil and gas have a much higher relative value compared to water (hence why there is already a global infrastructure to move it around the globe...the pounds and pence make sense). It was you that was proposing this as some sort of future cash cow for an independent Scotland that would have the English grovelling at ourt "dam" pleading for us to give them some...I was merely pointing out that this prospect was probably very unlikley to ever actually come to pass and gave some good reasons why I thought so, it's called reasoned argument, clearly not something you know much about.

Missiles - It's an interesting question and not one I'm aware of rubbishing. But if you want my opinion any Independent Scotland will end up taking the English silver as compensation for the continuation of the status quo in regards Faslane. The costs of decommissioning the site are almost too large to consider not to mention the economic shock it would give the area if it was to close.



Not really linked to the independence debate:

Missiles - independence or not, it's an abomination that we have weapons of mass destruction. I don't know who said it, but having nuclear missiles is like standing in a pool full of petrol in which you have some matches and so does your enemy(ies). Given that there's more nukes than can destroy the planet in Russia and in the USA alone, our ridiculous programme is really just an expensive way of paying for a seat at the Security Council. As events have shown, if we really want to go to war, we don't really need the Security Council and even when we do want to go to war and ask permission first, the new order of things is that Russia and China will veto it. Let's be honest, if N.Korea decided to strike at Britain, I don't think it would be just us involved - limited between a spat between Pyongyang and London. The fact we have a few stashed away on a submarine that could destroy a small town isn't going to help us either.

I don't care if they're in Faslane, Plymouth or situated a mile off the coast in a submarine - we have absolutely no use for them whatsoever but the cost of them is enormous.

I daresay if anyone in Westminster/Holyrood did grow the baws to get rid of them, the savings made could go a long way to pay for regeneration of the local area, possibly to the extent of encouraging investment to enable new jobs. The immediate benefit would be not living in a country which has weapons of mass destruction, and the release of a substantial amount of money to the Treasury which could be reinvested in a much more meaningful way.

As for one suggestion to 'sell' the weapons back to England or 'lease' the land - it goes to show that there are no principles in politics or at least those that are, can be bought.

[Beefster]

If Hearts had 90% control of Hibs affairs and you had a chance to change that, what would you do? How would you vote?

Is it as simple as that? For me it is...... I still like to know both sides of the debate though.

Whats caused not to be that simple for others? Is it the years of negative media?

Your analogy is rubbish. There are Scots in the UK Parliament and a Scot was recently in charge of the UK.

[Johnny0762]

Your analogy is rubbish. There are Scots in the UK Parliament and a Scot was recently in charge of the UK.

And America has a black president. :agree:

[marinello59]

And America has a black president. :agree:

:confused
What on earth has that got to do with anything?

[tcm1875]

Your analogy is rubbish. There are Scots in the UK Parliament and a Scot was recently in charge of the UK.

Apologies, i don't understand your point.

Whether there are Scots in the UK Parliament or not, the SG still does not have full control of all its affairs only a small percentage.

[One Day Soon]

And America has a black president. :agree:

WTF? Are you now casually moving on to claim that Obama isn't black? Does the Johnny stand for Johnny Reb?

[Johnny0762]

WTF? Are you now casually moving on to claim that Obama isn't black? Does the Johnny stand for Johnny Reb?

No it stands for Johnny be good and get to bed now, early rise for the game in the morning. :flag:

[One Day Soon]

No it stands for Johnny be good and get to bed now, early rise for the game in the morning. :flag:

Not letting this one go. What exactly did you mean by your reference to Obama? Are you suggesting he isn't black? If not, what were you saying?

[Johnny0762]

Not letting this one go. What exactly did you mean by your reference to Obama? Are you suggesting he isn't black? If not, what were you saying?


Behave yourself. :na na:

[One Day Soon]

Behave yourself. :na na:

I take it you're too embarrassed to come out and say/admit what you meant?

[Johnny0762]

I take it you're too embarrassed to come out and say/admit what you meant?

No, I'm just never going to pander to your absurd notion that I was suggesting the man isn't black.

Try a more sensible approach and you might get me to bite.

Good night. Hope we win today.:aok:

[One Day Soon]

No, I'm just never going to pander to your absurd notion that I was suggesting the man isn't black.

