Scottish Independence

[allmodcons]

Here's some more. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21684684

[JeMeSouviens]

The full GERS report is here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415875.pdf

It is broadly in line with the last few years. Compared to the UK as a whole Scotland does significantly better but that situation reverses if oil revenue is removed.

Oil is a limited resource but its price, while volatile, can only increase over the longer term. We probably have 30 or 40 years of its boost if we take this chance. 30 or 40 years to focus on why our economy performs relatively poorly and do something about it.

... or we can play it safe, do nothing and continue to live under the system that has put us into this poorly performing situation in the first place.

[Hibrandenburg]

The full GERS report is here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415875.pdf

It is broadly in line with the last few years. Compared to the UK as a whole Scotland does significantly better but that situation reverses if oil revenue is removed.

Oil is a limited resource but its price, while volatile, can only increase over the longer term. We probably have 30 or 40 years of its boost if we take this chance. 30 or 40 years to focus on why our economy performs relatively poorly and do something about it.

... or we can play it safe, do nothing and continue to live under the system that has put us into this poorly performing situation in the first place.

Or we can follow Norway's lead and invest it in the future.

[southfieldhibby]

Or we can follow Norway's lead and invest it in the future.

Scotland will never be like Norway.They started early and produce the oil themselves thru statoil instead of selling drilling rights, they have more oil fields,they have much higher taxation (and wages).

their pension fund currently sits at 1/2 trillion £ and expected to hit £1trillion by 2016.Easily the biggest in the world.

[Hainan Hibs]

Following blog by Craig Murray, who was on the UK team negotiating maritime boundaries, outlines why Scotland is actually 1.9billion in the black,

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter .

Essentially Dewar and co aided Blair in shifting the maritime boundary between Scotland and England, meaning eight major oil fields, two of which are located north of Dundee, are now considered English fields (He outlines in another blog how an independent Scotland would win the case for the previous boundary to be reinstated post independence).

Including these oil fields in the Scottish figures gives us the surplus.

[One Day Soon]

Interesting debate. A bit like playing the cup final but the result's already decided in advance.

I wonder what the Nats will have to say to the people of Scotland if/when they get a resounding rejection of independence?

The fascination here is that this debate is a straight forward fight between what the SNP want and what the vast majority of Scots believe. The other parties are pretty much irrelevant.

Kinda difficult for the Nats to accuse the majority of Scots of being negative or dumb you would think....

[One Day Soon]

Of course, like the better together lot you use it in the figurative sense, or in other words, inaccurate.It's the regurgitation of lines like that that will win this for the No campaign, not facts, not something positive, just wee toleys like this that plant the seed of doubt in those who can be swayed.

What negative campaigning from a Yes supporter.

[yeezus.]

Interesting debate. A bit like playing the cup final but the result's already decided in advance.

I wonder what the Nats will have to say to the people of Scotland if/when they get a resounding rejection of independence?

The fascination here is that this debate is a straight forward fight between what the SNP want and what the vast majority of Scots believe. The other parties are pretty much irrelevant.

Kinda difficult for the Nats to accuse the majority of Scots of being negative or dumb you would think....

:agree: it will be very interesting. I guess we all knew after the 2011 Scottish elections that the SNP's majority was not a vote for independence - I think many people just felt that they did a reasonably good job in Government as a minority administration and that Labour weren't offering anything.

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting debate. A bit like playing the cup final but the result's already decided in advance.

****, what a depressingly good point. It is just like last May, clinging to an unrealistic forlorn hope when you know the cardigan wearing establishment are waiting with their impartial arbiters to crush the life out of your dream. :-(

[lord bunberry]

Interesting debate. A bit like playing the cup final but the result's already decided in advance.

I wonder what the Nats will have to say to the people of Scotland if/when they get a resounding rejection of independence?

The fascination here is that this debate is a straight forward fight between what the SNP want and what the vast majority of Scots believe. The other parties are pretty much irrelevant.

Kinda difficult for the Nats to accuse the majority of Scots of being negative or dumb you would think....

I don't think its foregone conclusion that Scotland will vote no. If we do vote no I suspect the gap will be considerably smaller than the polls currently predict which will leave a large minority of the country who don't want the union

[yeezus.]

I don't think its foregone conclusion that Scotland will vote no. If we do vote no I suspect the gap will be considerably smaller than the polls currently predict which will leave a large minority of the country who don't want the union

I think next year will see a rise in support for independence - maybe the commonwealth games will have a similar effect on Scottishness like the London Olympics did on Britishness.

[J-C]

Interesting debate. A bit like playing the cup final but the result's already decided in advance.

I wonder what the Nats will have to say to the people of Scotland if/when they get a resounding rejection of independence?

The fascination here is that this debate is a straight forward fight between what the SNP want and what the vast majority of Scots believe. The other parties are pretty much irrelevant.

Kinda difficult for the Nats to accuse the majority of Scots of being negative or dumb you would think....

It's amazing that you have insight into the minds of the vast majority of the Scots people, I'm sure if the vote goes the wrong way for the SNP they will accept it with dignity as it should be.

Don't think the other parties are irrelevant because if the vote is a yes, then these same parties will be involved heavily with the SNP in the forming of a new country.

[Beefster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UprxM_aBWk&sns=em

[Hainan Hibs]

Date with destiny set, 18th September 2014

:greengrin

[The Modfather]

Probably covered somwhere in this thread already but an interesting read - http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/5863-new-figures-reveal-scotland-wealthier-than-rest-of-uk-since-1980

:hmmm:

[ancienthibby]

Date with destiny set, 18th September 2014

:greengrin


It will be YES for Independence!

[One Day Soon]

It's amazing that you have insight into the minds of the vast majority of the Scots people, I'm sure if the vote goes the wrong way for the SNP they will accept it with dignity as it should be.

Don't think the other parties are irrelevant because if the vote is a yes, then these same parties will be involved heavily with the SNP in the forming of a new country.


They have these clever things called opinion polls now. They show that a vast majority of Scots have never wanted and still don't want independence.

So as I said before, the fight here is between what the SNP want and the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

No point getting angry with anti-nationalists or their campaign. Unless you somehow believe they are brainwashing the majority of Scots and that the majority of Scots are stupid enough to be brainwashed...

Though I think the biggest danger for Team Break-Up Britain is the utter snoozefest that this has all now become with a long, long way still to go. It is now looking, and has for some time, all rather irrelevant to the real world.

[yeezus.]

It will be YES for Independence!

Highly unlikely. I think the SNP did well as a minority administration between 2007 - 2011 but that's where it ends for many people who dislike the idea of breaking up the UK. It will be an overwhelming "no" vote come 2014.

[allmodcons]

They have these clever things called opinion polls now. They show that a vast majority of Scots have never wanted and still don't want independence.

So as I said before, the fight here is between what the SNP want and the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

No point getting angry with anti-nationalists or their campaign. Unless you somehow believe they are brainwashing the majority of Scots and that the majority of Scots are stupid enough to be brainwashed...

Though I think the biggest danger for Team Break-Up Britain is the utter snoozefest that this has all now become with a long, long way still to go. It is now looking, and has for some time, all rather irrelevant to the real world.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/53-of-scots-are-happy-with-snps-running-of-country.1363974316

Opinion polls eh! Looks like the SNP are quite popular in this one! Will it translate to a vote for Independence? Who knows? Lets just wait and see how things pan out.

[Beefster]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/53-of-scots-are-happy-with-snps-running-of-country.1363974316

Opinion polls eh! Looks like the SNP are quite popular in this one! Will it translate to a vote for Independence? Who knows? Lets just wait and see how things pan out.

Support for the SNP in government bears no relation to the support for independence. The SNP probably wouldn't even exist in its current form post-independence.

Every poll on independence says that a majority support remaining within the UK.

[Mibbes Aye]

Support for the SNP in government bears no relation to the support for independence. The SNP probably wouldn't even exist in its current form post-independence.

Every poll on independence says that a majority support remaining within the UK.

:agree:

A fair deal of actual social policy from this administration (and it's this kind of policy that actually matters in our day-to-day lives) has been pragmatic and able to engender consensus - though it's quite easy to argue that they haven't done anything bold and in fact have devolved the responsibility for difficult decisions down to the local authorities and NHS boards.

All that indicates is at best an adequate level of managerial competence and at worst, politicking to avoid taking blame and responsibility. Either way it's not exactly a shining vision for a new tomorrow.......

[lord bunberry]

They have these clever things called opinion polls now. They show that a vast majority of Scots have never wanted and still don't want independence.

So as I said before, the fight here is between what the SNP want and the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

No point getting angry with anti-nationalists or their campaign. Unless you somehow believe they are brainwashing the majority of Scots and that the majority of Scots are stupid enough to be brainwashed...

Though I think the biggest danger for Team Break-Up Britain is the utter snoozefest that this has all now become with a long, long way still to go. It is now looking, and has for some time, all rather irrelevant to the real world.

Opinion polls are meaningless at this stage all the do is give the media something to talk about. Labour are well ahead in the polls for the next UK election but does anyone seriously believe that ed milliband will ever be prime minister? The snp were well behind labour in the polls a year before the last holyrood election and they turned it around so anything is possible

[One Day Soon]

Opinion polls are meaningless at this stage all the do is give the media something to talk about. Labour are well ahead in the polls for the next UK election but does anyone seriously believe that ed milliband will ever be prime minister? The snp were well behind labour in the polls a year before the last holyrood election and they turned it around so anything is possible

Unbelievably it does look rather like Miliband (E) could well become Prime Minister.

I think when one considers the accumulation of almost every serious opinion poll on independence that has ever been carried out over the years we can reasonably assert that the position of the Scottish people remains 'Naw'.

The whole thing is now a busted flush. Watching Salmond and Sturgeon grinning into the cameras in that utterly divorced from reality photo-op outside Parliament to announce the Referendum date was mind bending. The economy and the world we live in is turning to 5hit and we see the First and Deputy First Ministers standing there clearly imagining that what is their best wet-dream come true is somehow shared by the rest of Scotland.

The only fascination left in this political car crash are the explanations and rationalisations to follow the inevitable result. Salmond versus the sovereign will of the Scottish people, only one winner there.

[lord bunberry]

Unbelievably it does look rather like Miliband (E) could well become Prime Minister.

I think when one considers the accumulation of almost every serious opinion poll on independence that has ever been carried out over the years we can reasonably assert that the position of the Scottish people remains 'Naw'.

The whole thing is now a busted flush. Watching Salmond and Sturgeon grinning into the cameras in that utterly divorced from reality photo-op outside Parliament to announce the Referendum date was mind bending. The economy and the world we live in is turning to 5hit and we see the First and Deputy First Ministers standing there clearly imagining that what is their best wet-dream come true is somehow shared by the rest of Scotland.

The only fascination left in this political car crash are the explanations and rationalisations to follow the inevitable result. Salmond versus the sovereign will of the Scottish people, only one winner there.

You say every meaningful opinion poll points to a no vote, I would suggest there is no such thing as a meaningful opinion poll. The only relevant poll that can be used is the last referendum and that showed a majority of of the country in favour of independence. You repeatedly state that the outcome is a foregone conclusion but I doubt either camps see it that way

[Mibbes Aye]

You say every meaningful opinion poll points to a no vote, I would suggest there is no such thing as a meaningful opinion poll. The only relevant poll that can be used is the last referendum and that showed a majority of of the country in favour of independence. You repeatedly state that the outcome is a foregone conclusion but I doubt either camps see it that way

Can you point me to the referendum you're claiming showed a majority in favour of independence?

In my lifetime I've seen a majority vote for a devolved assembly and then a Scottish parliament with tax-varying powers.

I can't recall a referendum where a majority voted for independence though. When was that?

[lord bunberry]

Can you point me to the referendum you're claiming showed a majority in favour of independence?

In my lifetime I've seen a majority vote for a devolved assembly and then a Scottish parliament with tax-varying powers.

I can't recall a referendum where a majority voted for independence though. When was that?

Sorry I was talking about the vote in 1979 but as you say that vote was for devolution not full independence

[Hainan Hibs]

Latest opinion poll in the Sunday Times

Yes: 36%
No: 46%
Undecided: 18%

Now, it has been a while since Higher Maths, however if I remember correctly 46% would not constitute a "vast majority" in support of the union:greengrin.

I would say the Yes vote has around 33% percent that can be said to be "solid" yes votes that they can depend on no matter what. The no vote may be higher right now however it has a sizeable "soft" grouping, the type who say "No, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise". Combine that with the undecided % and it is very much game on.

The worst thing that the No side can do is sit back smugly looking at their advantage in polls and believe that is all that matters, because they could end up with a rather big suprise next year.

[yeezus.]

Latest opinion poll in the Sunday Times

Yes: 36%
No: 46%
Undecided: 18%

Now, it has been a while since Higher Maths, however if I remember correctly 46% would not constitute a "vast majority" in support of the union:greengrin.

I would say the Yes vote has around 33% percent that can be said to be "solid" yes votes that they can depend on no matter what. The no vote may be higher right now however it has a sizeable "soft" grouping, the type who say "No, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise". Combine that with the undecided % and it is very much game on.

The worst thing that the No side can do is sit back smugly looking at their advantage in polls and believe that is all that matters, because they could end up with a rather big suprise next year.

There will be not let up from the Better Together campaign - I don't think anyone actually believes the result is in the bag. There is a lot of work to do in the next year or so.

[J-C]

They have these clever things called opinion polls now. They show that a vast majority of Scots have never wanted and still don't want independence.

So as I said before, the fight here is between what the SNP want and the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

No point getting angry with anti-nationalists or their campaign. Unless you somehow believe they are brainwashing the majority of Scots and that the majority of Scots are stupid enough to be brainwashed...

Though I think the biggest danger for Team Break-Up Britain is the utter snoozefest that this has all now become with a long, long way still to go. It is now looking, and has for some time, all rather irrelevant to the real world.


I can't see any post here by pro Nationlist getting angry with anti nationalists, unless the anti nationalist was you in particular, oh and the snide remarks against the SNP just shows you in poor taste.

[One Day Soon]

I can't see any post here by pro Nationlist getting angry with anti nationalists, unless the anti nationalist was you in particular, oh and the snide remarks against the SNP just shows you in poor taste.

This is part of the problem with the Nats, they seem incapable of thinking in terms other than their own.

The Yes campaign is a team is it not? Composed of more than just the SNP? And the Yes campaign wants to take Scotland out of Britain in order to set up a separate nation. So Team Break Up Britain seems an entirely accurate description and neither snide nor directed at the SNP.

[One Day Soon]

Latest opinion poll in the Sunday Times

Yes: 36%
No: 46%
Undecided: 18%

Now, it has been a while since Higher Maths, however if I remember correctly 46% would not constitute a "vast majority" in support of the union:greengrin.

I would say the Yes vote has around 33% percent that can be said to be "solid" yes votes that they can depend on no matter what. The no vote may be higher right now however it has a sizeable "soft" grouping, the type who say "No, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise". Combine that with the undecided % and it is very much game on.

The worst thing that the No side can do is sit back smugly looking at their advantage in polls and believe that is all that matters, because they could end up with a rather big suprise next year.


Classic 'if my auntie had baws she'd be my uncle' reasoning.

You might as well observe that even among those in favour of independence at the moment there is a significant proportion wanting more information and willing to be persuaded otherwise. Combine those with the undecided % and it is very much....... etc, etc.

[Beefster]

I can't see any post here by pro Nationlist getting angry with anti nationalists, unless the anti nationalist was you in particular, oh and the snide remarks against the SNP just shows you in poor taste.

This seems to be a problem with the nationalists. They equate the SNP with the 'Yes' campaign and also assume that the SNP will be running Scotland in the event of independence (hence the SNP telling us this weekend what political policies an independent Scotland will pursue before a general election has been held).

[J-C]

This seems to be a problem with the nationalists. They equate the SNP with the 'Yes' campaign and also assume that the SNP will be running Scotland in the event of independence (hence the SNP telling us this weekend what political policies an independent Scotland will pursue before a general election has been held).


But surely they see themselves as the largest party in Scotland and as such will have to have policies in place should the vote is a yes, they are at the moment the largest party at Holyrood and some of these policies are already being implimented.

[J-C]

This is part of the problem with the Nats, they seem incapable of thinking in terms other than their own.

The Yes campaign is a team is it not? Composed of more than just the SNP? And the Yes campaign wants to take Scotland out of Britain in order to set up a separate nation. So Team Break Up Britain seems an entirely accurate description and neither snide nor directed at the SNP.

Again the SNP is the only party asking for a seperation vote, so surely the only team is SNP, all other parties have stated their oposition to the Yes vote.

The SNP think in terms of their own because they are the only part advocating a seperation vote, not overly complicated, well maybe for you it is. ??

