Scottish Independence

[Moulin Yarns]

[QUOTE=Jeremy Kyle;4106806] I said they were using the same equipment as the fascists.

QUOTE]

Aye, they were both held in Sports Stadia.

[Phil D. Rolls]

[QUOTE=Jeremy Kyle;4106806] I said they were using the same equipment as the fascists.

QUOTE]

Aye, they were both held in Sports Stadia.

Yes, I accept that, please take this shovel from me, it has not been my finest hour.

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=Golden Fleece;4106837]

Yes, I accept that, please take this shovel from me, it has not been my finest hour.

Okay, but then we will beat the living crap out of you with it, push you into the hole you've dug, and then shovel the dirt back over you.

That shovel will then be used as a quasi-headstone. Someone will scribble on it, with BLUE ink.... "truly, this was not his finest hour".

:aok:

[Phil D. Rolls]

[QUOTE=Jeremy Kyle;4106841]

Okay, but then we will beat the living crap out of you with it, push you into the hole you've dug, and then shovel the dirt back over you.

That shovel will then be used as a quasi-headstone. Someone will scribble on it, with BLUE ink.... "truly, this was not his finest hour".

:aok:

Now you're spoiling me.

[over the line]

Humour and the Nazis just don't mix.

Oh I don't know, I think their uniforms were both hilarious and as camp as a row of tents! ;)

[7 Hills]

Humour and the Nazis just don't mix.

Oh dear - you're not even right about that! :wink:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

[Phil D. Rolls]

Oh dear - you're not even right about that! :wink:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw

The hits just keep on coming. :chop:

[snooky]

Both side of this debate contains as many nationalists as the other. Ok, "Yes" may have fringe elements who are voting Yes for nationalist reasons but "No" have their lunatic fringe who are "proud to be British" and are fighting to retain their "British" status, just look at the OO. It seems to me though being overly patriotic about Britishness is completely OK and normal, but Scottish nationalism is somehow "Nazi" in outlook.

When the SNP start looking like they're building up military might, banning other political parties, looking to annexe neighbouring countries by force, start whipping up xenophobic hysteria, turn on immigrants, the sick and disabled then you can compare the Indy movement to the Nazi movement.

As it is the SNP wants to disarm Scotland from nuclear weapons, has no interest in annexing anything, has publibly stated they desire immigration (unlike the right wing press and Conservatives), wish to be a strong member of the EU, aren't persecuting the sick and disabled like the Tories and IDS. Apart from the the word "National" in the SNPs name I can't see how that equates to the Nazis, I suppose because the Nazis has "socialist" in their name you equate the left wing with Nazism too? Not only does your post insult those perfectly normal people who want Scotland to govern itself within the EU, it actually demeans the tyranny which actually went on under the Nazi regime. If "Alicsammon" (as many No voters like to shreik) is the worst the Germans in the 1930s got then there wouldn't have been a war.

Incidentally I'm not even Scottish, and I'd call myself a natural Labour voter not SNP. I, and it seems many people, are turning to Yes because of Englands increasingly xenophobic and nationalist outlook coincidentally. The English increasingly want detached from the rest of Europe and that's their choice. I don't want to go down that road. I do not want Scotland whipped out of the EU because a majority in England do.

Great post.
I would like to add though, I see the 'Yes' campaign as being not against England but against Westminster and its tyrannical clout.
This vote is not about nationalism - it's about democracy.

[Pretty Boy]

Not posted on this thread previously but as an undecided voter leaning towards yes can I say I had no idea there was any controversy surrounding the Red Arrows display until I read the link posted on here.

I just always though red, white and blue was the Red Arrows colours. Can I go as far as to suggest looking for controversy there makes the Yes campaign look a bit petty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not posted on this thread previously but as an undecided voter leaning towards yes can I say I had no idea there was any controversy surrounding the Red Arrows display until I read the link posted on here.

I just always though red, white and blue was the Red Arrows colours. Can I go as far as to suggest looking for controversy there makes the Yes campaign look a bit petty.

I don't think they were bothered. The story seems to have come from nowhere.

[Bristolhibby]

Not posted on this thread previously but as an undecided voter leaning towards yes can I say I had no idea there was any controversy surrounding the Red Arrows display until I read the link posted on here.

I just always though red, white and blue was the Red Arrows colours. Can I go as far as to suggest looking for controversy there makes the Yes campaign look a bit petty.

I'm not sure where I read it, but the personal intervention of the Defence Secretary, kinda makes it a bit petty, no? Was it his business to intervene?

J

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not sure where I read it, but the personal intervention of the Defence Secretary, kinda makes it a bit petty, no? Was it his business to intervene?

J

Don't think that he did.

“Glasgow 2014 would like to clarify that it was its ceremonies producers who had initial conversations about Red Arrows trailing blue-and-white smoke to represent the host nation’s Saltire but this was never formally requested..”

[Phil D. Rolls]

Don't think that he did.

“Glasgow 2014 would like to clarify that it was its ceremonies producers who had initial conversations about Red Arrows trailing blue-and-white smoke to represent the host nation’s Saltire but this was never formally requested..”

So they just forgot to ask? No wonder they were keeping quiet about it.

[CropleyWasGod]

So they just forgot to ask? No wonder they were keeping quiet about it.

I didn't read it as that. I read it as they decided against it.

[Bristolhibby]

Don't think that he did.

“Glasgow 2014 would like to clarify that it was its ceremonies producers who had initial conversations about Red Arrows trailing blue-and-white smoke to represent the host nation’s Saltire but this was never formally requested..”

It is the Daily Knee Jerk reaction, but I knew I'd red it somwhere.

I apologise for linking this rag.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704121/Who-tried-red-Red-Arrows-Commonwealth-Games-guide-said-jets-trail-blue-white-smoke-recreate-Scottish-flag.html

J

[Phil D. Rolls]

I didn't read it as that. I read it as they decided against it.

Fair enough.

[Mibbes Aye]

Great post.
I would like to add though, I see the 'Yes' campaign as being not against England but against Westminster and its tyrannical clout.
This vote is not about nationalism - it's about democracy.

'Tyrannical clout' is funny.

We have a Scottish Government who essentially have forced a council tax freeze on local authorities, which they take credit for.

If a local authority opts out the freeze they face a cut bigger than what they lose from the freeze. The problem is that local authorities face unprecedented pressure on budgets and are having to cut services in ways they have never contemplated before.