Try a more sensible approach and you might get me to bite.

Good night. Hope we win today.:aok:


Here's a straightforward approach. What did you mean?

[Johnny0762]

Here's a straightforward approach. What did you mean?

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.

It was sarcasm.

Politically, I think Gordon Brown was as Scottish minded as a Cornish Pastie.

Will that suffice? :confused:

[tcm1875]

Of course it's not that simple. We're not in competition with the rest of the UK, let alone have the sort of rivalry we do with the pub team. And Holyrood means that we control of far more than 10% of our affairs anyway, allowing Scotland to pursue different policies to the rest of the UK.

In any democracy the majority will be able to have its preferred policies implemented. With the current UK government the Conservative/LibDems have a majority and with Holyrood that majority is SNP.

In an independent Scotland the majority of the population would live in the Strathclyde area. Does that mean that they should have no say in how government policies affect Aberdeen or the Western Isles?

And sooner or later an independent Scotland will join the EU and be a far smaller minority than it is in the UK. We'd go from being 10% of the UK, but part of 12% of the EU to being 1% of the EU.


How can they implement preferred policies if they don't have the power to do it?

[Johnny0762]

How can they implement preferred policies if they don't have the power to do it?

It isn't really a democracy though, is it?

Most of Scotland voted SNP in the general election and we're still overseen by London.

[marinello59]

It isn't really a democracy though, is it?

Most of Scotland voted SNP in the general election and we're still overseen by London.

Maybe you should check that one out.
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are a plant by the No campaign.

[Hibs Class]

It isn't really a democracy though, is it?

Most of Scotland voted SNP in the general election and we're still overseen by London.

Have a look at my post yesterday for the breakdown. Barely half of those eligible to vote did so, and fewer than half of them voted SNP - that is less than a quarter overall. It's true that SNP got more votes than any other party but to suggest that "most of Scotland voted" for them is laughably dishonest.

[Johnny0762]

Have a look at my post yesterday for the breakdown. Barely half of those eligible to vote did so, and fewer than half of them voted SNP - that is less than a quarter overall. It's true that SNP got more votes than any other party but to suggest that "most of Scotland voted" for them is laughably dishonest.

That's nothing more than a play on words. The facts remain.

[Hibs Class]

That's nothing more than a play on words. The facts remain.

The voting figures are a matter of fact. Presenting that as most of Scotland voting SNP is dishonest - that is glaringly obvious to those with their eyes open.

[Hibbyradge]

That's nothing more than a play on words. The facts remain.

You really do struggle with reality, don't you?

"A play on words" :faf:

[Eyrie]

How can they implement preferred policies if they don't have the power to do it?
Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

In any election for the UK government, the majority of those who vote will see their preferred policies implemented. That one part of the UK (country, region or constituency) votes differently is neither here nor there.

In any election for the Scottish government, the majority of those who vote will see their preferred policies implemented. That one part of Scotland (island, region or constituency) votes differently is neither here nor there.

In both cases, those preferred policies are relevant only to the powers of the parliament being voted for. There is no point to voting to get rid of Trident in a Scottish election than there is to vote for Scottish university tuition fees in a UK election.

If you feel that Scotland needs more powers free from external interference, how do you feel about remaining in the EU? Both the EU and several member countries have raised objections to minimum pricing for alcohol on the basis that it violates EU law. Unless they can be persuaded otherwise, a flagship policy of the SNP (supported by other parties) will be the subject of a very expensive challenge in the European courts, despite being a preferred policy.

[tcm1875]

You really do struggle with reality, don't you?

"A play on words" :faf:

One day soon isn't comparing how the other parties faired, only the SNP. Can you judge the results against who didn't vote?

Snp got nearly double that of the nearest challenger........ :-)

Ok game time, ggtth.......

[ancienthibby]

One day soon isn't comparing how the other parties faired, only the SNP. Can you judge the results against who didn't vote?

Snp got nearly double that of the nearest challenger........ :-)

Ok game time, ggtth.......

It's completely pointless to look at one party's vote, discounting the non-voters. If you did the same analysis for all parties you'd end with with the same result the election gave. That is those who vote determine the outcome - any anything else is an irrelevance.

