Scottish Independence

[Beefster]

Support down to 23% in the latest poll (carried out by Prof. Curtice before anyone questions the pollsters) with almost 60% saying that they're worried about the consequences of independence.

Have the 'Better Together' campaigners already won?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9822108/Scottish-independence-support-slumps-to-23-per-cent.html

[Hibbyradge]

Support down to 23% in the latest poll (carried out by Prof. Curtice before anyone questions the pollsters) with almost 60% saying that they're worried about the consequences of independence.

Have the 'Better Together' campaigners already won?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9822108/Scottish-independence-support-slumps-to-23-per-cent.html

They won't even have to get out of bed.

To have any chance of success next year, support for Independence needs to be at it's peak round about now.

As the vote nears, people are more likely to back away from change, not move toward it.

At the moment, it looks like the SNP are going to spectacularly fail.

Of course, we'll hear that the SNP have conducted their own polls which paint a very different picture. I wonder if they'll get published.

[Gatecrasher]

I think the problem is most people will already have opinions about it and usually have a "Side" which they would tend to stick to so it would be very difficult to change peoples minds on such an issue.

[LeighLoyal]

The EU referendum vote has just ensured it will be a no as the SNP position doesn't hold water. How can Salmond go to Bruseels in 2014 and negotiate entry to the EU and keeping sterling when England will be out three years later. He's going to have to take the Euro and nobody in their right mind wants that. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy... Scotland will be in the same mire as them.

[yeezus.]

Neither campaign group (Yes Scotland / Better Together) are keeping me interested. A large part of me doesn't want to see the break up of this small island, but part of me would love an independent Socialist republic.

I we could get some answers on the big questions because all I have herd over the past few months is squabbling from both sides on the question of an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union.

[Jack]

Support down to 23% in the latest poll (carried out by Prof. Curtice before anyone questions the pollsters) with almost 60% saying that they're worried about the consequences of independence.

Have the 'Better Together' campaigners already won?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9822108/Scottish-independence-support-slumps-to-23-per-cent.html

Why?

Just asking :greengrin given his Liberal background and nothing good to say about the independence - probably going back as the devolution debate. :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Neither campaign group (Yes Scotland / Better Together) are keeping me interested. A large part of me doesn't want to see the break up of this small island, but part of me would love an independent Socialist republic.

I we could get some answers on the big questions because all I have herd over the past few months is squabbling from both sides on the question of an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union.


An independent sociaist republic...wow, that would be something (disastrous)

You won't get answers to the big questions. They have all been asked many times but the fact is no one knows. There is no 'road map' to what an independent state would look like and in any event the SNP's 'vision' of independence is anything but independent.

Many people have tried to articulate what they would like to know before they could vote yes but it's normally met with hubris and condesension. Which is a right shame as I was very hopeful that if we were to get a vote on Independence the people leading that movement would have gone to great lengths to lay out what that brave new world would look like and why it would be of benefit to the nation and it's people. Instead we seem to have a line of "just vote yes and you can find out later what it actually means" or "no one can know what it actually means so stop asking and just vote yes".....no suprise then support for the idea continues to slide.

[Future17]

An independent sociaist republic...wow, that would be something (disastrous)

You won't get answers to the big questions. They have all been asked many times but the fact is no one knows. There is no 'road map' to what an independent state would look like and in any event the SNP's 'vision' of independence is anything but independent.

Many people have tried to articulate what they would like to know before they could vote yes but it's normally met with hubris and condesension. Which is a right shame as I was very hopeful that if we were to get a vote on Independence the people leading that movement would have gone to great lengths to lay out what that brave new world would look like and why it would be of benefit to the nation and it's people. Instead we seem to have a line of "just vote yes and you can find out later what it actually means" or "no one can know what it actually means so stop asking and just vote yes".....no suprise then support for the idea continues to slide.

That seems a touch one-sided. It's not as if the "No" campaign have been particularly forthcoming in selling the benefits of the union thus far.

[JeMeSouviens]

The EU referendum vote has just ensured it will be a no as the SNP position doesn't hold water. How can Salmond go to Bruseels in 2014 and negotiate entry to the EU and keeping sterling when England will be out three years later. He's going to have to take the Euro and nobody in their right mind wants that. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy... Scotland will be in the same mire as them.

1. In practice, even if treated as a new accessor state, Scotland doesn't have to join the Euro. 10/27 EU states don't use it and only 2 of those have an official opt-out. The rest just say they don't meet the convergence criteria and happily stick with whatever currency they like. Sweden has been in this position since 1995!

2. Even if inside the eurozone, why would Scotland be in the same mire as Greece etc and not in the stronger position of Germany, Holland etc.? Our share of the UK sovereign debt is not unmanageable and whichever currency we are inside or outside of it needs to stay that way.

[JeMeSouviens]

Support down to 23% in the latest poll (carried out by Prof. Curtice before anyone questions the pollsters) with almost 60% saying that they're worried about the consequences of independence.

Have the 'Better Together' campaigners already won?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9822108/Scottish-independence-support-slumps-to-23-per-cent.html

Yes, I think the "No" side have always been heavy odds-on favourites to win and are only getting more so. Change is always a risk and I think Scots have a tendency towards being a fairly cynical bunch who believe that things are fairly ***** but have the capacity to get considerably *****r.

It's like having a crap job that's pretty dead end but pays the bills and you're unlikely to get paid off.

[ancienthibby]

1. The poll is already out of date, with some polling starting in July last year and completing in November last year.

2. John Curtice is a yesterday man, as is Angus MacLeod of The Times - both should be put out to pasture.

3. Anyone care to remember what the polls were like in March and April 2011 and what was the end result?

Beware of polls and pollsters.:agree:

[RyeSloan]

That seems a touch one-sided. It's not as if the "No" campaign have been particularly forthcoming in selling the benefits of the union thus far.

They don't have to though. This is a vote asking the population to vote for change....ergo it's the ones proposing the change that need to do most of the persuading.

When faced with substantial change that will have significant unintended and unclear consequences the default option for most will be to opt for the status quo. Few will need persuaded into that.

[yeezus.]

An independent sociaist republic...wow, that would be something (disastrous)

You won't get answers to the big questions. They have all been asked many times but the fact is no one knows. There is no 'road map' to what an independent state would look like and in any event the SNP's 'vision' of independence is anything but independent.

Many people have tried to articulate what they would like to know before they could vote yes but it's normally met with hubris and condesension. Which is a right shame as I was very hopeful that if we were to get a vote on Independence the people leading that movement would have gone to great lengths to lay out what that brave new world would look like and why it would be of benefit to the nation and it's people. Instead we seem to have a line of "just vote yes and you can find out later what it actually means" or "no one can know what it actually means so stop asking and just vote yes".....no suprise then support for the idea continues to slide.

The point I am making regarding a socialist republic is that if we were offered it, people would think it's something worth fighting for (proper independence).

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/171/9774/winning-the-argument-for-continuing-union

A quorum of fandans if ever there was.That Curran lassie does my head in.

Guy Lodge is quite right though, the block grant and the barnet formula needs looked at, We're getting royally shafted by it.

[Beefster]

Why?

Just asking :greengrin given his Liberal background and nothing good to say about the independence - probably going back as the devolution debate. :wink:

As an academic held in fairly high regard, I think it's fair to assume that his own personal feelings won't come into it as far as a polling is concerned. He's highly unlikely to be massaging the figures.

I could be wrong and he's made it all up though!


1. The poll is already out of date, with some polling starting in July last year and completing in November last year.

2. John Curtice is a yesterday man, as is Angus MacLeod of The Times - both should be put out to pasture.

3. Anyone care to remember what the polls were like in March and April 2011 and what was the end result?

Beware of polls and pollsters.:agree:

The first might hold some water if there was any major disagreement between the various polls. There isn't.

The second argument is a bit rich coming from someone calling themselves 'ancienthibby'!

The third argument - I recall some polls before the election having the SNP a few points ahead.

[Hainan Hibs]

Will be interesting to see a poll post Edinburgh Agreement/Dave's EU speech. With Devo Max out of the question it will be interesting to see if that sees a swing either way. Kevin mcKenna is the latest journo to say he may vote yes as it may become the only option.

If the poll was in a month or two I'd be more worried, however with the "grassroots" organisation that YES Scotland has to put the message across I'm still confident of a yes vote in 2014.

[steakbake]

The point I am making regarding a socialist republic is that if we were offered it, people would think it's something worth fighting for (proper independence).

A socialist republic? Sorry, but that's just crazy talk.

In a previous life, I used to mix with a few SRSM people. It's like being in a 70s time warp. The world has moved on and is a very different place.

I cannot see Scots voting in their millions to set up some kind of model society in the mould of Cuba or North Korea. If there was such a sentiment, there'd be Socialist Republican MSPs in Holyrood.

They are noteable by their absence.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I love how the no brigade are so desperate to prove they are going to win. Especially after daveys spectacular move towards british independence, a move not supported by the majority of scotland.

No idea how the vote will go but my mind hasn't been changed.

[Sir David Gray]

If this vote was held tomorrow, I feel it would be an overwhelming defeat for the SNP.

It's going to take a massive effort by them, and their pro-independence allies, over the next 18 months to get the outcome they are after.

I just don't see any way that this will happen.

[Future17]

They don't have to though. This is a vote asking the population to vote for change....ergo it's the ones proposing the change that need to do most of the persuading.

When faced with substantial change that will have significant unintended and unclear consequences the default option for most will be to opt for the status quo. Few will need persuaded into that.

I actually expected this answer. I haven't looked specifically at your posts so not sure of your views, but this position seems to be both cynical and arrogant.

There are still a lot of undecided voters out there, of which I am one. The only arguments I have heard from the "No" campaign in the Independence debate have been reactive to those put forward by the "Yes" campaign. If the "No" campaign really believes we're "Better Together", surely it should be selling the benefits to people like me?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I actually expected this answer. I haven't looked specifically at your posts so not sure of your views, but this position seems to be both cynical and arrogant.

There are still a lot of undecided voters out there, of which I am one. The only arguments I have heard from the "No" campaign in the Independence debate have been reactive to those put forward by the "Yes" campaign. If the "No" campaign really believes we're "Better Together", surely it should be selling the benefits to people like me?

I wouldn't look at too many of his posts, painful to say the least:greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

I actually expected this answer. I haven't looked specifically at your posts so not sure of your views, but this position seems to be both cynical and arrogant.

There are still a lot of undecided voters out there, of which I am one. The only arguments I have heard from the "No" campaign in the Independence debate have been reactive to those put forward by the "Yes" campaign. If the "No" campaign really believes we're "Better Together", surely it should be selling the benefits to people like me?

He is right, though.

It's like moving your bank account. Unless you hear compelling reasons to move to another bank, you stay because it's what you're used to, you understand it and it feels safe.

The Yes campaign has the biggest job - they have to persuade us that such a massive change is more desirable than the status quo.

The No campaign merely need to remind of of how comfortable and safe we are now. They'll do more than that, of course. They'll outline all the possible pitfalls and dangers of the change, they'll highlight the SNP's obvious incompetence and inability to promote their most coveted single issue, and they'll persuade you not to gamble with the country's future.

I wouldn't have the resilience to campaign like that when a blind man on a charging horse can see that Independence won't happen next year. But the No campaign will.

[Hainan Hibs]

With a substantial % of the population wanting Devo Max the No side will have to try to outline what a no vote will mean in terms of possible new powers or reform. Of course, there will far more expected from the Yes side, however if we take Herald journo Ian MacWhirter as an example, people who would vote no but want Devo Max are looking at the BetterTogether campaign, the state of the Uk now, measuring the actual chances of Devo Max, and are going to vote yes as it is increasingly the only option for them

If we take the bank account scenario, someone who wants diferent services/features for their acount and doesnt want to switch may just do if their current bank can only give "cannae dae it" and "this is as good as it gets" as answers while trying to reduce their already sub standard product/service.

As i said before the onus is on the yes side however with most polls showing around 30% of people wanting Devo Max thats a considerable amount of people who may just think "what the hell" next year if given no vision by BetterTogether over the campaign.

[Hainan Hibs]

Interestingly i had seen a graph that showed the survey also showed that indy was most popular option out of the 3 positions (devo max and status quo the other two) so had a look at the report. The below section was interesting,

Scottish parliament should make all the decisions for Scotland 35%
Scotland should make all the decisions apart from Foreign Affairs and defence 32%
Uk should decide taxes, benefits, defence, and foreign affairs, Scotland the rest 24%
Uk government should make all decisions for Scotland 6%

The yes campaign just has to overcome the populations aversion for the word independence:greengrin

[marinello59]

Interestingly i had seen a graph that showed the survey also showed that indy was most popular option out of the 3 positions (devo max and status quo the other two) so had a look at the report. The below section was interesting,

Scottish parliament should make all the decisions for Scotland 35%
Scotland should make all the decisions apart from Foreign Affairs and defence 32%
Uk should decide taxes, benefits, defence, and foreign affairs, Scotland the rest 24%
Uk government should make all decisions for Scotland 6%

The yes campaign just has to overcome the populations aversion for the word independence:greengrin

The Yes campaign needs to define just what their version of independence is, so far they have failed miserably. It can't be due to lack of preparation as the only reason for the SNP's existence has been working towards a seperate Scotland. I should be a stick on for a yes vote but from what I have seen of Salmond and co's plans so far I will be voting no. Handing the levers of power to a Centralist Scottish administration won't really give the Scottish people any more say about their day to day lives than they already have. A Scotland with smaller Government where power is truly devolved down to a local level............I would vote for that.

[Hainan Hibs]

The Yes campaign needs to define just what their version of independence is, so far they have failed miserably. It can't be due to lack of preparation as the only reason for the SNP's existence has been working towards a seperate Scotland. I should be a stick on for a yes vote but from what I have seen of Salmond and co's plans so far I will be voting no. Handing the levers of power to a Centralist Scottish administration won't really give the Scottish people any more say about their day to day lives than they already have. A Scotland with smaller Government where power is truly devolved down to a local level............I would vote for that.

I think it raises the tricky situation Salmond and the SNP finds themselves in as many people equate vote yes=vote SNP. The Yes campaign has different versions of independence, so if you take the Scottish Greens a main reason for them desiring independence is the devolution of power to a local level. Also under the yes umbrella is Margo who wants EFTA membership, the SSP and the Radical Scotland movement who are more left than the rest and the likes of Dennis Canavan who are ex Labour people.

Of course though the SNP will be negotiating with the UK in the result of a yes vote, so EU membership and currency for example at the start of independence will be what the SNP negotiaties. However following that there would be an election for the Scottish Parliament where parties can/will stand with different manifestos on issues such as localism. What the SNP says on currency, monarchy, EU membership will not be set in stone.

I would ask people to ask themselves do they believe localism (or any other issue) is more acheivable through a Scottish Parliament or through Westminster.

[Future17]

He is right, though.

It's like moving your bank account. Unless you hear compelling reasons to move to another bank, you stay because it's what you're used to, you understand it and it feels safe.

The Yes campaign has the biggest job - they have to persuade us that such a massive change is more desirable than the status quo.

The No campaign merely need to remind of of how comfortable and safe we are now. They'll do more than that, of course. They'll outline all the possible pitfalls and dangers of the change, they'll highlight the SNP's obvious incompetence and inability to promote their most coveted single issue, and they'll persuade you not to gamble with the country's future.

I wouldn't have the resilience to campaign like that when a blind man on a charging horse can see that Independence won't happen next year. But the No campaign will.

I do understand the principle and he may be right, but it's still cynical and arrogant and it's the type of thinking which has driven some of those supporting independence to that position.

To use your analogy, you would have to hear compelling reasons to move your bank account had you not been considering it previously. However, if you were faced with a specific choice between two bank accounts you would look at the features and benefits of each before making your choice.

It's a good analogy for my point as, regardless of whether we're talking bank accounts, utility providers or mobile phone companies, those with whom you have an existing relationship will try their utmost to maintain that relationship.

I suppose the bottom line for me is, if we really are "Better Together", is it too much to expect the campaign bearing that name to tell people like me why that is the case?

[yeezus.]

A socialist republic? Sorry, but that's just crazy talk.

In a previous life, I used to mix with a few SRSM people. It's like being in a 70s time warp. The world has moved on and is a very different place.

I cannot see Scots voting in their millions to set up some kind of model society in the mould of Cuba or North Korea. If there was such a sentiment, there'd be Socialist Republican MSPs in Holyrood.

They are noteable by their absence.

Thanks for that - I was in contact with them for a while as well - obviously there isn't a branch in Stranraer so never got to meet them.

I'll continue to support Irish unification but Scottish nationalists are yet to convince me.

[Jack]

Interestingly i had seen a graph that showed the survey also showed that indy was most popular option out of the 3 positions (devo max and status quo the other two) so had a look at the report. The below section was interesting,

Scottish parliament should make all the decisions for Scotland 35%
Scotland should make all the decisions apart from Foreign Affairs and defence 32%
Uk should decide taxes, benefits, defence, and foreign affairs, Scotland the rest 24%
Uk government should make all decisions for Scotland 6%

The yes campaign just has to overcome the populations aversion for the word independence:greengrin

It’s a good point. Independence obviously means different things to different people.

The no campaign, not surprisingly, seem determined to suggest its something akin to building a great wall round the country and being some sort of hermit state no-one wants.

The fact is as a social, rather political, union with the UK, Europe, the wider world and all the clubs like NATO and the UN Scotland will become much more gregarious; Scots will have decision making powers on everything Scottish, not vetted by anyone who does not have Scotland as their sole responsibility.