These cuts affect the poorest and the marginalised most, they are the people most dependent on local authority services.

Nothing democratic about that - it's a bribe for the better-off at the expense of the weakest in our communities.

[snooky]

'Tyrannical clout' is funny.

We have a Scottish Government who essentially have forced a council tax freeze on local authorities, which they take credit for.

If a local authority opts out the freeze they face a cut bigger than what they lose from the freeze. The problem is that local authorities face unprecedented pressure on budgets and are having to cut services in ways they have never contemplated before.

These cuts affect the poorest and the marginalised most, they are the people most dependent on local authority services.

Nothing democratic about that - it's a bribe for the better-off at the expense of the weakest in our communities.

Tell me about it, I work for a local authority.
Don't agree with your source of fault or bribe comment, but hey, that's okay. :cool2:

[Mibbes Aye]

Tell me about it, I work for a local authority.
Don't agree with your source of fault or bribe comment, but hey, that's okay. :cool2:

Definitely :greengrin

This place works better if it's discussion and debate, rather than diatribes.

[7 Hills]

Not posted on this thread previously but as an undecided voter leaning towards yes can I say I had no idea there was any controversy surrounding the Red Arrows display until I read the link posted on here.

I just always though red, white and blue was the Red Arrows colours. Can I go as far as to suggest looking for controversy there makes the Yes campaign look a bit petty.

The Red Arrows thing is a nonsense story, which only appeared in the English edition of the Daily Mail amidst claims that the Arrows "never" trail anything other than Red, White and Blue vapour. This is bo!!ocks, I saw them trail only Blue and White vapour with my own eyes as they escorted Concorde on a flypast over Edinburgh at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Also, see the attached image.

13141

[Bristolhibby]

The Red Arrows thing is a nonsense story, which only appeared in the English edition of the Daily Mail amidst claims that the Arrows "never" trail anything other than Red, White and Blue vapour. This is bo!!ocks, I saw them trail only Blue and White vapour with my own eyes as they escorted Concorde on a flypast over Edinburgh at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Also, see the attached image.

13141

Here's my take.

Commies event organisers ask for blue and white smoke (Scotland hosting the games, etc).
This was discussed with the Red Arrows (not a problem, as we all know they don't have to do red, white and blue.) At no point have the Scottish Government asked for anything.
New Tory defence secretary hears about this and vetoes the decision. (R,W & B or nothing).
Reds fly with R,W&B at the opening ceremony.
Press hacks notice this and ask for quote from Reds press team.
Reds press officer, being part if a military hierarchy backs up his civilian boss and states that "the reds only ever fly R,W&B (a clear lie).
Storm ensues.

J

[judas]

Have to say, I was curious to see how a thread about Scottish Independence could draw such a huge number of posts. So, I came in and had a look. I had no idea there was going to be a vote on the subject, and in September!

[over the line]

Have to say, I was curious to see how a thread about Scottish Independence could draw such a huge number of posts. So, I came in and had a look. I had no idea there was going to be a vote on the subject, and in September!

Presumably your vote could be bought for 30 pieces of silver? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[over the line]

Here's my take.

Commies event organisers ask for blue and white smoke (Scotland hosting the games, etc).
This was discussed with the Red Arrows (not a problem, as we all know they don't have to do red, white and blue.) At no point have the Scottish Government asked for anything.
New Tory defence secretary hears about this and vetoes the decision. (R,W & B or nothing).
Reds fly with R,W&B at the opening ceremony.
Press hacks notice this and ask for quote from Reds press team.
Reds press officer, being part if a military hierarchy backs up his civilian boss and states that "the reds only ever fly R,W&B (a clear lie).
Storm ensues.

J

Here's my take: Really, does it matter and who gives a crap!?!?!

The Commonwealth is British, the Red Arrows are British, the event is in Britain and the smoke represents that surely? But come on, does it really matter, its a bit of smoke? Possibly the worst and most petty conspiracy theory I've ever known. Not singling you out bristolhibby, yours just happened to be the last post on the subject. No offence like. :)

[ronaldo7]

Here's my take: Really, does it matter and who gives a crap!?!?!

The Commonwealth is British, the Red Arrows are British, the event is in Britain and the smoke represents that surely? But come on, does it really matter, its a bit of smoke? Possibly the worst and most petty conspiracy theory I've ever known. Not singling you out bristolhibby, yours just happened to be the last post on the subject. No offence like. :)


The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 53 independent countries - See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org/about-us#sthash.b048IbtV.dpuf :aok:

[over the line]

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 53 independent countries - See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org/about-us#sthash.b048IbtV.dpuf :aok:

Bit nit picky don't you think? You know what I mean, the Commonwealth exists because of the old British Empire etc....

I just think the whole Smokegate thing is a bit pointless. If that's the 'issue' of the moment, then things must be pretty much ok really.

But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not telling people what to discuss/post, as I am guilty of posting some right crap on here myself! ;):)

[ronaldo7]

Bit nit picky don't you think? You know what I mean, the Commonwealth exists because of the old British Empire etc....

I just think the whole Smokegate thing is a bit pointless. If that's the 'issue' of the moment, then things must be pretty much ok really.

But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not telling people what to discuss/post, as I am guilty of posting some right crap on here myself! ;):)

Sorry if you feel picked on, it wasn't my intention. I just thought you might not have known how the commonwealth has developed over the years. I've not mentioned Smokegate or whatever they're calling it. Flash in the pan if you ask me:aok:

[over the line]

Sorry if you feel picked on, it wasn't my intention. I just thought you might not have known how the commonwealth has developed over the years. I've not mentioned Smokegate or whatever they're calling it. Flash in the pan if you ask me:aok:

No no, I don't feel picked on at all, not what I meant. I don't know how the Commonwealth has developed over the years really, it only seems to make the news when the games are on. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :)

[KWJ]

Bit nit picky don't you think? You know what I mean, the Commonwealth exists because of the old British Empire etc....

I just think the whole Smokegate thing is a bit pointless. If that's the 'issue' of the moment, then things must be pretty much ok really.

But don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not telling people what to discuss/post, as I am guilty of posting some right crap on here myself! ;):)

It is a much ado about nothing if we're just looking at the smoke but there is a bigger picture.

Both camps agreed not to politicize the games and yet No has done so by getting involved.