If people want to bring the (sadly) large mass of dis-interested voters into play in an election in which they played no active part, then the real issue should be: what does a democratic county do with such a level of dis-interest?

There must be some way of encouraging the disinterested to vote

[tcm1875]

It's completely pointless to look at one party's vote, discounting the non-voters. If you did the same analysis for all parties you'd end with with the same result the election gave. That is those who vote determine the outcome - any anything else is an irrelevance.

If people want to bring the (sadly) large mass of dis-interested voters into play in an election in which they played no active part, then the real issue should be: what does a democratic county do with such a level of dis-interest?

There must be some way of encouraging the disinterested to vote



Change. A yes vote will make a difference this time.

Anyone I have spoken to that doesn't vote, its because nothing ever changes, their vote doesn't mean anything.......

[Eyrie]

There must be some way of encouraging the disinterested to vote

We could make voting compulsory as happens in some countries (I think Australia is one). Need to add "None of the above" to the list of candidates, and then find a solution to what happens if/when "None of the above" gets the most votes.

[Beefster]

Apologies, i don't understand your point.

Whether there are Scots in the UK Parliament or not, the SG still does not have full control of all its affairs only a small percentage.

Your analogy was about Hearts controlling Hibs. It was rubbish.

East Lothian is governed by the UK and Scots governments, irrespective of whether there are East Lothian natives in either institution, and doesn't have full control of all its affairs. Should East Lothian be agitating for independence?

Incidentally, how much is a 'small percentage'? If it's so little, what exactly do the third-rate politicians at Holyrood actually do all day and why are they paid so much?

[tcm1875]

Your analogy was about Hearts controlling Hibs. It was rubbish.

East Lothian is governed by the UK and Scots governments, irrespective of whether there are East Lothian natives in either institution, and doesn't have full control of all its affairs. Should East Lothian be agitating for independence?

Incidentally, how much is a 'small percentage'? If it's so little, what exactly do the third-rate politicians at Holyrood actually do all day and why are they paid so much?


I never asked your opinion on it, I asked how you would feel if this were the case. If you cant answer the question dont reply......

East lothian isnt a country.......

About 12% of revenue, 60% of spending, all the reserved powers of the uk parliament......

I don't know you would need to ask their london bosses.......

[Eyrie]

I never asked your opinion on it, I asked how you would feel if this were the case. If you cant answer the question dont reply......

East lothian isnt a country.......

About 12% of revenue, 60% of spending, all the reserved powers of the uk parliament......

I don't know you would need to ask their london bosses.......
I agree - it's shocking that Beefster should venture an opinion on a message board.

If you didn't like his East Lothian example, let's try again with Shetland. It can become an independent country simply by voting for it and there is no doubt that an independent Shetland would thrive, so why should it be run by a Conservative government at Westminster and a SNP administration in Holyrood when Shetland consistently votes LibDem?

And whether or not you can answer that, you can surely address this question which I asked you -

If you feel that Scotland needs more powers free from external interference, how do you feel about remaining in the EU? Both the EU and several member countries have raised objections to minimum pricing for alcohol on the basis that it violates EU law. Unless they can be persuaded otherwise, a flagship policy of the SNP (supported by other parties) will be the subject of a very expensive challenge in the European courts, despite being a preferred policy.

[Johnny0762]

I agree - it's shocking that Beefster should venture an opinion on a message board.

If you didn't like his East Lothian example, let's try again with Shetland. It can become an independent country simply by voting for it and there is no doubt that an independent Shetland would thrive, so why should it be run by a Conservative government at Westminster and a SNP administration in Holyrood when Shetland consistently votes LibDem?

And whether or not you can answer that, you can surely address this question which I asked you -


Your quoted question doesn't appear here but...

Who would the challenge be expensive for? Not for the Scots. It's the complainer who pays the costs, until it is decided otherwise in court.

In my view, raising the minimum unit price of alcohol will not cure the alcoholism which blights our society. It is far more likely to see petty crime figures rise as jakies steal to get their fix.

Haven't we learned this from the white elephant Methadone program?

[marinello59]

Change. A yes vote will make a difference this time.