Rather than seeing Scotland becoming a lonely country with nae pals the fact is Scotland would be the new kid on the block that everyone wants in their gang.

[RyeSloan]

I actually expected this answer. I haven't looked specifically at your posts so not sure of your views, but this position seems to be both cynical and arrogant.

There are still a lot of undecided voters out there, of which I am one. The only arguments I have heard from the "No" campaign in the Independence debate have been reactive to those put forward by the "Yes" campaign. If the "No" campaign really believes we're "Better Together", surely it should be selling the benefits to people like me?


I don't see it being cynical nor arrogant but merely a reflection of the way things are. If you want people to change you have to persuade them strongly of the benefits of that change...if you want people to remain with the status quo you merely have to point out the dangers of change. A task that's even easier when that change is completely undefined and open ended.

For the record my views are that the Independence being proposed is nothing of the sort. It's merely replacing a political union with a monetary one. If we are truely wanting Independence then it should be exactly that not some sort of Indy lite. In other words the 'plans' so far are not nearly radical enough to suggest to me they are worth all the upheaval they will cause...I suspect a lot of the nation feels the same and that is why the Devo Max solution is what the majority of people want while providing the vast majority of the Indy Lite being proposed.

[RyeSloan]

I wouldn't look at too many of his posts, painful to say the least:greengrin


Ahh as they say; the truth hurts :greengrin

[Future17]

I don't see it being cynical nor arrogant but merely a reflection of the way things are. If you want people to change you have to persuade them strongly of the benefits of that change...if you want people to remain with the status quo you merely have to point out the dangers of change. A task that's even easier when that change is completely undefined and open ended.

I still think that's cyncical, although that's not to say you're not correct. :greengrin


For the record my views are that the Independence being proposed is nothing of the sort. It's merely replacing a political union with a monetary one. If we are truely wanting Independence then it should be exactly that not some sort of Indy lite. In other words the 'plans' so far are not nearly radical enough to suggest to me they are worth all the upheaval they will cause...I suspect a lot of the nation feels the same and that is why the Devo Max solution is what the majority of people want while providing the vast majority of the Indy Lite being proposed.

Interesting. What would have to be involved in the proposal to make them radical enough to justify the upheaval, in your view?

[Hainan Hibs]

The Scottish Greens advocate a Scottish currency, going from this thread the SNP should just let them run the Yes Scotland show:greengrin

[yeezus.]

The Scottish Greens advocate a Scottish currency, going from this thread the SNP should just let them run the Yes Scotland show:greengrin

:agree: The SSP and Scottish Greens seem to have something much different from the SNP when it comes to the economy and the monarchy. A few socialists I have spoken to are a bit pissed off at the media coverage of the "Yes Scotland" campaign focusing too much on the SNP.

[Beefster]

:agree: The SSP and Scottish Greens seem to have something much different from the SNP when it comes to the economy and the monarchy. A few socialists I have spoken to are a bit pissed off at the media coverage of the "Yes Scotland" campaign focusing too much on the SNP.

That's because the rest of the parties supporting independence aren't really worth taking notice of, considering their share of the vote.

[yeezus.]

That's because the rest of the parties supporting independence aren't really worth taking notice of, considering their share of the vote.

Aye but I do feel they have something more to contribute to the cause of independence... not that I'll be voting for it but it would be nice to hear from others within the Yes camp.

[Just Alf]

Some interesting points in this thread (reading it for 1st time)

I'm the classic fence sitter, my folks were 1) labour all his life and 2) SNP / independence all her life.

On Independence my leanings were "status quo"... Driven by the fact I work for an international company based in London I guess.

Over the past year my leanings have moved closer to the fence and more recently I've climbed up..... This has all been driven by statements/out pourings from the government and Westminster mp's..... The latest announcement re a vote on Europe has made me jump off that dam fence and I'm now standing on the independence side..... The "No" guys need to start coming up with something different ....if they want me to turn round and climb back up!

As a side note, both folks have said they'd "very probably" rethink their votes in an independent Scotland.

Anyway..... GGTTH!

[Just Alf]

To clarify

Folks rethinking votes is in relation to future government elections.

( apologies trials of a lot of typing on a phone)

[allmodcons]

Most up to date poll (Panelbase - Sunday Herald today) has Yes at 34% and No at 47%.
Nationalists looking for a 7% swing in 20 months. Will be difficult in the face of a hostile media but definitely not unachievable.
There is a long way to go and a lot to play for, IMO 'Labour for Independence' will be crucial in coming months for the Yes campaign.
The 19% undecided need to start getting over the fence with Sir Alf R if Yes campaign is to prevail!

[yeezus.]

Some interesting points in this thread (reading it for 1st time)

I'm the classic fence sitter, my folks were 1) labour all his life and 2) SNP / independence all her life.

On Independence my leanings were "status quo"... Driven by the fact I work for an international company based in London I guess.

Over the past year my leanings have moved closer to the fence and more recently I've climbed up..... This has all been driven by statements/out pourings from the government and Westminster mp's..... The latest announcement re a vote on Europe has made me jump off that dam fence and I'm now standing on the independence side..... The "No" guys need to start coming up with something different ....if they want me to turn round and climb back up!

As a side note, both folks have said they'd "very probably" rethink their votes in an independent Scotland.

Anyway..... GGTTH!

Good post. I'll decide nearer the time for sure but I feel the independence debate is extremely boring at the moment. The question of an independent Scotland within the European Union needs to be resolved and we can move on to other issues. Such as, would an independent Scotland be able to afford such a generous welfare state? Is it feasible that we would be a small nation and be able to provide free prescriptions, free elderly care, free education etc. I hate to sound like a Tory but someone needs to pay for these services. I was involved in both the 2010 and 2011 elections, and the AV referendum but I can't see myself getting involved with either Yes Scotland or Better Together in the run up to 2014.

[southfieldhibby]

In the week that HS2 has been given front line coverage I had a wee look about at the funding of it.The FT seems to think that over a 50 year period it loses £33 Billion, funded by the tax payer of The UK.Same applies to Crossrail, funded by £10Billion from central govt and crossrail 2, if ever started, another £10 billion.

So The UK taxpayer is funding £53 Billion for railways in London and central England...can anyone show how much Westminster is providing for say, the new Forth crossing?

[lucky]

In the week that HS2 has been given front line coverage I had a wee look about at the funding of it.The FT seems to think that over a 50 year period it loses £33 Billion, funded by the tax payer of The UK.Same applies to Crossrail, funded by £10Billion from central govt and crossrail 2, if ever started, another £10 billion.

So The UK taxpayer is funding £53 Billion for railways in London and central England...can anyone show how much Westminster is providing for say, the new Forth crossing?

Railways are devolved so its the Scottish Parliament that picks up the bill. The new forth crossing is also the responsibility of Holyrood but you never have thought that by the way the SNP over looked Scottish companies for the contracts to build it

[RyeSloan]

In the week that HS2 has been given front line coverage I had a wee look about at the funding of it.The FT seems to think that over a 50 year period it loses £33 Billion, funded by the tax payer of The UK.Same applies to Crossrail, funded by £10Billion from central govt and crossrail 2, if ever started, another £10 billion.

So The UK taxpayer is funding £53 Billion for railways in London and central England...can anyone show how much Westminster is providing for say, the new Forth crossing?

The new Forth crossing is publicly funded as far as I am aware.

[steakbake]

Railways are devolved so its the Scottish Parliament that picks up the bill. The new forth crossing is also the responsibility of Holyrood but you never have thought that by the way the SNP over looked Scottish companies for the contracts to build it

What, like the way other administrations hired a Catalan architect and an English construction company for the parliament building, or a German company for the Edinburgh trams? Or the SNP giving Trump carte blanch to build a frickin' golf course which will probably provide more jobs for non-Scots than it will for the local people.

Let's not pretend here for one minute that any politician of any colour has ever shown beyond superficial interest where a construction company or a designer is from when it comes to a major piece of Scottish infrastructure construction.

I'm sure whatever opposition politician you care to mention would have made certain it was only Scottish companies building the new Forth Bridge, staffed by the Scottish jobless, with apprenticeships for the Scottish youngsters and they'd paint it tartan using paint mined in Scotland - or at least, that's what they'd tell people now the opportunity has arisen to be a contrary and critically sniping voice. All the while knowing that in every likelihood, they'd have done exactly the same and have a track record of doing so.

They're all at it. It's one of the more sickeningly hypocritical aspects of Scottish politics. It's just a pantomime played out by below average actors with a very tired and familiar script.

[Beefster]

The new Forth crossing is publicly funded as far as I am aware.

Presumably the Waverley Line is publicly funded too?

[Dinkydoo]

They don't have to though. This is a vote asking the population to vote for change....ergo it's the ones proposing the change that need to do most of the persuading.

When faced with substantial change that will have significant unintended and unclear consequences the default option for most will be to opt for the status quo. Few will need persuaded into that.

This is exactly how I'm feeling; the SNP haven't exactly made independence sound all that appealing, to be honest.

[Just Alf]

In the week that HS2 has been given front line coverage I had a wee look about at the funding of it.The FT seems to think that over a 50 year period it loses £33 Billion, funded by the tax payer of The UK.Same applies to Crossrail, funded by £10Billion from central govt and crossrail 2, if ever started, another £10 billion.

So The UK taxpayer is funding £53 Billion for railways in London and central England...can anyone show how much Westminster is providing for say, the new Forth crossing?

Don't forget, when the uk gov bailed out the channel tunnel with untold billions of our money, the justification was that the high speed link would end up terminating in central Scotland (land was even bought for this proposed "euro terminal")...... Maybe this HS1/2 stuff is them fulfilling their promise, and HS3 is just around the corner?

Then again............

[marinello59]

Railways are devolved so its the Scottish Parliament that picks up the bill. The new forth crossing is also the responsibility of Holyrood but you never have thought that by the way the SNP over looked Scottish companies for the contracts to build it

If Scottish companies could not provide the expertise at the best price then they were quite rightly overlooked. It's up to them to rise to the challenge. Should Scotland (whether independent or not) really go back to the days of featherbedding inefficient organisations?

[marinello59]

In the week that HS2 has been given front line coverage I had a wee look about at the funding of it.The FT seems to think that over a 50 year period it loses £33 Billion, funded by the tax payer of The UK.Same applies to Crossrail, funded by £10Billion from central govt and crossrail 2, if ever started, another £10 billion.

So The UK taxpayer is funding £53 Billion for railways in London and central England...can anyone show how much Westminster is providing for say, the new Forth crossing?

Do you know we have our own devolved Parliament with an SNP administration responsible for deciding what gets spent where?

[Hainan Hibs]

Due to the EU Procurement law the Scottish Government could not favour Scottish companies and had to put the work out for tender.

[Beefster]

Unsurprisingly, the Electoral Commission recommended that the question was changed (amongst other things). Surprisingly (to me anyway), the SNP have accepted the recommendations of the Commission in full.

[RyeSloan]

Presumably the Waverley Line is publicly funded too?

Not sure which one you mean but the original Waverley Line was built with private money, as was most of the nations rail network.....funny how we were capable of allowing private companies and shareholders to raise the finance and take the risks of such projects in the 1800's but in the 21st century seem to require/allow central government to make these decisions and spend everyones billion's.

The new one is being built by Network Rail I think although the story of the re-building / re-opening is a rather depressingly familiar example of delay and cost escalation. Network Rail is by incorporation a private company but as it has no shareholders is (in my eyes at least) a quasi government entity. I don't know who's financing the new Waverly line (i.e is it coming out of NR capital expenditure or being provided as by a specific grant from the scottish governement to NR) but I'm pretty sure the tax payer will be contributing something.

[steakbake]

Unsurprisingly, the Electoral Commission recommended that the question was changed (amongst other things). Surprisingly (to me anyway), the SNP have accepted the recommendations of the Commission in full.

Interesting indeed. The Electoral Commission's question is much better and more direct.

[southfieldhibby]

Railways are devolved so its the Scottish Parliament that picks up the bill. The new forth crossing is also the responsibility of Holyrood but you never have thought that by the way the SNP over looked Scottish companies for the contracts to build it

Railways are indeed devolved, when it comes to Scottish railways,anyway.When it comes to major new railways for England, Westminster stumps up, ergo we stump up.


Do you know we have our own devolved Parliament with an SNP administration responsible for deciding what gets spent where?

Except when it comes to things Armies,Trident,HS2,Crossrail,refurbishing Westminster,Regenerating some of London for Olympics,Thames Waterways etc. Nothing Holyrood can do about any of that, except watch as our taxes go down south to help pay for all of that.

[heretoday]

Interesting indeed. The Electoral Commission's question is much better and more direct.

Why does there have to be a question at all?

Why not strip it down to Independence - Yes or No? There's nothing prejudicial in that surely?

[yeezus.]

"Should Scotland" is fairer and makes more sense. Glad the Scottish Gov. have agreed with this.

[Beefster]

Not sure which one you mean but the original Waverley Line was built with private money, as was most of the nations rail network.....funny how we were capable of allowing private companies and shareholders to raise the finance and take the risks of such projects in the 1800's but in the 21st century seem to require/allow central government to make these decisions and spend everyones billion's.

The new one is being built by Network Rail I think although the story of the re-building / re-opening is a rather depressingly familiar example of delay and cost escalation. Network Rail is by incorporation a private company but as it has no shareholders is (in my eyes at least) a quasi government entity. I don't know who's financing the new Waverly line (i.e is it coming out of NR capital expenditure or being provided as by a specific grant from the scottish governement to NR) but I'm pretty sure the tax payer will be contributing something.

Apparently, it's called the 'Borders Railway' now, which is news to me! I could be wrong but it appears to be funded by the Scottish Government and the relevant councils.

I was really making a point about folk moaning about HS2. It's not like we don't get any similar spending up here.


Railways are indeed devolved, when it comes to Scottish railways,anyway.When it comes to major new railways for England, Westminster stumps up, ergo we stump up.

I'm fairly sure that we receive more in public spending per head than the English. Your argument seems to be "The UK Government gives us money and we spend some of it on railways but then the English spend some money on railways too. That's not fair".

[Beefster]

Why does there have to be a question at all?

Why not strip it down to Independence - Yes or No? There's nothing prejudicial in that surely?

'Independence - Yes or No?' is a question.

[steakbake]

Why does there have to be a question at all?

Why not strip it down to Independence - Yes or No? There's nothing prejudicial in that surely?

True - by that logic, it might also be good just to list the parties on the ballot paper and not bother with the names of the candidates... just get down to the bottom line.

[southfieldhibby]

I'm fairly sure that we receive more in public spending per head than the English. Your argument seems to be "The UK Government gives us money and we spend some of it on railways but then the English spend some money on railways too. That's not fair".

I think there's a couple of reason's how that public spending number has cropped up recently...The English have chosen to reduce public spending and move things into the private sector-The NHS being the prime example-something that wont' happen in Scotland any time soon, we also choose to spend more money on things like free prescriptions and free bus travel for the elderly, things that Westminster chooses not to do.

With regards to the railways, and specifically HS1/2 & Crossrail, the point I was trying to make ( maybe poorly) is that they're funded by Westminster, which in turn is funded, partially, by Scottish tax payers, but no benefit is seen in Scotland.As a comparison, the largest infrastructure project just now in Scotland is the new Forth crossing, funded by The Scottish Executive alone, with zero coming from Westminster (although, pedant could argue the entire block grant comes from Westminster, to which I'd reply that block grant is less than we contribute in taxation) That, to me, is not fair.If you think it is, I find that weird.

Also remember, we're contributing to things like The Olympics,Thames Water upgrades,London Underground & Westminster upgrades, all things we can happily do without...not even mentioning the £125 Billion on Trident.

[marinello59]

I think there's a couple of reason's how that public spending number has cropped up recently...The English have chosen to reduce public spending and move things into the private sector-The NHS being the prime example-something that wont' happen in Scotland any time soon, we also choose to spend more money on things like free prescriptions and free bus travel for the elderly, things that Westminster chooses not to do.

With regards to the railways, and specifically HS1/2 & Crossrail, the point I was trying to make ( maybe poorly) is that they're funded by Westminster, which in turn is funded, partially, by Scottish tax payers, but no benefit is seen in Scotland.As a comparison, the largest infrastructure project just now in Scotland is the new Forth crossing, funded by The Scottish Executive alone, with zero coming from Westminster (although, pedant could argue the entire block grant comes from Westminster, to which I'd reply that block grant is less than we contribute in taxation) That, to me, is not fair.If you think it is, I find that weird.

Also remember, we're contributing to things like The Olympics,Thames Water upgrades,London Underground & Westminster upgrades, all things we can happily do without...not even mentioning the £125 Billion on Trident.

I think it's the UK Governement down in Westminster, not the English Government. Scots MP's get to vote too. :confused:
You may disagree with Trident but it is part of the UK defence system. I take it an independent Scotland will not bother spending money on Armies etc because everybody loves us dontcha know. All the arguments being made about spending down South could also be made by the citizens of Aberdeen and Inverness etc about the Forth crossing............why should they pay if they ain't getting any benefit from it. Except they are as a vibrant Edinburgh economy makes Scotland richer as a whole. Just as a vibrant London/Manchester/Leeds economy benefits the UK as a whole. Personally I think they should only spend money on me me me me me.

[allmodcons]

Railways are devolved so its the Scottish Parliament that picks up the bill. The new forth crossing is also the responsibility of Holyrood but you never have thought that by the way the SNP over looked Scottish companies for the contracts to build it

Another Labour lie. This centres around procurement of steel and is just utter tosh. Labour policy at the moment is if you say something loud enough and long enough it has to be true.