As far as the smoke goes, would any other country hosting it do UJ colours or there own? Scotland is the host nation this time round, the UK does not compete.

The English cycling team with the UJ helmets is another sign btw, they aren't representing the UK but they don't seem to understand that.

[over the line]

It is a much ado about nothing if we're just looking at the smoke but there is a bigger picture.

Both camps agreed not to politicize the games and yet No has done so by getting involved.

As far as the smoke goes, would any other country hosting it do UJ colours or there own? Scotland is the host nation this time round, the UK does not compete.

The English cycling team with the UJ helmets is another sign btw, they aren't representing the UK but they don't seem to understand that.

Still the weakest, most petty conspiracy theory ever, no offence like. :). I'm not sure the addition of an occasional red stripe, in the smoke, or on a cycle helmet, will sway anyone's vote? It may be a NO conspiracy, but you have to be looking for it surely? And if it is a 'conspiracy' , then the YES lot have missed a trick!

I know people do blindly follow flags but not sure about this theory I have to say?

[Moulin Yarns]

Still the weakest, most petty conspiracy theory ever, no offence like. :). I'm not sure the addition of an occasional red stripe, in the smoke, or on a cycle helmet, will sway anyone's vote? It may be a NO conspiracy, but you have to be looking for it surely? And if it is a 'conspiracy' , then the YES lot have missed a trick!

I know people do blindly follow flags but not sure about this theory I have to say?

I gather the Union flags on the English cycling team helmets is because they are actually Team GB helmets that were used in the London Olympics. So, looking at it from a team Scotland point of view, we paid for them, as did the Welsh and Northern Irish. What I have noticed, and last night at the swimming it was particularly evident was that spectators are still waving Union Flags when they are supporting English competitors. The usual confusion in their minds that Britain really means England.

[over the line]

I gather the Union flags on the English cycling team helmets is because they are actually Team GB helmets that were used in the London Olympics. So, looking at it from a team Scotland point of view, we paid for them, as did the Welsh and Northern Irish. What I have noticed, and last night at the swimming it was particularly evident was that spectators are still waving Union Flags when they are supporting English competitors. The usual confusion in their minds that Britain really means England.

I think this whole debate is flagging a bit now ;):rolleyes::D

[Phil D. Rolls]

Not necessarily a political point, but is there any need for that Judo player to keep mentioning he's a Royal Marine. He's representing Scotland, not the Marines, and is coming across as a bit of a nob. (No mean feet considering how up themselves the other Judokan seem to be).

(IMO).

[snooky]

I think this whole debate is flagging a bit now ;):rolleyes::D

Yeh, the standard has definitely lowered :wink:

[over the line]

Not necessarily a political point, but is there any need for that Judo player to keep mentioning he's a Royal Marine. He's representing Scotland, not the Marines, and is coming across as a bit of a nob. (No mean feet considering how up themselves the other Judokan seem to be).

(IMO).

Nice touch.......slagging off elite martial artists and some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world! Now if you were to follow that up by doing it to their faces, that trully would be worth a gold medal! ;) (although you may struggle with the steps to the podium, with all the broken bones n that?) :)

[over the line]

Yeh, the standard has definitely lowered :wink:

I think it is worth running it up the pole one more time though? :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Nice touch.......slagging off elite martial artists and some of the most highly trained soldiers in the world! Now if you were to follow that up by doing it to their faces, that trully would be worth a gold medal! ;) (although you may struggle with the steps to the podium, with all the broken bones n that?) :)

You're right of course, but I hardly think they'd worry about what some nobody on the Internet wrote about them. From a personal point of view I think their lack of modesty kind of jumps out, compared to some of the other athletes.

Well done to them for winning, well done to the Marines for being what they are. I just think the guys behaviour was a bit OTT. Maybe he feels he has to show support for the forces, but I'm sure he's not the only military man at the games - a wee bit inappropriate IMO.

Funnily enough, I spoke to an ex soldier recently, and he was the embodiment of humility. He got annoyed because some of his comrades seemed more interested in what medals they had to show, than what they had actually done for each other. Just shows you, it takes all sorts.

[over the line]

You're right of course, but I hardly think they'd worry about what some nobody on the Internet wrote about them. From a personal point of view I think their lack of modesty kind of jumps out, compared to some of the other athletes.

Well done to them for winning, well done to the Marines for being what they are. I just think the guys behaviour was a bit OTT. Maybe he feels he has to show support for the forces, but I'm sure he's not the only military man at the games - a wee bit inappropriate IMO.

Funnily enough, I spoke to an ex soldier recently, and he was the embodiment of humility. He got annoyed because some of his comrades seemed more interested in what medals they had to show, than what they had actually done for each other. Just shows you, it takes all sorts.

I've not actually seen the Marine guy, he may well come across as an arse for all I know. There are no doubt athletes and soldiers who are up themselves, like you say and others that aren't. But maybe pick some less solid groups of people to slag off? Maybe something like "what about that crown green bowls guy, the one who's in the Sally Army. He is a complete F'in turd"!!! ;) (if there is actually such a bloke, sorry no offence like). :)

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've not actually seen the Marine guy, he may well come across as an arse for all I know. There are no doubt athletes and soldiers who are up themselves, like you say and others that aren't. But maybe pick some less solid groups of people to slag off? Maybe something like "what about that crown green bowls guy, the one who's in the Sally Army. He is a complete F'in turd"!!! ;) (if there is actually such a bloke, sorry no offence like). :)

Nah, if I'm going to get killed for my beliefs, I want it done by the best. The thought of dying of eColi after a steak pie tea at a bowling club isn't up there with execution by the SAS.

(The steak pie reference comes from Chewin the Fat, just in case there has been a real case I don't know about).

[ronaldo7]

Democracy:rolleyes: at work Westminster style.

http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/1957-cameron-closes-nuclear-deal-behind-parliaments-back

[TheReg!]

I for one can't wait until this vote is over, the amount of really petty point scoring from both sides is sad!!!!

[Moulin Yarns]

12 points to think about

http://undecidedscottishvoter.com/ (http://undecidedscottishvoter.com/)

[over the line]

I for one can't wait until this vote is over, the amount of really petty point scoring from both sides is sad!!!!

I agree. I also think is making a divide in Scotland that wasn't previously there. As I've said before, I think we should be looking to create less divides, not more.