[Hibs Class]

Again the SNP is the only party asking for a seperation vote, so surely the only team is SNP, all other parties have stated their oposition to the Yes vote.

The SNP think in terms of their own because they are the only part advocating a seperation vote, not overly complicated, well maybe for you it is. ??

I thought the Greens had fallen in with the yes campaign? Sure I've heard Patrick Harvie speaking in favour of it?

[Hibs Class]

Again the SNP is the only party asking for a seperation vote, so surely the only team is SNP, all other parties have stated their oposition to the Yes vote.

The SNP think in terms of their own because they are the only part advocating a seperation vote, not overly complicated, well maybe for you it is. ??


I thought the Greens had fallen in with the yes campaign? Sure I've heard Patrick Harvie speaking in favour of it?

And of course Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party.

[Hainan Hibs]

Classic 'if my auntie had baws she'd be my uncle' reasoning.

You might as well observe that even among those in favour of independence at the moment there is a significant proportion wanting more information and willing to be persuaded otherwise. Combine those with the undecided % and it is very much....... etc, etc.

That's not true though.

[yeezus.]

Again the SNP is the only party asking for a seperation vote, so surely the only team is SNP, all other parties have stated their oposition to the Yes vote.

The SNP think in terms of their own because they are the only part advocating a seperation vote, not overly complicated, well maybe for you it is. ??

The Green party are too often overlooked. Obviously the SSP, SRSM and others favour independence but have no MSP's in the Scottish Parliament. The Yes camp isn't just team SNP at all.

[Hainan Hibs]

Can't forget Margo either:agree:

[Beefster]

Again the SNP is the only party asking for a seperation vote, so surely the only team is SNP, all other parties have stated their oposition to the Yes vote.

The SNP think in terms of their own because they are the only part advocating a seperation vote, not overly complicated, well maybe for you it is. ??

That overly complicated that you don't know about the other political parties supporting independence and also seem to be unable to comprehend that some Labour/Tory/Lib Dems are supporting it too?

Good work.

[heretoday]

To be fair, Salmond has stated that the vote isn't about him or even the SNP. It's about whether in your heart you want Scotland to be a nation again.

It has to be said, though, that we're not exactly marching in the streets demanding freedom from the Westminster jackboot.

[yeezus.]

To be fair, Salmond has stated that the vote isn't about him or even the SNP. It's about whether in your heart you want Scotland to be a nation again.

It has to be said, though, that we're not exactly marching in the streets demanding freedom from the Westminster jackboot.

A nation again? I look forward to the debate moving beyond this babble and becoming an economic debate - one which Salmond and co. will ultimately lose.

[Glory Lurker]

A nation again? I look forward to the debate moving beyond this babble and becoming an economic debate - one which Salmond and co. will ultimately lose.


Why? What is the economic sucker punch that the no campaign can land?

[lord bunberry]

A nation again? I look forward to the debate moving beyond this babble and becoming an economic debate - one which Salmond and co. will ultimately lose.

The economic debate is whether the UK can afford Scottish independence. If Westminster were to lose the tax revenues from whisky, oil and gas it would leave a huge black hole in the UK finances. Maybe if we weren't constantly being accused of scrounging of the rest of the uk by people who supposedly have Scotland's interest at heart there wouldn't be a need for this debate

[yeezus.]

The economic debate is whether the UK can afford Scottish independence. If Westminster were to lose the tax revenues from whisky, oil and gas it would leave a huge black hole in the UK finances. Maybe if we weren't constantly being accused of scrounging of the rest of the uk by people who supposedly have Scotland's interest at heart there wouldn't be a need for this debate

I think there are only a few nutters who actually think Scotland scrounges from the rest of the UK. I hate this idea put forward by nationalists that those of us who don't want to see the break up of this island are automatically anti-Scottish or doubt Scotland's ability to cope post-independence. Of course Scotland could manage on it's own - but why break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world? To go it alone with oil revenues accounting for 20% of GDP would be an unnecessary and risky move in my eyes.

[allmodcons]

Support for the SNP in government bears no relation to the support for independence. The SNP probably wouldn't even exist in its current form post-independence.

Every poll on independence says that a majority support remaining within the UK.

I never said it did. The whole point of my post was to suggest that the popularity of the SNP in Government was something for the Yes campaign to built on. The latest Panelbase poll would appear to suggest that this is already the case!

FWIW some of the predictions on here from pro union supporters are, at worst, nothing short of arrogant and, at best, completely misplaced. This is a long game where the SNP and Yes Campaign know exactly what they are doing, this vote will be a lot tighter than some think. By the way, if it's opinion polls you like, the latest one suggests the Yes campaign need a 5% swing (yes only 5%) in 18 months.

[Hibrandenburg]

A nation again? I look forward to the debate moving beyond this babble and becoming an economic debate - one which Salmond and co. will ultimately lose.

What is wrong with making relationship decisions made on an emotional basis. Do you make friends based on purely what they can do for you? Would you get married simply because it makes economical sense to do so. Of course you wouldn't or if you did then you're sure missing something in life if all your decision making is based on hard facts.

Please don't just dismiss people who will vote with their heart instead of their head, their votes will be just as valuable.

[yeezus.]

What is wrong with making relationship decisions made on an emotional basis. Do you make friends based on purely what they can do for you? Would you get married simply because it makes economical sense to do so. Of course you wouldn't or if you did then you're sure missing something in life if all your decision making is based on hard facts.

Please don't just dismiss people who will vote with their heart instead of their head, their votes will be just as valuable.

I know what you mean - I have friends voting for independence and one has to admire their optimism and belief in self-determination. :aok: As for friends and marriage - I won't go there :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

What is wrong with making relationship decisions made on an emotional basis. Do you make friends based on purely what they can do for you? Would you get married simply because it makes economical sense to do so. Of course you wouldn't or if you did then you're sure missing something in life if all your decision making is based on hard facts.

Please don't just dismiss people who will vote with their heart instead of their head, their votes will be just as valuable.

As will those who vote on whether or not they can still see East Enders after independence. Some of us might scoff, but it's important to a lot of people.

Like you suggest, the decisions people make will be based on lots of factors.

[yeezus.]

I never said it did. The whole point of my post was to suggest that the popularity of the SNP in Government was something for the Yes campaign to built on. The latest Panelbase poll would appear to suggest that this is already the case!

FWIW some of the predictions on here from pro union supporters are, at worst, nothing short of arrogant and, at best, completely misplaced. This is a long game where the SNP and Yes Campaign know exactly what they are doing, this vote will be a lot tighter than some think. By the way, if it's opinion polls you like, the latest one suggests the Yes campaign need a 5% swing (yes only 5%) in 18 months.

I'm sure the Scottish National Party know what they are doing - I'm not so sure the smaller groups do... apparently the SRSM weren't even allowed to the independence march.

[allmodcons]

I think there are only a few nutters who actually think Scotland scrounges from the rest of the UK. I hate this idea put forward by nationalists that those of us who don't want to see the break up of this island are automatically anti-Scottish or doubt Scotland's ability to cope post-independence. Of course Scotland could manage on it's own - but why break off from the 6th biggest economy in the world? To go it alone with oil revenues accounting for 20% of GDP would be an unnecessary and risky move in my eyes.

Nonsense! Anybody suggesting oil revenues are bad news for any economy needs a lesson in economics. Can you name me one oil rich country that would rather not have it's oil reserves.

[yeezus.]

Nonsense! Anybody suggesting oil revenues are bad news for any economy needs a lesson in economics. Can you name me one oil rich country that would rather not have it's oil reserves.

I'm not saying Oil revenues are bad for economics, I just think it's dangerous to be so reliant on oil given the fact that we would be subject to shifts in global commodity prices.

[allmodcons]

What is wrong with making relationship decisions made on an emotional basis. Do you make friends based on purely what they can do for you? Would you get married simply because it makes economical sense to do so. Of course you wouldn't or if you did then you're sure missing something in life if all your decision making is based on hard facts.

Please don't just dismiss people who will vote with their heart instead of their head, their votes will be just as valuable.


As will those who vote on whether or not they can still see East Enders after independence. Some of us might scoff, but it's important to a lot of people.

Like you suggest, the decisions people make will be based on lots of factors.

Anybody who makes their vote based on this sort of nonsense obviously needs help. Are we now proposing a ban on TV post independence.

[yeezus.]

Anybody who makes their vote based on this sort of nonsense obviously needs help. Are we now proposing a ban on TV post independence.

As long as we still have Susanna Reid on a weekday post-independence!

[CropleyWasGod]

Anybody who makes their vote based on this sort of nonsense obviously needs help. Are we now proposing a ban on TV post independence.

People vote in elections for all sorts of reasons. Some do it on a macro level, based on political and economic theory, others do it on the basis of local issues that affect them on a day-to-day basis. That's what democracy is all about, and we can't dismiss the views of people who make decisions based on factors that you (and I, FWIW) don't consider important.

I will wager that how the BBC will look post-independence will become a talking-point over the campaign.

[Glory Lurker]

As long as we still have Susanna Reid on a weekday post-independence!

We'll let rUK keep Trident on the Clyde for an extra fortnight if they agree to this!

[allmodcons]

I'm not saying Oil revenues are bad for economics, I just think it's dangerous to be so reliant on oil given the fact that we would be subject to shifts in global commodity prices.

'Volatile' oil prices are OK for Norway and Saudi Arabia. They're even goods news for the UK but, of course, bad news for an Independent Scotland. Tell me what the English economy has to offer that Scotland hasn't?

[degenerated]

As will those who vote on whether or not they can still see East Enders after independence. Some of us might scoff, but it's important to a lot of people.

Like you suggest, the decisions people make will be based on lots of factors.

If its a no then salmonds got my vote.

[J-C]

And of course Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party.

There may be a couple here and there but the name Scottish Nationalist party is the give away lol

[allmodcons]

People vote in elections for all sorts of reasons. Some do it on a macro level, based on political and economic theory, others do it on the basis of local issues that affect them on a day-to-day basis. That's what democracy is all about, and we can't dismiss the views of people who make decisions based on factors that you (and I, FWIW) don't consider important.

I will wager that how the BBC will look post-independence will become a talking-point over the campaign.

Right now you can watch the BBC anywhere in Europe. Despite the nonsense beng spouted by some in the No campaign, you'll still be able to watch Eastenders in an Independent Scotland.

[Glory Lurker]

I will wager that how the BBC will look post-independence will become a talking-point over the campaign.


I think there's already been a go at this by the Labour MSP Sarwar. It's beyond irrelevant in my opinion, and it would be thoroughly depressing if any real attempt was made to make it an issue, but I agree that people will form their view on all sorts of things. Just taking it to its conclusion, though, has switching to digital changed where the BBC can be seen? I remember seeing it no bother in Dublin.

[CropleyWasGod]

Right now you can watch the BBC anywhere in Europe. Despite the nonsense beng spouted by some in the No campaign, you'll still be able to watch Eastenders in an Independent Scotland.

I agree with you, but the Yes campaign need to emphasise it. If they dismiss it as an irrelevance, they do so at the risk of losing votes.

[J-C]

That overly complicated that you don't know about the other political parties supporting independence and also seem to be unable to comprehend that some Labour/Tory/Lib Dems are supporting it too?

Good work.

Yes I do know that but the SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England, these other parties have only really been in the yeas camp for a short period, when you think separation you don't immediately think SNP oh and a couple from this and that party also.

[One Day Soon]

I never said it did. The whole point of my post was to suggest that the popularity of the SNP in Government was something for the Yes campaign to built on. The latest Panelbase poll would appear to suggest that this is already the case!

FWIW some of the predictions on here from pro union supporters are, at worst, nothing short of arrogant and, at best, completely misplaced. This is a long game where the SNP and Yes Campaign know exactly what they are doing, this vote will be a lot tighter than some think. By the way, if it's opinion polls you like, the latest one suggests the Yes campaign need a 5% swing (yes only 5%) in 18 months.


Panelbase are internet based pollsters are they not? An internet based opinion poll - particularly on this theme and in this context (where the SNP dominate cyber organbisation and debate) - is about as reliable as a financial guarantee from Vladimir Romanov.

Out of interest, what's your bet now on the percentage that will vote Yes and No in 2014?

[marinello59]

Yes I do know that but the SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England, these other parties have only really been in the yeas camp for a short period, when you think separation you don't immediately think SNP oh and a couple from this and that party also.

Founded in 1934 and this close to the vote they still haven't given us a clear definition of what Independence actually means. The Euro? the pound? a Scottish currency? No nukes or sheltering under the NATO Nuke umbrella? Sovereignty of the people or keeping the monarchy? Full independence or a fearties half way house? I support Independence but feel like I am watching the SNP miss the biggest open goal ever.

[One Day Soon]

Yes I do know that but the SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England, these other parties have only really been in the yeas camp for a short period, when you think separation you don't immediately think SNP oh and a couple from this and that party also.

You know - or you should know - the position which is that the Yes campaign is a rainbow coalition. So you are either being arrogant or deliberately obtuse about this. You suggested I was being snide about the SNP in my earlier post. I pointed out to you that in fact the SNP no longer own the Yes side of the debate exclusively to themselves and so when I describe that campaign as Team Break Up Britain I am in fact labelling a much wider group than just the SNP.

What is a lot more revealling though is your suggestion above that "SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England". Not Britain or the UK, but England. It is exactly that kind of tumshie Nationalism - which defines Scotland in relation to England - which is what determines the gap between people's willingness to vote SNP in a Scottish Parliament election but then run screaming from the building when asked to vote for separation.

[One Day Soon]

Right now you can watch the BBC anywhere in Europe. Despite the nonsense beng spouted by some in the No campaign, you'll still be able to watch Eastenders in an Independent Scotland.

If we weren't going to be able to see Eastenders post-independence I would be considerably attracted. However that aside, does the programming we would have not depend upon which series the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation chooses to - and can afford to - buy from elsewhere. Maybe the BBC just pushes Eastenders into all other coutries as some form of cruel and unusual punishment? You would have thought there would have been complaints by now...

[One Day Soon]

Nonsense! Anybody suggesting oil revenues are bad news for any economy needs a lesson in economics. Can you name me one oil rich country that would rather not have it's oil reserves.

Will we be spending the oil revenues from the remaining 25 years of oil on our current level of public services or in starting an oil fund? What will we be replacing those revenues with once the oil runs out?

[Glory Lurker]

Will we be spending the oil revenues from the remaining 25 years of oil on our current level of public services or in starting an oil fund? What will we be replacing those revenues with once the oil runs out?


25 years left? Do you know something the oil industry doesn't?

[marinello59]

Will we be spending the oil revenues from the remaining 25 years of oil on our current level of public services or in starting an oil fund? What will we be replacing those revenues with once the oil runs out?

The oil fund idea is a pipe dream. The money is already pledged elsewhere. Unless a future Scottish Government proposes extra tax on the North Sea.

[Beefster]

'Volatile' oil prices are OK for Norway and Saudi Arabia. They're even goods news for the UK but, of course, bad news for an Independent Scotland. Tell me what the English economy has to offer that Scotland hasn't?


Yes I do know that but the SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England, these other parties have only really been in the yeas camp for a short period, when you think separation you don't immediately think SNP oh and a couple from this and that party also.

You both mean 'British/Britain' surely?

[One Day Soon]

25 years left? Do you know something the oil industry doesn't?

Did I misquote? I thought it was 25 years but I'm happy to be corrected. What what was the term being discussed in the media recently?

[One Day Soon]

You both mean 'British/Britain' surely?

No Beefster, I think they meant what they wrote. Which is rather the point in this whole debate. McGlashan's fancy dress outfit does occasionally slip...

[Glory Lurker]

Did I misquote? I thought it was 25 years but I'm happy to be corrected. What what was the term being discussed in the media recently?

50, I believe. Nobody has put a figure on the reserves in the north Atlantic yet.

[yeezus.]

'Volatile' oil prices are OK for Norway and Saudi Arabia. They're even goods news for the UK but, of course, bad news for an Independent Scotland. Tell me what the English economy has to offer that Scotland hasn't?

You whit!? I can't stand this sort of divisive question - mind you that sums up nationalism really - it is an infantile disease!

[yeezus.]

Right now you can watch the BBC anywhere in Europe. Despite the nonsense beng spouted by some in the No campaign, you'll still be able to watch Eastenders in an Independent Scotland.

But will be able to watch the whole of Newsnight with Paxman or Maitlis or do we have to put up with the rubbish presenting on NewsnightScotland!?!? :wink:

[DaveF]

You whit!? I can't stand this sort of divisive question - mind you that sums up nationalism really - it is an infantile disease!

So how do you see the No \ Unionist mantra that if Scotland votes for Independence, big business will depart en masse? Divisive, scaremongering or fact?