[allmodcons]

They don't have to though. This is a vote asking the population to vote for change....ergo it's the ones proposing the change that need to do most of the persuading.

When faced with substantial change that will have significant unintended and unclear consequences the default option for most will be to opt for the status quo. Few will need persuaded into that.

As you well know 'most' don't want the status quo. 'Most' want substantial powers for the Scottish Parliament or Independence. Less than 20% support the status quo, so the 'No' campaign has a lot of persuading to do aswell.

[southfieldhibby]

I think it's the UK Governement down in Westminster, not the English Government. Scots MP's get to vote too. :confused:
You may disagree with Trident but it is part of the UK defence system. I take it an independent Scotland will not bother spending money on Armies etc because everybody loves us dontcha know. All the arguments being made about spending down South could also be made by the citizens of Aberdeen and Inverness etc about the Forth crossing............why should they pay if they ain't getting any benefit from it. Except they are as a vibrant Edinburgh economy makes Scotland richer as a whole. Just as a vibrant London/Manchester/Leeds economy benefits the UK as a whole. Personally I think they should only spend money on me me me me me.

Trident is part of the UK defence system, one that the majority of Scots are against, aren't you?The days of detente and MAD are thankfully behind us, nukes are obsolete in the types of wars we're being coerced into fighting nowadays.And of course Scotland will require military, but if we continue in The UK it'll just get smaller and smaller with all the cuts and bases being shut up here.
Also good of you to mention Abderdeen, they're just about to benefit from significant SE spending in the shape of a bypass....Scottish Exec, looking after their country.
I personally think Scotland should spend all the money raised here,here.

[allmodcons]

I'm fairly sure that we receive more in public spending per head than the English. Your argument seems to be "The UK Government gives us money and we spend some of it on railways but then the English spend some money on railways too. That's not fair".


Another myth that makes good reading for the anti Independence brigade. This article is a little out of date but just as relevant today as it was in Nov 2011.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

[steakbake]

I like the defence debate. It's so backwards and in places ludicrous.

How would Scotland defend her borders, it's asked... what if we are invaded, how would we repel the attacks? I'd like to know who will invade Scotland and if that is a likely scenario, would there not be a wider global situation going on if a small northerly European country woke up with tanks on the border or occupying troops landing on her beaches - presumably whichever force decided to invade might have to make their way through England first?? Or might the RUK invade us - is that the implication here? What about the Russians - I suppose if they wanted to they could invade now, despite our nuclear fireworks in the Clyde.

It's real "through the looking-glass" mental masturbation.

[marinello59]

Trident is part of the UK defence system, one that the majority of Scots are against, aren't you?The days of detente and MAD are thankfully behind us, nukes are obsolete in the types of wars we're being coerced into fighting nowadays.And of course Scotland will require military, but if we continue in The UK it'll just get smaller and smaller with all the cuts and bases being shut up here.
Also good of you to mention Abderdeen, they're just about to benefit from significant SE spending in the shape of a bypass....Scottish Exec, looking after their country.
I personally think Scotland should spend all the money raised here,here.

Compared to the central belt the infrastructure is appalling in the North and North East of Scotland and the bypass is well overdue. It doesn't seem right after all the Oil revenue that is sent South from there. Aberdeenshire should go it alone.

[Beefster]

I think there's a couple of reason's how that public spending number has cropped up recently...The English have chosen to reduce public spending and move things into the private sector-The NHS being the prime example-something that wont' happen in Scotland any time soon, we also choose to spend more money on things like free prescriptions and free bus travel for the elderly, things that Westminster chooses not to do.

With regards to the railways, and specifically HS1/2 & Crossrail, the point I was trying to make ( maybe poorly) is that they're funded by Westminster, which in turn is funded, partially, by Scottish tax payers, but no benefit is seen in Scotland.As a comparison, the largest infrastructure project just now in Scotland is the new Forth crossing, funded by The Scottish Executive alone, with zero coming from Westminster (although, pedant could argue the entire block grant comes from Westminster, to which I'd reply that block grant is less than we contribute in taxation) That, to me, is not fair.If you think it is, I find that weird.

Also remember, we're contributing to things like The Olympics,Thames Water upgrades,London Underground & Westminster upgrades, all things we can happily do without...not even mentioning the £125 Billion on Trident.

You're treating the money the Scottish Government gets as coming entirely from Scottish taxpayers. Equally, you're treating money that the UK government spends as including Scottish taxpayers. You can't have it both ways. The bit about the block grant being less than we contribute completely depends on your view of North Sea oil and has been argued to death on here in the past.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

I'm no expert but I'm fairly sure that public spending per head has absolutely hee-haw to do with how a government or parliament chooses to spend that money. The bits about free prescription and the likes aren't relevant. Incidentally, paying private companies to do stuff still involves public spending.


Another myth that makes good reading for the anti Independence brigade. This article is a little out of date but just as relevant today as it was in Nov 2011.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

I didn't say that Scotland didn't pay its way. I was challenging the "We pay for our own stuff AND we pay for the English stuff too" line.

[southfieldhibby]

Compared to the central belt the infrastructure is appalling in the North and North East of Scotland and the bypass is well overdue. It doesn't seem right after all the Oil revenue that is sent South from there. Aberdeenshire should go it alone.

I agree the bypass is overdue, as in an upgrade to the A90, a road I despise so much I've not gone to Dingwall tonight. Btw, the oil and gas isn't just off Aberdeenshire, so the flippant remark was not only poor but inaccurate.

[ancienthibby]

Unsurprisingly, the Electoral Commission recommended that the question was changed (amongst other things). Surprisingly (to me anyway), the SNP have accepted the recommendations of the Commission in full.

Not surprising at all!

I would surmise that the original question proposed by the SNP was merely a negotiating point to give the Electoral Commission something to debate!

What's that purring sound coming from AS/NS tonight?? :greengrin

[marinello59]

I agree the bypass is overdue, as in an upgrade to the A90, a road I despise so much I've not gone to Dingwall tonight. Btw, the oil and gas isn't just off Aberdeenshire, so the flippant remark was not only poor but inaccurate.

I am well aware that the Oil and Gas reserves are not just off the Aberdeenshire coast or indeed the Scottish coast. It was a joke, a crap one but a joke none the less. Will an Independent Scotland be a humour free zone?

[easty]

I am well aware that the Oil and Gas reserves are not just off the Aberdeenshire coast or indeed the Scottish coast. It was a joke, a crap one but a joke none the less. Will an Independent Scotland be a humour free zone?

Scottish humour should be kept for Scottish people only, this isn't a Scottish-only forum so keep the jokes tae yerself pal!!!

[CropleyWasGod]

I am well aware that the Oil and Gas reserves are not just off the Aberdeenshire coast or indeed the Scottish coast. It was a joke, a crap one but a joke none the less. Will an Independent Scotland be a humour free zone?

Crap joke, maybe, but there is perhaps a point here.

I'm sure that when the 1979 debate was going on, there were some murmurings from Shetland that, in the event of Scottish independence, they would push for their own independence.

Now, imagine the stushie (Scots word for a Scots debate) that would cause......:greengrin

[Hainan Hibs]

I'm fairly sure that we receive more in public spending per head than the English..

The Institute of Financial Studies and GERS both show that although Scotland gets more per head in spending our tax contribution outstrips the level spending, meaning we are in relative surplus and in a better fiscal position than the rest of the UK.

[Jack]

One thing about HS1/2 that's not been mentioned is that not only will it be of no advantage to Scotland it will actually work to its detriment as businesses will choose to be on, or close to, the new super line.

With no commitment, indeed a refusal to consider, extending to Scotland it would appear to me that the English are already preparing for independence.

Incidentally to the poster who suggested the railways were previously built by private money. Although that's true most of the top folk ended up disgraced at best or jailed or committed suicide while the resulting crash was on a par with the current banking fiasco.

[Beefster]

The Institute of Financial Studies and GERS both show that although Scotland gets more per head in spending our tax contribution outstrips the level spending, meaning we are in relative surplus and in a better fiscal position than the rest of the UK.

I didn't say that Scotland didn't pay its way. I was challenging the "We pay for our own stuff AND we pay for the English stuff too" line.

[heretoday]

'Independence - Yes or No?' is a question.

No it's not.

BALLOT PAPER FIRST LINE INDEPENDENCE

SECOND LINE YES ( ) NO ( )

[Beefster]

No it's not.

BALLOT PAPER FIRST LINE INDEPENDENCE

SECOND LINE YES ( ) NO ( )

Still a question. I'd imagine anything that requires a yes or no answer is.

[marinello59]

Crap joke, maybe, but there is perhaps a point here.

I'm sure that when the 1979 debate was going on, there were some murmurings from Shetland that, in the event of Scottish independence, they would push for their own independence.

Now, imagine the stushie (Scots word for a Scots debate) that would cause......:greengrin

The Shetlanders mindset at the time was why should they trust a Government in Edinburgh to look after their interests any more than the one at Westminster and they had a point.

[MB62]

The arguement here seems to be all about, will Scotland be better off or worse off financially with independence?

For me, I couldn't care less either way, I just want independence, Scotland to decide what's best for our own country, if this costs me another 5p in the £ or whatever then so be it.

I don't understand why people don't want independence because they think we can't afford to live without the financial input from south of the border. Are we really a nation of spongers, happy to live of other peoples money?

[Hibbyradge]

With no commitment, indeed a refusal to consider, extending to Scotland it would appear to me that the English are already preparing for independence.



That's some conclusion!

Given that only about a quarter of Scots want independence, "The English" are preparing for the status quo.

[southfieldhibby]

I am well aware that the Oil and Gas reserves are not just off the Aberdeenshire coast or indeed the Scottish coast. It was a joke, a crap one but a joke none the less. Will an Independent Scotland be a humour free zone?

apologies, was having a crappy day. ( still a **** joke,though :wink: )


You're treating the money the Scottish Government gets as coming entirely from Scottish taxpayers. Equally, you're treating money that the UK government spends as including Scottish taxpayers. You can't have it both ways.

From what I understand, we pay more out than we get in, so in effect the money the Scottish Govt gets does come entirely from the funds provided by Scotland. Outwith that, there are certain major items, based exclusively in England( mentioned above), with zero benefit to Scotland, that we contribute too.So unless anyone can disprove that, we do have it both ways.

[Beefster]

From what I understand, we pay more out than we get in, so in effect the money the Scottish Govt gets does come entirely from the funds provided by Scotland. Outwith that, there are certain major items, based exclusively in England( mentioned above), with zero benefit to Scotland, that we contribute too.So unless anyone can disprove that, we do have it both ways.

So, post-independence and without subsidising the rest of the UK, Scotland will be a wealthier nation with extra money to combat stuff like poverty?

[southfieldhibby]

So, post-independence and without subsidising the rest of the UK, Scotland will be a wealthier nation with extra money to combat stuff like poverty?

I never used the word subsidise, putting a slant on things like that is very Darling-esque.But aye, given full control over all our finances, and the very nature of Scottish politics would suggest any additional monies saved from things like HS2,trident,Olympics etc would go towards tackling the shameful poverty,life expectancy,heart disease etc that blights Scotland.

sounds good,eh?

[Beefster]

I never used the word subsidise, putting a slant on things like that is very Darling-esque.But aye, given full control over all our finances, and the very nature of Scottish politics would suggest any additional monies saved from things like HS2,trident,Olympics etc would go towards tackling the shameful poverty,life expectancy,heart disease etc that blights Scotland.

sounds good,eh?

Sounds magic. Why aren't the SNP campaigning on "Vote for independence to cure poverty and health problems"? Seems a bit of a missed opportunity.

I think we would spend money on transport infrastructure, defence and sport though.

[southfieldhibby]

Sounds magic. Why aren't the SNP campaigning on "Vote for independence to cure poverty and health problems"? Seems a bit of a missed opportunity.

I think we would spend money on transport infrastructure, defence and sport though.

We already over-contribute to defence, so that's sorted.Infrastructure is a decent shout and sport participation should be part of any govt's plan for improved health.

I'm not an SNP supporter btw.

[Jack]

That's some conclusion!

Given that only about a quarter of Scots want independence, "The English" are preparing for the status quo.

My statement was not a comment on how the voting percentages are, or may turn out to be.

The Boy David stated in his spiel about HS1/2 how vitally import is was for the prosperity of the nation to have a modern high speed railway system.

If its so vital to the nation then why isn't Scotland part of that investment?

Is it not just as important that Scotland has the same modern infrastructure as the rest of the UK to continue, for example, to attract business investment?

Is Scotland not a vital part of the nation?

Is Scotland a part of the Boy David's nation? Or apart from his nation?

[Beefster]

My statement was not a comment on how the voting percentages are, or may turn out to be.

The Boy David stated in his spiel about HS1/2 how vitally import is was for the prosperity of the nation to have a modern high speed railway system.

If its so vital to the nation then why isn't Scotland part of that investment?

Is it not just as important that Scotland has the same modern infrastructure as the rest of the UK to continue, for example, to attract business investment?

Is Scotland not a vital part of the nation?

Is Scotland a part of the Boy David's nation? Or apart from his nation?

Scotland will be part of that investment. Bit of a waste of a rant really.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-government-transport-minister-pleased-1560738

[Jack]

Scotland will be part of that investment. Bit of a waste of a rant really.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-government-transport-minister-pleased-1560738

The article doesn't really say much – both governments are having a chat.

If Scotland is included in the illusive HS3 …

HS3 Plan A – Scotland stays in the Union: we might consider maybe extending to the Jocks.

HS3 Plan B – Scotland gains independence: bye bye Jocko

[southfieldhibby]

Scotland will be part of that investment. Bit of a waste of a rant really.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-government-transport-minister-pleased-1560738

London to Manchester is predicted to be finished by 2033, what kind of timetable is predicted to finish the Scottish section, I wonder?

btw, The Scottish govt are planning to build a high speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.No funding from Westminster is anticipated.

[Beefster]

The article doesn't really say much – both governments are having a chat.

If Scotland is included in the illusive HS3 …

HS3 Plan A – Scotland stays in the Union: we might consider maybe extending to the Jocks.

HS3 Plan B – Scotland gains independence: bye bye Jocko

What did you expect? The UK to fund the transport link way into an independent Scotland's territory?

It seems to me that Scots parodying the English use 'Jock' far more than the actual English do.


London to Manchester is predicted to be finished by 2033, what kind of timetable is predicted to finish the Scottish section, I wonder?

btw, The Scottish govt are planning to build a high speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.No funding from Westminster is anticipated.

I dont think you're really grasping how this devolution works. Transport is a devolved matter. As such, it's up to the Scottish government to fund.

[southfieldhibby]

I dont think you're really grasping how this devolution works. Transport is a devolved matter. As such, it's up to the Scottish government to fund.

now you're being obtuse.

[heretoday]

Still a question. I'd imagine anything that requires a yes or no answer is.

Honestly! I don't see how you can strip it down any further. You have to give people a choice! If that implies a question then so be it.

End of dialogue.

[Just Alf]

What did you expect? The UK to fund the transport link way into an independent Scotland's territory?

It seems to me that Scots parodying the English use 'Jock' far more than the actual English do.



I dont think you're really grasping how this devolution works. Transport is a devolved matter. As such, it's up to the Scottish government to fund.

On phone so can't be clever with the qoutes thing

Bottom line is that the uk gov saved the Chunnel and at the time they specifically said the reason they used our (billions) of tax money was because the high speed rail line would terminate in central Scotland. Land was even bought for it which has now become an industrial estate/logistic centre...

[Hibrandenburg]

On phone so can't be clever with the qoutes thing

Bottom line is that the uk gov saved the Chunnel and at the time they specifically said the reason they used our (billions) of tax money was because the high speed rail line would terminate in central Scotland. Land was even bought for it which has now become an industrial estate/logistic centre...

You mean we were lied to and ripped off by a government who's main priority is to look after the majority of the voters who live south of the border at the cost of those who live north of the border but play next to no role in the outcome of general elections? :shocked:

[LeighLoyal]

I'm waiting for Salmond and co to make a compelling argument that's going to make me want it, just now I don't think I trust the SNP to run a message let alone fully govern a nation of over 5m and put in place the institutions and apparatus needed to replace the UK ones. Left wing nationalists are a curious bunch in truth, it's a contradiction that makes me wonder if he actually has the strength of conviction required or if he's secretly content with the current set up. I certainly have grave misgivings about his deputy, so overall I'll probably say no to it. I don't think Salmond actually knows the enormity of what independence would mean.

[Jack]

I'm waiting for Salmond and co to make a compelling argument that's going to make me want it, just now I don't think I trust the SNP to run a message let alone fully govern a nation of over 5m and put in place the institutions and apparatus needed to replace the UK ones. Left wing nationalists are a curious bunch in truth, it's a contradiction that makes me wonder if he actually has the strength of conviction required or if he's secretly content with the current set up. I certainly have grave misgivings about his deputy, so overall I'll probably say no to it. I don't think Salmond actually knows the enormity of what independence would mean.

I don't think there would be an issue in setting up all that is required for an independent Scotland. If that's the choice of the Scottish people then I would expect the transition to take some years rather than on the starting gun. I'd also expect when all is said and done that the negotiations although tough would be amicable.

With regard to the SNP running the country, that's not guaranteed. They did however surprise many throughout their first term as a minority government.

What is guaranteed is that it will be Tory or Labour, with a wee bit of Liberal if they still exist, pimping themselves to anyone that will take them, running the UK for the foreseeable future.