[ronaldo7]

I for one can't wait until this vote is over, the amount of really petty point scoring from both sides is sad!!!!

Care to elaborate.


I agree. I also think is making a divide in Scotland that wasn't previously there. As I've said before, I think we should be looking to create less divides, not more.

I don't think of it as dividing, I see it as joining the nations of the world.

[TheReg!]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4111458]Care to elaborate.

Well reading through most of this thread on and off has just left a bad taste in my mouth tbh, like a few threads on The Holy ground there seems to be the same people saying the same things over and over again and anyone who stands up to it gets shouted down.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4111458]Care to elaborate.

Well reading through most of this thread on and off has just left a bad taste in my mouth tbh, like a few threads on The Holy ground there seems to be the same people saying the same things over and over again and anyone who stands up to it gets shouted down.

Why do you have a bad taste? Who has shouted you down? It's a public forum for all views to be shared.

[Moulin Yarns]

The MOD and local Labour MSP claim losing Trident from the Clyde will cost 11,000 thousands and 6,000 thousand Local jobs, respectively

Freedom of Information enquiry reveals a total of 520 local jobs will be lost.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/labour-and-tories-under-fire-for-inflating-trident-job-losses.19262922#comment-694494918

Military jobs would be redeployed elsewhere, so we are talking civilian jobs.

Who do you believe?

[JimBHibees]

The MOD and local Labour MSP claim losing Trident from the Clyde will cost 11,000 thousands and 6,000 thousand Local jobs, respectively

Freedom of Information enquiry reveals a total of 520 local jobs will be lost.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/labour-and-tories-under-fire-for-inflating-trident-job-losses.19262922#comment-694494918

Military jobs would be redeployed elsewhere, so we are talking civilian jobs.

Who do you believe?

Well they lied previously when the Scottish Secretary of the time in the 70s (Labour) told us that oil would have run out by now. Why should it change now?

Are Labour supporters happy with this or does the end justify the means? Seems pretty shameful.

[sauzee_4]

Care to elaborate.



I don't think of it as dividing, I see it as joining the nations of the world.

I see it as actually igniting people's interests in politics, who previously didn't give a damn.

Thank you to the SNP for giving us a choice to choose how we want our future to look. What a marvellous discussion

[sauzee_4]

I see it as actually igniting people's interests in politics, who previously didn't give a damn.

Thank you to the SNP for giving us a choice to choose how we want our future to look. What a marvellous discussion

Empowering I think, is the word I'm looking for.

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4111458]Care to elaborate.

Well reading through most of this thread on and off has just left a bad taste in my mouth tbh, like a few threads on The Holy ground there seems to be the same people saying the same things over and over again and anyone who stands up to it gets shouted down.

That's just like any debate anywhere in the world where you are in the minority, I think most people on this thread though have been perfectly reasonable and tend to dismantle the argument not the person (the way it should be)

I am delighted we are discussing this question because it is really giving us a chance to think about how our society should look and question our assumptions.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4111458]Care to elaborate.

Well reading through most of this thread on and off has just left a bad taste in my mouth tbh, like a few threads on The Holy ground there seems to be the same people saying the same things over and over again and anyone who stands up to it gets shouted down.

This thread is very much 'patrolled' by socialist Yes voters, who do hunt in packs when someone posts a pro No, or questions the Yes campaign in anyway. I'm not having a dig, or griping too much, as on the whole I have been treated pretty fairly for my pro No posts, plus I've learnt a fair bit too. But some people seem to get a bit of grief on here and it is very much the domain of Yes(ers) back slapping each other and scoffing at anyone who may not buy into the Yes thing, etc. I think by now most No(ists) have been chased off from 'Scottopia Island', but I like to think I am (and a few others)making a brave stance on here, to add balance if nothing else! ;):D

[sauzee_4]

To bring the debate up a notch then let's re-iterate some facts (there may be new readers)

The pound is a fully tradeable currency which can be used by any country without permission

No country can be forced to use the Euro

If the terms the EU offer Scotland for joining are not to scotlands liking we can join EFTA instead, giving us the same benefits of EU membership but without having to pay membership fees. (Drawbacks being no MEP's sent to Brussels)

Excluding oil, Scotland is just as rich as the UK (GDP per head 1% lower)

With oil, Scotland is richer than France, Italy, Japan and the rest of the UK

And this final ones an opinion but i feel a fairly solid one:
Scotlands economy will not be negatively affected by a Yes because: The Tourists will keep visiting our castles! The world will still buy our Whisky and Renewable energy! Our Construction industry will still need to build things! And the Wind won't stop blowing (tv told me otherwise but I'm pretty sure they are wrong)

[Geo_1875]

This thread is very much 'patrolled' by socialist Yes voters, who do hunt in packs when someone posts a pro No, or questions the Yes campaign in anyway. I'm not having a dig, or griping too much, as on the whole I have been treated pretty fairly for my pro No posts, plus I've learnt a fair bit too. But some people seem to get a bit of grief on here and it is very much the domain of Yes(ers) back slapping each other and scoffing at anyone who may not buy into the Yes thing, etc. I think by now most No(ists) have been chased off from 'Scottopia Island', but I like to think I am (and a few others)making a brave stance on here, to add balance if nothing else! ;):D

Who would have thunk it, Socialist Hibbys supporting tartan Tories.

I recognise some of the posters you refer to but I don't think they are in the majority on this thread. There are a fair number of vocal No "campaigners" who don't hold back in their scoffing. What does tend to annoy is the repetition of discredited claims (from both sides) and personal attacks on politicians and public figures from both sides of the debate.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=TheReg!;4111463]

This thread is very much 'patrolled' by socialist Yes voters, who do hunt in packs when someone posts a pro No, or questions the Yes campaign in anyway. I'm not having a dig, or griping too much, as on the whole I have been treated pretty fairly for my pro No posts, plus I've learnt a fair bit too. But some people seem to get a bit of grief on here and it is very much the domain of Yes(ers) back slapping each other etc. I think by now most No(ists) have been chased off from 'Scottopia Island'. But I like to think I am (and a few others)making a brave stance on here, to add balance if nothing else! ;):D

:faf:

If someone posts something which is Pro any side, then they are entitled to be questioned on it. I certainly have been, and would have it no other way. Maybe you see most of the posts as pro Yes due to the number of Pro Yes votes on the front page:dunno:

Hopefully we will see a YES vote to match our poll:wink:

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=TheReg!;4111463]

This thread is very much 'patrolled' by socialist Yes voters, who do hunt in packs when someone posts a pro No, or questions the Yes campaign in anyway. I'm not having a dig, or griping too much, as on the whole I have been treated pretty fairly for my pro No posts, plus I've learnt a fair bit too. But some people seem to get a bit of grief on here and it is very much the domain of Yes(ers) back slapping each other and scoffing at anyone who may not buy into the Yes thing, etc. I think by now most No(ists) have been chased off from 'Scottopia Island', but I like to think I am (and a few others)making a brave stance on here, to add balance if nothing else! ;):D

I'm wouldn't call myself a socialist :)

Would like us to move slightly further to the left though. Just to add further to the discussion, I saw on the news last week that the UK GDP has now reached pre-recession levels. They had a chart showing a poll which said around 70% of the population 'don't feel better off'.