I had the pleasure of seeing Ken Clarke on TV recently describing money allocated to Scotland as 'English Money'. Tells you all you need to know about the real unionist view of Scotland :greengrin

[yeezus.]

So how do you see the No \ Unionist mantra that if Scotland votes for Independence, big business will depart en masse? Divisive, scaremongering or fact?

I had the pleasure of seeing Ken Clarke on TV recently describing money allocated to Scotland as 'English Money'. Tells you all you need to know about the real unionist view of Scotland :greengrin

No, I don't buy that argument - I seem to remember a certain female business leader saying she would leave the country if the SNP won the 2007 election and she is still here now...:wink:

[One Day Soon]

So how do you see the No \ Unionist mantra that if Scotland votes for Independence, big business will depart en masse? Divisive, scaremongering or fact?

I had the pleasure of seeing Ken Clarke on TV recently describing money allocated to Scotland as 'English Money'. Tells you all you need to know about the real unionist view of Scotland :greengrin

Are you confusing the Ken Clarke/Tory opinion with anti-Nationalist opinion deliberately or through ignorance?

[One Day Soon]

No, I don't buy that argument - I seem to remember a certain female business leader saying she would leave the country if the SNP won the 2007 election and she is still here now...:wink:

While you are at it SH we had the pleasure of Alex Salmond telling voters in the rest of the UK to vote for the Lib Dems in the last general election.

That turned out to be good advice eh?

[yeezus.]

While you are at it SH we had the pleasure of Alex Salmond telling voters in the rest of the UK to vote for the Lib Dems in the last general election.

That turned out to be good advice eh?

Aye the man is full of great advice - vote for the Liberal Democrats, look to the Irish republic for our economic model post-independence and support Hearts! :rolleyes:

[lord bunberry]

Are you confusing the Ken Clarke/Tory opinion with anti-Nationalist opinion deliberately or through ignorance?

Ken Clarke is or was a minister in the UK government so anything he says is relevant to the debate

[J-C]

You both mean 'British/Britain' surely?

So sorry Mr pedantic, I've never seen Wales (principality) and N Ireland as a problem in the separation issue, both have pushed forcefully for devolution away from England, not Britain. I think people are totally forgetting here that it's a separation of parliaments, the countries have always been separate, we have our own legal system, education and medical system, the 1707 act which caused riots throughout Scotland was to merge the parliaments, not the countries.

[J-C]

You know - or you should know - the position which is that the Yes campaign is a rainbow coalition. So you are either being arrogant or deliberately obtuse about this. You suggested I was being snide about the SNP in my earlier post. I pointed out to you that in fact the SNP no longer own the Yes side of the debate exclusively to themselves and so when I describe that campaign as Team Break Up Britain I am in fact labelling a much wider group than just the SNP.

What is a lot more revealling though is your suggestion above that "SNP was founded in 1934 with the main aim of separation from England". Not Britain or the UK, but England. It is exactly that kind of tumshie Nationalism - which defines Scotland in relation to England - which is what determines the gap between people's willingness to vote SNP in a Scottish Parliament election but then run screaming from the building when asked to vote for separation.

I have replied already but will again, historically England loved nothing more than to trample over the world grabbing all and sundry in it's path, they attempted on numerous occasions before 1707 to join the countries up and managed so when we were in a financially difficult position. The Welsh and N Irish have forced a devolution policy and have gained their own national Assemblies in 1998, as we did in that same year, it's no coincidence that these were a move away from English rule from the Parliament in London.

I don't see anything as anti English as you try to put it at every opportunity, it's a push towards gaining our identity and powers back, something which was given away in 1707 by foolish wealthy Scotsmen who tried to run before they could walk in the big world of world economy back in the late 1600's, causing riots all over Scotland at the time.

I actually find your anti Scottish digs at anyone who is proud to be Scottish and a yes voter truly sickening and makes me even prouder to be Scottish, each time you spew your pro English guff.

[Hibbyradge]

I actually find your anti Scottish digs at anyone who is proud to be Scottish and a yes voter truly sickening and makes me even prouder to be Scottish, each time you spew your pro English guff.

Your slips showing, madam.

I'm proud to be Scottish and I'm opposed to separation.

I don't feel particularly British, but I'm not anti-English.

I don't think One Day Soon is having a dig at "anyone who is proud to be Scottish".

He's having a go at the yes campaign. Isn't that what political debate is about? :confused:

[marinello59]

I have replied already but will again, historically England loved nothing more than to trample over the world grabbing all and sundry in it's path, they attempted on numerous occasions before 1707 to join the countries up and managed so when we were in a financially difficult position. The Welsh and N Irish have forced a devolution policy and have gained their own national Assemblies in 1998, as we did in that same year, it's no coincidence that these were a move away from English rule from the Parliament in London.

I don't see anything as anti English as you try to put it at every opportunity, it's a push towards gaining our identity and powers back, something which was given away in 1707 by foolish wealthy Scotsmen who tried to run before they could walk in the big world of world economy back in the late 1600's, causing riots all over Scotland at the time.

I actually find your anti Scottish digs at anyone who is proud to be Scottish and a yes voter truly sickening and makes me even prouder to be Scottish, each time you spew your pro English guff.

Good grief. Plenty of proud Scots will be voting No and plenty of Scots happy to describe themselves as British will be voting Yes. Salmond has criticised the Yes equals Scottish chain of thought himself.
Your view of history is rather good though, is it an unused McGlashan script?

[Hibrandenburg]

Good grief. Plenty of proud Scots will be voting No and plenty of Scots happy to describe themselves as British will be voting Yes. Salmond has criticised the Yes equals Scottish chain of thought himself.
Your view of history is rather good though, is it an unused McGlashan script?

Just out of interest, what do you see to what happened in 1707 as being different from what he says?

[Beefster]

I actually find your anti Scottish digs at anyone who is proud to be Scottish and a yes voter truly sickening and makes me even prouder to be Scottish, each time you spew your pro English guff.

Fail.

One of the most offensive elements of the 'Yes' campaign is the implication that not supporting independence makes you less of a Scot. Utter pish.

[Hibrandenburg]

Good grief. Plenty of proud Scots will be voting No and plenty of Scots happy to describe themselves as British will be voting Yes. Salmond has criticised the Yes equals Scottish chain of thought himself.
Your view of history is rather good though, is it an unused McGlashan script?

Just out of interest, what do you see to what happened in 1707 as being different from what he says?

[marinello59]

Just out of interest, what do you see to what happened in 1707 as being different from what he says?

I didn't say I disagreed, I said it was rather good. The first paragraph lays in to England for it's imperialism whilst the seconds paragraph blames Scotland's own failed colonial adventure for bringing the Act of Union about. Superb stuff. if only we had been better at the old empire building thing.

[EuanH78]

For me (At least)

The Independence question comes down to a rather simple belief I have about governments - That is, to have an effective government you also need an effective opposition.

Due to the Conservative party's political suicide in Scotland we have a situation where we either have:

1) A Westminster government with no political mandate from the people of Scotland or

2)An opposition party at Westminster with no political mandate from the people of Scotland.

Given this situation we cannot hope to be governed effectively from Westminster and therefor I will be voting Yes to independence.

[yeezus.]

For me (At least)

The Independence question comes down to a rather simple belief I have about governments - That is, to have an effective government you also need an effective opposition.

Due to the Conservative party's political suicide in Scotland we have a situation where we either have:

1) A Westminster government with no political mandate from the people of Scotland or

2)An opposition party at Westminster with no political mandate from the people of Scotland.

Given this situation we cannot hope to be governed effectively from Westminster and therefor I will be voting Yes to independence.

Are you sure? At the 2010 general election, Scotland might have rejected the Conservative party but we didn't embrace the SNP - we overwhelmingly voted Labour (rightly, in my eyes.)

[JimBHibees]

Aye the man is full of great advice - vote for the Liberal Democrats, look to the Irish republic for our economic model post-independence and support Hearts! :rolleyes:

You can also throw in get rid of nuclear weapons in the Clyde, utilise the resources through North Sea oil and Gas and dont have an illegal war in Iraq amongst others.

[J-C]

Your slips showing, madam.

I'm proud to be Scottish and I'm opposed to separation.

I don't feel particularly British, but I'm not anti-English.

I don't think One Day Soon is having a dig at "anyone who is proud to be Scottish".

He's having a go at the yes campaign. Isn't that what political debate is about? :confused:


I understand he's against the yes campaign, it just looks in his posts that all who are for it are anti English or McGlashan as he puts it, I was just trying to point out the historical facts ans also the fact that many Scots who like yourself are proud are very much not anti English as he thinks we are.

[yeezus.]

You can also throw in get rid of nuclear weapons in the Clyde, utilise the resources through North Sea oil and Gas and dont have an illegal war in Iraq amongst others.

To rid the Clyde of nuclear weapons could cost £4 billion so I guess he expects the rest of the United Kingdom to fork out for that? Also, the SNP need to realise they can't win an argument by saying "Iraq"!

[J-C]

For me (At least)

The Independence question comes down to a rather simple belief I have about governments - That is, to have an effective government you also need an effective opposition.

Due to the Conservative party's political suicide in Scotland we have a situation where we either have:

1) A Westminster government with no political mandate from the people of Scotland or

2)An opposition party at Westminster with no political mandate from the people of Scotland.

Given this situation we cannot hope to be governed effectively from Westminster and therefore I will be voting Yes to independence.

A sensible answer at last, this all comes down to the Government not doing what is best for the Scottish people and the people having had enough of being run by politicians in London who don't seem to care a hoot what happens up here.

I have tried to point out historical facts and indeed these facts are similar to today where the huge majority of MP's are English and Scotland seems like a hindrance to them, I have no agenda against England, I have family and many many friends from south of the border, I just feel it is now time to go solo and do what's best for our Country.

I aint no McGlashan, I'm just a Scot who wants to see Scotland grow again.

[allmodcons]

'Volatile' oil prices are OK for Norway and Saudi Arabia. They're even goods news for the UK but, of course, bad news for an Independent Scotland. Tell me what the English economy has to offer that Scotland hasn't?


You both mean 'British/Britain' surely?


No Beefster, I think they meant what they wrote. Which is rather the point in this whole debate. McGlashan's fancy dress outfit does occasionally slip...


I mean't English. Despite what you'd like to think you'll not get any anti English sentiment from me. Was merely asking the question, what has the English economy got to offer that Scotland hasn't. Do you care to answer the question?

[JimBHibees]

To rid the Clyde of nuclear weapons could cost £4 billion so I guess he expects the rest of the United Kingdom to fork out for that? Also, the SNP need to realise they can't win an argument by saying "Iraq"!

Dear oh dear. :faf:

Not a case of winning an argument however being proven to be completely right while Labour lapdogs like Bliar/Brown etc merrily ran with the illegal nonsense.

[allmodcons]

You whit!? I can't stand this sort of divisive question - mind you that sums up nationalism really - it is an infantile disease!

You're telling me Scotland would struggle to manage it's own affairs because of an over reliance on 'volatile' oil prices. I'm asking you what makes you think the English economy is in a better place than Scotland and all of a sudden I'm being infantile! Answer the question, what major resource does the English economy, or for that matter, the Welsh and NI economies have that Scotland doesn't. Oil, whisky and renewables are just 3 examples of resource areas where Scotland outstrips the other members of the UK. Why is it being divisive or infantile to ask you what it is about the other economies of these islands that makes it better for Scotland (in an economic sense) to remain as a part of the UK. Only reason you can't 'stand the question' is because you can't answer it!

[allmodcons]

Panelbase are internet based pollsters are they not? An internet based opinion poll - particularly on this theme and in this context (where the SNP dominate cyber organbisation and debate) - is about as reliable as a financial guarantee from Vladimir Romanov.

Out of interest, what's your bet now on the percentage that will vote Yes and No in 2014?

Nothing wrong with Panelbase as pollsters, in fact, I would wager their record is as good as any other polling company. You can't quote polls that suit your case and simply disregard those that don't.

Yes 49% -v- No 51%. I've never been lucky.

[yeezus.]

You're telling me Scotland would struggle to manage it's own affairs because of an over reliance on 'volatile' oil prices. I'm asking you what makes you think the English economy is in a better place than Scotland and all of a sudden I'm being infantile! Answer the question, what major resource does the English economy, or for that matter, the Welsh and NI economies have that Scotland doesn't. Oil, whisky and renewables are just 3 examples of resource areas where Scotland outstrips the other members of the UK. Why is it being divisive or infantile to ask you what it is about the other economies of these islands that makes it better for Scotland (in an economic sense) to remain as a part of the UK. Only reason you can't 'stand the question' is because you can't answer it!

I'm not answering it because it's a bogus question. We are currently hearing from nationalists that our economy consistently outperforms the rest of the UK as a whole - but we don't know how England, Wales and Northern Ireland would manage because we are a United Kingdom! Volatile oil prices have nothing to do with Scotland's ability to manage it's own affairs - Scotland can manage it's own affairs but I made the point that it would be dangerous for the Scottish economy to be so heavily reliant on oil alone. I described nationalism as an infantile disease - quoting Einstein.

Also, I think you forgot to mention shortbread!

[yeezus.]

Dear oh dear. :faf:

Not a case of winning an argument however being proven to be completely right while Labour lapdogs like Bliar/Brown etc merrily ran with the illegal nonsense.

Having looked again I think £4 billion may not be the right figure.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1915/moving_trident_after_a_scottish_referendum_could_c ost_up_to_50_billion

[Hainan Hibs]

Will we be spending the oil revenues from the remaining 25 years of oil on our current level of public services or in starting an oil fund? What will we be replacing those revenues with once the oil runs out?

The oil revenue will fall whether we are in the union or not. So I ask, within the union, what will we replace the revenue with? Or is the plan to just hope England will pick up the tab?



The oil fund idea is a pipe dream. The money is already pledged elsewhere. Unless a future Scottish Government proposes extra tax on the North Sea.

It wouldn't be if Dewar and co and not changed the Scotland/England maritime boundary and siphoned off 8 oil fields to weaken the financial case for Scottish independence. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/. Scotland, with the previous border, would've been in surplus to the tune of 1.9 billion last year.


So going on from that, 1.9bn could've been used last year to either start an oil fund, increase spending in areas of potential growth, or a bit could've been shaved off of the debt, maybe even do a combination of all three.

Independence would also give us decision making power over where existing spending goes, power over various tax levels, which would allow us to to target/support areas like renewables that could provide the economic growth of the future and create jobs for future generations.

The ideas on the yes side may be vague, but at least there is a discussion going on. Looking at things such as the Finland Maritime Cluster for example to see what smaller countries can do to expand their economy.

And staying in the UK, what is the prospect? Going to the polls every year putting an X beside Labour and praying the Tories don't get in? Staying as the 4th most unequal society in the world? With life expectancy and poverty in some parts of Glasgow the worst in western Europe?

Independence won't solve it all, it won't make us a nirvana over night, but ****ing hell, if the answer is "the oils running out, so best stay with England" then we deserve everything that will come with a no vote.

[allmodcons]

You're telling me Scotland would struggle to manage it's own affairs because of an over reliance on 'volatile' oil prices. I'm asking you what makes you think the English economy is in a better place than Scotland and all of a sudden I'm being infantile! Answer the question, what major resource does the English economy, or for that matter, the Welsh and NI economies have that Scotland doesn't. Oil, whisky and renewables are just 3 examples of resource areas where Scotland outstrips the other members of the UK. Why is it being divisive or infantile to ask you what it is about the other economies of these islands that makes it better for Scotland (in an economic sense) to remain as a part of the UK. Only reason you can't 'stand the question' is because you can't answer it!


I'm not answering it because it's a bogus question. We are currently hearing from nationalists that our economy consistently outperforms the rest of the UK as a whole - but we don't know how England, Wales and Northern Ireland would manage because we are a United Kingdom! Volatile oil prices have nothing to do with Scotland's ability to manage it's own affairs - Scotland can manage it's own affairs but I made the point that it would be dangerous for the Scottish economy to be so heavily reliant on oil alone. I described nationalism as an infantile disease - quoting Einstein.

Also, I think you forgot to mention shortbread!

Why is it bogus? Simple question. What are the main strengths of the English Economy?

Unionists want Nationalists to tell us how the Scottish Economy will be after oil runs out (25 years time, 50 years time who knows) but you can't tell us right now what the main strengths of the other UK economies are. You couldnae make it up!!

BTW I never forgot shortbread I said oil, whisky and renewables were 'just 3 examples'.

[Beefster]

I mean't English. Despite what you'd like to think you'll not get any anti English sentiment from me. Was merely asking the question, what has the English economy got to offer that Scotland hasn't. Do you care to answer the question?