History shows us that Labour and the Liberal in Scotland was a shocker only surpassed by the current Tory Liberal Coalition we have at present.

Westminster over the past few decades hasn't covered itself with glory. If the next few decades is to be in a similar vein then Scotland in the Union, IMO, would be strangled back into the dark ages.

[Beefster]

Westminster over the past few decades hasn't covered itself with glory. If the next few decades is to be in a similar vein then Scotland in the Union, IMO, would be strangled back into the dark ages.

It's hyperbole like this that makes a mockery of any real attempt to debate the merits of independence. I can guarantee you that, irrespective of how Scotland votes in 2014, we won't be 'strangled back' to 1985, never mind the dark ages.

[marinello59]

You mean we were lied to and ripped off by a government who's main priority is to look after the majority of the voters who live south of the border at the cost of those who live north of the border but play next to no role in the outcome of general elections? :shocked:

Maybe the 13 years in Labour in power in Westminster voted for by Scots in droves and a cabinet jam packed with Scots and (and two Scots born PM's) never happened. Tories in power........we never voted for them. It's not fair. Labour in Power.....Well we voted for them but it didn't really make any difference to the result. it's not fair :faf:
It's the dishonesty of the arguements from both sides that already have me wishing it was all over.

[Jack]

It's hyperbole like this that makes a mockery of any real attempt to debate the merits of independence. I can guarantee you that, irrespective of how Scotland votes in 2014, we won't be 'strangled back' to 1985, never mind the dark ages.

Here is a copy of the longest article I’ve read in a while - I've read it twice now :greengrin. It’s a good read that kept me going to the end, just had to see who done it without skipping to the last page. Its part of a longer article and shame on me I didn’t take note of the author, but credit to him/her. If you care to read it you will see that it is not possible for the SNP, or any other shade of party, to run Scotland. The SNP are doing a great job with the NHS but to the detriment of elsewhere. The plates are spinning but its only a matter of time. Please, read on.


The Barnett formula, which has determined Scottish Government funding since devolution, works by taking the money spent in England on services and allocating an equivalent percentage (based on population and devolved service provision) to the Scottish Government. By its nature, the formula is therefore not linked to the actual money raised in Scotland, or even the affordability of services from our tax base – it merely gives a lump sum to Holyrood based on the previous year’s spending in England. And it’s this system that will eventually lead to the undermining of the Scottish Government’s finances.

This is largely attributable to moves by successive Westminster governments since the advent of devolution to bring market-based economics into English public-service provision, through PPP, PFI and privatisation. As more and more infrastructure is built on PFI/PPP and services are either privatised or funded through direct billing of the public in England, then less public money from government is spent on services.

This leads to an equivalent drop in the funding due to the Scottish Government under the Barnett Formula. This is despite the fact that the services in England are not losing overall funding, as this is being recouped through direct charging (such as in the case of tuition fees) or by having the service being provided completely independently of government by the private sector for profit.

Even if the people of England wound up paying substantially more for the same services, or the Scottish tax base took a rapid growth spurt upwards, it wouldn’t matter. The funding for Scotland is based on the money that Westminster and local government spends in England, and only the money they spend.

As privatisation advances and fees for previously free-at-the-point-of-need services become more commonplace, the Scottish block grant will be cut accordingly, removing the funding needed to support our public services and forcing the abolition of universal benefits. This will happen regardless of what the people of Scotland want or do.

As Nicola Sturgeon put it, “It’s a conclusion that has its roots in the deeply misguided belief … that this Parliament should be responsible for divvying up the national cake but have no power to influence the overall size of that cake.”

In other words, as the neoliberal free-market ideological consensus tightens its grip on the throat of England, so Scotland too will choke.

In its attempts to stave off the asphyxiation of public funds, the SNP government has worked minor miracles of efficiency savings (http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/oct/john-swinney-msps-conference-address), and is taking other steps such as consolidating public services where possible, an obvious example being the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces into a single one. Johann Lamont proposes instead to save money by reducing the provision of universal services and charging for some of them via means-testing. And then there’s also the constant background rumble within Scottish Labour with regard to ending the Council Tax freeze.

But none of these steps will solve the problem. Increasing Council Tax, for example, offers very limited scope for returns. It would be highly unpopular with Labour’s core vote to raise it across the board, so the party might propose to hike only the upper bands as a means of wealth redistribution. But a problem then arises in poor areas, which by definition tend to have very few households in the upper bands. Unless you charge the wealthiest £1m a year, the only answer is to raise the tax for the poor too.

To understand the scale of the problem, we must first note the reason the country’s finances are under such strain.

Since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, the UK has only run a budget surplus for six of the last 33 years – two under John Major and four under Gordon Brown. When Labour took office in 1997, the nation’s debt stood at £352 billion. In 2001, after four years of “prudence” produced small surpluses, Gordon Brown declared an “end to boom and bust” and began spending more than was raised in taxes.

By 2008, before the banking crisis, the national debt had risen to £527 billion and the deficit (the amount the government was borrowing every year to finance extra spending) was £56bn a year. When Labour left office in 2010, the banking crisis had devastated public accounts and left the UK with a debt of around £760 billion and an annual deficit that had soared to £157bn.

Today, the coalition government has overseen a dramatic increase in the debt to £1,159 billion (and bear in mind that this doesn’t even count the “off the books” debt of PFI and other “creative” accounting solutions). The annual cost of simply servicing that debt amounts to around £43bn. Every household in the UK pays around £2,000 per annum in tax merely to finance the interest on the debt alone, never mind paying down the principal.

Scotland’s share of debt repayment was accounted for in GERS at £3.7bn in 2010-11 (more than we contributed to UK defence spending). That’s billions of pounds being given away every year with nothing to show for it – and what’s worse is that we have to borrow that money to pay the debt interest, from the very people we are paying it back to, with interest on top of that since we’re running a deficit. Westminster’s grand plan to drag us out of recession/depression is the economic equivalent of applying leeches to stop blood loss.

What all this means is that as the Barnett Formula continues to be applied, we’ll slowly get worse off until we cannot fund public services regardless of whether or not we can afford them. But there’s another reason too.

From GERS we know that in 2010-11 the total budget attributed to Scotland by Westminster (i.e. both the Scottish block grant and the money spent by London “on Scotland’s behalf”) was just under £64 billion, including all debt repayment and other costs. The total tax revenue raised in Scotland over the same period when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included was £53 billion, which left Scotland with an estimated net fiscal balance deficit of £10.7 billion (or 7.4% of GDP).

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.

But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The share amounted to £11.4 billion per capita, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.

This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate.

That might be fine once in a while, but if it went on every week for 30 years, and all the time your friend was calling you a scrounger living off their money who should be grateful to be allowed to eat with them – after all they take you to all the nice places: the UN Security Council canteen, NATO’s sandwich shop, etc – then you might start to think it was time to get your own lunch.

Scotland's social policies depend so much on central government funding. So when Scotland gets less, in actual and then compounded by inflation in real terms, it will make the fiscal case for Scotland in the Union absolutely impossible.

These wont just be cuts in the way we have been used to them in the past. IMO they will devastate the very fabric of our society.

Of course should Scotland vote to stay in the Union following the referendum the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments could then negotiate a new ‘Barnett Formula’ for Scotland. From a weak, ‘you voted to stay in the Union’ position, I doubt Westminster will be particularly sympathetic to the cause.

Particularly, given over the last few years the Westminster governments have been slaughtered by their electorate as the Scots have introduced free personal care for the elderly; free prescriptions; the university tuition fees; free bridge tolls among others.

The deliberate misleading of the English by the Daily Mail esque ghouls, ‘the Scots are spongers’ brigade will see to that … and the Boy David, if he's still there, would just love to give them their wish.

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe the 13 years in Labour in power in Westminster voted for by Scots in droves and a cabinet jam packed with Scots and (and two Scots born PM's) never happened. Tories in power........we never voted for them. It's not fair. Labour in Power.....Well we voted for them but it didn't really make any difference to the result. it's not fair :faf:
It's the dishonesty of the arguements from both sides that already have me wishing it was all over.

13 years where the rest of the UK happened to want a Labour government too. If they want a Labour government then we get one too but if they want Tory then that gets dumped upon us also.

It all boils down to personal belief, if you feel yourself to be British rather than Scottish then you will be more likely to accept a government that was voted in against the grain of the Scottish vote.

I'd much rather someone who can be held to account by Scottish voters was looking after Scottish interests than someone who has probably never set foot in Scotland. That's the decider for me.

[yeezus.]

13 years where the rest of the UK happened to want a Labour government too. If they want a Labour government then we get one too but if they want Tory then that gets dumped upon us also.

It all boils down to personal belief, if you feel yourself to be British rather than Scottish then you will be more likely to accept a government that was voted in against the grain of the Scottish vote.

I'd much rather someone who can be held to account by Scottish voters was looking after Scottish interests than someone who has probably never set foot in Scotland. That's the decider for me.

Scotland overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative Party in 2010 and I think the Yes campaign will play on that in the next couple of years: this idea that an independent Scotland would never have to suffer a Tory government again. I personally don't think that is enough reason to leave the United Kingdom.

I wonder if the SNP would fare better or worse if they offered a more appealing version of independence.

[Hibrandenburg]

Scotland overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative Party in 2010 and I think the Yes campaign will play on that in the next couple of years: this idea that an independent Scotland would never have to suffer a Tory government again. I personally don't think that is enough reason to leave the United Kingdom.

I wonder if the SNP would fare better or worse if they offered a more appealing version of independence.

I think the SNP's life expectancy within an Independant Scotland would be limited having served their purpose. They'd have to reinvent themselves.

[southfieldhibby]

It's hyperbole like this that makes a mockery of any real attempt to debate the merits of independence. I can guarantee you that, irrespective of how Scotland votes in 2014, we won't be 'strangled back' to 1985, never mind the dark ages.

I'd agree, but take away the hyperbole and the point stands.Scotland, continuing in the Union and relying on the block grant will go backwards.As England/Wales remove themselves financially from the bases that the block grant is calculated by, Scotland's ability to fund itself also reduces.This is a fact.

[allmodcons]

Scotland overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative Party in 2010 and I think the Yes campaign will play on that in the next couple of years: this idea that an independent Scotland would never have to suffer a Tory government again. I personally don't think that is enough reason to leave the United Kingdom.

I wonder if the SNP would fare better or worse if they offered a more appealing version of independence.

Since the 1960's Scotland has consistently voted for 'centre left' parties in bigger numbers (%) than our neighbours in England. As everyone knows the Conversatives have not had their problems to seek in Scotland in recent times but, moreover, those on the far right like UKIP and the BNP have failed to make any impact in Scotland (even when riding high south of the border).

For me the SNP, as a left of centre social democratic party, are making an appealing case for Independence. No doubt there are a number (like me) who would prefer the SNP to be more left of centre but, ultimately, this is not what the majority of Scots (or Nationalists) want, so I as a card carrying member of the SNP I have to live with the democratic will of the mainstream.

If the Yes campaign was to present the case for a Socialist Scottish Republic or an Independent Scotland based on the UKIP model they would have no chance of winning the debate. IMO most Scots want a left of centre socially democratic country remaining in Eurpoe and think the best way to achieve this is by voting for Independence as advocated by those leading the Yes campaign.


As an complete aside, are you the same lad that I gave a lift (to Aberdeen) after the cup final last year?

[yeezus.]

Since the 1960's Scotland has consistently voted for 'centre left' parties in bigger numbers (%) than our neighbours in England. As everyone knows the Conversatives have not had their problems to seek in Scotland in recent times but, moreover, those on the far right like UKIP and the BNP have failed to make any impact in Scotland (even when riding high south of the border).

For me the SNP, as a left of centre social democratic party, are making an appealing case for Independence. No doubt there are a number (like me) who would prefer the SNP to be more left of centre but, ultimately, this is not what the majority of Scots (or Nationalists) want, so I as a card carrying member of the SNP I have to live with the democratic will of the mainstream.

If the Yes campaign was to present the case for a Socialist Scottish Republic or an Independent Scotland based on the UKIP model they would have no chance of winning the debate. IMO most Scots want a left of centre socially democratic country remaining in Eurpoe and think the best way to achieve this is by voting for Independence as advocated by those leading the Yes campaign.


As an complete aside, are you the same lad that I gave a lift (to Aberdeen) after the cup final last year?

I just find it so tepid. I think more people would become more involved in the Yes campaign if they thought they would get big changes in an independent Scotland.

As a card carrying member of the Labour party I'll vote No but I'm finding the whole debate quite boring.

Probably if you are Peem? I ****ed up big time after that Cup final - at University and in life in general. I'm now back in Stranraer on the dole with a sense of hopelessness at the moment... not that I'm blaming Hibs performance that day or anything!

[southfieldhibby]

As a card carrying member of the Labour party I'll vote No but I'm finding the whole debate quite boring.



As a card carrying member of the Labour Party I'd suggest a yes vote is the only way to stop your party getting it's arse handed to it by The SNP on a regular basis.I genuinely don't know why being a Labour supporter's default position is for the union...can you explain please mate, I honestly don't get that.

http://www.labourforindy.co.uk/

[yeezus.]

As a card carrying member of the Labour Party I'd suggest a yes vote is the only way to stop your party getting it's arse handed to it by The SNP on a regular basis.I genuinely don't know why being a Labour supporter's default position is for the union...can you explain please mate, I honestly don't get that.

http://www.labourforindy.co.uk/

I am aware of the Labour for independence group I think they were at the independence march in Edinburgh.

When I say I'm a member of the Labour party, people accuse me of being a unionist as if Labour were once in support of Scottish independence. As far as I know, Labour once favored Irish unification - indeed people like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn still are supporters of a 32 county Irish republic so I guess they aren't technically unionist.

I think most Labour supporters/members recognize that devolution has benefited Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and therefore I don't see the need to break up this small island.

Also, I think come the next Scottish parliament elections, Labour will have won the economic argument against the nationalists.

[southfieldhibby]

I am aware of the Labour for independence group I think they were at the independence march in Edinburgh.

I believe they did,aye.As did the very small band of Torys.


When I say I'm a member of the Labour party, people accuse me of being a unionist as if Labour were once in support of Scottish independence. As far as I know, Labour once favored Irish unification - indeed people like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn still are supporters of a 32 county Irish republic so I guess they aren't technically unionist.

I'm sorry man, I'm not getting involved in any Irish comparisons, dangerous ground and not something I'm interested in tbh. Your first sentence makes no sense,though?


I think most Labour supporters/members recognize that devolution has benefited Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and therefore I don't see the need to break up this small island.

Devolution has indeed benefited Scotland, it's an example of how well we can manage ourself.Being even more devolved would be a bad thing?


Also, I think come the next Scottish parliament elections, Labour will have won the economic argument against the nationalists.

Maybe, maybe not.I have no political affiliations, I think they all carry a certain number of shysters.It does look like the SNP are going to continue to be strong in elections as they're better at mobilising their voters?

[Beefster]

Being even more devolved would be a bad thing?

Probably not. Which is likely why lots of folk would favour devo max over independence.

[southfieldhibby]

Probably not. Which is likely why lots of folk would favour devo max over independence.

And where do you draw the line on the powers of devo max?

[yeezus.]

I believe they did,aye.As did the very small band of Torys.



I'm sorry man, I'm not getting involved in any Irish comparisons, dangerous ground and not something I'm interested in tbh. Your first sentence makes no sense,though?



Devolution has indeed benefited Scotland, it's an example of how well we can manage ourself.Being even more devolved would be a bad thing?



Maybe, maybe not.I have no political affiliations, I think they all carry a certain number of shysters.It does look like the SNP are going to continue to be strong in elections as they're better at mobilising their voters?

I think Labour will perform better come the next Scottish Parliament elections. However, I don't buy the argument that because Scotland rejected the Conservative party in 2010 that we should break away from England.

Scotland overwhelmingly backed Labour in 2010, not the SNP. If Alex Salmond and the nationalists want to win the argument they are going to have some of the tough questions being put to them and stop accusing anyone who questions "free services" of being a Tory.

As for Ireland I wasn't trying to open a debate on it, I was only pointing out that people call Labour "unionists" as if they were once nationalist/republican.

[southfieldhibby]

I think Labour will perform better come the next Scottish Parliament elections. However, I don't buy the argument that because Scotland rejected the Conservative party in 2010 that we should break away from England.

Scotland overwhelmingly backed Labour in 2010, not the SNP. If Alex Salmond and the nationalists want to win the argument they are going to have some of the tough questions being put to them and stop accusing anyone who questions "free services" of being a Tory.

As for Ireland I wasn't trying to open a debate on it, I was only pointing out that people call Labour "unionists" as if they were once nationalist/republican.

The Scottish electorate is a smart cookie, The SNP is always under represented in UK elections because of this.To my shame I voted Libdem, something I'll never do again.

As for tough questions, I've yet to see any, only lies and deceit.

About the free services, that's a red herring.They cost almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, and questioning the decision to make them available is equally a labour deal as it is tory.

[yeezus.]

The Scottish electorate is a smart cookie, The SNP is always under represented in UK elections because of this.To my shame I voted Libdem, something I'll never do again.

As for tough questions, I've yet to see any, only lies and deceit.

About the free services, that's a red herring.They cost almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, and questioning the decision to make them available is equally a labour deal as it is tory.

I can see why people voted for the Lib Dems - Nick Clegg seemed like a breath of fresh air and although I opposed them, performed well on the TV debates.