This is the whole point of the discussion, this mindless 'chase higher GDP' tactic is not the way to build a happier society. Nobody gives a toss if the GDP is higher than it was 6 weeks ago, am I better off? Is MY life any better because of it?

So on the economy, if Scotland's GDP does go down slightly, if you look at the priorities that government is likely to have: Reducing the wealth gap, increasing the minimum wage to a 'living wage' (not £6.30 an hour!) ensuring the health service is still free etc. etc. I am utterly convinced that the Vast majority of people will be MUCH better off.

I read an article on wings over scotland a few weeks ago, it spoke about Denmark (a much richer country than us) if the wealth gap in the UK was reduced to the level it is in Denmark 99% of this countries population would be £2,900 Per year better off.

As I say Im not a socialist (still forming my opinions to be honest) but these countries have shown there is a way to combine a happy society with a rich one!

[hibbiedon]

Im sure the fat tory was the original better together i rejected his argument for my club so i will also rejected this one so Hands off Scotland

[over the line]

It didn't take long for the 'Yestapo' patrol to catch me trying to sneak under the barbed wire again did it!?!? I'm kidding, I'm kidding! ;)

You are right, most posts are debated well on here and I think some very good points are made. I personally don't trust either side particularly and I feel they cherry pick their dubious 'facts' to support their cause (obviously).

Anyway I enjoy the debate/banter on here, just wish there were a few more No-ists, or at least Yes sceptics joining in, to even things up a bit.

Anyway, if the outcome is No on the big day, I will argue in all your favours and hopefully then you won't all be beheaded!?!? Maybe just a few years of hard labour instead? :D

[Just Alf]

It didn't take long for the 'Yestapo' patrol to catch me trying to sneak under the barbed wire again did it!?!? I'm kidding, I'm kidding! ;)

You are right, most posts are debated well on here and I think some very good points are made. I personally don't trust either side particularly and I feel they cherry pick their dubious 'facts' to support their cause (obviously).

Anyway I enjoy the debate/banter on here, just wish there were a few more No-ists, or at least Yes sceptics joining in, to even things up a bit.

Anyway, if the outcome is No on the big day, I will argue in all your favours and hopefully then you won't all be beheaded!?!? Maybe just a few years of hard labour instead? :D

Don't feel too alone!

I was a "no-ish" ... Became an undecided and am now a "yes--ish" :-)

[over the line]

Don't feel too alone!

I was a "no-ish" ... Became an undecided and am now a "yes--ish" :-)

Cheers for the support :). But being yes-ish might still result in hard labour/beheading, if the vote goes No? ;)

[Moulin Yarns]

Cheers for the support :). But being yes-ish might still result in hard labour/beheading, if the vote goes No? ;)

The simple answer to that is to encourage as many people to vote YES

[over the line]

The simple answer to that is to encourage as many people to vote YES

I may struggle to save your neck, with talk like that! ;)

[snooky]

It will take time for Scottish society, as a whole, to recover no matter which way the vote goes.
It is divisive, it will cause pain (and joy) however, you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg.

IMO, it's time for Scotland to come out of it's shell.

[over the line]

To bring the debate up a notch then let's re-iterate some facts (there may be new readers)

The pound is a fully tradeable currency which can be used by any country without permission

No country can be forced to use the Euro

If the terms the EU offer Scotland for joining are not to scotlands liking we can join EFTA instead, giving us the same benefits of EU membership but without having to pay membership fees. (Drawbacks being no MEP's sent to Brussels)

Excluding oil, Scotland is just as rich as the UK (GDP per head 1% lower)

With oil, Scotland is richer than France, Italy, Japan and the rest of the UK

And this final ones an opinion but I feel a fairly solid one:
Scotlands economy will not be negatively affected by a Yes because: The Tourists will keep visiting our castles! The world will still buy our Whisky and Renewable energy! Our Construction industry will still need to build things! And the Wind won't stop blowing (tv told me otherwise but I'm pretty sure they are wrong)

All fair points I suppose. However, do your calculations take into account the added interest an independent Scotland would have to pay on its national debt and any future lending it would do? I think it is widely accepted that it would be at a higher rate than at current.

Also I don't think an independent Scotland will get quite as much of the oil revenue as it might think. I just can't see the UK giving it up that easily in reality. It is also accepted that the oil has seen its best days and will become progressively less of a benefit as time goes on, which also has to be taken into account.

As for the whisky and the castles, of course that will still appeal to a global market (a fair amount of single malt gets exported to my house alone!) . But a large proportion of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK and I genuinely think this trade will suffer. Partly through purely business reasons but also I fear an anti Scottish backlash from the rest of the UK. I honestly think the rest of the UK will feel betrayed if the vote is Yes and will resent Scotland.

And finally (thank **** I hear you say!), I think I may have identified a new source of renewable energy for when the oil runs out. If we could only harvest and utilise all the hot air that this referendum has produced, we could power Scotland for years to come! :D

[over the line]

It will take time for Scottish society, as a whole, to recover no matter which way the vote goes.
It is divisive, it will cause pain (and joy) however, you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg.

IMO, it's time for Scotland to come out of it's shell.