I don't see the point of the question. Nationalists keep talking about England because it fuels anti-English sentiment but we're talking about leaving the UK, not England.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding of a lot of the concerns. Folk know what the status quo looks like but we have no idea what a post-independence Scotland would look like. It's up to the folk wanting the change to make the case and those opposing it to counter that case IMHO.

Here's a question: how would the Scottish economy have dealt with the collapse of RBS (and possibly some of HBOS)? Iceland/Ireland basket case or UK 'it hurts but we'll manage'?

[EuanH78]

Are you sure? At the 2010 general election, Scotland might have rejected the Conservative party but we didn't embrace the SNP - we overwhelmingly voted Labour (rightly, in my eyes.)

Yes, I'm sure.

My point is that we have either a government without mandate like just now

Or, an opposition without mandate (like when Labour were in power).

Of course what I say is based largely on the fact that only Labour or the Conservatives are likely to be the government at any given time.

We (Scotland) are not being governed effectively at any time as a result.

Independence is a no brainer IMO. We can manage our own affairs, have a better spectrum of political opinion, a more effective government concerned with Scottish issues and be better off as a result.

[lord bunberry]

I don't see the point of the question. Nationalists keep talking about England because it fuels anti-English sentiment but we're talking about leaving the UK, not England.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding of a lot of the concerns. Folk know what the status quo looks like but we have no idea what a post-independence Scotland would look like. It's up to the folk wanting the change to make the case and those opposing it to counter that case IMHO.

Here's a question: how would the Scottish economy have dealt with the collapse of RBS (and possibly some of HBOS)? Iceland/Ireland basket case or UK 'it hurts but we'll manage'?

I would hardly call Iceland a basket case. Imo Iceland did things the right way by just letting their banks fail. There is currently far more growth and lower unemployment in Iceland than there is here

[yeezus.]

Yes, I'm sure.

My point is that we have either a government without mandate like just now

Or, an opposition without mandate (like when Labour were in power).

Of course what I say is based largely on the fact that only Labour or the Conservatives are likely to be the government at any given time.

We (Scotland) are not being governed effectively at any time as a result.

Independence is a no brainer IMO. We can manage our own affairs, have a better spectrum of political opinion, a more effective government concerned with Scottish issues and be better off as a result.

I know what you mean - I think the Yes camp should push this line - that Scotland is being governed by a party that we overwhelmingly rejected. That being said, I think separation is a bad idea. Considering the current economic climate, I think we are better off remaining as part of the 6th biggest economy in the world.

[Beefster]

Yes, I'm sure.

My point is that we have either a government without mandate like just now

Or, an opposition without mandate (like when Labour were in power).

Of course what I say is based largely on the fact that only Labour or the Conservatives are likely to be the government at any given time.

We (Scotland) are not being governed effectively at any time as a result.

Independence is a no brainer IMO. We can manage our own affairs, have a better spectrum of political opinion, a more effective government concerned with Scottish issues and be better off as a result.

It's a UK parliament and has a government and opposition as voted for by the UK.

Orkney and Shetland consistently vote Lib Dem. Won't they have the same problem in an independent Scotland? Some folk think they should have independence and take their oil money with them. You'd support that so that they can be effectively governed?

[Hainan Hibs]

Here's a question: how would the Scottish economy have dealt with the collapse of RBS (and possibly some of HBOS)? Iceland/Ireland basket case or UK 'it hurts but we'll manage'?

Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett covered that one a couple of years ago,

http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/newsweek-scotland-interviews-professor-andrew-hughes-hallett-on-the-scottish-banks-bailout-full-tran.html

[marinello59]

The oil revenue will fall whether we are in the union or not. So I ask, within the union, what will we replace the revenue with? Or is the plan to just hope England will pick up the tab?




It wouldn't be if Dewar and co and not changed the Scotland/England maritime boundary and siphoned off 8 oil fields to weaken the financial case for Scottish independence. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/. Scotland, with the previous border, would've been in surplus to the tune of 1.9 billion last year.


So going on from that, 1.9bn could've been used last year to either start an oil fund, increase spending in areas of potential growth, or a bit could've been shaved off of the debt, maybe even do a combination of all three.

Independence would also give us decision making power over where existing spending goes, power over various tax levels, which would allow us to to target/support areas like renewables that could provide the economic growth of the future and create jobs for future generations.

The ideas on the yes side may be vague, but at least there is a discussion going on. Looking at things such as the Finland Maritime Cluster for example to see what smaller countries can do to expand their economy.

And staying in the UK, what is the prospect? Going to the polls every year putting an X beside Labour and praying the Tories don't get in? Staying as the 4th most unequal society in the world? With life expectancy and poverty in some parts of Glasgow the worst in western Europe?

Independence won't solve it all, it won't make us a nirvana over night, but ****ing hell, if the answer is "the oils running out, so best stay with England" then we deserve everything that will come with a no vote.

It wouldn't be....................but it is. I am only taking a pragmatic view here, an Independent Scotland will not be able to build up a massive oil fund any time soon. I would hope that a brave new Scotland would be looking forward at what can be achieved rather than backwards.

The life expectancy levels and poverty levels in parts of Glasgow are an absolute scandal but a large part of the blame lies with Scottish based councillors and MSP's who have consistently failed to address the problems adequately using the powers we already have and I include the members of every single major party in that. A home grown problem that we should have dealt with ourselves.

[EuanH78]

It's a UK parliament and has a government and opposition as voted for by the UK.

Orkney and Shetland consistently vote Lib Dem. Won't they have the same problem in an independent Scotland? Some folk think they should have independence and take their oil money with them. You'd support that so that they can be effectively governed?

Yes, yes. This is precisely my point. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :agree:

That a UK elected parliament falls short in its representation of one of its members (Scotland) and the only answer that can possibly make any sense is for Scotland to leave the union as a result.

As for the islanders, surely if there is a will for them to leave then that is of their concern and not mine, no?

[Beefster]

Yes, yes. This is precisely my point. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :agree:

That a UK elected parliament falls short in its representation of one of its members (Scotland) and the only answer that can possibly make any sense is for Scotland to leave the union as a result.

As for the islanders, surely if there is a will for them to leave then that is of their concern and not mine, no?

I think you completely misunderstood my point. Very few specific areas of the UK (with populations of around 5m) will be represented properly using your critieria. That's the nature of having a parliament that covers more than a village.

It wouldn't be any different in an independent Scotland though. Shetland wouldn't be 'effectively represented'. The Highlands wouldn't be 'effectively represented'. Parts of the Borders wont be 'effectively represented'. Etc etc etc. Some of the central belt might be though.

By the way, Scotland contributes 59 seats to the current UK government and UK parliament opposition so I'd argue that your notion of 'effective representation' is wrong.

[Beefster]

Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett covered that one a couple of years ago,

http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/newsweek-scotland-interviews-professor-andrew-hughes-hallett-on-the-scottish-banks-bailout-full-tran.html

Thanks. I'll have a read before commenting.

[yeezus.]

Yes, yes. This is precisely my point. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :agree:

That a UK elected parliament falls short in its representation of one of its members (Scotland) and the only answer that can possibly make any sense is for Scotland to leave the union as a result.

As for the islanders, surely if there is a will for them to leave then that is of their concern and not mine, no?

Do you have any evidence that Edinburgh rule would be any better than London rule?

[ancienthibby]

You whit!? I can't stand this sort of divisive question - mind you that sums up nationalism really - it is an infantile disease!

StranraerH, I ken well that you are a young and enthused Labourite, but your post as quoted above is hugely insulting to many, many generations of hard-working, country-serving members of the SNP.

It's been my privilege to know a fair number of older generation SNP MPs and workers, including one of whom it was said that he was a man of 'translucent integrity'. To include such people in your 'infantile disease' comment is quite reprehensible.

[lord bunberry]

Do you have any evidence that Edinburgh rule would be any better than London rule?

Your the one that is part of the better together campaign surely its your groups role to inform us why london rule is better than a potential edinburgh rule. So far I've yet to hear one thing from better together that would convince me that the status quo is the way to go

[Beefster]

Your the one that is part of the better together campaign surely its your groups role to inform us why london rule is better than a potential edinburgh rule. So far I've yet to hear one thing from better together that would convince me that the status quo is the way to go

Em, no. It's for the folk wanting change to convince those needing convinced about the merit of that change.

[Jack]

Your the one that is part of the better together campaign surely its your groups role to inform us why london rule is better than a potential edinburgh rule. So far I've yet to hear one thing from better together that would convince me that the status quo is the way to go

Sorry to interrupt here.

Could the Better Together folk point to anything in the recent past where Westminster has covered itself in glory which would give any indication of better times ahead?

For example my understanding, just on the financial side, is that the block grant the Scottish Government receives will be cut substantially, over and above the deficit cuts, as a result of, for example, England privatising public services like the NHS.

[J-C]

Em, no. It's for the folk wanting change to convince those needing convinced about the merit of that change.

Your surname isn't Wall by any chance, as having a discussion with you is like banging my head off one.

Surely both sides of the Independence discussion need to show why the votes showed go either one, simply be saying we're happy together so vote for us isn't an argument, you need to tell us why staying together would be better for our country.

[EuanH78]

I think you completely misunderstood my point. Very few specific areas of the UK (with populations of around 5m) will be represented properly using your critieria. That's the nature of having a parliament that covers more than a village.

It wouldn't be any different in an independent Scotland though. Shetland wouldn't be 'effectively represented'. The Highlands wouldn't be 'effectively represented'. Parts of the Borders wont be 'effectively represented'. Etc etc etc. Some of the central belt might be though.

By the way, Scotland contributes 59 seats to the current UK government and UK parliament opposition so I'd argue that your notion of 'effective representation' is wrong.

I understood your point perfectly - I was, however, being deliberately mischievous in pointing out that you have rather eloquently made my point for me, that is - the political spectrum of Scotland is markedly different from the political spectrum of the rest of the UK - therefor Scotland is misrepresented by the UK government. That is an in-controvertible fact. We have a situation where we either have

a) A government that has no mandate from the people of our country or,
b) we have an opposition that has no mandate from the people of our country.

I (as I have already stated) believe that for a government to work effectively it needs both.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your reductio ad absurdum re: the islands or borders, why wouldn't they be represented in a Scottish political spectrum that would follow independence? They are certain to be better represented than we (as a country) are now.

[yeezus.]

[/B]
StranraerH, I ken well that you are a young and enthused Labourite, but your post as quoted above is hugely insulting to many, many generations of hard-working, country-serving members of the SNP.

It's been my privilege to know a fair number of older generation SNP MPs and workers, including one of whom it was said that he was a man of 'translucent integrity'. To include such people in your 'infantile disease' comment is quite reprehensible.

I'm not insulting individual members of the SNP - I wouldn't dare do that. I have many friends who are nationalists. I was quoting Einstein on nationalism - which is I think is a very infantile disease. My sincere apologies if this comes across as an insult to individual nationalists.

[yeezus.]

Your the one that is part of the better together campaign surely its your groups role to inform us why london rule is better than a potential edinburgh rule. So far I've yet to hear one thing from better together that would convince me that the status quo is the way to go

It is you suggesting that we should separate therefore you should state why surely? I'll ask again, why would Edinburgh rule be so much better than London rule?

[yeezus.]

Sorry to interrupt here.

Could the Better Together folk point to anything in the recent past where Westminster has covered itself in glory which would give any indication of better times ahead?

For example my understanding, just on the financial side, is that the block grant the Scottish Government receives will be cut substantially, over and above the deficit cuts, as a result of, for example, England privatising public services like the NHS.

I would like to counter that with a few questions of my own...Better times ahead? Do you want us to pretend that the financial crash of the past 4 years hasn't happened? Hello, we have a massive deficit that needs to be reduced through public spending cuts and tax rises - should the Scottish block grant be exempt from these cuts?

Also, could you point out how England has privatised the NHS? As far as I'm aware there is no English government - only UK and devolved Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish administrations.

[lord bunberry]

It is you suggesting that we should separate therefore you should state why surely? I'll ask again, why would Edinburgh rule be so much better than London rule?

my reasons are that I believe it would be better to control our own affairs rather than be under the constraints of the UK parliament. I believe an independent Scotland would prosper without the baggage that comes with the union. I doubt we'd ever have to suffer another Tory government, David Cameron and George osbourne would no longer be able to tell me were in it together. I think Scotland would be able to manage our budget far better than the one size fits all approach that we currently have. These are some of my reasons you might not agree with them but your group is called better together so I ask again why are we better together

[yeezus.]

my reasons are that I believe it would be better to control our own affairs rather than be under the constraints of the UK parliament. I believe an independent Scotland would prosper without the baggage that comes with the union. I doubt we'd ever have to suffer another Tory government, David Cameron and George osbourne would no longer be able to tell me were in it together. I think Scotland would be able to manage our budget far better than the one size fits all approach that we currently have. These are some of my reasons you might not agree with them but your group is called better together so I ask again why are we better together

Even if we didn't have David Cameron and George Osbourne, do you not accept that any Scottish government post-independence would still probably have to make tough decisions on the economy? If so, then whoever was in charge would turn into the Tory party anyway.

We are better remaining in the UK because we are part of the 6th biggest economy in the world. We elect members to both Scottish and Westminster parliaments and I believe we have the best form of representation at both levels. I don't want the dozens of Scottish MP's at Westminster to be scrapped and replaced with one ambassador in a foreign country. When RBS crashed, UK taxpayers money was used to bail it out - we are financially stronger as part of the UK.

[Hibrandenburg]

Do you have any evidence that Edinburgh rule would be any better than London rule?

No, but if they **** up they could be held to account by the Scottish people. The same can't be said for Westminster.

[One Day Soon]

I have replied already but will again, historically England loved nothing more than to trample over the world grabbing all and sundry in it's path, they attempted on numerous occasions before 1707 to join the countries up and managed so when we were in a financially difficult position. The Welsh and N Irish have forced a devolution policy and have gained their own national Assemblies in 1998, as we did in that same year, it's no coincidence that these were a move away from English rule from the Parliament in London.

I don't see anything as anti English as you try to put it at every opportunity, it's a push towards gaining our identity and powers back, something which was given away in 1707 by foolish wealthy Scotsmen who tried to run before they could walk in the big world of world economy back in the late 1600's, causing riots all over Scotland at the time.

I actually find your anti Scottish digs at anyone who is proud to be Scottish and a yes voter truly sickening and makes me even prouder to be Scottish, each time you spew your pro English guff.


Dearie me.

You're quite right, 'the English' are an organised conspiracy. History has nothing to do with class, capitalism or the control of wealth. Its all been a plan of the dirty English.

As to your attempt to annex patriotism to those who see the world through separatist sunglasses, the equating of anyone not in favour of separation as being in some way pejoratively 'pro-English' is at best laughable and at worst pretty disturbing.

And for the record, I am pro-English. I like my neighbours, friends and relatives. You should too, they are our biggest marketplace.

[lord bunberry]

Even if we didn't have David Cameron and George Osbourne, do you not accept that any Scottish government post-independence would still probably have to make tough decisions on the economy? If so, then whoever was in charge would turn into the Tory party anyway.

We are better remaining in the UK because we are part of the 6th biggest economy in the world. We elect members to both Scottish and Westminster parliaments and I believe we have the best form of representation at both levels. I don't want the dozens of Scottish MP's at Westminster to be scrapped and replaced with one ambassador in a foreign country. When RBS crashed, UK taxpayers money was used to bail it out - we are financially stronger as part of the UK.

I think Scotland post independence would be very different from the current UK set up. Obviously some tough decisions would need to be made regarding our share of the debt but they would be decisions made by us to suite us. We wouldn't be committed to things like overseas aid and British military policy abroad.

[One Day Soon]

I think Scotland post independence would be very different from the current UK set up. Obviously some tough decisions would need to be made regarding our share of the debt but they would be decisions made by us to suite us. We wouldn't be committed to things like overseas aid and British military policy abroad.

We would not even be an afterthought in the collective economic decision making of the residual UK. A country whose economy would dwarf and dominate ours in terms of both volume and impact.

Just for a start, why would we want our interest rates, money supply and inflation rate to be determined by the state bank of a foreign country?

[J-C]

I would like to counter that with a few questions of my own...Better times ahead? Do you want us to pretend that the financial crash of the past 4 years hasn't happened? Hello, we have a massive deficit that needs to be reduced through public spending cuts and tax rises - should the Scottish block grant be exempt from these cuts?

Also, could you point out how England has privatised the NHS? As far as I'm aware there is no English government - only UK and devolved Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish administrations.


Unless you've been living in the dark ages, you should know that Scotland has a very different health service compared to England, also legal system and education system.

[J-C]

Dearie me.

You're quite right, 'the English' are an organised conspiracy. History has nothing to do with class, capitalism or the control of wealth. Its all been a plan of the dirty English.