Anyone I have spoken to that doesn't vote, its because nothing ever changes, their vote doesn't mean anything.......

And they would be wrong. That's a lazy argument.

[tcm1875]

I agree - it's shocking that Beefster should venture an opinion on a message board.

If you didn't like his East Lothian example, let's try again with Shetland. It can become an independent country simply by voting for it and there is no doubt that an independent Shetland would thrive, so why should it be run by a Conservative government at Westminster and a SNP administration in Holyrood when Shetland consistently votes LibDem?

And whether or not you can answer that, you can surely address this question which I asked you -

I never said it was shocking - stop making things up.......:greengrin

If thats the case then it should.......

I will answer it i just havent got round to it yet.......

Perhaps you could tell me why you don't want Scotland to be independant and why? Just interested.......

[Johnny0762]

And they would be wrong. That's a lazy argument.

No it isn't.

It means people have become disillusioned because, realistically, it doesn't matter which Westminster government you vote in, they'll lie and change their manifesto once they're in and they'll line their own pockets at yours (and my) expense. That's a fact.

Anyone wishing to keep the status quo must have no self respect.

What IS actually lazy, is keeping voting for the same carry on rather than having the balls to demand change, which commands time and mental energies.

So who's lazy?

[Hibbyradge]

Anyone wishing to keep the status quo must have no self respect.



Belter. :faf:

That's less accurate than if I said anyone who votes for independence is a xenophobe.

[Johnny0762]

Belter. :faf:

That's less accurate than if I said anyone who votes for independence is a xenophobe.

At least xenophobes have their own interests at heart. :agree:

[marinello59]

No it isn't.

It means people have become disillusioned because, realistically, it doesn't matter which Westminster government you vote in, they'll lie and change their manifesto once they're in and they'll line their own pockets at yours (and my) expense. That's a fact.

Anyone wishing to keep the status quo must have no self respect.

What IS actually lazy, is keeping voting for the same carry on rather than having the balls to demand change, which commands time and mental energies.

So who's lazy?

Good grief. Where do you start with this? No self respect? Lacks balls? Independence is surely assured with this well thought out analysis. Insulting those who you want win over to your side is a guaranteed vote winner.:rolleyes:

[tcm1875]

He who proposes the change should justify the reasons for change.[/QUOTE]


Surely if the tories launch a campaign to encourage no votes they should justify reasons for remaining in the union.......

[marinello59]

At least xenophobes have their own interests at heart. :agree:


He who proposes the change should justify the reasons for change.

Surely if the tories launch a campaign to encourage no votes they should justify reasons for remaining in the union.......

We're you two separated at birth by any chance?:greengrin

[Johnny0762]

Good grief. Where do you start with this? No self respect? Lacks balls? Independence is surely assured with this well thought out analysis. Insulting those who you want win over to your side is a guaranteed vote winner.:rolleyes:

I have no intentions of trying to win your good self or anyone else over. That's not my job. Anyway, I'd need to be a psychiatrist to win over some of the Unionist arguments though as they're clearly off their heads, blubbering incoherently about all the reasons for remaining with the union without actually giving one single reason.

How anyone can tolerate the Westminster MP expenses scandal and then sit back and allow them to change the rules and just up their limits for what they can legally claim for have to be off their heads, and clearly show a lack of self respect.

How else would you describe voting for the same thing over and over again?

The Unionist argument is just as likely to sway the undecided to Independence, unless of course they start coming up with good reasons. The silence from them is deafening right enough.

[Beefster]

I never asked your opinion on it, I asked how you would feel if this were the case. If you cant answer the question dont reply......

East lothian isnt a country.......

About 12% of revenue, 60% of spending, all the reserved powers of the uk parliament......

I don't know you would need to ask their london bosses.......

You ask for my feelings on something but aren't interested in my opinion. Right....

Hibs (or Hearts) isn't a country either. I thought mine was a better analogy though.

[marinello59]

I have no intentions of trying to win your good self or anyone else over. That's not my job. Anyway, I'd need to be a psychiatrist to win over some of the Unionist arguments though as they're clearly off their heads, blubbering incoherently about all the reasons for remaining with the union without actually giving one single reason.