I'm not so sure. I think you may be cracking up! ;)

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4111585]

:faf:

If someone posts something which is Pro any side, then they are entitled to be questioned on it. I certainly have been, and would have it no other way. Maybe you see most of the posts as pro Yes due to the number of Pro Yes votes on the front page:dunno:

Hopefully we will see a YES vote to match our poll:wink:

I believe most of the polls tell a different story at the moment though? I also think there will be quite a few who will be openly saying they are voting Yes, but when it comes to it and they are alone in that booth, they will bottle it and vote No. People don't really like change, especially when they are fairly comfortable the way things are anyway (not broke, don't fix it!). ;)

[sauzee_4]

All fair points I suppose. However, do your calculations take into account the added interest an independent Scotland would have to pay on its national debt and any future lending it would do? I think it is widely accepted that it would be at a higher rate than at current.

Also I don't think an independent Scotland will get quite as much of the oil revenue as it might think. I just can't see the UK giving it up that easily in reality. It is also accepted that the oil has seen its best days and will become progressively less of a benefit as time goes on, which also has to be taken into account.

As for the whisky and the castles, of course that will still appeal to a global market (a fair amount of single malt gets exported to my house alone!) . But a large proportion of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK and I genuinely think this trade will suffer. Partly through purely business reasons but also I fear an anti Scottish backlash from the rest of the UK. I honestly think the rest of the UK will feel betrayed if the vote is Yes and will resent Scotland.

And finally (thank **** I hear you say!), I think I may have identified a new source of renewable energy for when the oil runs out. If we could only harvest and utilise all the hot air that this referendum has produced, we could power Scotland for years to come! :D

Good response :) First point is I think correct Scotland will pay a higher interest rate on borrowing as it has never borrowed before, (think 2 of the ratings agencies have said we would have a lower credit rating-Moodys and Fitch and 1 said it would be comparable to the UK's or better-Standard and Poors)

Would like to hear other Yes voters opinions on this as it's something I've been pondering lately. Maybe it's just one downside that we'll have to put up with.

Because interest rates are higher doesn't automatically mean the people living in a country have a higher cost of living. Would be interested to see other countries borrowing costs and how they compared to us on cost of living etc.

And of course over time Scotland could develop a healthier credit rating than the UK by managing it's economy properly. (It can't do much worse than a £1.5trillion debt)

If the UK want to disregard international maritime boundaries I'm sure they will be welcome to face some sort of consequences. The oil is ours (90% of it anyway) under international law. It will run out in 50 years and like I said, without it we'd be in the same position GDP wise as we are now, but with thst GDP shared a little more equally.

[sauzee_4]

All fair points I suppose. However, do your calculations take into account the added interest an independent Scotland would have to pay on its national debt and any future lending it would do? I think it is widely accepted that it would be at a higher rate than at current.

Also I don't think an independent Scotland will get quite as much of the oil revenue as it might think. I just can't see the UK giving it up that easily in reality. It is also accepted that the oil has seen its best days and will become progressively less of a benefit as time goes on, which also has to be taken into account.

As for the whisky and the castles, of course that will still appeal to a global market (a fair amount of single malt gets exported to my house alone!) . But a large proportion of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK and I genuinely think this trade will suffer. Partly through purely business reasons but also I fear an anti Scottish backlash from the rest of the UK. I honestly think the rest of the UK will feel betrayed if the vote is Yes and will resent Scotland.

And finally (thank **** I hear you say!), I think I may have identified a new source of renewable energy for when the oil runs out. If we could only harvest and utilise all the hot air that this referendum has produced, we could power Scotland for years to come! :D

Oh and sorry trade, that's a fair point too, it may happen it may not.

I will let another Yesser respond to it :)

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh and sorry trade, that's a fair point too, it may happen it may not.

I will let another Yesser respond to it :)

Why would it be an issue?

If Scottish business remains competitive, the rest of the UK would of course trade with it. That's commercial reality.

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4111592]

I believe most of the polls tell a different story at the moment though? I also think there will be quite a few who will be openly saying they are voting Yes, but when it comes to it and they are alone in that booth, they will bottle it and vote No. People don't really like change, especially when they are fairly comfortable the way things are anyway (not broke, don't fix it!). ;)

And just to blow your not broke dont fix it theory out of the water :D

One million people across the UK are visiting foodbanks, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in poverty, 40% of kids in the east end of Glasgow live in poverty. Our pensioners are amongst the poorest in Europe. UK is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. Our wealth gap is twice as big as any other EU country. And we are £1.5 trillion in debt. Pensioners can't heat their homes so are choosing between heating and eating.

Not all rosey in the garden :D

Remember all those headlines about 'broken britain'

It's broke and Independence atleast gives us the tools to fix it

[over the line]

Good response :) First point is I think correct Scotland will pay a higher interest rate on borrowing as it has never borrowed before, (think 2 of the ratings agencies have said we would have a lower credit rating-Moodys and Fitch and 1 said it would be comparable to the UK's or better-Standard and Poors)

Would like to hear other Yes voters opinions on this as it's something I've been pondering lately. Maybe it's just one downside that we'll have to put up with.

Because interest rates are higher doesn't automatically mean the people living in a country have a higher cost of living. Would be interested to see other countries borrowing costs and how they compared to us on cost of living etc.

And of course over time Scotland could develop a healthier credit rating than the UK by managing it's economy properly. (It can't do much worse than a £1.5trillion debt)

If the UK want to disregard international maritime boundaries I'm sure they will be welcome to face some sort of consequences. The oil is ours (90% of it anyway) under international law. It will run out in 50 years and like I said, without it we'd be in the same position GDP wise as we are now, but with thst GDP shared a little more equally.

Regardless of the interest payment rates of other countries, an immediate increase for Scotland would undoubtedly be a big hit on the pocket of the nation and its individuals. It's a bit like a rise in your mortgage rate but on a bigger scale. If your mortgage goes up by £100 a month, that is £100 less you have to spend on the good things in life. You don't get a bigger or posher house for that money either, it just goes straight into the fat greedy bankers bloated bonus payment accounts! Not a good deal I fear?

Right the oil thing....... I think someone on here has already posted that certain elements of any independence deal are open to negotiation. Oil will undoubtedly be one of them. Forget about the geography, the sharpest lawyers and politicians in the land will no doubt negotiate a decent deal for the UK, like it or not I feel this will be the reality. They will make a case for a larger claim to the resource than just geographical factors. The UK/Britain has done this for century's and we have all benefited from it over the years. It's not going to walk away from the oil and say "best of luck to you Scotland, enjoy all that oil"!