As to your attempt to annex patriotism to those who see the world through separatist sunglasses, the equating of anyone not in favour of separation as being in some way pejoratively 'pro-English' is at best laughable and at worst pretty disturbing.

And for the record, I am pro-English. I like my neighbours, friends and relatives. You should too, they are our biggest marketplace.


You really should take the opportunity to read other posts, then you'd see the one I posted stating that I have many many friends south of the border, even relatives, them being English has nothing to do with this discussion but being ruled predominantly by a majority of English mp's who give very little regard towards our country has, purely political and zero % anti English towards the people themselves.

[lord bunberry]

We would not even be an afterthought in the collective economic decision making of the residual UK. A country whose economy would dwarf and dominate ours in terms of both volume and impact.

Just for a start, why would we want our interest rates, money supply and inflation rate to be determined by the state bank of a foreign country?

Why would it matter What the rest of the UK think of us once we have left.your point about the UK economy dwarfing and dominating ours is completely irrelevant, what matters is how we manage our own affairs post independence and how we go about creating a prosperous society for all. Regarding your point on currency it just makes sense to do it that way at first then move towards our own currency

[yeezus.]

I think Scotland post independence would be very different from the current UK set up. Obviously some tough decisions would need to be made regarding our share of the debt but they would be decisions made by us to suite us. We wouldn't be committed to things like overseas aid and British military policy abroad.

I'm not convinced. I trust that most Scots will vote to remain part of the UK on the grounds that we have a good devolved Scottish parliament with the "back up" of Westminster if need be.

Obviously these tough decisions would include public spending cuts and tax rises?

[yeezus.]

Unless you've been living in the dark ages, you should know that Scotland has a very different health service compared to England, also legal system and education system.

England is not privatising the NHS - that was a false statement.

[lord bunberry]

I'm not convinced. I trust that most Scots will vote to remain part of the UK on the grounds that we have a good devolved Scottish parliament with the "back up" of Westminster if need be.

Obviously these tough decisions would include public spending cuts and tax rises?

I don't really see Westminster as back up, I see it more as a controlling influence

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not convinced. I trust that most Scots will vote to remain part of the UK on the grounds that we have a good devolved Scottish parliament with the "back up" of Westminster if need be.

Obviously these tough decisions would include public spending cuts and tax rises?

If the figures mentioned often on here (from the Red Book) are to be believed, Scotland has a net surplus. That means that there is more likelihood of tax cuts, or spending increases, or a combination of both.

[yeezus.]

I don't really see Westminster as back up, I see it more as a controlling influence

I disagree. Scotland has quite a lot of control already - therefore devolution is a good idea without taking the risk of independence.

[lord bunberry]

I disagree. Scotland has quite a lot of control already - therefore devolution is a good idea without taking the risk of independence.

In my opinion if we don't take this opportunity we will regret it for the rest of our lives. I realise not everyone is going to agree with me but for me its a chance we must take

[allmodcons]

No, but if they **** up they could be held to account by the Scottish people. The same can't be said for Westminster.

:agree: The ironic thing is the argument put about that Scottish Nationalism is the politics of 'girn and grievance' when the central theme of an Independent Scotland would see us taking decisions as a 'grown up' state and accepting full responsibilty for the policies implemented in the country. You are absolutely correct, any Government in an Independent Scotlland would be fully held to account by the Scottish electorate and, indeed, would have no place to 'hide'.

[Jack]

I would like to counter that with a few questions of my own...Better times ahead? Do you want us to pretend that the financial crash of the past 4 years hasn't happened? Hello, we have a massive deficit that needs to be reduced through public spending cuts and tax rises - should the Scottish block grant be exempt from these cuts?

Also, could you point out how England has privatised the NHS? As far as I'm aware there is no English government - only UK and devolved Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish administrations.

With regard to the deficit I agree a share would remain with Scotland if it becomes independent. The issue is if it does not. With England spending less as a result of privatisation of services Scotlands block grant, calculated as a percentage of what is spent in England, not rUK, becomes less irrespective of how much money is generated in Scotland - which we have been advised is currently greater than what is spent in this country. So we end up in a position were we continue to generate more but receive less. But that's a little by the by.

The block grant takes a double whammy. Deficit cuts and then cuts as a result of reduced spending.

As the NHS is the responsibility of each devolved country that you mentioned it is left to the government in London, I should have said Westminster earlier, to make the policy for England.

They have decided to go in a different direction from the devolved countries - a very different way from Scotland. That was the reasoning behind my earlier statement. It is a stark reminder of the political differences in each devolved country in comparison with the English controlled Westminster and good cause for Scotland to determine its own future. IMO :-)

[Beefster]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your reductio ad absurdum re: the islands or borders, why wouldn't they be represented in a Scottish political spectrum that would follow independence? They are certain to be better represented than we (as a country) are now.

Can you explain where the absurdity is in my argument?

The Highlands, Islands and the Borders generally vote for Tory or Lib Dem. Currently in Scotland the SNP and Labour are the two largest parties so these regions will never have effective representation using your [suspect] criteria. How will they be better represented in an independent Scotland if measured by your criteria?

Where do you get this notion that a region should vote for the government and the opposition to be effectively represented anyway? I'd imagine that's almost impossible unless you have a two party system and even then it won't happen all the time. Are there even many regions in England that have your version of effective representation?

[J-C]

Can you explain where the absurdity is in my argument?

The Highlands, Islands and the Borders generally vote for Tory or Lib Dem. Currently in Scotland the SNP and Labour are the two largest parties so these regions will never have effective representation using your [suspect] criteria. How will they be better represented in an independent Scotland if measured by your criteria?

Where do you get this notion that a region should vote for the government and the opposition to be effectively represented anyway? I'd imagine that's almost impossible unless you have a two party system and even then it won't happen all the time. Are there even many regions in England that have your version of effective representation?

Maybe the fact that if we were run by a parliament in Edinburgh purely for all things Scottish, all peoples of Scotland will be represented rather than feeling like pluke on the end of a nose and a hindrance to the big wigs of the parliament in London.

[yeezus.]

Maybe the fact that if we were run by a parliament in Edinburgh purely for all things Scottish, all peoples of Scotland will be represented rather than feeling like pluke on the end of a nose and a hindrance to the big wigs of the parliament in London.

Sorry but this is nonsense. In case you haven't noticed, we already have a devolved Scottish parliament and so far I have read absolutely nothing to say that we would be "better" represented in an Edinburgh parliament than we currently are at Westminster.

[yeezus.]

In my opinion if we don't take this opportunity we will regret it for the rest of our lives. I realise not everyone is going to agree with me but for me its a chance we must take

I hate to sound like the guy who drinks water at his 21st birthday party but it's too big a risk.

[marinello59]

Maybe the fact that if we were run by a parliament in Edinburgh purely for all things Scottish, all peoples of Scotland will be represented rather than feeling like pluke on the end of a nose and a hindrance to the big wigs of the parliament in London.

We could point out that relative to our population size Scots have punched well above our weight when it comes to attaining positions of real power and influence at Westminster. And then we could argue that if we could have a Scottish Government full of all that talent the future for an Independent Scotland would indeed be bright.
A bit too positive for you perhaps? Big wigs in London? A pluke on the end of their nose? Wearing a big chip on our shoulders whilst giving a demonstration of what constitutes the Scottish cringe ain't going to bring anybody over from the No camp in to the Yes camp.

[J-C]

Sorry but this is nonsense. In case you haven't noticed, we already have a devolved Scottish parliament and so far I have read absolutely nothing to say that we would be "better" represented in an Edinburgh parliament than we currently are at Westminster.

Indeed we do but with a very limited mandate of power, as has been noted elsewhere we are giving a lot more than what we get back from central government, with all powers being in Scotland using all monies raised we would be better off, just my opinion.

[J-C]

We could point out that relative to our population size Scots have punched well above our weight when it comes to attaining positions of real power and influence at Westminster. And then we could argue that if we could have a Scottish Government full of all that talent the future for an Independent Scotland would indeed be bright.
A bit too positive for you perhaps? Big wigs in London? A pluke on the end of their nose? Wearing a big chip on our shoulders whilst giving a demonstration of what constitutes the Scottish cringe ain't going to bring anybody over from the No camp in to the Yes camp.

Unfortunately that's how a lot of Scots feel, whether you like it of not, I aint on here to try and change minds, I'm no politician, I'm a Scot who wants self government and believe it's the best way forward, you and many like yourself see it otherwise but occasionally certain posters can be a bit pig headed and the debate gets either too heated or abusive, not something that want.

[Hibrandenburg]

Unfortunately that's how a lot of Scots feel, whether you like it of not, I aint on here to try and change minds, I'm no politician, I'm a Scot who wants self government and believe it's the best way forward, you and many like yourself see it otherwise but occasionally certain posters can be a bit pig headed and the debate gets either too heated or abusive, not something that want.

Unfortunately some folks see a pro Scottish stance as being anti English.
Wanting to go our own way must be about self determination and taking credit and blame for our own success/failures and not blaming everything that goes wrong on the big boy next door. Until we try then we'll never know.

[lord bunberry]

I hate to sound like the guy who drinks water at his 21st birthday party but it's too big a risk.

Is that what you really believe or are you like many people just towing the party line

[RyeSloan]

Unfortunately some folks see a pro Scottish stance as being anti English.
Wanting to go our own way must be about self determination and taking credit and blame for our own success/failures and not blaming everything that goes wrong on the big boy next door. Until we try then we'll never know.

Apart from when our largest trading 'partner' sets out an aggressive and concerted campaign to take Scottish jobs or the dominant player in the monetary union follows policies that are detrimental to Scotland.....

From what I can see we can never be independent of the UK...it would automatically become our biggest export market so our future may well depend on it whether we were governed from Westminster or Edinburgh.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if Westminster abolished corp tax and printed more money to pay for it...pushing up inflation for Scotland while at the same time taking businesses south. Sure Scotland could respond but with the relative size of the Economies it would be hard.

Conversely Scotland could attempt a similar move on the UK but to be honest I've seen most pro independence economic chat focussing on more government spending and intervention not on an aggressive private sector expansion so I wouldn't be holding my breath for that.

In the end of the day I reckon a lot of people will settle for the devil they know and that the yes campaign still has a significant amount of work to so to persuade these people otherwise.

[lord bunberry]

Apart from when our largest trading 'partner' sets out an aggressive and concerted campaign to take Scottish jobs or the dominant player in the monetary union follows policies that are detrimental to Scotland.....

From what I can see we can never be independent of the UK...it would automatically become our biggest export market so our future may well depend on it whether we were governed from Westminster or Edinburgh.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if Westminster abolished corp tax and printed more money to pay for it...pushing up inflation for Scotland while at the same time taking businesses south. Sure Scotland could respond but with the relative size of the Economies it would be hard.

Conversely Scotland could attempt a similar move on the UK but to be honest I've seen most pro independence economic chat focussing on more government spending and intervention not on an aggressive private sector expansion so I wouldn't be holding my breath for that.

In the end of the day I reckon a lot of people will settle for the devil they know and that the yes campaign still has a significant amount of work to so to persuade these people otherwise.

Ireland is currently our biggest export market from the UK but we don't do anything to try and squeeze the Irish. Scotland would become one of the UK's biggest markets after independence so it would make no sense to do any of the things you suggest

[yeezus.]

Is that what you really believe or are you like many people just towing the party line

It's what I genuinely believe. I think we are better off as part of a United Kingdom. But yes that is the Labour party line :greengrin

[yeezus.]

Indeed we do but with a very limited mandate of power, as has been noted elsewhere we are giving a lot more than what we get back from central government, with all powers being in Scotland using all monies raised we would be better off, just my opinion.

I disagree - we don't have limited powers. The Scottish gov. has plenty of control and I am yet to see evidence that independence would leave us better off. Whoever was in gov. post-independence would still have to make tough economic decisions - therefore all the free services we currently enjoy could be put at risk.

[Beefster]

Unfortunately some folks see a pro Scottish stance as being anti English.
Wanting to go our own way must be about self determination and taking credit and blame for our own success/failures and not blaming everything that goes wrong on the big boy next door. Until we try then we'll never know.

I'm pro-Scottish and have a pro-Scottish stance. Another example of the 'independence supporters are more Scottish' implication that runs through a lot of the nationalist chat IMHO.

I do have an English wife though and I've seen far too many examples of anti-English abuse dressed up as pro-Scottish 'banter'.

[yeezus.]

I'm pro-Scottish and have a pro-Scottish stance. Another example of the 'independence supporters are more Scottish' implication that runs through a lot of the nationalist chat IMHO.

I do have an English wife though and I've seen far too many examples of anti-English abuse dressed up as pro-Scottish 'banter'.

:agree: I knew a lassie from London when I stayed in Aberdeen. One night we shared a taxi back to halls and the driver and I got talking about Scottish independence. When she tried to make a contribution he basically told her she had no right to as she was from London.

[Hibs Class]

Maybe the fact that if we were run by a parliament in Edinburgh purely for all things Scottish, all peoples of Scotland will be represented rather than feeling like pluke on the end of a nose and a hindrance to the big wigs of the parliament in London.

Does that mean you would want an independent Scotland to be in or out of the EU?

[southfieldhibby]

Are you sure? At the 2010 general election, Scotland might have rejected the Conservative party but we didn't embrace the SNP - we overwhelmingly voted Labour (rightly, in my eyes.)

The Scottish electorate aren't daft.The SNP never does well in GE's.




.

I do have an English wife though and I've seen far too many examples of anti-English abuse dressed up as pro-Scottish 'banter'.

My dad is English and lives in Edinburgh, the number of times he's stopped me commenting on wee snides is shocking.The same does happen in England,though, which goes to show, both countries have their share of dafties.

[lord bunberry]

It's what I genuinely believe. I think we are better off as part of a United Kingdom. But yes that is the Labour party line :greengrin

So what is it about independence that you think is to risky. You admitted earlier that you think that Scotland would be ok financially

[yeezus.]

So what is it about independence that you think is to risky. You admitted earlier that you think that Scotland would be ok financially

I admitted that Scotland could manage in a certain situation. However, given the scale of the UK's debt it is a bad idea. Scotland would inherit our share of the debt, the cost of removing nuclear weapons from the Clyde would be billions, we would be too dependent on oil and therefore subject to major shifts in global commodity prices. We would be leaving the 6th biggest economy in the world at a time when I think it is more important to stick with the UK on economic grounds.

[yeezus.]

So what is it about independence that you think is to risky. You admitted earlier that you think that Scotland would be ok financially

Also, as someone who is unemployed - I look at the rest of the UK and see thousands of young people in a similar situation to me and the idea that breaking away from them is going to do anyone any good doesn't strike me as sensible.

[southfieldhibby]

I admitted that Scotland could manage in a certain situation. However, given the scale of the UK's debt it is a bad idea. Scotland would inherit our share of the debt, the cost of removing nuclear weapons from the Clyde would be billions, we would be too dependent on oil and therefore subject to major shifts in global commodity prices. We would be leaving the 6th biggest economy in the world at a time when I think it is more important to stick with the UK on economic grounds.

£1Billion of bank bailouts

Removing nukes, dunno how much that costs, but given they're driven down to England on the back of lorries on a regular basis, not very much.

Too dependent on oil...a common issue for the saudi's,qataries and norwegians, you often see them worried about having huge natural resources.

Stick with an economy that's being downgraded, that offers nothing really...what do they contribute?the City of London...that's it as far as I can tell.


Also, as someone who is unemployed - I look at the rest of the UK and see thousands of young people in a similar situation to me and the idea that breaking away from them is going to do anyone any good doesn't strike me as sensible.

So your unemployed, yet your not prepared to see if another way will work?Can't see the tories woking on job creation in Stranraer any time soon...why not give Holyrood the tools to have a shot?

[yeezus.]

£1Billion of bank bailouts

Removing nukes, dunno how much that costs, but given they're driven down to England on the back of lorries on a regular basis, not very much.

Too dependent on oil...a common issue for the saudi's,qataries and norwegians, you often see them worried about having huge natural resources.

Stick with an economy that's being downgraded, that offers nothing really...what do they contribute?the City of London...that's it as far as I can tell.



So your unemployed, yet your not prepared to see if another way will work?Can't see the tories woking on job creation in Stranraer any time soon...why not give Holyrood the tools to have a shot?

I would hardly say facing unemployment is an incentive to vote for separation. No gov. could create jobs in Stranraer, with the ferry gone there is absolutely no reason for people to come here!

[southfieldhibby]

I would hardly say facing unemployment is an incentive to vote for separation. No gov. could create jobs in Stranraer, with the ferry gone there is absolutely no reason for people to come here!

I'd say the potential for job creation is pretty near the top of my list when it comes to self determination. Sounds like you have nothing to lose, why not take a punt on an independent country providing better life choices for you?