How anyone can tolerate the Westminster MP expenses scandal and then sit back and allow them to change the rules and just up their limits for what they can legally claim for have to be off their heads, and clearly show a lack of self respect.

How else would you describe voting for the same thing over and over again?

The Unionist argument is just as likely to sway the undecided to Independence, unless of course they start coming up with good reasons. The silence from them is deafening right enough.

As I keep telling you, I don't need won over, I favour independence. Your posts bring nothing to the Yes vote. You really don't seem to understand what debate is. It certainly isn't made up garbage and insults. My parents will vote No. They are certainly not lacking in courage or intellect as you imply. If a brave new Scotland is not based on mutual respect for our fellow citizens what's the point?

[marinello59]

You ask for my feelings on something but aren't interested in my opinion. Right....

Hibs (or Hearts) isn't a country either. I thought mine was a better analogy though.

And you thought I was annoying.:greengrin

[Beefster]

How anyone can tolerate the Westminster MP expenses scandal and then sit back and allow them to change the rules and just up their limits for what they can legally claim for have to be off their heads, and clearly show a lack of self respect.

At least one of the MPs jailed for fiddling his expenses was Scottish so how does that morph to a reason for independence? Wouldn't he just have been in the Parliament of an independent Scotland?

[tcm1875]

If you feel that Scotland needs more powers free from external interference, how do you feel about remaining in the EU? Both the EU and several member countries have raised objections to minimum pricing for alcohol on the basis that it violates EU law. Unless they can be persuaded otherwise, a flagship policy of the SNP (supported by other parties) will be the subject of a very expensive challenge in the European courts, despite being a preferred policy.


At the moment we have no choice except to be in the EU. At least an independent Scotland would have that choice.......

If a policy violates an EU law then surely thats the same for every country in the EU for any policy.......

If the EU were interfering in SG policies affecting the running of the country then no i wouldn't personally want to be in the EU.......

[Johnny0762]

At least one of the MPs jailed for fiddling his expenses was Scottish so how does that morph to a reason for independence? Wouldn't he just have been in the Parliament of an independent Scotland?

You have missed the boat on this one Beefster.

Are Labour campaigning for Scottish independence?

[marinello59]

You have missed the boat on this one Beefster.

Are Labour campaigning for Scottish independence?

Yet again you totally miss the point.
Salmond's Westminster meal claims when he was claiming TWO salaries may have stayed just on the right side of legal but it was morally dubious. Self serving politicians are self serving politicians regardless of party allegiance or nationality. Independence or not , some of them will still be at it.

[tcm1875]

You ask for my feelings on something but aren't interested in my opinion. Right....

Hibs (or Hearts) isn't a country either. I thought mine was a better analogy though.

I asked for your opinion on how you would feel if the Hibs hearts scenerio was in place not whether you thought the analogy was rubbish or not.......

I thought yours was rubbish too :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Ok the ****ry of hearts controls the country of Hibs, it controls what players they buy and how much they have to spend. It also controls any revenue they make and what they spend it on.......:greengrin:greengrin The country of Hibs doesnt like this and launches a campaign to have full control of its spending and revenue.......

[tcm1875]

As I keep telling you, I don't need won over, I favour independence. Your posts bring nothing to the Yes vote. You really don't seem to understand what debate is. It certainly isn't made up garbage and insults. My parents will vote No. They are certainly not lacking in courage or intellect as you imply. If a brave new Scotland is not based on mutual respect for our fellow citizens what's the point?


Get new parents!!!! :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Do they say why they will vote no? I cant believe how one sided the arguement(sp) is....... I'll keep searching, listening and hoping though.......

[marinello59]

Get new parents!!!! :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Do they say why they will vote no? I cant believe how one sided the arguement(sp) is....... I'll keep searching, listening and hoping though.......

What argument?:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

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.

It was sarcasm.

Politically, I think Gordon Brown was as Scottish minded as a Cornish Pastie.

Will that suffice? :confused:


That's interesting. What is that you feel he needs to do to be 'more black' or authentically black as a President? I ask because a) I think your line of argument is deeply suspect and b) I'm trying to see the parallels with Scotland and the UK.

In what way was Gordon Brown not 'Scottish minded'?