[Mibbes Aye]

And just to blow your not broke dont fix it theory out of the water :D

One million people across the UK are visiting foodbanks, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in poverty, 40% of kids in the east end of Glasgow live in poverty. Our pensioners are amongst the poorest in Europe. UK is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. Our wealth gap is twice as big as any other EU country. And we are £1.5 trillion in debt. Pensioners can't heat their homes so are choosing between heating and eating.

Not all rosey in the garden :D

Remember all those headlines about 'broken britain'

It's broke and Independence atleast gives us the tools to fix it

For the last eight years the SNP government has put in place a policy of freezing the council tax, which benefits the richest in our society far more than the poorest.

Is that 'fixing it'?

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4111833]

And just to blow your not broke dont fix it theory out of the water :D

One million people across the UK are visiting foodbanks, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in poverty, 40% of kids in the east end of Glasgow live in poverty. Our pensioners are amongst the poorest in Europe. UK is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. Our wealth gap is twice as big as any other EU country. And we are £1.5 trillion in debt. Pensioners can't heat their homes so are choosing between heating and eating.

Not all rosey in the garden :D

Remember all those headlines about 'broken britain'

It's broke and Independence atleast gives us the tools to fix it

Admittedly not great reading. Of course the UK has its problems but I'm sure I (or anyone) could counter those with an equal amount of good news stories and favourable comparisons with other countries, but that would be a bit too politician like for me and that's why I don't trust statistics etc (this would also involve a certain amount of effort on my part and I am quite lazy n that!). You know what I mean though, we can all paint a rosey or dim picture of things if we cherry pick bits of information that suit our cause.

I don't see that independence gives Scotland the tool at all though. Especially when there is likely to be less money to buy the tools with and the tools will probably be more expensive to start with. Not very idealistic I know but just a pragmatic viewpoint.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4111833]

And just to blow your not broke dont fix it theory out of the water :D

One million people across the UK are visiting foodbanks, 1 in 5 people in Scotland live in poverty, 40% of kids in the east end of Glasgow live in poverty. Our pensioners are amongst the poorest in Europe. UK is the 4th most unequal country in the developed world. Our wealth gap is twice as big as any other EU country. And we are £1.5 trillion in debt. Pensioners can't heat their homes so are choosing between heating and eating.

Not all rosey in the garden :D

Remember all those headlines about 'broken britain'

It's broke and Independence atleast gives us the tools to fix it

Plus I'm not sure you can blame the rest of the UK for all those bad news stories/broken Britain, as if Scotland isn't partly to blame. Scotland was part of it all like the rest of the UK, it is equally to blame for the state of things as any other part of the UK.

[over the line]

Why would it be an issue?

If Scottish business remains competitive, the rest of the UK would of course trade with it. That's commercial reality.

But will it remain as competitive? With lending likely to be more expensive in an independent Scotland, talk of raising the minimum wage, the uncertainty around what deal (if any) an independent Scotland will be entitled to in the EU. Add this to a likely backlash from the customers in the rest of the UK and the uncertainty some may feel when it comes to investing/reinventing in a new country/economy and I think this makes for genuine concerns, don't you?

[CropleyWasGod]

But will it remain as competitive? With lending likely to be more expensive in an independent Scotland, talk of raising the minimum wage, the uncertainty around what deal (if any) an independent Scotland will be entitled to in the EU. Add this to a likely backlash from the customers in the rest of the UK and the uncertainty some may feel when it comes to investing/reinventing in a new country/economy and I think this makes for genuine concerns, don't you?

Again, why would there be a backlash?

Companies are only concerned with getting the right product at the right price on time. Very little else comes into play. English companies currently trade with Scottish companies for those reasons. If those conditions remain the same post-independence, there's no reason why the trading relationship would change.

I am yet to be convinced that interest rates would be significantly higher, and have seen no evidence of the minimum wage being raised. Conversely, there is the possibility of corporate tax rates being reduced in order to maintain competitiveness.

[Mibbes Aye]

Again, why would there be a backlash?

Companies are only concerned with getting the right product at the right price on time. Very little else comes into play. English companies currently trade with Scottish companies for those reasons. If those conditions remain the same post-independence, there's no reason why the trading relationship would change.

I am yet to be convinced that interest rates would be significantly higher, and have seen no evidence of the minimum wage being raised. Conversely, there is the possibility of corporate tax rates being reduced in order to maintain competitiveness.

This isn't really linked to this thread, but I think we've seen a real shift in debate in the last few years from the minimum wage to the 'living wage'.

Were Scotland to vote 'Yes' this September I would be fascinated to see whether the new politics reached a consensus that we wanted a living wage rather than a minimum wage. I guess I would take that as a positive of a 'Yes' vote.

[sauzee_4]

For the last eight years the SNP government has put in place a policy of freezing the council tax, which benefits the richest in our society far more than the poorest.

Is that 'fixing it'?

Overall, they have done far more to adress the poverty problem than any Tory government has or is likely to do. I can cite offsetting the Bedroom Tax as one example. Something we had to use our own budget to do.

I'm sure you can agree that a Scottish government (Labour, SNP, Greens, Lib Dems) is far more likely to adress the wealth gap than a Westminster one?

[over the line]

Again, why would there be a backlash?

Companies are only concerned with getting the right product at the right price on time. Very little else comes into play. English companies currently trade with Scottish companies for those reasons. If those conditions remain the same post-independence, there's no reason why the trading relationship would change.

I am yet to be convinced that interest rates would be significantly higher, and have seen no evidence of the minimum wage being raised. Conversely, there is the possibility of corporate tax rates being reduced in order to maintain competitiveness.

Because business customers are not the only customers are they? The feeling I get down here (in England), is that a lot of people will feel betrayed somewhat by Scotland if it votes yes. This will result in resentment amongst people/customers and those people are less likely to buy Scottish products. This may seem (or even be) petty to some dyed in the wool independentists (not sure thats a word like?) but its a real concern. The resentment may wear off over time but its still a factor.

I can't see an independent Scottish government being in a position to lower any taxes, certainly not for a good while at least. What with them having to pay more interest on the national debt and also on any future lending, added to the huge start up costs and extra responsibilities it will have to shoulder, I fear money will be tight.