[allmodcons]

I admitted that Scotland could manage in a certain situation. However, given the scale of the UK's debt it is a bad idea. Scotland would inherit our share of the debt, the cost of removing nuclear weapons from the Clyde would be billions, we would be too dependent on oil and therefore subject to major shifts in global commodity prices. We would be leaving the 6th biggest economy in the world at a time when I think it is more important to stick with the UK on economic grounds.

You should really stop trotting out this '6th biggest economy in the world' nonsense. This is an Alistair Darling line. We all know 'big isn't necessary beautiful'. By that logic you should be supporting a European Superstate! Do you think small independent countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, The Netherlands and even Iceland and Ireland are looking on in envy at the '6th largest economy in the world' right now? Italy is the 8th largest economy in world and they really are in a horrible place at the moment. I suspect their northern neighbours (i.e. - Switzerland and Austria) are somewhat glad to be small independent states in their own right.

[Jack]

Apart from when our largest trading 'partner' sets out an aggressive and concerted campaign to take Scottish jobs or the dominant player in the monetary union follows policies that are detrimental to Scotland.....

From what I can see we can never be independent of the UK...it would automatically become our biggest export market so our future may well depend on it whether we were governed from Westminster or Edinburgh.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if Westminster abolished corp tax and printed more money to pay for it...pushing up inflation for Scotland while at the same time taking businesses south. Sure Scotland could respond but with the relative size of the Economies it would be hard.

Conversely Scotland could attempt a similar move on the UK but to be honest I've seen most pro independence economic chat focussing on more government spending and intervention not on an aggressive private sector expansion so I wouldn't be holding my breath for that.

In the end of the day I reckon a lot of people will settle for the devil they know and that the yes campaign still has a significant amount of work to so to persuade these people otherwise.

As others have said about the Irish angle and how other nations who have split amicably have got on. The final part of the Edinburgh Agreement states quite clearly that post the vote Westminster and Holyrood would have a grown up attitude towards the negotiations and what happens after.

No I know its bloody hard to believe politicians would behave like grown ups and be honest but I cant really see this as the part of the agreement that gets broken.


I disagree - we don't have limited powers. The Scottish gov. has plenty of control and I am yet to see evidence that independence would leave us better off. Whoever was in gov. post-independence would still have to make tough economic decisions - therefore all the free services we currently enjoy could be put at risk.

I would once again use the example of the NHS in Scotland as an example of how the two parliaments work.

In England the systems the government are imposing are almost universally hated by the clinicians and others that work in the NHS. There has been little or no negotiation. There is a real fear in the NHS down there that the whole thing is going to destroy the NHS. As an example of this provocative attitude when the BMA were negotiating over GPs wages no agreement was reached and the deal was imposed in England.

Oh how they laugh when the Boy David tells all that will listen about the gem that is the NHS.

In Scotland the SNP made it clear very early (2007) that clinicians others that work in the NHS and patients must be at the centre of all decisions affecting the NHS. This has been happening for a few years now. The NHS in Scotland is fairly stable and the link between the Government and the NHS has never been stronger. The Scottish negotiators taking part in the UK negotiations were told to come home and thrash out a Scottish deal. 2 or 3 weeks later a negotiated deal was in place. This deal, among other things, excluded parts of the English imposition that didn’t make any sense and that would have been impossible to administer.

In Wales and NI they followed the Scottish lead.

I have been at conferences and heard with my own ears Scottish politicians being cheered and a few minutes/hours later the jeering for the English politicians.

I know where I’d want to be ill.

.................................................. ..............................................

I should point out I have a conflict of interest here.

I am English.

I would like to see Scotland be an independent country.

This is because I firmly believe this is where I want to live and where I want my children to grow up.

I firmly believe that Scotland and the Scots have everything they need in this country in terms of people and resource to become even better than we are as part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland and the Scots have given the world the basics of almost everything it has in terms of civilisation in the modern era. There is nothing to fear from the years ahead IF we go as partners in a world, with our old friends welcoming a new nation.

[yeezus.]

You should really stop trotting out this '6th biggest economy in the world' nonsense. This is an Alistair Darling line. We all know 'big isn't necessary beautiful'. By that logic you should be supporting a European Superstate! Do you think small independent countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, The Netherlands and even Iceland and Ireland are looking on in envy at the '6th largest economy in the world' right now? Italy is the 8th largest economy in world and they really are in a horrible place at the moment. I suspect their northern neighbours (i.e. - Switzerland and Austria) are somewhat glad to be small independent states in their own right.

I won't take any lectures on the economy from the SNP that's for sure. I know how much you lot like to compare Scotland to other failing economies such as the Irish republic and Iceland.

[Hibbyradge]

I've found myself wondering if anyone has been persuaded by the arguments on this thread or is it just hot air for the joy of it?

I then found myself if the campaigns will have any marked effect on voters' intentions or will they be a waste of money and effort?

[yeezus.]

I'd say the potential for job creation is pretty near the top of my list when it comes to self determination. Sounds like you have nothing to lose, why not take a punt on an independent country providing better life choices for you?

This is the point - there is no evidence that an independent country would mean better life choices. I haven't seen anything from the Yes campaign to persuade me that an independent Scotland would be so much better for jobs. I'll stick with the UK on the basis that Labour may have a majority come 2015.

[yeezus.]

As others have said about the Irish angle and how other nations who have split amicably have got on. The final part of the Edinburgh Agreement states quite clearly that post the vote Westminster and Holyrood would have a grown up attitude towards the negotiations and what happens after.

No I know its bloody hard to believe politicians would behave like grown ups and be honest but I cant really see this as the part of the agreement that gets broken.



I would once again use the example of the NHS in Scotland as an example of how the two parliaments work.

In England the systems the government are imposing are almost universally hated by the clinicians and others that work in the NHS. There has been little or no negotiation. There is a real fear in the NHS down there that the whole thing is going to destroy the NHS. As an example of this provocative attitude when the BMA were negotiating over GPs wages no agreement was reached and the deal was imposed in England.

Oh how they laugh when the Boy David tells all that will listen about the gem that is the NHS.

In Scotland the SNP made it clear very early (2007) that clinicians others that work in the NHS and patients must be at the centre of all decisions affecting the NHS. This has been happening for a few years now. The NHS in Scotland is fairly stable and the link between the Government and the NHS has never been stronger. The Scottish negotiators taking part in the UK negotiations were told to come home and thrash out a Scottish deal. 2 or 3 weeks later a negotiated deal was in place. This deal, among other things, excluded parts of the English imposition that didn’t make any sense and that would have been impossible to administer.

In Wales and NI they followed the Scottish lead.

I have been at conferences and heard with my own ears Scottish politicians being cheered and a few minutes/hours later the jeering for the English politicians.

I know where I’d want to be ill.

.................................................. ..............................................

I should point out I have a conflict of interest here.

I am English.

I would like to see Scotland be an independent country.

This is because I firmly believe this is where I want to live and where I want my children to grow up.

I firmly believe that Scotland and the Scots have everything they need in this country in terms of people and resource to become even better than we are as part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland and the Scots have given the world the basics of almost everything it has in terms of civilisation in the modern era. There is nothing to fear from the years ahead IF we go as partners in a world, with our old friends welcoming a new nation.


I'm not suggesting that the Yes campaign or SNP are anti-English by the way, the taxi driver story was just an example of the sort of attitudes I think nationalism spurs on. Also, my mother is English and she wants to see Scotland become an independent country.

[EuanH78]

Can you explain where the absurdity is in my argument?

The Highlands, Islands and the Borders generally vote for Tory or Lib Dem. Currently in Scotland the SNP and Labour are the two largest parties so these regions will never have effective representation using your [suspect] criteria. How will they be better represented in an independent Scotland if measured by your criteria?

Where do you get this notion that a region should vote for the government and the opposition to be effectively represented anyway? I'd imagine that's almost impossible unless you have a two party system and even then it won't happen all the time. Are there even many regions in England that have your version of effective representation?

Well, as a starter for ten you like to compare Scotland to a region or better a collection of small islands. I think you mentioned a village a couple of posts back too.

Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom in case you missed it, not a region of England or A N Other. As for the political representation of Birmingham (for example), personally I couldn't give a fish's tit. Not my business, I am concerned with how Scotland is represented though.

[lord bunberry]

I won't take any lectures on the economy from the SNP that's for sure. I know how much you lot like to compare Scotland to other failing economies such as the Irish republic and Iceland.

In what way is icelands economy failing

[Hibrandenburg]

As others have said about the Irish angle and how other nations who have split amicably have got on. The final part of the Edinburgh Agreement states quite clearly that post the vote Westminster and Holyrood would have a grown up attitude towards the negotiations and what happens after.

No I know its bloody hard to believe politicians would behave like grown ups and be honest but I cant really see this as the part of the agreement that gets broken.



I would once again use the example of the NHS in Scotland as an example of how the two parliaments work.

In England the systems the government are imposing are almost universally hated by the clinicians and others that work in the NHS. There has been little or no negotiation. There is a real fear in the NHS down there that the whole thing is going to destroy the NHS. As an example of this provocative attitude when the BMA were negotiating over GPs wages no agreement was reached and the deal was imposed in England.

Oh how they laugh when the Boy David tells all that will listen about the gem that is the NHS.

In Scotland the SNP made it clear very early (2007) that clinicians others that work in the NHS and patients must be at the centre of all decisions affecting the NHS. This has been happening for a few years now. The NHS in Scotland is fairly stable and the link between the Government and the NHS has never been stronger. The Scottish negotiators taking part in the UK negotiations were told to come home and thrash out a Scottish deal. 2 or 3 weeks later a negotiated deal was in place. This deal, among other things, excluded parts of the English imposition that didn’t make any sense and that would have been impossible to administer.

In Wales and NI they followed the Scottish lead.

I have been at conferences and heard with my own ears Scottish politicians being cheered and a few minutes/hours later the jeering for the English politicians.

I know where I’d want to be ill.

.................................................. ..............................................

I should point out I have a conflict of interest here.

I am English.

I would like to see Scotland be an independent country.

This is because I firmly believe this is where I want to live and where I want my children to grow up.

I firmly believe that Scotland and the Scots have everything they need in this country in terms of people and resource to become even better than we are as part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland and the Scots have given the world the basics of almost everything it has in terms of civilisation in the modern era. There is nothing to fear from the years ahead IF we go as partners in a world, with our old friends welcoming a new nation.

Excellent post! Hope you feel at home. That last bit about your personal conflict brought a wee tear to my eye.

[southfieldhibby]

This is the point - there is no evidence that an independent country would mean better life choices. I haven't seen anything from the Yes campaign to persuade me that an independent Scotland would be so much better for jobs. I'll stick with the UK on the basis that Labour may have a majority come 2015.

Labour Majority in 2015...lolz

[Beefster]

I know where I’d want to be ill.

We've had folk on both sides of our family ill in Scotland and England with fairly similar complaints. There isn't much difference between the two - good NHS staff are good NHS staff, bad NHS staff are bad NHS staff. Given the recent problems with Lothians NHS, I don't think we're in a position to be trashing anyone else.

[yeezus.]

In what way is icelands economy failing

It collapsed in 2008 - that's when Alex Salmond stopped the whole "arc of prosperity" crap.

[lord bunberry]

It collapsed in 2008 - that's when Alex Salmond stopped the whole "arc of prosperity" crap.

They let their banks fail but since then their economy has bounced back and is currently outperforming ours. Unemployment is only 5%. Their government wrote off everyone's mortgage as well. I wish our economy had collapsed

[Beefster]

They let their banks fail but since then their economy has bounced back and is currently outperforming ours. Unemployment is only 5%. Their government wrote off everyone's mortgage as well. I wish our economy had collapsed

Internet myth AFAIK.

[One Day Soon]

As others have said about the Irish angle and how other nations who have split amicably have got on. The final part of the Edinburgh Agreement states quite clearly that post the vote Westminster and Holyrood would have a grown up attitude towards the negotiations and what happens after.

No I know its bloody hard to believe politicians would behave like grown ups and be honest but I cant really see this as the part of the agreement that gets broken.



I would once again use the example of the NHS in Scotland as an example of how the two parliaments work.

In England the systems the government are imposing are almost universally hated by the clinicians and others that work in the NHS. There has been little or no negotiation. There is a real fear in the NHS down there that the whole thing is going to destroy the NHS. As an example of this provocative attitude when the BMA were negotiating over GPs wages no agreement was reached and the deal was imposed in England.

Oh how they laugh when the Boy David tells all that will listen about the gem that is the NHS.

In Scotland the SNP made it clear very early (2007) that clinicians others that work in the NHS and patients must be at the centre of all decisions affecting the NHS. This has been happening for a few years now. The NHS in Scotland is fairly stable and the link between the Government and the NHS has never been stronger. The Scottish negotiators taking part in the UK negotiations were told to come home and thrash out a Scottish deal. 2 or 3 weeks later a negotiated deal was in place. This deal, among other things, excluded parts of the English imposition that didn’t make any sense and that would have been impossible to administer.

In Wales and NI they followed the Scottish lead.

I have been at conferences and heard with my own ears Scottish politicians being cheered and a few minutes/hours later the jeering for the English politicians.

I know where I’d want to be ill.

.................................................. ..............................................

I should point out I have a conflict of interest here.

I am English.

I would like to see Scotland be an independent country.

This is because I firmly believe this is where I want to live and where I want my children to grow up.

I firmly believe that Scotland and the Scots have everything they need in this country in terms of people and resource to become even better than we are as part of the United Kingdom.

Scotland and the Scots have given the world the basics of almost everything it has in terms of civilisation in the modern era. There is nothing to fear from the years ahead IF we go as partners in a world, with our old friends welcoming a new nation.


You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

[Hibrandenburg]

You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

Cool, maybe we can even win the football world cup again?

[yeezus.]

They let their banks fail but since then their economy has bounced back and is currently outperforming ours. Unemployment is only 5%. Their government wrote off everyone's mortgage as well. I wish our economy had collapsed

The point is, the SNP had to backtrack. I look forward to TV debates on the issue!

[allmodcons]

Can you explain where the absurdity is in my argument?

The Highlands, Islands and the Borders generally vote for Tory or Lib Dem. Currently in Scotland the SNP and Labour are the two largest parties so these regions will never have effective representation using your [suspect] criteria. How will they be better represented in an independent Scotland if measured by your criteria?

Where do you get this notion that a region should vote for the government and the opposition to be effectively represented anyway? I'd imagine that's almost impossible unless you have a two party system and even then it won't happen all the time. Are there even many regions in England that have your version of effective representation?

Did check out voting at the last Scottish Election before posting. The SNP all but cleaned up in the Highalnds & Islands!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011

[allmodcons]

The point is, the SNP had to backtrack. I look forward to TV debates on the issue!

No, the point is that Iceland's tiny economy is coping much better with the financial/banking crisis than the '6th largest economy in the world'.

[Just Alf]

No, the point is that Iceland's tiny economy is coping much better with the financial/banking crisis than the '6th largest economy in the world'.

As already mentioned, size isn't everything (oerrr missus).... I'm sure I read a few months ago that Brazil had overtaken the UK in size of economy yet we are still giving them aid?

[Beefster]

Did check out voting at the last Scottish Election before posting. The SNP all but cleaned up in the Highalnds & Islands!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011

I was talking about general election results, seeing as we were talking about the UK parliament but fair enough, we're never going to agree anyway!

[Jack]

I'm not suggesting that the Yes campaign or SNP are anti-English by the way, the taxi driver story was just an example of the sort of attitudes I think nationalism spurs on. Also, my mother is English and she wants to see Scotland become an independent country.

Neither am I. I am enjoying a grown up, open and fair debate. I think in comparison with the media and other places the discussions here and the Bounce have been of a decent quality.

I was just making it clear where I am personally in case I was written off as some looney nationalist. Fact is I have never voted SNP and probably never will.

[Jack]

We've had folk on both sides of our family ill in Scotland and England with fairly similar complaints. There isn't much difference between the two - good NHS staff are good NHS staff, bad NHS staff are bad NHS staff. Given the recent problems with Lothians NHS, I don't think we're in a position to be trashing anyone else.

We digress and I'll agree with you that there are great people working all over the NHS.

I know a bit about Lothian (not through my work to be absolutely clear) and it does seem to be pretty shoddy, a bad series of links in a chain.

[Jack]

You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

Or just think of where we could have been now ;-)

[J-C]

We've had folk on both sides of our family ill in Scotland and England with fairly similar complaints. There isn't much difference between the two - good NHS staff are good NHS staff, bad NHS staff are bad NHS staff. Given the recent problems with Lothians NHS, I don't think we're in a position to be trashing anyone else.