[Johnny0762]

As I keep telling you, I don't need won over, I favour independence. Your posts bring nothing to the Yes vote. You really don't seem to understand what debate is. It certainly isn't made up garbage and insults. My parents will vote No. They are certainly not lacking in courage or intellect as you imply. If a brave new Scotland is not based on mutual respect for our fellow citizens what's the point?

Lol. Garbage and insults. I take it you don't tune into parliamentary question time them?

[Beefster]

In what way was Gordon Brown not 'Scottish minded'?

Wasn't a member of the SNP? That's the only way to prove your patriotism these days, apparently.

[tcm1875]

Wasn't a member of the SNP? That's the only way to prove your patriotism these days, apparently.

Don't forget you have to have watched Braveheart also.......

[Hibbyradge]

At least xenophobes have their own interests at heart. :agree:

As do murderers, thieves, rapists etc etc.

[Johnny0762]

As do murderers, thieves, rapists etc etc.

Ouch! Pmsl

Gratuitous tomfoolery.

[Hibbyradge]

Ouch! Pmsl

Gratuitous tomfoolery.

You started it! :crazy:

[One Day Soon]

You started it! :crazy:


That looks about right to me.

[allmodcons]

That's interesting. What is that you feel he needs to do to be 'more black' or authentically black as a President? I ask because a) I think your line of argument is deeply suspect and b) I'm trying to see the parallels with Scotland and the UK.

In what way was Gordon Brown not 'Scottish minded'?

Because for 13 years of Labour Government, firstly as Chancellor then as PM, he presided over a Government whose policies were dedicated to the well being of the 'middle england' vote and driven by the performance of the economy in the South East of England.

[Beefster]

Because for 13 years of Labour Government, firstly as Chancellor then as PM, he presided over a Government whose policies were dedicated to the well being of the 'middle england' vote and driven by the performance of the economy in the South East of England.

I'm no Labour supporter but that's just nonsense. Unless you're suggesting that the national minimum wage, better NHS and education systems, more help for pensioners, Tax Credits and the expansion of the Welfare State were of no benefit to Scotland.

[Beefster]

You have missed the boat on this one Beefster.

Are Labour campaigning for Scottish independence?

I think that you're making the point that he was a Labour politician. Labour politicians, even Scottish ones, will still exist if Scotland votes for independence.

Either way, as someone has already mentioned, there is no party that is squeaky clean on expenses.

[One Day Soon]

Because for 13 years of Labour Government, firstly as Chancellor then as PM, he presided over a Government whose policies were dedicated to the well being of the 'middle england' vote and driven by the performance of the economy in the South East of England.


What, like awarding the aircraft carrier contracts to English dockyards instead of Scottish ones? Oh, wait a minute...

Maybe you were referring to his freezing duties for the whisky industry in all ten of his budgets despite steadily raising tax on wine, beer and tobacco? But hang on, where's the whisky industry again?

And of course we lived in abject poverty in Scotland while he was Chancellor. If only we had seen record high employment, record low unemployment, record high public spending in Scotland and perhaps even low and stable interest rates during that time. What's that you say, we did?

You can accuse Brown of many things, but not being 'Scottish-minded' is just another Nat wet dream load of boll0ck5.

[One Day Soon]

I'm no Labour supporter but that's just nonsense. Unless you're suggesting that the national minimum wage, better NHS and education systems, more help for pensioners, Tax Credits and the expansion of the Welfare State were of no benefit to Scotland.


And if Beefster is putting stuff like that on record about Brown then you really are up a tartan creek witout a paddle.

[Eyrie]

At the moment we have no choice except to be in the EU. At least an independent Scotland would have that choice.......

If a policy violates an EU law then surely thats the same for every country in the EU for any policy.......

If the EU were interfering in SG policies affecting the running of the country then no i wouldn't personally want to be in the EU.......
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.


Perhaps you could tell me why you don't want Scotland to be independant and why? Just interested.......
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).

[hibsbollah]

The only word of caution to the 'A No Vote is in the bag' confidence being expressed on this thread is that old cliche about a week being a long time in politics. Two years? A psephological lifetime.