As for "free services", surely at a time when the Scottish gov. is talking about how their budget is being reduced by the evil coalition at Westminster, the poorest should be the priority - and that isn't the case with Universal benefits - they aren't concentrated on those who need them most.

[marinello59]

I can see why people voted for the Lib Dems - Nick Clegg seemed like a breath of fresh air and although I opposed them, performed well on the TV debates.

As for "free services", surely at a time when the Scottish gov. is talking about how their budget is being reduced by the evil coalition at Westminster, the poorest should be the priority - and that isn't the case with Universal benefits - they aren't concentrated on those who need them most.

:agree:
Free prescriptions for millionaires are all very well but one of the failures of Devolution has been the failure to get to grips properly with the problems of poverty in Scotland. We can't blame Westminster for that, it's been down to our MSPs

[RyeSloan]

Here is a copy of the longest article I’ve read in a while - I've read it twice now :greengrin. It’s a good read that kept me going to the end, just had to see who done it without skipping to the last page. Its part of a longer article and shame on me I didn’t take note of the author, but credit to him/her. If you care to read it you will see that it is not possible for the SNP, or any other shade of party, to run Scotland. The SNP are doing a great job with the NHS but to the detriment of elsewhere. The plates are spinning but its only a matter of time. Please, read on.



Scotland's social policies depend so much on central government funding. So when Scotland gets less, in actual and then compounded by inflation in real terms, it will make the fiscal case for Scotland in the Union absolutely impossible.

These wont just be cuts in the way we have been used to them in the past. IMO they will devastate the very fabric of our society.

Of course should Scotland vote to stay in the Union following the referendum the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments could then negotiate a new ‘Barnett Formula’ for Scotland. From a weak, ‘you voted to stay in the Union’ position, I doubt Westminster will be particularly sympathetic to the cause.

Particularly, given over the last few years the Westminster governments have been slaughtered by their electorate as the Scots have introduced free personal care for the elderly; free prescriptions; the university tuition fees; free bridge tolls among others.

The deliberate misleading of the English by the Daily Mail esque ghouls, ‘the Scots are spongers’ brigade will see to that … and the Boy David, if he's still there, would just love to give them their wish.

Which makes me wonder why the no campaign were do determined to get only one question.

I reckon (on nothing overly scientific than a personal hunch) that if asked to chose between status quo, devo max and independence that devo max would have won by a stretch.

A strong devo max vote would have put Scotland in a very strong position to discuss terms which a simple no to independence vote does not.

[southfieldhibby]

As for "free services", surely at a time when the Scottish gov. is talking about how their budget is being reduced by the evil coalition at Westminster, the poorest should be the priority - and that isn't the case with Universal benefits - they aren't concentrated on those who need them most.

I generally find it's unionists using this phrase as if they're parroting nationalists, like if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the accepted truth.

Universal free prescriptions,bus passes etc should be the right of every man or woman who pays/paid into the system thru taxation/NI contributions.Personal finance should be irrelevant imo.
There is no doubt more should be done to help the poorest of our countrymen, and having full control over our own finances is the only way to go.The reduction in the block grant and the continual sniping at pretty irrelevant stuff like free scripts are the issue, it needs to be exposed as the scare mongering it is.


:agree:
We can't blame Westminster for that, it's been down to our MSPs

Agree and disagree.Our political leaders should always be doing more, but given the financial restrictions on Holyrood, the criticism should be directed at both.

[yeezus.]

I generally find it's unionists using this phrase as if they're parroting nationalists, like if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the accepted truth.

Universal free prescriptions,bus passes etc should be the right of every man or woman who pays/paid into the system thru taxation/NI contributions.Personal finance should be irrelevant imo.
There is no doubt more should be done to help the poorest of our countrymen, and having full control over our own finances is the only way to go.The reduction in the block grant and the continual sniping at pretty irrelevant stuff like free scripts are the issue, it needs to be exposed as the scare mongering it is.



Agree and disagree.Our political leaders should always be doing more, but given the financial restrictions on Holyrood, the criticism should be directed at both.

I have seen nothing yet to prove that Edinburgh control would be any better than London control? How would an independent Scotland's finances amend what we currently have? Public spending cuts/tax rises are inevitable - the Yes camp need to be pressed on this.

We disagree on personal finance. If things were going well in the economy and jobs and growth were aplenty I could understand one not wanting to get rid of "free" services. However, at a time when the budget is being squeezed does it not make more sense to ask the well off to pay? Many hand back what they get in England and I'd imagine rich Scots would do the same.

[southfieldhibby]

I have seen nothing yet to prove that Edinburgh control would be any better than London control? How would an independent Scotland's finances amend what we currently have? Public spending cuts/tax rises are inevitable - the Yes camp need to be pressed on this.



Well, it would be controlled by the capital city of the country in question, which seems a pretty reasonable starting point for me.I don't think anyone looking for independence thinks we'll be on easy street if they won, times are hard and choices have to be made.
I do agree that numbers have to be produced, by both sides.I think the line spun by the union claiming only indys have to justify why people should vote yes is bland.The union has to show how and why the union will work, to the benefit of Scotland.

[yeezus.]

Well, it would be controlled by the capital city of the country in question, which seems a pretty reasonable starting point for me.I don't think anyone looking for independence thinks we'll be on easy street if they won, times are hard and choices have to be made.
I do agree that numbers have to be produced, by both sides.I think the line spun by the union claiming only indys have to justify why people should vote yes is bland.The union has to show how and why the union will work, to the benefit of Scotland.

But we already elect a Scottish executive/government and the SNP seem completely oblivious to the tough economic times ahead. If all they can argue is that we would be better off without Westminster cuts in public spending then surely they need to explain how they would reduce our chunk of the national debt?

And I agree that both sides need to be a bit clearer on why we should be voting Yes/No but there is over a year until the referendum so maybe things will improve on that front.

[Jack]

But we already elect a Scottish executive/government and the SNP seem completely oblivious to the tough economic times ahead. If all they can argue is that we would be better off without Westminster cuts in public spending then surely they need to explain how they would reduce our chunk of the national debt?

And I agree that both sides need to be a bit clearer on why we should be voting Yes/No but there is over a year until the referendum so maybe things will improve on that front.

There's been rumours from fairly good sources reported in the media a few months back that Scotland has been running a £1bn to £3bn surplus over the last 50 years.

The quote I included a few posts back also suggests to me a current surplus.

And my personal favourite is that if the Torys thought Scotland was milking the UK coffers over the years they would be on the independence side as well - in fact they would probably jettison us without a vote!

[lucky]

What's the betting Wee Eck announces the date in March 2016 for the new promised land before we get the date to decide in Autum next year. He's playing fantasy politics with our future but not giving details of of what weeeckland will be like.

[yeezus.]

There's been rumours from fairly good sources reported in the media a few months back that Scotland has been running a £1bn to £3bn surplus over the last 50 years.

The quote I included a few posts back also suggests to me a current surplus.

And my personal favourite is that if the Torys thought Scotland was milking the UK coffers over the years they would be on the independence side as well - in fact they would probably jettison us without a vote!

Aye, I'm sure many English Tories would be happy to see Scotland go!

[Beefster]

Aye, I'm sure many English would be happy to see Scotland go!

I've fixed that for you. I'm sure many English would be happy to see us leave the UK. I'm sure many English would be unhappy to see us leave the UK. Just like Scots.

[yeezus.]

I've fixed that for you. I'm sure many English would be happy to see us leave the UK. I'm sure many English would be unhappy to see us leave the UK. Just like Scots.

Thanks for fixing it :aok:

[southfieldhibby]

I've fixed that for you. I'm sure many English would be happy to see us leave the UK. I'm sure many English would be unhappy to see us leave the UK. Just like Scots.

Deffo.After next years vote there gonna be alot of unhappy people, irrespective of the outcome.I think my side will lose, it'll be close, but we'll lose, and I'll be gutted.

[yeezus.]

Deffo.After next years vote there gonna be alot of unhappy people, irrespective of the outcome.I think my side will lose, it'll be close, but we'll lose, and I'll be gutted.

Although Scotland will probably vote to stay in the union, there is still a lot of time left for the Yes camp to turn things around. 2014 is an important year for Scotland with the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn and the commonwealth games - it wouldn't surprise me if Alex Salmond has something up this sleeve.

[lord bunberry]

I just had the owner of mackies of scotland the ice cream company in the cab and he was adamant that independence would be a bad thing for scotland. He said that if we were independent it would be much more difficult for Scottish businesses to trade with english company's as we would be a foreign country and would have to deal with loads of red tape. Also he said that our reliance on oil and gas was unsustainable as within 5 years renewable energy would be cheaper than oil so they would stop drilling for oil. I'm not sure I agree with everything he said but it was good to hear someone who wasn't a politician giving his opinion

[southfieldhibby]

I just had the owner of mackies of scotland the ice cream company in the cab and he was adamant that independence would be a bad thing for scotland. He said that if we were independent it would be much more difficult for Scottish businesses to trade with english company's as we would be a foreign country and would have to deal with loads of red tape. Also he said that our reliance on oil and gas was unsustainable as within 5 years renewable energy would be cheaper than oil so they would stop drilling for oil. I'm not sure I agree with everything he said but it was good to hear someone who wasn't a politician giving his opinion


Did him or his carer pay for the taxi?Sounds like Michelle Mone.

did you ask him how companies manage to trade with other European countries, or how his electric ( or wind powered) car is going to look in 5 years?

[yeezus.]

I just had the owner of mackies of scotland the ice cream company in the cab and he was adamant that independence would be a bad thing for scotland. He said that if we were independent it would be much more difficult for Scottish businesses to trade with english company's as we would be a foreign country and would have to deal with loads of red tape. Also he said that our reliance on oil and gas was unsustainable as within 5 years renewable energy would be cheaper than oil so they would stop drilling for oil. I'm not sure I agree with everything he said but it was good to hear someone who wasn't a politician giving his opinion

:agree: An independent Scotland would depend on oil and gas for about 20% of its GDP - I'm not sure that is a good thing.

[lord bunberry]

Did him or his carer pay for the taxi?Sounds like Michelle Mone.

did you ask him how companies manage to trade with other European countries, or how his electric ( or wind powered) car is going to look in 5 years?

He was saying that people he supplies are already looking at switching to an english supplier due to the uncertainty. Maybe I should have suggested he made better ice cream

[JimBHibees]

:agree: An independent Scotland would depend on oil and gas for about 20% of its GDP - I'm not sure that is a good thing.

Why not ? Only in Scotland would these great natural resource be seen as a negative.

[ChooseLife]

If we where to become independent I would hope we would stop being America's bitch by helping them kill all the brown people in strictly oil rich country's, the whole European thing I find is pretty irrelevant, all that could be sorted out after we become independent anyway.

We have resources in Scotland that a lot of the smaller country's that flourish don't (tourism, whiskey and festivals) can you imagine how much money we could save if we stop terrorizing the middle east. :agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: An independent Scotland would depend on oil and gas for about 20% of its GDP - I'm not sure that is a good thing.

Don't you mean it would make up 20% of our GDP?

[allmodcons]

Why not ? Only in Scotland would these great natural resource be seen as a negative.

:agree: I've said this before. Only in Scotland could we be told this great natural resource 'the black gold' is bad news for our economy! That said, my sources tell me the Saudis think it's been a complete disaster for their economy.

[allmodcons]

I just had the owner of mackies of scotland the ice cream company in the cab and he was adamant that independence would be a bad thing for scotland. He said that if we were independent it would be much more difficult for Scottish businesses to trade with english company's as we would be a foreign country and would have to deal with loads of red tape. Also he said that our reliance on oil and gas was unsustainable as within 5 years renewable energy would be cheaper than oil so they would stop drilling for oil. I'm not sure I agree with everything he said but it was good to hear someone who wasn't a politician giving his opinion

He really is a complete and utter waste of space. Typical Tory buffoon. Has stood for the Conservatives a number of times in NE Scotland and been roasted everytime. Talks a load of *****! A little englander born in Scotland.

[RyeSloan]

He really is a complete and utter waste of space. Typical Tory buffoon. Has stood for the Conservatives a number of times in NE Scotland and been roasted everytime. Talks a load of *****! A little englander born in Scotland.

Did Alex Salmond not quite like the same Maitland Mackie previously? Sure he was advising the Scottish Government on renewables at one point.

[allmodcons]

Did Alex Salmond not quite like the same Maitland Mackie previously? Sure he was advising the Scottish Government on renewables at one point.

Don't think so SiMar! Maitland Mackie hates (i mean hates) Salmond. He stood against Salmond in Banff & Buchan in 1999. Stood for the Lib Dems (my mistake, I said Consevatives in earlier post). Still a Tory toff though, who disnae know his arse fae his elbow!

[lord bunberry]

He really is a complete and utter waste of space. Typical Tory buffoon. Has stood for the Conservatives a number of times in NE Scotland and been roasted everytime. Talks a load of *****! A little englander born in Scotland.

That makes a lot of sense now. He was the one that brought the subject up and he was very critical of alex salmond. So he's just another tory with a unionists agenda.
He did give me a free voucher for a tub of his ice cream though so it wasn't all bad

[Beefster]

He really is a complete and utter waste of space. Typical Tory buffoon. Has stood for the Conservatives a number of times in NE Scotland and been roasted everytime. Talks a load of *****! A little englander born in Scotland.

1. He's a Lib Dem AFAIK.

2. He's contributed more to Scotland than you, I or any other poster on this thread. You might disagree with his views but 'waste of space', he isn't.

Aside from the complete inaccuracies, your post is great though. It demonstrates how the nationalists work to a tee.

[allmodcons]

1. He's a Lib Dem AFAIK.

2. He's contributed more to Scotland than you, I or any other poster on this thread. You might disagree with his views but 'waste of space', he isn't.

Aside from the complete inaccuracies, your post is great though. It demonstrates how the nationalists work to a tee.


1. You should have taken the time to read my next post where I corrected my mistake!
2. WTF. He's contribued more to Scotland than me! You know nothing about me other than that I'm a Nationalist. How are you measuring this? By his wealth or wealth creation? Demonstrates to a tee how Tories work.

[yeezus.]

Don't you mean it would make up 20% of our GDP?

:thumbsup:

Although I disagree with Alex Salmond and the SNP's agenda, he has to be praised for what he achieved in the 2011 election - to win a majority in the Scottish Parliament was a great triumph.

[Beefster]

2. WTF. He's contribued more to Scotland than me! You know nothing about me other than that I'm a Nationalist. How are you measuring this? By his wealth or wealth creation? Demonstrates to a tee how Tories work.

According to a quick Google search, he's been a councillor, an innovator in Scottish farming, a governor of an education facility, a chairman of a Development Authority, has established a scholarship at the University of Aberdeen and part-owns a major company in Scotland that exports to other countries and employs almost 100 people.

What have you contributed to Scotland? Obviously, seeing as Mackie is a 'waste of space', you're going to have to come up with something pretty special.

PS. I'm not a member of the Conservative Party and voted SNP at the last Scottish elections.

[ancienthibby]

According to a quick Google search, he's been a councillor, an innovator in Scottish farming, a governor of an education facility, a chairman of a Development Authority, has established a scholarship at the University of Aberdeen and part-owns a major company in Scotland that exports to other countries and employs almost 100 people.

What have you contributed to Scotland? Obviously, seeing as Mackie is a 'waste of space', you're going to have to come up with something pretty special.

PS. I'm not a member of the Conservative Party and voted SNP at the last Scottish elections.

He is also this!!!:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18264356

[Beefster]

He is also this!!!:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18264356

You're right. He's also contributed wind turbines. It's even more than I thought.

[steakbake]

According to a quick Google search, he's been a councillor, an innovator in Scottish farming, a governor of an education facility, a chairman of a Development Authority, has established a scholarship at the University of Aberdeen and part-owns a major company in Scotland that exports to other countries and employs almost 100 people.

What have you contributed to Scotland? Obviously, seeing as Mackie is a 'waste of space', you're going to have to come up with something pretty special.

PS. I'm not a member of the Conservative Party and voted SNP at the last Scottish elections.

Haha a home run!

[ancienthibby]

Haha a home run!

On the contrary, Beefster and MMackie have already struck out!

[allmodcons]

According to a quick Google search, he's been a councillor, an innovator in Scottish farming, a governor of an education facility, a chairman of a Development Authority, has established a scholarship at the University of Aberdeen and part-owns a major company in Scotland that exports to other countries and employs almost 100 people.

What have you contributed to Scotland? Obviously, seeing as Mackie is a 'waste of space', you're going to have to come up with something pretty special.

PS. I'm not a member of the Conservative Party and voted SNP at the last Scottish elections.

I have no need or, indeed, inclination to justify my contribution to Scotland or society in general. Maitland Mackie comes from a very privileged background but suffice to say his 'contribution' is no greater than that of the oridnary man who strives to do his best, works hard and pays his taxes.

Based on your logic it would appear that anyone who comes from a privileged background and runs a business contributes more than the individual who has come from 'nowhere' and still manages to 'achieve'.

FWIW, I've been in the company of MM and didn't much like what I saw or heard! Can only judge the man I met but, hey, if google says he's great then I guess he must be!!

[Beefster]

I have no need or, indeed, inclination to justify my contribution to Scotland or society in general. Maitland Mackie comes from a very privileged background but suffice to say his 'contribution' is no greater than that of the oridnary man who strives to do his best, works hard and pays his taxes.

Based on your logic it would appear that anyone who comes from a privileged background and runs a business contributes more than the individual who has come from 'nowhere' and still manages to 'achieve'.