I just came out of hospital a week past friday after having my hip replaced, the staff were fantastic the same as the last time I was in, we had an outbreak of the norovirus in our ward, just round the corner from us. There was zero panic just a professional attitude to it, a wee quiet word to everyone not to go through certain doors and to wash our with soap instead of hand washes. We have led the world in hospital care and medicine for hundreds of years and it still shows in our medical care today.

[J-C]

I think a lot of people are still mistaking the Union of the UK as a merging of countries, it has never been that, it has and always will be a merging of parliaments.

Our countries are separate, hence why we still have different health services, legal systems and education, it's the fiscal merger of parliaments that happened in 1707, we are not splitting from England, N Ireland or Wales as we've never been part of them, we want a split from Westminster so we can take over the running of our country again.

As we are part of the EU, would any of the No voters on here gladly pull out of the EU, due to them not being happy with the way it's being run. if so, then is that not simply the same thing as we're asking, in fact Mr Cameron said something very similar not too long ago, he wasn't happy with the monies we are paying and suggested having a vote to decide if we wanted to stay part of the EU. I must admit I thought it was a bit double standards at the time as this is what we were asking for and he was trying to say we should be sticking together.

[yeezus.]

Neither am I. I am enjoying a grown up, open and fair debate. I think in comparison with the media and other places the discussions here and the Bounce have been of a decent quality.

I was just making it clear where I am personally in case I was written off as some looney nationalist. Fact is I have never voted SNP and probably never will.

Funnily enough I just got my first leaflet of the campaign through the door! I have a pile of Better Together leaflets in my room that I still need to deliver. I was well up for a debate with the Yes leafleter but it was a wee lassie so I thought I better keep my mouth shut for once.

[ancienthibby]

Funnily enough I just got my first leaflet of the campaign through the door! I have a pile of Better Together leaflets in my room that I still need to deliver. I was well up for a debate with the Yes leafleter but it was a wee lassie so I thought I better keep my mouth shut for once.

'it was a wee lassie' - want to try that one again, Stranraer?

Mind you, you were probably right to avoid an 'independence debate with the 'wee lassie', if your well-rehearsed habit of quoting unendlessly from the Liebor's Campaigner's Manual of (so-called) Hard-Hitting Claims against the Case for Independence is indicative of the arguments you have to offer!

Score one for The Wee Lassie!

[Jack]

Funnily enough I just got my first leaflet of the campaign through the door! I have a pile of Better Together leaflets in my room that I still need to deliver. I was well up for a debate with the Yes leafleter but it was a wee lassie so I thought I better keep my mouth shut for once.

Did wee Nikki Sturgeon not hail from somewhere down your way.

I met a guy the other week who was ages with her and told how parents swapped children for baby sitting purposes.

From an early age Miss Sturgeon was a force to be reckoned with when debating.

Hell mend you if you had picked on the likes of her :-D :-D

[yeezus.]

[/B]
'it was a wee lassie' - want to try that one again, Stranraer?

Mind you, you were probably right to avoid an 'independence debate with the 'wee lassie', if your well-rehearsed habit of quoting unendlessly from the Liebor's Campaigner's Manual of (so-called) Hard-Hitting Claims against the Case for Independence is indicative of the arguments you have to offer!

Score one for The Wee Lassie!

:thumbsup: very good. She is one nil up then.

[yeezus.]

Did wee Nikki Sturgeon not hail from somewhere down your way.

I met a guy the other week who was ages with her and told how parents swapped children for baby sitting purposes.

From an early age Miss Sturgeon was a force to be reckoned with when debating.

Hell mend you if you had picked on the likes of her :-D :-D

haha Just as well I kept my mouth shut I think! I always have a copy of the Labour party manifesto handy for political visitors.

[ancienthibby]

:thumbsup: very good. She is one nil up then.

:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Did wee Nikki Sturgeon not hail from somewhere down your way.

I met a guy the other week who was ages with her and told how parents swapped children for baby sitting purposes.

From an early age Miss Sturgeon was a force to be reckoned with when debating.

Hell mend you if you had picked on the likes of her :-D :-D

She certainly got it up Labour today in Parliament.

[ancienthibby]

You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

You're having a wee ODS joke here, right?

So Scotland contributed nothing to the World before the Union of 1707?

What about the Reformation which set-up schools in every parish of the country?

What about our already established universities, starting with St Andrews which was up and running 300 years before the Union?

Followed by Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, all at least 250 years before the Union?

And then what about the Renaissance in Scotland when there was a flowering of intellectual, literary and poetic talent in the country?

What about William Dunbar, the great poet, along with the work of the makars and Sir David Lindsay, the architecture and construction of Linlithgow palace, for example?

The groundworks for the flowering of Scottish intellectual talent through later generations, was soundly created in this period through literature,poetry, law, medicine and philosophy based on the hugely significant education of the Scottish people through their well-established universities.

Oh, and Leith was a trading port with Europe since the early 14th century, especially in wine and port.

And Scotland had its innovators in banking, science and mathematics all before the disastrous Union.

And that Union only came about because the people of Scotland were not consulted. Instead corrupt Scottish nobles offered a few grubby coins by their masters south of the border accepted, and the bribe was completed.

'Bought and sold for English gold,
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation'.

[Hibrandenburg]

You're having a wee ODS joke here, right?

So Scotland contributed nothing to the World before the Union of 1707?

What about the Reformation which set-up schools in every parish of the country?

What about our already established universities, starting with St Andrews which was up and running 300 years before the Union?

Followed by Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, all at least 250 years before the Union?

And then what about the Renaissance in Scotland when there was a flowering of intellectual, literary and poetic talent in the country?

What about William Dunbar, the great poet, along with the work of the makars and Sir David Lindsay, the architecture and construction of Linlithgow palace, for example?

The groundworks for the flowering of Scottish intellectual talent through later generations, was soundly created in this period through literature,poetry, law, medicine and philosophy based on the hugely significant education of the Scottish people through their well-established universities.

Oh, and Leith was a trading port with Europe since the early 14th century, especially in wine and port.

And Scotland had its innovators in banking, science and mathematics all before the disastrous Union.

And that Union only came about because the people of Scotland were not consulted. Instead corrupt Scottish nobles offered a few grubby coins by their masters south of the border accepted, and the bribe was completed.

'Bought and sold for English gold,
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation'.

Was going to post something similar yesterday but couldn't be arsed, glad I didn't now because yours is so much better.

The Scottish Enlightenment took place despite the Union and not because of it.

[lord bunberry]

You're having a wee ODS joke here, right?

So Scotland contributed nothing to the World before the Union of 1707?

What about the Reformation which set-up schools in every parish of the country?

What about our already established universities, starting with St Andrews which was up and running 300 years before the Union?

Followed by Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, all at least 250 years before the Union?

And then what about the Renaissance in Scotland when there was a flowering of intellectual, literary and poetic talent in the country?

What about William Dunbar, the great poet, along with the work of the makars and Sir David Lindsay, the architecture and construction of Linlithgow palace, for example?

The groundworks for the flowering of Scottish intellectual talent through later generations, was soundly created in this period through literature,poetry, law, medicine and philosophy based on the hugely significant education of the Scottish people through their well-established universities.

Oh, and Leith was a trading port with Europe since the early 14th century, especially in wine and port.

And Scotland had its innovators in banking, science and mathematics all before the disastrous Union.

And that Union only came about because the people of Scotland were not consulted. Instead corrupt Scottish nobles offered a few grubby coins by their masters south of the border accepted, and the bribe was completed.

'Bought and sold for English gold,
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation'.

What he meant was apart from all that

[yeezus.]

She certainly got it up Labour today in Parliament.

I only recently started watching FMQ's again. Watching Iain Gray try to take on Alex Salmond was horrible for any Labourman to watch.

[Jack]

What he meant was apart from all that

Well someone could post all the inventors and what they gave the world :-)

[marinello59]

You're having a wee ODS joke here, right?

So Scotland contributed nothing to the World before the Union of 1707?What about the Reformation which set-up schools in every parish of the country?

What about our already established universities, starting with St Andrews which was up and running 300 years before the Union?

Followed by Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, all at least 250 years before the Union?

And then what about the Renaissance in Scotland when there was a flowering of intellectual, literary and poetic talent in the country?

What about William Dunbar, the great poet, along with the work of the makars and Sir David Lindsay, the architecture and construction of Linlithgow palace, for example?

The groundworks for the flowering of Scottish intellectual talent through later generations, was soundly created in this period through literature,poetry, law, medicine and philosophy based on the hugely significant education of the Scottish people through their well-established universities.

Oh, and Leith was a trading port with Europe since the early 14th century, especially in wine and port.

And Scotland had its innovators in banking, science and mathematics all before the disastrous Union.

[And that Union only came about because the people of Scotland were not consulted. Instead corrupt Scottish nobles offered a few grubby coins by their masters south of the border accepted, and the bribe was completed.

'Bought and sold for English gold,
Sic a parcel of rogues in a nation'.

Where did ODS say that? :confused:

[J-C]

Where did ODS say that? :confused:


http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=3547740#post3547740)
You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

[marinello59]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=3547740#post3547740)
You are spot on. And all done while part of the UK. Think what we could achieve together over the next 300 years.

I am sure he will be on to defend himself but it is fairly clear to me that he wasn't claiming Scotland achieved nothing prior to the Act of Union.

[J-C]

I am sure he will be on to defend himself but it is fairly clear to me that he wasn't claiming Scotland achieved nothing prior to the Act of Union.


See post 429 and see what he was replying to, might change your mind.

[marinello59]

See post 429 and see what he was replying to, might change your mind.

Not really. He can defend himself though, if that's what he meant then I'll join in the cyber kicking too. :greengrin

[southfieldhibby]

I only recently started watching FMQ's again. Watching Iain Gray try to take on Alex Salmond was horrible for any Labourman to watch.

Forget SNP vs Labour, this is Hibs vs Savilles and the hibby is getting pumped

[ancienthibby]

Not really. He can defend himself though, if that's what he meant then I'll join in the cyber kicking too. :greengrin

No cyber kicking.

You don't do that to ODS - he is a robust defender of his views and needs no support from anyone!

I just saw that a door had been left open a bit, so I went through.

I was also of the view that the debate had become a bit mired in dreary economic argument and I just wanted to open up a new direction.

And I have no issue at all with the Union giving Scotland a new platform on which its people (intellectuals, writers, poets, medical researchers, etc) could express themselves.

But, we were doing that well for hundreds of years before the Union!

[One Day Soon]

I am sure he will be on to defend himself but it is fairly clear to me that he wasn't claiming Scotland achieved nothing prior to the Act of Union.

Correct.

I suppose it depends on what one interprets as the meaning of 'Scotland and the Scots have given the world the basics of almost everything it has in terms of civilisation in the modern era.' as originally posted.

I thought that starting in 1707 was a reasonable interpretation of the modern era...

I note that there have been a range of eminent pre-1707 achievements posted too.

I'm not sure that any of this really makes the point for or against separation though.

[One Day Soon]

See post 429 and see what he was replying to, might change your mind.

No jc1, you are wrong. I am a Scottish patriot and no patriot in their right mind would claim that Scotland had achieved nothing before the Union. But as a Scottish patriot I also believe Scotland is bigger, better and stronger together with its sister nations as part of the UK.

For me it is the same principle as the combine within trade unionism.

[J-C]

No jc1, you are wrong. I am a Scottish patriot and no patriot in their right mind would claim that Scotland had achieved nothing before the Union. But as a Scottish patriot I also believe Scotland is bigger, better and stronger together with its sister nations as part of the UK.

For me it is the same principle as the combine within trade unionism.


I wasn't saying anything about your patriotism, Marinello asked where you said that and I was pointing out the said post that's all. :wink:

[green glory]

If you're on Twitter and support independence, please follow @HibsYES

[marinello59]

If you're on Twitter and support independence, please follow @HibsYES

Eh? I support Independence but I really hope we don't go linking it to support of a football club.

[Jack]

No jc1, you are wrong. I am a Scottish patriot and no patriot in their right mind would claim that Scotland had achieved nothing before the Union. But as a Scottish patriot I also believe Scotland is bigger, better and stronger together with its sister nations as part of the UK.

For me it is the same principle as the combine within trade unionism.

I appreciate what you're saying about sisters and its a lovely sentiment.

It suggests a partnership of equals. If I saw that as being the case I would see that as a positive for the Union.

The fact is Westminster is obscene in its craving to serve London and the south east to the detriment of the rest of the UK. Scotland has the chance to become first choice in the decisions it makes and address priorities of Scotland rather than be one of the also ran Regions of the UK.

Yes officially in the UK Scotland is not a country, it is a region. IMO that says all that needs to be said about the UK/Westminster attitude to this, your, country.

[Beefster]

If you're on Twitter and support independence, please follow @HibsYES

How desperate can some folk get? Next it will be "if you're a real Hibee, you support independence".

[J-C]

I appreciate what you're saying about sisters and its a lovely sentiment.

It suggests a partnership of equals. If I saw that as being the case I would see that as a positive for the Union.

The fact is Westminster is obscene in its craving to serve London and the south east to the detriment of the rest of the UK. Scotland has the chance to become first choice in the decisions it makes and address priorities of Scotland rather than be one of the also ran Regions of the UK.

Yes officially in the UK Scotland is not a country, it is a region. IMO that says all that needs to be said about the UK/Westminster attitude to this, your, country.

Although I agree with most of what you say as we're like minded, it says here we're still a country but part of the UK, with the whole island being called Great Britain.


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

[Jack]

Although I agree with most of what you say as we're like minded, it says here we're still a country but part of the UK, with the whole island being called Great Britain.


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

Sorry, to be clear I was meaning in the way Scotland is referred to by Westminster and the UK Government. Scotland is one of 12 regions.

[Beefster]

Sorry, to be clear I was meaning in the way Scotland is referred to by Westminster and the UK Government. Scotland is one of 12 regions.

Which regions have their own Secretary of State?

[ancienthibby]

Which regions have their own Secretary of State?

Indeed.

And which regions have their own distinctive independent legal system which is recognised in inter-national law??

[One Day Soon]

Indeed.

And which regions have their own legal system which is recognised in inter-national law??


Which regions have their own legislative parliament?

Which regions have tax varying powers?

This could be a very long list.

[J-C]

Sorry, to be clear I was meaning in the way Scotland is referred to by Westminster and the UK Government. Scotland is one of 12 regions.

Sorry, I get you now, in that case being labelled as a region is a bit disrespectful I think.

[J-C]

Which regions have their own legislative parliament?

Which regions have tax varying powers?

This could be a very long list.


Which has never been implemented

The Scottish variable rate (SVR) is a mechanism which enables the Scottish Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Government) to vary (down or up) the basic rate of UK income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_income_tax) by up to 3p in the pound. The power has never been used, either by the Labour–Liberal Democrat coalition government (1999–2007) or by the Scottish National Party minority government (2007–11) or majority government (since 2011), and will be succeeded by the new legislative framework for Scottish public finance in the Scotland Bill 2010–11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Bill_2010%E2%80%9311).
When legislating for the Scottish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament), a number of matters were reserved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_matters) by the UK Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Parliament) ('Westminster'). One such reserved matter was taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation); however, this had been a key point in Scottish negotiations relating to parliamentary control. As a means of compromise, Westminster afforded the Scottish Parliament the ability to vary income tax, which was subsequently given the consent of the Scottish electorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_electorate) in the 2nd question of the 1997 devolution referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1997).
Therefore, the Scotland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998) granted the Scottish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament) the power to vary income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) by +/- 3p in every pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling). This power is often referred to as the tartan tax, a phrase first used by Michael Forsyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Forsyth,_Baron_Forsyth_of_Drumlean) as a way of attacking the power, using the idea of 'tartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan)' to get across the idea that it would be an extra tax on Scots alone.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_variable_rate#cite_note-1)However, the phrase "tartan tax" would only correctly apply if the tax were varied upwards – no phrase has yet been suggested if the tax were varied downwards. To date, the Scottish Parliament has chosen not to utilise its tax varying powers. However, rather ironically, the Scottish National Party 'surrendered' their ability to utilise this power in 2010, as announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore MP, in what has become known as the 'tartan tax scandal'.[c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

[One Day Soon]

Which has never been implemented

The Scottish variable rate (SVR) is a mechanism which enables the Scottish Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Government) to vary (down or up) the basic rate of UK income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_income_tax) by up to 3p in the pound. The power has never been used, either by the Labour–Liberal Democrat coalition government (1999–2007) or by the Scottish National Party minority government (2007–11) or majority government (since 2011), and will be succeeded by the new legislative framework for Scottish public finance in the Scotland Bill 2010–11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Bill_2010%E2%80%9311).
When legislating for the Scottish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament), a number of matters were reserved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_matters) by the UK Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Parliament) ('Westminster'). One such reserved matter was taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation); however, this had been a key point in Scottish negotiations relating to parliamentary control. As a means of compromise, Westminster afforded the Scottish Parliament the ability to vary income tax, which was subsequently given the consent of the Scottish electorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_electorate) in the 2nd question of the 1997 devolution referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1997).
Therefore, the Scotland Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998) granted the Scottish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament) the power to vary income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) by +/- 3p in every pound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling). This power is often referred to as the tartan tax, a phrase first used by Michael Forsyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Forsyth,_Baron_Forsyth_of_Drumlean) as a way of attacking the power, using the idea of 'tartan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan)' to get across the idea that it would be an extra tax on Scots alone.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_variable_rate#cite_note-1)However, the phrase "tartan tax" would only correctly apply if the tax were varied upwards – no phrase has yet been suggested if the tax were varied downwards. To date, the Scottish Parliament has chosen not to utilise its tax varying powers. However, rather ironically, the Scottish National Party 'surrendered' their ability to utilise this power in 2010, as announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore MP, in what has become known as the 'tartan tax scandal'.[c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

And your point is? Any of the governments since 1999 could have exercised the power (including the current and preceding SNP one).