I was reminded of this while watching the excellent The Clintons TV three parter yesterday (and yes i know Salmond is NOT a politician of Clintons calibre and the parallels are therefore limited :greengrin). In 1995 Clinton was spectacularly unpopular in the country, had just lost control of both houses and was essentially, electorally dead. Less than two years later, by a combination of luck, some good decisions, but essentially by riding on the back of a few favourable but unforeseeable events, he wins a landslide election and is on the way to being the most economically successful president in history and still one of the most popular.

32% supporting independence is definitely recoverable, if the unionists are complacent.

[allmodcons]

What, like awarding the aircraft carrier contracts to English dockyards instead of Scottish ones? Oh, wait a minute...

Maybe you were referring to his freezing duties for the whisky industry in all ten of his budgets despite steadily raising tax on wine, beer and tobacco? But hang on, where's the whisky industry again?

And of course we lived in abject poverty in Scotland while he was Chancellor. If only we had seen record high employment, record low unemployment, record high public spending in Scotland and perhaps even low and stable interest rates during that time. What's that you say, we did?

You can accuse Brown of many things, but not being 'Scottish-minded' is just another Nat wet dream load of boll0ck5.

First off, I think you'll find that a large portion of the work to construct the aircraft carriers did indeed go to English dockyards! The Rosyth and Clyde yards were awarded contracts to construct 2 of the 4 sections on each ship. The sterns at Rosyth and bow sections on the Clyde. The balance of works went elsewhere in the UK. As an aside, everyone now knows that the contracts signed by the then labour government were a shambles.

The freezing of whisky duties is a complete red herring, one the main problems facing the whisky industry during Brown's tenure was the 'stable' interest rate, stabilised that is to keep inflation down and stop the economy in the SE of England from overheating, thereby having a detrimental effect on the Scotch export market and, furthermore, fuelling de-industrialisation in Scotland.

With regard to your final comment, grow up will you!

[One Day Soon]

First off, I think you'll find that a large portion of the work to construct the aircraft carriers did indeed go to English dockyards! The Rosyth and Clyde yards were awarded contracts to construct 2 of the 4 sections on each ship. The sterns at Rosyth and bow sections on the Clyde. The balance of works went elsewhere in the UK. As an aside, everyone now knows that the contracts signed by the then labour government were a shambles.

The freezing of whisky duties is a complete red herring, one the main problems facing the whisky industry during Brown's tenure was the 'stable' interest rate, stabilised that is to keep inflation down and stop the economy in the SE of England from overheating, thereby having a detrimental effect on the Scotch export market and, furthermore, fuelling de-industrialisation in Scotland.

With regard to your final comment, grow up will you!


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.

[Johnny0762]

What, like awarding the aircraft carrier contracts to English dockyards instead of Scottish ones? Oh, wait a minute...

Maybe you were referring to his freezing duties for the whisky industry in all ten of his budgets despite steadily raising tax on wine, beer and tobacco? But hang on, where's the whisky industry again?

And of course we lived in abject poverty in Scotland while he was Chancellor. If only we had seen record high employment, record low unemployment, record high public spending in Scotland and perhaps even low and stable interest rates during that time. What's that you say, we did?

You can accuse Brown of many things, but not being 'Scottish-minded' is just another Nat wet dream load of boll0ck5.

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

[RyeSloan]

First off, I think you'll find that a large portion of the work to construct the aircraft carriers did indeed go to English dockyards! The Rosyth and Clyde yards were awarded contracts to construct 2 of the 4 sections on each ship. The sterns at Rosyth and bow sections on the Clyde. The balance of works went elsewhere in the UK. As an aside, everyone now knows that the contracts signed by the then labour government were a shambles.

The freezing of whisky duties is a complete red herring, one the main problems facing the whisky industry during Brown's tenure was the 'stable' interest rate, stabilised that is to keep inflation down and stop the economy in the SE of England from overheating, thereby having a detrimental effect on the Scotch export market and, furthermore, fuelling de-industrialisation in Scotland.

With regard to your final comment, grow up will you!

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?

[Johnny0762]

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?

That's as lame as a three legged dug mate.

If the BoE shaft Scotland, aren't they also shafting the green and pleasant land?

[Hibbyradge]

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