FWIW, I've been in the company of MM and didn't much like what I saw or heard! Can only judge the man I met but, hey, if google says he's great then I guess he must be!!

To be honest, I didn't expect you to list your contribution to Scotland.

My main problem, as you well know, was with you dismissing Mackie as a "waste of space" and a "Tory", purely on this basis of his views on independence, despite both plainly being pish. Like it or not, if your independent Scotland does happen, guys like him are going to be needed if all these promises of eradicating poverty etc are going to be anything like achieved.

[allmodcons]

To be honest, I didn't expect you to list your contribution to Scotland.

My main problem, as you well know, was with you dismissing Mackie as a "waste of space" and a "Tory", purely on this basis of his views on independence, despite both plainly being pish. Like it or not, if your independent Scotland does happen, guys like him are going to be needed if all these promises of eradicating poverty etc are going to be anything like achieved.

If you read most of my posts you'll see that, whilst being firmly in the Nationalist camp, where reasonable points are made, I do respect the views of others. The dislike of MM is a personal thing for me (his scaremingering views on Independence no doubt don't help and whatever you think he is one who goes about scaremongering, even taking the opportunity to tell taxi drivers how the 'sky is going to fall in' if we vote Yes). As I said, I've met the guy and don't like him or what he stands for, so much so that I refuse to buy or even eat his ice cream. Some people don't buy Israeli oranges, with me it's Mackie's ice cream!!!

[hibsbollah]

I've fixed that for you. I'm sure many English would be happy to see us leave the UK. I'm sure many English would be unhappy to see us leave the UK. Just like Scots.

Its consistently underreported this side of the border, but a clear majority of English support Scottish independence. All sorts of polls from different organisations have shown that consistently for a couple of years now. Much more English also identify themselves as English rather than British, as used to be the case. You can argue all day about statistics relating to gross contributions to the UK exchequer, but as far as English public opinion goes, the Scots are nt paying their fair share and dont slam the door on your way out, thanks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9015374/Britain-divided-over-Scottish-independence.html

[Beefster]

Its consistently underreported this side of the border, but a clear majority of English support Scottish independence. All sorts of polls from different organisations have shown that consistently for a couple of years now. Much more English also identify themselves as English rather than British, as used to be the case. You can argue all day about statistics relating to gross contributions to the UK exchequer, but as far as English public opinion goes, the Scots are nt paying their fair share and dont slam the door on your way out, thanks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9015374/Britain-divided-over-Scottish-independence.html

Interesting reading. I think the questions are slightly muddled though - a majority of English 'approve' of independence (whatever 'approve' means in that context) but when asked their preference in a three question referendum, a majority (weirdly of about the same size) wanted to keep the union.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-tax-rise-plan-swinney-1-2778936

So it has started...at least we are starting to see some suggestions of what an Independent Scotlands tax regime may look like although by the sounds of it the state will supply plenty "free" while there seems little or no clarity as to what that states income may be.

This appears to be a chicken and egg problem.

[Hibrandenburg]

Its consistently underreported this side of the border, but a clear majority of English support Scottish independence. All sorts of polls from different organisations have shown that consistently for a couple of years now. Much more English also identify themselves as English rather than British, as used to be the case. You can argue all day about statistics relating to gross contributions to the UK exchequer, but as far as English public opinion goes, the Scots are nt paying their fair share and dont slam the door on your way out, thanks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9015374/Britain-divided-over-Scottish-independence.html

My experience and I emphasize my experience only, is that most of the English that I know think that only the English born on this island can be truly British. We Scots are only really British by marriage after being conquered by them at some point in the past and are thus kind of British but not the real deal.

It wasn't that long ago that you would only see Union Flags being displayed at England football games because that was considered to be the English Flag and the George Cross very rarely got an airing. The vast majority of the British people consider the Scottish to be a form of 2nd class British and that's where the prejudice begins and for that reason I'd prefer if we went our own way.

I know my reason is purely emotional but to me it is the most important one.

[Beefster]

My experience and I emphasize my experience only, is that most of the English that I know think that only the English born on this island can be truly British. We Scots are only really British by marriage after being conquered by them at some point in the past and are thus kind of British but not the real deal.

It wasn't that long ago that you would only see Union Flags being displayed at England football games because that was considered to be the English Flag and the George Cross very rarely got an airing. The vast majority of the British people consider the Scottish to be a form of 2nd class British and that's where the prejudice begins and for that reason I'd prefer if we went our own way.

I know my reason is purely emotional but to me it is the most important one.

Mrs Beefster and her family are English and in all the years I've known them all, I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

[Hibrandenburg]

Mrs Beefster and her family are English and in all the years I've known them all, I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

That's why I used the words "in my experience" and most.

I've lived a large part of my life in a British microcosm where the Scots made up around 13% of the population and the English the vast majority. A mini mirror of our society if you like but with one important difference in that we all lived, worked and slept in the same place and not in our own regions.

Again I'll say that my experience is mine and mine alone and the conclusions I've drawn from my experience are also mine alone. From football to accent, diet, culture and history, the English always held their values and beliefs to be superior to our own. Indeed they may even be so but never the less the Scots and other Brits were seen as lesser members of the big society.

Ask yourself this, why are the Scots, Welsh and Irish referred to pejoratively as Jocks, Taffs and Paddies and why do we not have a depreciatory term for the English like Johns? Why is the punch line to Scotsman, Englishman, Welshman and Irish man jokes never at the expense of the Englishman?

National cliches, the Scots are tight, the Irish are thick and the Welsh are prolific abusers of farmyard animals, what about the English?


Most of you may find this sort of thing trivial but for me it's an interesting look into the English psyche.

[marinello59]

That's why I used the words "in my experience" and most.

I've lived a large part of my life in a British microcosm where the Scots made up around 13% of the population and the English the vast majority. A mini mirror of our society if you like but with one important difference in that we all lived, worked and slept in the same place and not in our own regions.

Again I'll say that my experience is mine and mine alone and the conclusions I've drawn from my experience are also mine alone. From football to accent, diet, culture and history, the English always held their values and beliefs to be superior to our own. Indeed they may even be so but never the less the Scots and other Brits were seen as lesser members of the big society.

Ask yourself this, why are the Scots, Welsh and Irish referred to pejoratively as Jocks, Taffs and Paddies and why do we not have a depreciatory term for the English like Johns? Why is the punch line to Scotsman, Englishman, Welshman and Irish man jokes never at the expense of the Englishman?

National cliches, the Scots are tight, the Irish are thick and the Welsh are prolific abusers of farmyard animals, what about the English?


Most of you may find this sort of thing trivial but for me it's an interesting look into the English psyche.

How about an interesting look at the Scottish psyche. My English tongued father has lived in Scotland for over 60 of his 78 years on this earth yet he is still routinely referred to as an English ******* , more often than not so that he can hear it. Just banter apparently. Are you really saying you haven't heard any jokes where the English are the target. You must only hear what you want to hear on that case.

[Beefster]

That's why I used the words "in my experience" and most.

I've lived a large part of my life in a British microcosm where the Scots made up around 13% of the population and the English the vast majority. A mini mirror of our society if you like but with one important difference in that we all lived, worked and slept in the same place and not in our own regions.

Again I'll say that my experience is mine and mine alone and the conclusions I've drawn from my experience are also mine alone. From football to accent, diet, culture and history, the English always held their values and beliefs to be superior to our own. Indeed they may even be so but never the less the Scots and other Brits were seen as lesser members of the big society.

Ask yourself this, why are the Scots, Welsh and Irish referred to pejoratively as Jocks, Taffs and Paddies and why do we not have a depreciatory term for the English like Johns? Why is the punch line to Scotsman, Englishman, Welshman and Irish man jokes never at the expense of the Englishman?

National cliches, the Scots are tight, the Irish are thick and the Welsh are prolific abusers of farmyard animals, what about the English?


Most of you may find this sort of thing trivial but for me it's an interesting look into the English psyche.

I think some Scots have chips on their shoulders about the English.

Just because you experienced some arrogance or xenophobia when living with a small number of English people doesn't mean that that can be scaled up to a nation of 50+ million.

In a similar experience to M59, my wife, a 5ft 2inch, size 6 English woman, has suffered much more anti-English abuse on the streets and in the bars of Edinburgh than I have in England for being Scottish.

[allmodcons]

How about an interesting look at the Scottish psyche. My English tongued father has lived in Scotland for over 60 of his 78 years on this earth yet he is still routinely referred to as an English ******* , more often than not so that he can hear it. Just banter apparently. Are you really saying you haven't heard any jokes where the English are the target. You must only hear what you want to hear on that case.


I think some Scots have chips on their shoulders about the English.

Just because you experienced some arrogance or xenophobia when living with a small number of English people doesn't mean that that can be scaled up to a nation of 50+ million.

In a similar experience to M59, my wife, a 5ft 2inch, size 6 English woman, has suffered much more anti-English abuse on the streets and in the bars of Edinburgh than I have in England for being Scottish.


Surely this sort of thing cuts both ways. There is an element in Scotland who don't like the English and element in England who are arrogant towards us Scots (Kelvin McKenzie is a great high profile example of this).

I agree that 'some Scots have a chip on their shoulder about the English', however, if you care to have a read of the London Evening Standard or the English Daily Mail you'll see the exact same thing can be said about English prejudice against Scotland.

[Hibrandenburg]

How about an interesting look at the Scottish psyche. My English tongued father has lived in Scotland for over 60 of his 78 years on this earth yet he is still routinely referred to as an English ******* , more often than not so that he can hear it. Just banter apparently. Are you really saying you haven't heard any jokes where the English are the target. You must only hear what you want to hear on that case.


I think some Scots have chips on their shoulders about the English.

Just because you experienced some arrogance or xenophobia when living with a small number of English people doesn't mean that that can be scaled up to a nation of 50+ million.

In a similar experience to M59, my wife, a 5ft 2inch, size 6 English woman, has suffered much more anti-English abuse on the streets and in the bars of Edinburgh than I have in England for being Scottish.


Surely this sort of thing cuts both ways. There is an element in Scotland who don't like the English and element in England who are arrogant towards us Scots (Kelvin McKenzie is a great high profile example of this).

I agree that 'some Scots have a chip on their shoulder about the English', however, if you care to have a read of the London Evening Standard or the English Daily Mail you'll see the exact same thing can be said about English prejudice against Scotland.

Believe it or not but I've been called an English ****/******* on a few occasions due to my mix pot accent, I can also raise you a serious kicking from a dozen lads in Durham for being a Jock *******, a fracured skull in Hartlepool for the same offence, having to defend my self many a weekend in our works club when "John" had one too many and thought that me being a Jock twat was reason enough to have a go and being refused entry or not getting served in clubs/pubs for being a Sweaty Sock ****er.

Like AMC mentioned, there are many idiots both sides of the border, it's just that I met most of them south of it.

[southfieldhibby]

How about an interesting look at the Scottish psyche. My English tongued father has lived in Scotland for over 60 of his 78 years on this earth yet he is still routinely referred to as an English ******* , more often than not so that he can hear it. Just banter apparently. Are you really saying you haven't heard any jokes where the English are the target. You must only hear what you want to hear on that case.

My old felly has lived up here for 47 years, he's heard his fair share of anti-English 'banter' too.Whenever it's done in my company he's gives me the eye as if to say leave it alone.no matter what nation we can choose, there is a % of bawbaggery.

[yeezus.]

Surely this sort of thing cuts both ways. There is an element in Scotland who don't like the English and element in England who are arrogant towards us Scots (Kelvin McKenzie is a great high profile example of this).

I agree that 'some Scots have a chip on their shoulder about the English', however, if you care to have a read of the London Evening Standard or the English Daily Mail you'll see the exact same thing can be said about English prejudice against Scotland.

What do you make of English nationalist frustrations on Scottish MP's voting on English issues? I've spoken to a few people from England who would like to see an English national anthem as well - a different one from God Save the Queen.

[Hibs Class]

Surely this sort of thing cuts both ways. There is an element in Scotland who don't like the English and element in England who are arrogant towards us Scots (Kelvin McKenzie is a great high profile example of this).

I agree that 'some Scots have a chip on their shoulder about the English', however, if you care to have a read of the London Evening Standard or the English Daily Mail you'll see the exact same thing can be said about English prejudice against Scotland.

Kelvin McKenzie is an attention seeking prick but as an example of englishness he's about as authentic as Russ Abbot in a kilt and ginger wig was as a Scotsman.

[allmodcons]

Surely this sort of thing cuts both ways. There is an element in Scotland who don't like the English and element in England who are arrogant towards us Scots (Kelvin McKenzie is a great high profile example of this).

I agree that 'some Scots have a chip on their shoulder about the English', however, if you care to have a read of the London Evening Standard or the English Daily Mail you'll see the exact same thing can be said about English prejudice against Scotland.


Kelvin McKenzie is an attention seeking prick but as an example of englishness he's about as authentic as Russ Abbot in a kilt and ginger wig was as a Scotsman.

Who said he was an example of 'Englishness'. He is (is he not?) a good example of an Englishman who is arrogant towards Scots.

[southfieldhibby]

Looks like the better together campaign made a couple of pretty muckle mistakes over the last day or so.Using the word 'extinguish' is not the brightest, then suggesting a new Scotland would be a 'new state' also is pretty dumb...a situation most Nats would take, I guess, but not one very well thought thru by Mr Moore etc.

[allmodcons]

Looks like the better together campaign made a couple of pretty muckle mistakes over the last day or so.Using the word 'extinguish' is not the brightest, then suggesting a new Scotland would be a 'new state' also is pretty dumb...a situation most Nats would take, I guess, but not one very well thought thru by Mr Moore etc.

Aye, quite amusing watching Michael Moore and Lord :rolleyes: Wallace 'fumbling about in the dark' and taking the flak for their Tory bedfellows.

[Beefster]

Aye, quite amusing watching Michael Moore and Lord :rolleyes: Wallace 'fumbling about in the dark' and taking the flak for their Tory bedfellows.

Do you just class everyone as 'Tories' for effect or do you really equate everyone who disagrees with you with Tories?

The Better Together campaign has Lib Dem, Labour and Tory directors and is run day-to-day by a Labour party member.

[allmodcons]

Aye, quite amusing watching Michael Moore and Lord :rolleyes: Wallace 'fumbling about in the dark' and taking the flak for their Tory bedfellows.


Do you just class everyone as 'Tories' for effect or do you really equate everyone who disagrees with you with Tories?

The Better Together campaign has Lib Dem, Labour and Tory directors and is run day-to-day by a Labour party member.

Do you ever read posts before replying? Where did I call these 2 fine upstanding Lib Dems Tories? Are the Lib Dems not in coalition with the Conservatives (i.e. - they are bedfellows)?

FWIW, the report was not commissioned by the Better Together campaign, it was a UK Government (that is Tory & Lid Dem coalition) publication.

[Hibs Class]

Who said he was an example of 'Englishness'. He is (is he not?) a good example of an Englishman who is arrogant towards Scots.

Not in my opinion. I think he is a one-off, a caricature who says things to get attention and a reaction. He's similar to David Starkey in that respect and best not taken seriously.

[Beefster]

FWIW, the report was not commissioned by the Better Together campaign, it was a UK Government (that is Tory & Lid Dem coalition) publication.

Sorry, the post you replied to was talking about the Better Together campaign.

FWIW, the report was the legal opinion of professors from Edinburgh and Cambridge and is being used/defended by the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour politicians/campaign.

[Glory Lurker]

Sorry, the post you replied to was talking about the Better Together campaign.

FWIW, the report was the legal opinion of professors from Edinburgh and Cambridge and is being used/defended by the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour politicians/campaign.

And also by the Yes campaign - now that's what I call a Union dividend!

[allmodcons]

Sorry, the post you replied to was talking about the Better Together campaign.

FWIW, the report was the legal opinion of professors from Edinburgh and Cambridge and is being used/defended by the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour politicians/campaign.


The report was commissioned, and published, by the UK Government not the Better Together Campaign.

As Glory Lurker correctly points out (presumably much to the annoyance of the UK Government) it is now being 'used' by both sides of the debate.

Legal opinion is quite simply an opinion (i.e. - there is no legal precedent for a split like Scotland and Rest of UK). Even the authors of the report use the term 'speculating' when commenting on some of the issues they raise.

What you have to accept is that the Lib Dems have suffered (and will continue to suffer) serious consequences at the ballot box for getting into bed with the Conservatives. Right now, we have a once left of centre party in Government with a Conservative Party pandering to their right wing on a whole host of issues from gay rights to our relationship with Europe. I don't think the Lib Dems are 'Tories' but, for sure, a large number of voters do!

[J-C]

What do you make of English nationalist frustrations on Scottish MP's voting on English issues? I've spoken to a few people from England who would like to see an English national anthem as well - a different one from God Save the Queen.

Pretty sure Land of hope and Glory used to be used all the time at England rugby matches, if I'm wrong then someone could put me right about that.

[J-C]

Pretty sure Land of hope and Glory used to be used all the time at England rugby matches, if I'm wrong then someone could put me right about that.