I am simply pointing out that no other part of the UK has this power and this - along with many, many other differences - means that the daft claim that we are treated as a region of the UK simply does not stand up.

[Jack]

And your point is? Any of the governments since 1999 could have exercised the power (including the current and preceding SNP one).

I am simply pointing out that no other part of the UK has this power and this - along with many, many other differences - means that the daft claim that we are treated as a region of the UK simply does not stand up.

The tax raising issue came about from being a devolved power - its not enough.

On the tax thing anyway. HMRC would charge the Scottish Government silly money to implement - made it almost meaningless as a way of varying the tax. That's one reason it was never taken up.

However, and sorry for going back to old issues, the double whammy on the block grant may mean its necessary to raise taxes, beyond what is currently allowed, IF Scotland remains in the Union and doesn't want to decimate social type services - something Scotland has always been keen to avoid under all hues of party.

[RyeSloan]

The tax raising issue came about from being a devolved power - its not enough.

On the tax thing anyway. HMRC would charge the Scottish Government silly money to implement - made it almost meaningless as a way of varying the tax. That's one reason it was never taken up.

However, and sorry for going back to old issues, the double whammy on the block grant may mean its necessary to raise taxes, beyond what is currently allowed, IF Scotland remains in the Union and doesn't want to decimate social type services - something Scotland has always been keen to avoid under all hues of party.

Would have been good to see it in action though. I'm not sure HMRC would have charge the Scottish Government directly though. Also I'm not sure but lowering the income tax by 3p might not have impacted the Barnet formula block grant either so Scotland might have been able to benefit from lower taxes without the loss of revenue! I assume I'm wrong otherwise surely it would have happened.

[RyeSloan]

The tax raising issue came about from being a devolved power - its not enough.

On the tax thing anyway. HMRC would charge the Scottish Government silly money to implement - made it almost meaningless as a way of varying the tax. That's one reason it was never taken up.

However, and sorry for going back to old issues, the double whammy on the block grant may mean its necessary to raise taxes, beyond what is currently allowed, IF Scotland remains in the Union and doesn't want to decimate social type services - something Scotland has always been keen to avoid under all hues of party.

Would have been good to see it in action though. I'm not sure HMRC would have charge the Scottish Government directly though. Also I'm not sure but lowering the income tax by 3p might not have impacted the Barnet formula block grant either so Scotland might have been able to benefit from lower taxes without the loss of revenue! I assume I'm wrong otherwise surely it would have happened.

[Jack]

Would have been good to see it in action though. I'm not sure HMRC would have charge the Scottish Government directly though. Also I'm not sure but lowering the income tax by 3p might not have impacted the Barnet formula block grant either so Scotland might have been able to benefit from lower taxes without the loss of revenue! I assume I'm wrong otherwise surely it would have happened.

To be clear HMRC will charge the Scottish Government if this ever happens.

Not sure about the block grant but there's something at the back of my mind that's playing higher or lower if tax variance was taken up.

[J-C]

And your point is? Any of the governments since 1999 could have exercised the power (including the current and preceding SNP one).

I am simply pointing out that no other part of the UK has this power and this - along with many, many other differences - means that the daft claim that we are treated as a region of the UK simply does not stand up.

You really don't get it do you, the tax increasing power was added purely to make the parliament of whatever region look bad if they ever raised the said tax, this would then be seen in a poor light by the people of that region, hence it's never been used.

We fought for many years to get these devolved parliaments, with the few powers we have, the next obvious step would be to go from being devolved to being independent.

[Beefster]

You really don't get it do you, the tax increasing power was added purely to make the parliament of whatever region look bad if they ever raised the said tax, this would then be seen in a poor light by the people of that region, hence it's never been used.

We fought for many years to get these devolved parliaments, with the few powers we have, the next obvious step would be to go from being devolved to being independent.

Em, didn't we vote for the tax-raising power?

[J-C]

Em, didn't we vote for the tax-raising power?


Yes and no, it was all part of the devolved parliament, it's never been implemented, a good article here explains better



http://news.stv.tv/blogs/211144-the-tartan-tax-who-really-is-to-blame/

[marinello59]

You really don't get it do you, the tax increasing power was added purely to make the parliament of whatever region look bad if they ever raised the said tax, this would then be seen in a poor light by the people of that region, hence it's never been used.

We fought for many years to get these devolved parliaments, with the few powers we have, the next obvious step would be to go from being devolved to being independent.

Rubbish. It was a genuine attempt to give the devolved Parliament more authority. How long after we lost the ability to use this power did the SNP come clean about it? You are right, we fought long and hard for a devolved Parliament and we voted for a Parliament with tax varying powers. The SNP shamefully gave up those powers without telling the people of Scotland they were going to do so first.

[lord bunberry]

Rubbish. It was a genuine attempt to give the devolved Parliament more authority. How long after we lost the ability to use this power did the SNP come clean about it? You are right, we fought long and hard for a devolved Parliament and we voted for a Parliament with tax varying powers. The SNP shamefully gave up those powers without telling the people of Scotland they were going to do so first.


Was it not costing holyrood money every year to keep these tax powers

[marinello59]

Was it not costing holyrood money every year to keep these tax powers

So why didn't Salmond tell us before his Goverment let the powers lapse? That's my point, he treated the electorate with contempt. Surely it was a decision for the whole parliament, not just the majority party. It should have been discussed.

[One Day Soon]

To be clear HMRC will charge the Scottish Government if this ever happens.

Not sure about the block grant but there's something at the back of my mind that's playing higher or lower if tax variance was taken up.

If you want to have a different income tax rate in Scotland then the tax collecting machinery needs to be capable of making that Scotland/UK distinction. All HMRC would have done is recharge the cost of that capacity to the Scottish Government. No different to being in a separate Scotland and having to meet the cost of a tax collecting structure.

[One Day Soon]

I appreciate what you're saying about sisters and its a lovely sentiment.

It suggests a partnership of equals. If I saw that as being the case I would see that as a positive for the Union.

The fact is Westminster is obscene in its craving to serve London and the south east to the detriment of the rest of the UK. Scotland has the chance to become first choice in the decisions it makes and address priorities of Scotland rather than be one of the also ran Regions of the UK.

Yes officially in the UK Scotland is not a country, it is a region. IMO that says all that needs to be said about the UK/Westminster attitude to this, your, country.

It is a partnership in which we all pool our sovereignty.It is not a matter of any one country being in charge since MPs are elected from across all of the UK.

[One Day Soon]

The tax raising issue came about from being a devolved power - its not enough.

On the tax thing anyway. HMRC would charge the Scottish Government silly money to implement - made it almost meaningless as a way of varying the tax. That's one reason it was never taken up.

However, and sorry for going back to old issues, the double whammy on the block grant may mean its necessary to raise taxes, beyond what is currently allowed, IF Scotland remains in the Union and doesn't want to decimate social type services - something Scotland has always been keen to avoid under all hues of party.

This is all ignoring your original point which was to claim that Scotland is an also ran region of the UK. Patently it is no such thing given that it has an institution and range of powers which no other country, let alone region, of the UK has. One example of which is a Parliament with tax varying powers.

[One Day Soon]

You really don't get it do you, the tax increasing power was added purely to make the parliament of whatever region look bad if they ever raised the said tax, this would then be seen in a poor light by the people of that region, hence it's never been used.

Other posters have already demonstrated that you are wholly wrong on this point. I will just add this. The power is one which allows any government in Scotland to vary the rate of income tax - up or down - by the equivalent of 3p in the pound. Even if we take your totally mental conspiracist argument at face value, why would the conspiracists against Scotland build in the option to lower tax and thereby be seen in a good light "by the people of that region"? Isn't the answer that your suggestion is ludicrous and made up? Who were these conspiracists anyway?

We fought for many years to get these devolved parliaments, with the few powers we have, the next obvious step would be to go from being devolved to being independent.

Er, no, there is nothing "obvious" about independence being the next step. Particularly when so far it seems to be based on little more than assertion, inaccurate history, vague promises of post-separation jam tomorrow and the lifetime political obsession of some Scottish politicians supported by only a minority of Scottish voters.

I return to the original point. It was claimed that we are an also ran region of the UK. It was pointed out that no other nation of the UK - let alone region - has the parliament and powers that ours already has or indeed the extra powers it is about to get within the UK. Far from being second class within the UK, our constitutional arrangement gives us more powers and flexibility than any other part of the UK.

[One Day Soon]

Yes and no, it was all part of the devolved parliament, it's never been implemented, a good article here explains better



http://news.stv.tv/blogs/211144-the-tartan-tax-who-really-is-to-blame/


There is no yes and no about it.

It was a two question referendum and the second question was on tax varying powers. We, the sovereign people of Scotland, voted for it.

[Jack]

This is all ignoring your original point which was to claim that Scotland is an also ran region of the UK. Patently it is no such thing given that it has an institution and range of powers which no other country, let alone region, of the UK has. One example of which is a Parliament with tax varying powers.

I don't know whether to reply to my quoted post or JC1s.

Having spent my working life in the government to class Scotland as an also ran is a bit of an exaggeration. Scotland isn't even at the races!

We have had separate legal, education and health systems for decades - upto devolution and indeed till the SNP government, laws and policies were more often than not the same north and south of the border with the Scottish laws and policies tartanised versions of what the rest of the UK got. So there was no power there.

Things have moved on slowly since devolution and a little more quickly since the SNP had power in Holyrood. But Scotland is still an also ran as far as Westminster is concerned and an afterthought in the minds of ALL the civil service departments serving Westminster. The Scottish Office that became the Scottish Executive administered what became devolved and was at one time just another department. As it evolved into the Scottish Government, where the majority parties didn't match, I often think, when its acknowledged at all "The Scottish what?" it is treated as an enemy state rather than devolved power.

These departments decide how much money Scotland gets and they actually have a bigger share of what is spent in Scotland than the Scottish Parliament does - or at least they used to before they started closing down the forces bases up here and shipping huge swathes of other departments, like the DSS and HMRC down south.

I believe the tax variance was always going to be a red herring, something that was never going to work whether it went up or down.

And I agree with you that Westminster never thought those Scottish scamps would want independence - the main reason IMO is because of their arrogance they never thought they would lose out to the SNP.

[J-C]

I don't know whether to reply to my quoted post or JC1s.

Having spent my working life in the government to class Scotland as an also ran is a bit of an exaggeration. Scotland isn't even at the races!

We have had separate legal, education and health systems for decades - upto devolution and indeed till the SNP government, laws and policies were more often than not the same north and south of the border with the Scottish laws and policies tartanised versions of what the rest of the UK got. So there was no power there.

Things have moved on slowly since devolution and a little more quickly since the SNP had power in Holyrood. But Scotland is still an also ran as far as Westminster is concerned and an afterthought in the minds of ALL the civil service departments serving Westminster. The Scottish Office that became the Scottish Executive administered what became devolved and was at one time just another department. As it evolved into the Scottish Government, where the majority parties didn't match, I often think, when its acknowledged at all "The Scottish what?" it is treated as an enemy state rather than devolved power.

These departments decide how much money Scotland gets and they actually have a bigger share of what is spent in Scotland than the Scottish Parliament does - or at least they used to before they started closing dow
And I agree with you that Westminster never thought those Scottish scamps would want independence - the main reason IMO is because of their arrogance they never thought they would lose out to the SNP.


Good post, as for myself I've done with banging my head against a brick wall will certain posters on here, it's the same old same old stuff going round and round and I'm becoming weary of it, I know which way I'll vote come the election, the same way I've voted since the age of 18.

[marinello59]

Good post, as for myself I've done with banging my head against a brick wall will certain posters on here, it's the same old same old stuff going round and round and I'm becoming weary of it, I know which way I'll vote come the election, the same way I've voted since the age of 18.

I rather think most people know now which way they will vote, there won't be much of a swing either way between now and the vote.

[CropleyWasGod]

I rather think most people know now which way they will vote, there won't be much of a swing either way between now and the vote.

For once, I think I have to disagree with you.

If nothing else, Salmond is a very clever politician. The Tories winning the last General Election was a gift to him, and he will have his strategy for the next 18 months mapped out.

The benefits "reform" has played into his hands, allowing him to play on the "Tories v Scotland" aspect. He will ramp that up as the debate continues, and I think the vote will be much closer than currently thought.

[marinello59]

For once, I think I have to disagree with you.

If nothing else, Salmond is a very clever politician. The Tories winning the last General Election was a gift to him, and he will have his strategy for the next 18 months mapped out.

The benefits "reform" has played into his hands, allowing him to play on the "Tories v Scotland" aspect. He will ramp that up as the debate continues, and I think the vote will be much closer than currently thought.

He is a clever political operator, of that there is no doubt. But I reckon his attempts to equate a No vote with supporting the Tories will actually antagonise many people rather than convert them to Yes voters.
He will be hoping that the Commonwealth Games, Bannockburn re-enactments etc next year will sweep many more in to the Yes camp but the Scottish electorate is to savvy to be swung in large numbers by stuff that really won't matter much in the long term. I do agree that the vote will be closer than currently thought but I can't see the result being anything other than a No. I guess Salmond needs to hope that the No camp thinks the same and becomes too complacent.

[Jack]

For once, I think I have to disagree with you.

If nothing else, Salmond is a very clever politician. The Tories winning the last General Election was a gift to him, and he will have his strategy for the next 18 months mapped out.

The benefits "reform" has played into his hands, allowing him to play on the "Tories v Scotland" aspect. He will ramp that up as the debate continues, and I think the vote will be much closer than currently thought.

I reckon if its close he'll pull the masterstroke of promising to resign/retire if Scotland votes for independence as he will have succeeded in his lifes mission.

He'll know there's many out there who just couldn't bare the thought of him leading Scotland as an independent nation.

[lord bunberry]

He is a clever political operator, of that there is no doubt. But I reckon his attempts to equate a No vote with supporting the Tories will actually antagonise many people rather than convert them to Yes voters.
He will be hoping that the Commonwealth Games, Bannockburn re-enactments etc next year will sweep many more in to the Yes camp but the Scottish electorate is to savvy to be swung in large numbers by stuff that really won't matter much in the long term. I do agree that the vote will be closer than currently thought but I can't see the result being anything other than a No. I guess Salmond needs to hope that the No camp thinks the same and becomes too complacent.

People may be swayed by alex salmond if he promises to reverse some of the benefit cuts made by the coalition. Lots of people will vote for what's best for themselves

[Beefster]

People may be swayed by alex salmond if he promises to reverse some of the benefit cuts made by the coalition. Lots of people will vote for what's best for themselves

The SNP will need to keep their policy promises for the first general election post-independence. It's completely pointless and fundamentally dishonest of them to be promising that an independent Scotland will do this and that.

[lord bunberry]

The SNP will need to keep their policy promises for the first general election post-independence. It's completely pointless and fundamentally dishonest of them to be promising that an independent Scotland will do this and that.

Your right but they will be trying to sell the benefits of independence to the nation and at some point they're going to be asked what they plan to do post independence with things like the nhs and the benefits system. They may not be able to make direct policy commitments but they will be able to say what they think will happen. Its a bit like when the coalition took over they had to abandon certain policies because there wasn't the money to pay for them

[marinello59]

The SNP will need to keep their policy promises for the first general election post-independence. It's completely pointless and fundamentally dishonest of them to be promising that an independent Scotland will do this and that.

Why should that stop Salmond?

[Beefster]

Why should that stop Salmond?

No doubt, it absolutely won't. I expect that, by the referendum date, we'll have been promised all sort of bribes and fantasy policies without hearing a word about how they will be funded or, alternatively, what will be cut to fund them.