No need found it myself

RugbyAt international rugby league matches, England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_rugby_league_team) often sang "Land of Hope and Glory" as their national anthem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anthem). While their anthem changed to "God Save the Queen" after the dissolution of the Great Britain side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_national_rugby_league_team) in 2007, it is still tradition for the team to use "Land of Hope and Glory" as their walk-out theme.
"Land of Hope and Glory" is sung by English fans at home England rugby union games in Twickenham after the home and away National Anthems have been sung. "Land of Hope and Glory" is sung by the crowd as the teams assemble for kick off; this began as a response to the New Zealand team's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Blacks) haka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haka_of_the_All_Blacks).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Land_of_Hope_and_Glory&action=edit&section=9)]Prior to 2010, "Land of Hope and Glory" was used as the victory anthem of England team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_at_the_Commonwealth_Games) at the Commonwealth Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Games).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Hope_and_Glory#cite_note-8)
On St George's Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George%27s_Day), April 23, 2010, the Commonwealth Games Council for England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Games_Council_for_England) launched a poll to allow the public to decide which anthem would be played at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Commonwealth_Games) in Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi),India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). Voters chose between "God Save The Queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_The_Queen)", "Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time)" and "Land of Hope and Glory" with the winning song, "Jerusalem", being adopted as the official anthem for Team England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_at_the_Commonwealth_Games).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Hope_and_Glory#cite_note-9)

[IWasThere2016]

IMHO, the SNP are privately terrified of full government and hence the 'relaxation' of the referendum question.

My concern is the lack of opposition - Lamont :rolleyes: and in a wider UK context - Milliband does ma nut in, and the Lib Dems :faf:

[steakbake]

What do you make of English nationalist frustrations on Scottish MP's voting on English issues? I've spoken to a few people from England who would like to see an English national anthem as well - a different one from God Save the Queen.

I don't have much sympathy with that argument. I regularly used to have discussions with friends about the perception that Scottish MPs used to sway votes affecting England-only matters. It was usually the accusation that the recent Labour governments relied on Scottish MPs to carry votes. However, even a cursory look at the facts would show that Labour's majority across all three terms exceeded the total number of Scottish MPs. While Scottish MPs might have added to the majority of any vote, if you exclude them from the numbers, the government of the day still had plenty enough of a majority to win votes in Westminster without the help of Scottish Labour members.

The second point in that is that if it was truly an issue instead of gripe and grievance, Westminster should have put their own house in order to avoid the theoretical situation coming up. However, it's a political game.

[allmodcons]

IMHO, the SNP are privately terrified of full government and hence the 'relaxation' of the referendum question.

My concern is the lack of opposition - Lamont :rolleyes: and in a wider UK context - Milliband does ma nut in, and the Lib Dems :faf:

Can you explain what you mean by 'relaxation' TQM?

[IWasThere2016]

Can you explain what you mean by 'relaxation' TQM?

I thought the previous version was 'loaded' for a positive response re independence, now it is more balanced. I was surprised the SNP relented tbh.

[J-C]

I thought the previous version was 'loaded' for a positive response re independence, now it is more balanced. I was surprised the SNP relented tbh.


I think it's more a case of a bit of give and take, the SNP wanted a pure vote in or out, a wee bit compromise but the vote will still be much the same.

[allmodcons]

I thought the previous version was 'loaded' for a positive response re independence, now it is more balanced. I was surprised the SNP relented tbh.

Ah, OK I see where you're coming from now! You'll not be surprised to learn that I totally disagree about the 'fear of Government' bit and, to be honest, think the Scottish Government would have been completely annihilated in the mainstream media if they'd gone against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.

[IWasThere2016]

Ah, OK I see where you're coming from now! You'll not be surprised to learn that I totally disagree about the 'fear of Government' bit and, to be honest, think the Scottish Government would have been completely annihilated in the mainstream media if they'd gone against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.

Fairy nuff.

I am indifferent to the whole debate at present. I detest waste - and frankly I see a Parliament in Scotland and Westminster as exactly that. So, we should be brave enough to go it alone or not - the current situation is expensive and excessive IMHO. My concern about going alone is there is a lack of political talent in Scotland IMHO - and I am not sure I trust any party to run the country properly.

[JeMeSouviens]

Fairy nuff.

I am indifferent to the whole debate at present. I detest waste - and frankly I see a Parliament in Scotland and Westminster as exactly that. So, we should be brave enough to go it alone or not - the current situation is expensive and excessive IMHO. My concern about going alone is there is a lack of political talent in Scotland IMHO - and I am not sure I trust any party to run the country properly.

I agree, but surely one of the main reasons for that is anyone with any talent on the unionist side buggers off to Westminster tout de suite! I think the SNP have been reasonably competent at running Holyrood but the standard of the opposition from the unionist big 3 struggles to get to woeful.

[Beefster]

I agree, but surely one of the main reasons for that is anyone with any talent on the unionist side buggers off to Westminster tout de suite! I think the SNP have been reasonably competent at running Holyrood but the standard of the opposition from the unionist big 3 struggles to get to woeful.

Agreed. I think the SNP's 'talent' basically boils down to Salmond, Sturgeon and, at a push, Swinney. The rest of them are of the calibre of the other parties.

[lord bunberry]

Agreed. I think the SNP's 'talent' basically boils down to Salmond, Sturgeon and, at a push, Swinney. The rest of them are of the calibre of the other parties.

Love him or loathe him without Alex Salmond I doubt we'd be having this debate

[yeezus.]

Love him or loathe him without Alex Salmond I doubt we'd be having this debate

:agree: Alex Salmond is the reason I am not writing off the Yes campaign. Who knows what tricks he has up his sleeve.

[The Harp Awakes]

If this vote was held tomorrow, I feel it would be an overwhelming defeat for the SNP.

It's going to take a massive effort by them, and their pro-independence allies, over the next 18 months to get the outcome they are after.

I just don't see any way that this will happen.

And in May 2009 what % of the Scottish population thought the SNP would win a majority in May 2011? There's almost 2 years to the referendum and underestimate Alex Salmond at your peril.

A key issue for the Yes campaign though, is to counter the negativity in the media towards independence. Every article linked to independence has a negative editorial. In particular I feel the BBC's coverage of the debate is imbalanced and biased against independence. The BBC will never be neutral in this debate as to do so would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Folk should be concious of the bias in the media before making up their mind on the issues.

At present, approximately 70% of legislation affecting Scottish affairs passes through Holyrood. In reality, we are not far off independence as things stand. It's not as big a step as is being portrayed. Having said that, one of the biggest issues affecting Scotland just now is health, with life expectancy in certain areas as low as third world countries. We won't tackle issues such as those until we have 100% control of our affairs and budget.

[stoneyburn hibs]

And in May 2009 what % of the Scottish population thought the SNP would win a majority in May 2011? There's almost 2 years to the referendum and underestimate Alex Salmond at your peril.

A key issue for the Yes campaign though, is to counter the negativity in the media towards independence. Every article linked to independence has a negative editorial. In particular I feel the BBC's coverage of the debate is imbalanced and biased against independence. The BBC will never be neutral in this debate as to do so would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Folk should be concious of the bias in the media before making up their mind on the issues.

At present, approximately 70% of legislation affecting Scottish affairs passes through Holyrood. In reality, we are not far off independence as things stand. It's not as big a step as is being portrayed. Having said that, one of the biggest issues affecting Scotland just now is health, with life expectancy in certain areas as low as third world countries. We won't tackle issues such as those until we have 100% control of our affairs and budget.

I think the media's total bias towards the union will swing it for them , very frustrating .

[lord bunberry]

I think the media's total bias towards the union will swing it for them , very frustrating .

I'm not so sure it will. The snp won the last election by hiring the right people who got their message across through all areas of social media as well as the more traditional means. They were helped latterly by the support of the Murdoch press but but I didn't feel that they were the reason for them winning. The scottish electorate has shown it has a proper understanding of politics in this country and Alex Salmond was the first to realise that whereas labour just took it for granted that scotland would vote labour as they always do. The yes campaign has all the obstacles to overcome but if the no campaign continue their negative campaign they might well see it backfire big time

[IWasThere2016]

Love him or loathe him without Alex Salmond I doubt we'd be having this debate

:agree: He is THE skilled politician in Scotland. I don't think anyone else is in his league tbh.

[marinello59]

:agree: He is THE skilled politician in Scotland. I don't think anyone else is in his league tbh.

I would have agreed with you up until about twelve months ago. Recently he has come across as evasive, slippery and less than honest. I see Nicola Sturgeon as the safer pair of hands to deliver Independence.

[marinello59]

I think the media's total bias towards the union will swing it for them , very frustrating .

That would only be true if you dismiss the ability of the Scottish electorate to see through all the bull**** and make a decision on the facts as they see them. The media doesn't have the effect it likes to think it does. In the case of the printed press in particular they will react to how they think the vote is going to go and attach themselvs to the likely 'winners' rather than show any form of leadership.

[yeezus.]

I'm not so sure it will. The snp won the last election by hiring the right people who got their message across through all areas of social media as well as the more traditional means. They were helped latterly by the support of the Murdoch press but but I didn't feel that they were the reason for them winning. The scottish electorate has shown it has a proper understanding of politics in this country and Alex Salmond was the first to realise that whereas labour just took it for granted that scotland would vote labour as they always do. The yes campaign has all the obstacles to overcome but if the no campaign continue their negative campaign they might well see it backfire big time

I'm not sure if the Yes campaign were right in hiring all these celebrities to try and gain support. In fairness to Better Together, their videos seem to include ordinary men and women.

As I've said before, Alex Salmond is a shrewd politician and who knows what he has up his sleeve before the 2014 referendum. All I know is, I'm sick fed up of hearing about the application process for the European Union!

The campaign has been boring so far but I'm looking forward to the debate over the next year or so.

[lord bunberry]

I'm not sure if the Yes campaign were right in hiring all these celebrities to try and gain support. In fairness to Better Together, their videos seem to include ordinary men and women.

As I've said before, Alex Salmond is a shrewd politician and who knows what he has up his sleeve before the 2014 referendum. All I know is, I'm sick fed up of hearing about the application process for the European Union!

The campaign has been boring so far but I'm looking forward to the debate over the next year or so.

I doubt the european issue will go away it's the one issue were the snp have looked very weak

[steakbake]

I doubt the european issue will go away it's the one issue were the snp have looked very weak

Agreed - they've looked all at sea over it and making it up on the hoof. The No campaign have rightly been making the most of it.

That said, I can't help but think that Cameron's pledge for an in-out EU referendum in the lifetime of the next Westminster parliament has somewhat weakened the position. It seems to be a commonly held view that Scotland must be part of the EU for trading, economic, social and political reasons: not one I subscribe to personally, but it is the consensus. How would being unplugged from it as part of a UK 'out' vote be any the different in terms of the uncertainty it would bring?

[southfieldhibby]

9383

[yeezus.]

I doubt the european issue will go away it's the one issue were the snp have looked very weak

:agree: I think the SNP have looked week on the economic issues as well - it's just that the campaign seems to be gathering around this boring question of whether Scotland would have to reapply.

[yeezus.]

9383

Too many people in the Better Together camp are portrayed as being like her. Shame.

[Beefster]

9383

This sort of stuff becomes prevalent, it's likely to either scunner more voters and stop them voting or drive them into voting 'No'. Folk who want independence are going to have to try and stick to the debate rather than trying to get everyone to vote 'No' by showing them some scary pictures.

It'll go down a treat on the Scottish nationalist wing of 4chan though.

[lord bunberry]

:agree: I think the SNP have looked week on the economic issues as well - it's just that the campaign seems to be gathering around this boring question of whether Scotland would have to reapply.

I don't really agree that they look weak on economic issues they can point to independent reports that suggest scotland could go it alone. I think the main problem with the economic debate is north sea oil and gas. The no campaign doesn't want to recognise the amount of money that comes in from oil and tends to point to the barnet formula to show how we would be worse off.

[southfieldhibby]

This sort of stuff becomes prevalent, it's likely to either scunner more voters and stop them voting or drive them into voting 'No'. Folk who want independence are going to have to try and stick to the debate rather than trying to get everyone to vote 'No' by showing them some scary pictures.

It'll go down a treat on the Scottish nationalist wing of 4chan though.

Thought you'd like that.:greengrin

I agree though, it's mighty scary picture, could have been Blair or Cameron, but they chose Thatcher.

[southfieldhibby]

Too many people in the Better Together camp are portrayed as being like her. Shame.

Just had a look at the website in yout sig...the first thing that catches my eye?....

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/phil-anderton-joins-board-of-better-together

[yeezus.]

Just had a look at the website in yout sig...the first thing that catches my eye?....

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/phil-anderton-joins-board-of-better-together

I don't think you'll find Phil Anderton paraded around a Better Together conference the way Yes Scotland did with their celebz.

[yeezus.]

I don't really agree that they look weak on economic issues they can point to independent reports that suggest scotland could go it alone. I think the main problem with the economic debate is north sea oil and gas. The no campaign doesn't want to recognise the amount of money that comes in from oil and tends to point to the barnet formula to show how we would be worse off.

But many of us in the Better Together campaign realise that Scotland can go it alone - the question is, should we support the break-up of this small island? I for one don't want to see that happen.

[southfieldhibby]

I don't think you'll find Phil Anderton paraded around a Better Together conference the way Yes Scotland did with their celebz.

Are you calling Anderton a celeb?

[steakbake]

:agree: I think the SNP have looked week on the economic issues as well - it's just that the campaign seems to be gathering around this boring question of whether Scotland would have to reapply.

The currency issue is one specifically where they have looked a bit adrift but they're not going to get the co-operation they would like in making that argument, so it is a bit political. Yes, there could be a currency union with the RoUK but who really in Whitehall or the Bank of England is going to agree that that would be on the table ahead of the referendum?

Equally with Europe - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Scotland applied to join the EU, it would be given entry. The timetable and route in to that is what is up for question.

The EU needs to expand because the future is not necessarily about individual countries anymore - the organisation of societies is increasingly moving towards highly devolved locations of power within an overall international structure. Scotland would be independent as such - free to run it's own affairs within certain parameters and certainly much wider parameters than is available from within the UK. Outside of that though, it would be part of an economic and political bloc which increasingly has to compete with nations which are the same size as it: India, China, Brazil.

I don't mean to sound David Icke-esque when I say this, but it seems to me that what suits the EU and the UK is for membership status of the EU to continue for the UK regions, with London and the SE operating outside of the EU. London is this hemisphere's world financial centre - there are massive financial and economic benefits to the EU for it being outside of EU jurisdiction and to continue trading with it as much as there are benefits to the RoUK for it to be outside. Is it inconceivable that there would be a 'Yes' vote in Scotland for independence then an 'Out' vote for the RoUK when it comes to the EU referendum? The timing of the two seem to be interesting.

Anyway, the overall economic argument likes to be presented as either being a financial basket-case or becoming an oil-rich shangri-la. I think neither is true. There are many impartial reports by very well respected economists (whatever stock they hold these days!!) and academics which I think demonstrate that Scotland could hold its own perfectly well in the event of independence and clearly pays its way as part of a union.

[allmodcons]

The currency issue is one specifically where they have looked a bit adrift but they're not going to get the co-operation they would like in making that argument, so it is a bit political. Yes, there could be a currency union with the RoUK but who really in Whitehall or the Bank of England is going to agree that that would be on the table ahead of the referendum?

Equally with Europe - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Scotland applied to join the EU, it would be given entry. The timetable and route in to that is what is up for question.

The EU needs to expand because the future is not necessarily about individual countries anymore - the organisation of societies is increasingly moving towards highly devolved locations of power within an overall international structure. Scotland would be independent as such - free to run it's own affairs within certain parameters and certainly much wider parameters than is available from within the UK. Outside of that though, it would be part of an economic and political bloc which increasingly has to compete with nations which are the same size as it: India, China, Brazil.

I don't mean to sound David Icke-esque when I say this, but it seems to me that what suits the EU and the UK is for membership status of the EU to continue for the UK regions, with London and the SE operating outside of the EU. London is this hemisphere's world financial centre - there are massive financial and economic benefits to the EU for it being outside of EU jurisdiction and to continue trading with it as much as there are benefits to the RoUK for it to be outside. Is it inconceivable that there would be a 'Yes' vote in Scotland for independence then an 'Out' vote for the RoUK when it comes to the EU referendum? The timing of the two seem to be interesting.

Anyway, the overall economic argument likes to be presented as either being a financial basket-case or becoming an oil-rich shangri-la. I think neither is true. There are many impartial reports by very well respected economists (whatever stock they hold these days!!) and academics which I think demonstrate that Scotland could hold its own perfectly well in the event of independence and clearly pays its way as part of a union.



You appear to be suggesting that RoUK owns the Bank of England? It's a UK asset part owned by Scotland. This is a common Unionist approach to the question of Independence (i.e. - the assets belong to RoUk but Scotland will be expected to pick up the tab for it's share of the liabilities). Currency union with RoUk is perfectly feasible and, indeed, will beneift both parties if Scotland decides to go it alone. Despite Unionist spin, if Scotland votes for Independence there will be currency union with RoUK.

You stated earlier that the SNP were 'all over the place' on the EU yet you have bought the line that Scotland will have 'to apply' for EU membership. SNP policy has always stated that negotiations would be required with the EU if Scotland votes for Independence but, cruicially, they would take place in context of Scotland already being part of the EU (as part of the UK). You're right to assume that the EU would embrace Scotland, why would it not? We are, all of us, already EU citizens but, of course, it suits the no campaign to give the impresssion that an Independent Scotland would be some kind of leper in the EU and the wider international community. Peddling fear is what they do best!

[lord bunberry]

But many of us in the Better Together campaign realise that Scotland can go it alone - the question is, should we support the break-up of this small island? I for one don't want to see that happen.

If you think we can go it alone why do you think we shouldn't

[Future17]

Are you calling Anderton a celeb?

To be fair, everywhere he goes, fireworks happen.

[yeezus.]

Are you calling Anderton a celeb?

I think you'll find I called some of the Yes Scotland characters "celebz".

[yeezus.]

If you think we can go it alone why do you think we shouldn't

Because I don't want England to be a foreign country, I don't want to see the break up of this small island. To me, there is no difference between myself (unemployed in Stranraer) and an unemployed youngster in say, Liverpool. So what good is breaking up with them going to do?

[steakbake]

You appear to be suggesting that RoUK owns the Bank of England? It's a UK asset part owned by Scotland. This is a common Unionist approach to the question of Independence (i.e. - the assets belong to RoUk but Scotland will be expected to pick up the tab for it's share of the liabilities). Currency union with RoUk is perfectly feasible and, indeed, will beneift both parties if Scotland decides to go it alone. Despite Unionist spin, if Scotland votes for Independence there will be currency union with RoUK.

You stated earlier that the SNP were 'all over the place' on the EU yet you have bought the line that Scotland will have 'to apply' for EU membership. SNP policy has always stated that negotiations would be required with the EU if Scotland votes for Independence but, cruicially, they would take place in context of Scotland already being part of the EU (as part of the UK). You're right to assume that the EU would embrace Scotland, why would it not? We are, all of us, already EU citizens but, of course, it suits the no campaign to give the impresssion that an Independent Scotland would be some kind of leper in the EU and the wider international community. Peddling fear is what they do best!

No, the point I was making is that a currency union is perfectly feasible it's just that at this moment in time, do we seriously expect politicians and BoE heads to say that that is what is on the table, right now at this stage in the process? I suspect they would only agree to it afterwards. I fully realise that Scotland has the assets of the UK - we are part of the union at present and have been part of building it up to what it is now. That however, wasn't my point and wasn't something I was putting forward. It's a bit like the old chestnut about the oil and gas fields and what the percentage ownership of that would be and where the sovereign waters would be considered to.

I do think despite protest, that the SNP have been a bit unsteady on the EU issue and I think they know it. There was some obfuscation about whether legal advice had been sought and whatever the legal position was at the outcome of that advice. I think it has taken them a while to fully explain their position - that negotiations would have to take place to join the EU as opposed to inheriting membership of it. Evidence they need more advice and a clearer steer is the fact they have hired a leading expert on European Union legislation very recently.

I agree - some of the more shrill voices from the Better Together camp do make it sound like Scotland would be a pariah in the world, but that is of course, absolute nonsense. That headline about having to renegotiate 14,000 treaties as part of the process of independence for example, being one of the more remarkable examples of over-excitement we've had to listen to recently.

This comes back to the fundamental point to me - independence - of any country or region - is a question of where you wish to see the power held and how that relates globally. I'm not interested in ethnic divisions of "this has always been x country" - this is about the future and how you make decisions. Do you want decisions made locally and the voice in the world to come from us directly, or do you want to be part of a much larger conversation where your voice and interests are only one of many and oftentimes may be different to what is held to be in the best interests of the majority... at the moment, we are separated from being able to have a voice on the world stage because it goes through the Westminster filter first.

Personally, I hold that if society here is ever to make progress, it needs the power to make the decisions, to manage its own finances and resources fully and to have the ability to directly be able to state our case on the international stage. The only way that can happen is through independence. From my point of view, the currency/economics/EU or not and the "will-we-or-won't-we-get-Eastenders" is for those who have not reached any firm conclusions either way. The heart of the matter is actually very simple.



PS - I wish people would quit with this "small island" thing. GB is the sixth biggest island in the world, the 3rd most populous island and is the 22nd most populous country in the world out of 240 or so. "Small island" is perhaps the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, or something like that. It's all very over-emotive and overblown.

[yeezus.]

No, the point I was making is that a currency union is perfectly feasible it's just that at this moment in time, do we seriously expect politicians and BoE heads to say that that is what is on the table, right now at this stage in the process? I suspect they would only agree to it afterwards. I fully realise that Scotland has the assets of the UK - we are part of the union at present and have been part of building it up to what it is now. That however, wasn't my point and wasn't something I was putting forward. It's a bit like the old chestnut about the oil and gas fields and what the percentage ownership of that would be and where the sovereign waters would be considered to.

I do think despite protest, that the SNP have been a bit unsteady on the EU issue and I think they know it. There was some obfuscation about whether legal advice had been sought and whatever the legal position was at the outcome of that advice. I think it has taken them a while to fully explain their position - that negotiations would have to take place to join the EU as opposed to inheriting membership of it. Evidence they need more advice and a clearer steer is the fact they have hired a leading expert on European Union legislation very recently.

I agree - some of the more shrill voices from the Better Together camp do make it sound like Scotland would be a pariah in the world, but that is of course, absolute nonsense. That headline about having to renegotiate 14,000 treaties as part of the process of independence for example, being one of the more remarkable examples of over-excitement we've had to listen to recently.

This comes back to the fundamental point to me - independence - of any country or region - is a question of where you wish to see the power held and how that relates globally. I'm not interested in ethnic divisions of "this has always been x country" - this is about the future and how you make decisions. Do you want decisions made locally and the voice in the world to come from us directly, or do you want to be part of a much larger conversation where your voice and interests are only one of many and oftentimes may be different to what is held to be in the best interests of the majority... at the moment, we are separated from being able to have a voice on the world stage because it goes through the Westminster filter first.

Personally, I hold that if society here is ever to make progress, it needs the power to make the decisions, to manage its own finances and resources fully and to have the ability to directly be able to state our case on the international stage. The only way that can happen is through independence. From my point of view, the currency/economics/EU or not and the "will-we-or-won't-we-get-Eastenders" is for those who have not reached any firm conclusions either way. The heart of the matter is actually very simple.



PS - I wish people would quit with this "small island" thing. GB is the sixth biggest island in the world, the 3rd most populous island and is the 22nd most populous country in the world out of 240 or so. "Small island" is perhaps the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, or something like that. It's all very over-emotive and overblown.

I don't use that terminology in a literal sense.

[allmodcons]

Because I don't want England to be a foreign country, I don't want to see the break up of this small island. To me, there is no difference between myself (unemployed in Stranraer) and an unemployed youngster in say, Liverpool. So what good is breaking up with them going to do?

You might get a job in an Independent Scotland!
Only jesting SH. Keep your chin up, you'll get the breaks soon and, at the risk of sounding a little condescending, get out and do some voluntary work if you haven't already. Helping the homeless for example, IMO Shelter are VG and they're always looking for volunteers.

[steakbake]

I don't use that terminology in a literal sense.

Fair enough, but even metaphorically it doesn't make sense. How is GB a 'small island'?

[southfieldhibby]

But many of us in the Better Together campaign realise that Scotland can go it alone - the question is, should we support the break-up of this small island? I for one don't want to see that happen.


Because I don't want England to be a foreign country, I don't want to see the break up of this small island. To me, there is no difference between myself (unemployed in Stranraer) and an unemployed youngster in say, Liverpool. So what good is breaking up with them going to do?


I don't use that terminology in a literal sense.

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.

[yeezus.]

You might get a job in an Independent Scotland!
Only jesting SH. Keep your chin up, you'll get the breaks soon and, at the risk of sounding a little condescending, get out and do some voluntary work if you haven't already. Helping the homeless for example, IMO Shelter are VG and they're always looking for volunteers.

Cheers mate, I applied for a decent position as an apprentice health and safety manager and I have a COSHH course next week through the ILA so things are looking up I guess.

[yeezus.]

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.

But it's for the Scottish nationalists to set out a positive campaign! They can't even answer the most basic of questions. Can we enjoy the next year of debating? Or is anyone who raises an issue with the Nationalist mindset going to be labelled a Tory!?

[steakbake]

Cheers mate, I applied for a decent position as an apprentice health and safety manager and I have a COSHH course next week through the ILA so things are looking up I guess.

Yeah, just also wanted to say keep going. Tough times out there but you seem to be a switched on fella. May the breaks come soon.

[yeezus.]

Yeah, just also wanted to say keep going. Tough times out there but you seem to be a switched on fella. May the breaks come soon.

Thank you, I appreciate it, I have good weeks and bad weeks and my mental health usually determines my job hunt/mass attendance!

[southfieldhibby]

But it's for the Scottish nationalists to set out a positive campaign! They can't even answer the most basic of questions. Can we enjoy the next year of debating? Or is anyone who raises an issue with the Nationalist mindset going to be labelled a Tory!?

Seriously?

And I never mentioned tories, I mentioned toleys, which to be fair, are pretty much the same thing.

[yeezus.]

Seriously?

And I never mentioned tories, I mentioned toleys, which to be fair, are pretty much the same thing.

You didn't mention Tories, but most if not all the nationalists I have met assume that anyone who opposes separation is automatically a conservative.

[Scouse Hibee]

Cheers mate, I applied for a decent position as an apprentice health and safety manager and I have a COSHH course next week through the ILA so things are looking up I guess.


Have you any H&S qualifications at all mate?

[southfieldhibby]

You didn't mention Tories, but most if not all the nationalists I have met assume that anyone who opposes separation is automatically a conservative.

That in itself is a pretty bit assumption.Not many tories in Scotland, all the no merchants I know are solid Labour.

[yeezus.]

Have you any H&S qualifications at all mate?

Nope - I was at University for three years and inbetween worked as a kitchen porter. This course will be my first of anything along those lines but it is something I am interested in doing.

[Scouse Hibee]

Nope - I was at University for three years and inbetween worked as a kitchen porter. This course will be my first of anything along those lines but it is something I am interested in doing.

Fair do's I hope you enjoy it. I work in H&S, you mentioned an apprentice H&S Manager position which is not a position I've heard off before. Good Luck

[Beefster]

That in itself is a pretty bit assumption.Not many tories in Scotland, all the no merchants I know are solid Labour.

Bit of a myth. For every five folk that voted Labour at the last Scottish election, almost three voted Tory.

[Hibbyradge]

What can we read into this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21539995

[marinello59]

What can we read into this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21539995

That the students who voted no were media brain washed Tory fearties?

[Hibbyradge]

Fair enough, but even metaphorically it doesn't make sense. How is GB a 'small island'?

It looks small to me.

9392

[Hibbyradge]

Seriously?



Don't you think the Nationalists need to put forward the positive arguments in favour of separation?

If it's not their role, whose is it?

[Sergio sledge]

That the students who voted no were media brain washed Tory fearties?

I've got a family member at Glasgow Uni who was spouting this line, and the "blind and lazy" line.

[southfieldhibby]

But it's for the Scottish nationalists to set out a positive campaign! They can't even answer the most basic of questions. Can we enjoy the next year of debating? Or is anyone who raises an issue with the Nationalist mindset going to be labelled a Tory!?



Don't you think the Nationalists need to put forward the positive arguments in favour of separation?

If it's not their role, whose is it?

Taken in the correct context my point was that it's for both sides to produce the positive outcome of their side winning...I want to know the + to the union as much as the + for independence.


Bit of a myth. For every five folk that voted Labour at the last Scottish election, almost three voted Tory.

No myth.Tories polled 13% of votes cast, which was only 50% of the electorate, and a few of them would have been anti-libdem votes.The Tories are a very few, based in the Ayr and the farmers in Dumfries & Galloway ( They'll lose Ayr next time,too)

[southfieldhibby]

What can we read into this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21539995

That's pretty interesting, and a decent reflection on the polls being produced, although it looks like all undecided voters will vote no, which is pretty unlikely.the demographic of university attendees probably doesn't reflect Scotland,though and I'd be keen to know the % of English who took part in comparison to the % of english people registered voters in Scotland.

[yeezus.]

Taken in the correct context my point was that it's for both sides to produce the positive outcome of their side winning...I want to know the + to the union as much as the + for independence.



No myth.Tories polled 13% of votes cast, which was only 50% of the electorate, and a few of them would have been anti-libdem votes.The Tories are a very few, based in the Ayr and the farmers in Dumfries & Galloway ( They'll lose Ayr next time,too)

It's unfortunate that my constituency in the Scottish parliament doesn't have Dumfries in with it - we are so rural and you are right that the farmers in D & G mean that we generally vote Tory in Galloway.

[Jack]

What can we read into this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21539995

The main stat I took was "Only 2589 (13%) of the university's 20,000 students took part in the poll." says the BBC.

In fact there are 23,162 (11%).

I doubt the students are representitive of the population of Scotland either.

I'm not knocking it, good on them for having the debate, but there does seem to be a bit of a fuss about it.

[allmodcons]

You didn't mention Tories, but most if not all the nationalists I have met assume that anyone who opposes separation is automatically a conservative.

Not fair SH. Any self respecting Nationalist knows this is not the case! For me, the single biggest challenge facing the Yes campaign will be in attracting Labour supporters to vote Yes. If the Yes campaign (including Labour for Independence) are successful in persuading a good percentage of Labour voters as
to the merits of Independence, I think they'll have a real chance of winning the vote. The Tories are another matter, you may find the odd exception, but they're not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for nothing.

[yeezus.]

Not fair SH. Any self respecting Nationalist knows this is not the case! For me, the single biggest challenge facing the Yes campaign will be in attracting Labour supporters to vote Yes. If the Yes campaign (including Labour for Independence) are successful in persuading a good percentage of Labour voters as
to the merits of Independence, I think they'll have a real chance of winning the vote. The Tories are another matter, you may find the odd exception, but they're not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for nothing.

I think the "Labour for independence" group is tiny... although I herd they were allowed to march on the independence rally where as some of the further left groups (SRSM for example) were not.

I've met many small c conservatives who support independence and I think nationalism as an ideology is more inclined to be of that persuasion anyway.

[lord bunberry]

Not fair SH. Any self respecting Nationalist knows this is not the case! For me, the single biggest challenge facing the Yes campaign will be in attracting Labour supporters to vote Yes. If the Yes campaign (including Labour for Independence) are successful in persuading a good percentage of Labour voters as
to the merits of Independence, I think they'll have a real chance of winning the vote. The Tories are another matter, you may find the odd exception, but they're not called the Conservative & Unionist Party for nothing.

They are called the conservative and unionist party but imo that name is a sham. I would be prepared to wager my house on the fact that if you were to do a poll in secret amongst all tory MP's you would get a majority in favour of us gaining independence. Without labours Scottish MP'S there would be far less chance of a labour government

[southfieldhibby]

uh oh...

9395

[southfieldhibby]

So while The UK losses it's much vaunted AAA rating, North Sea Oil(Scottish) revenues bail out Gideon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9891447/North-Sea-oil-to-give-George-Osborne-25bn-boost.html

[steakbake]

So while The UK losses it's much vaunted AAA rating, North Sea Oil(Scottish) revenues bail out Gideon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9891447/North-Sea-oil-to-give-George-Osborne-25bn-boost.html

It wasn't so long ago that people like Alistair Darling etc were telling us that there was hardly any oil left and that the number of exploration licences being granted were decreasing. I am sure I read somewhere that 2011 saw a record number of licences being granted and 2012 was not far behind.

Just as well Osbourne can count on North Sea oil reserves to bail the UK out - I'd call that a union dividend and more than paying into the communal kitty. So the question is - does this mean Scottish resources are subsidising the rest of the UK? And is this why the often disputed GERS stats have two sets of calculations - one including oil and gas and one without? So that politicians can claim we're both net receivers and over-contributors on same set of statistics to obfuscate the issue of who is paying what?

On the AAA rating - the UK should have been downgraded some time ago as France and others were irritated about.

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-converts-to-scotland-s-cause-1-2811164
Interesting article, not convinced by water privatisation,though.

[southfieldhibby]

Things seem to have gone quiet on here recently, any unionist have anything to say on credit ratings or Labour and nukes?

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6837-sturgeon-and-denmark-on-the-no-campaigns-radar-as-friendly-fire-damages-unionist-front-line

[VickMackie]

The main stat I took was "Only 2589 (13%) of the university's 20,000 students took part in the poll." says the BBC.

In fact there are 23,162 (11%).

I doubt the students are representitive of the population of Scotland either.

I'm not knocking it, good on them for having the debate, but there does seem to be a bit of a fuss about it.

I listened to one of the organisers and he said around 10-20% of students were English so couldn't vote. i think he said all of them weren't in term and a lot were lazy *******s!

[JeMeSouviens]

But many of us in the Better Together campaign realise that Scotland can go it alone - the question is, should we support the break-up of this small island? I for one don't want to see that happen.

Apols for going off topic but this bugs the **** out of me. Great Britain is a huge island, look at a ****** map FFS! Or ... http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/geography/largest-islands.htm

[yeezus.]

Apols for going off topic but this bugs the **** out of me. Great Britain is a huge island, look at a ****** map FFS! Or ... http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/geography/largest-islands.htm

Keep calm and vote no. :thumbsup:

[southfieldhibby]

Apols for going off topic but this bugs the **** out of me. Great Britain is a huge island, look at a ****** map FFS! Or ... http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/geography/largest-islands.htm

That list excludes Oz.

[JeMeSouviens]

That list excludes Oz.

It's variously described as an island, a continent or an island continent. Depends who you ask.

As compared to leading No campaigner, Lord Foulkes, who is without a shadow of a doubt, incontinent. There you are, neatly back on topic. :wink:

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/03/GERS6313

so we're still over-contributing.

Labour confirm they're endorsing trident replacement
Gideon Osbourne goes to Europe to fight against bankers bonus restrictions
Re-allocated armed forces promised at 6000-7000 troops....actual figure?...600
4 bases being closed while £2Billion worth of new bases are lined up in England


and Scots still want to continue with them.

[southfieldhibby]

http://billsbumblings.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/51/