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4111906]

Admittedly not great reading. Of course the UK has its problems but I'm sure I (or anyone) could counter those with an equal amount of good news stories and favourable comparisons with other countries, but that would be a bit too politician like for me and that's why I don't trust statistics etc (this would also involve a certain amount of effort on my part and I am quite lazy n that!). You know what I mean though, we can all paint a rosey or dim picture of things if we cherry pick bits of information that suit our cause.

I don't see that independence gives Scotland the tool at all though. Especially when there is likely to be less money to buy the tools with and the tools will probably be more expensive to start with. Not very idealistic I know but just a pragmatic viewpoint.

The tools I am talking about are decision making powers in the Scottish Parliament. Full control over political decision making.

That comes free of charge with an X in the Yes box

[Mibbes Aye]

Overall, they have done far more to adress the poverty problem than any Tory government has or is likely to do. I can cite offsetting the Bedroom Tax as one example. Something we had to use our own budget to do.

I'm sure you can agree that a Scottish government (Labour, SNP, Greens, Lib Dems) is far more likely to adress the wealth gap than a Westminster one?

You're not answering my question.

For the last eight years they have essentially forced local authorities to impose a council tax freeze and claimed credit for it.

The freeze acts as a double whammy on the poorest in our communities.

The party that says we can be fairer on our own, uses the powers it currently has to benefit the richest ahead of the poorest, has done for years now and claims it's a good thing!!

How is that 'fixing it'?

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4111906]

Plus I'm not sure you can blame the rest of the UK for all those bad news stories/broken Britain, as if Scotland isn't partly to blame. Scotland was part of it all like the rest of the UK, it is equally to blame for the state of things as any other part of the UK.

Who has been in control of the economy for the last 30 years?

The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, that's not an accident accident

[CropleyWasGod]

Because business customers are not the only customers are they? The feeling I get down here (in England), is that a lot of people will feel betrayed somewhat by Scotland if it votes yes. This will result in resentment amongst people/customers and those people are less likely to buy Scottish products. This may seem (or even be) petty to some dyed in the wool independentists (not sure thats a word like?) but its a real concern. The resentment may wear off over time but its still a factor.

I can't see an independent Scottish government being in a position to lower any taxes, certainly not for a good while at least. What with them having to pay more interest on the national debt and also on any future lending, added to the huge start up costs and extra responsibilities it will have to shoulder, I fear money will be tight.

It's a real concern to whom? I haven't heard it raised by anyone, on either side, until now.

On the taxation issue, you're still assuming that higher interest rates are a given. However, lower tax rates attract businesses.... corporate and otherwise.....who might prefer to set up in Dumfries rather than Carlisle, for example, or anywhere in Scotland on an online basis. Larger numbers of businesses resident in Scotland generate a higher take in rates, Council Tax, PAYE, NI and VAT.

As for the "huge start-up costs", how much are they? What are they?

[over the line]

This isn't really linked to this thread, but I think we've seen a real shift in debate in the last few years from the minimum wage to the 'living wage'.

Were Scotland to vote 'Yes' this September I would be fascinated to see whether the new politics reached a consensus that we wanted a living wage rather than a minimum wage. I guess I would take that as a positive of a 'Yes' vote.

Of course I think people should be earning enough to live a decent life (its not much to ask for after all) but upping the minimum wage may price certain industries/people out of work? It's a real balancing act isn't it? I think more should be done to lower the real cost of living, especially for the low paid. Some real and proper affordable housing, subsidised utility bills and decent tax breaks would be a start. And that way we don't run the risk of pricing people out of work with an unachievable minimum wage.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's a real concern to whom? I haven't heard it raised by anyone, on either side, until now.

On the taxation issue, you're still assuming that higher interest rates are a given. However, lower tax rates attract businesses.... corporate and otherwise.....who might prefer to set up in Dumfries rather than Carlisle, for example, or anywhere in Scotland on an online basis. Larger numbers of businesses resident in Scotland generate a higher take in rates, Council Tax, PAYE, NI and VAT.

As for the "huge start-up costs", how much are they? What are they?

I'm not sure what all might be involved, but as a starter, ICAS appear to have said that the infrastructure and IT for a tax system would be significantly greater than the changes being implemented in New Zealand, which are around £750 million.

I reckon you will have a better sense than me as to ICAS's credibility :greengrin

Serious question though, would they be objective in your opinion?

[sauzee_4]

Because business customers are not the only customers are they? The feeling I get down here (in England), is that a lot of people will feel betrayed somewhat by Scotland if it votes yes. This will result in resentment amongst people/customers and those people are less likely to buy Scottish products. This may seem (or even be) petty to some dyed in the wool independentists (not sure thats a word like?) but its a real concern. The resentment may wear off over time but its still a factor.

I can't see an independent Scottish government being in a position to lower any taxes, certainly not for a good while at least. What with them having to pay more interest on the national debt and also on any future lending, added to the huge start up costs and extra responsibilities it will have to shoulder, I fear money will be tight.

Start up costs are £1.5billion, spread over 10 years.
Savings from not contributing to HS2 are £4.6billion,
savings from not contributing to a Trident replacement would be around £15 billion, (Im assuming the £150 billion cost would have us paying 10% with that one)

Are the start up costs huge or are we making a net saving there?

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4111962]

The tools I am talking about are decision making powers in the Scottish Parliament. Full control over political decision making.

That comes free of charge with an X in the Yes box

Quite possibly, but with potentially (and quite probably really) less cash, those decisions become more difficult to implement don't they? National pride and a new feeling of self determination n that, won't pay the bills will it?

Sorry, I realise I am being a bit boring and practical now, so I will go back to daft puns and piss taking for a bit now. My brain is starting to hurt anyway! ;):D

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not sure what all might be involved, but as a starter, ICAS appear to have said that the infrastructure and IT for a tax system would be significantly greater than the changes being implemented in New Zealand, which are around £750 million.

I reckon you will have a better sense than me as to ICAS's credibility :greengrin

Serious question though, would they be objective in your opinion?

ICAS? Bunch of self-serving, self-satisfied, smug .... something else beginning with S...... except when they're paying me money :greengrin

To be fair, they have tried to be neutral in the debate, as I think they should be. I hadn't read that about the IT costs, but I would believe ICAS before I believed BT or the Yessers.

[sauzee_4]

You're not answering my question.

For the last eight years they have essentially forced local authorities to impose a council tax freeze and claimed credit for it.

The freeze acts as a double whammy on the poorest in our communities.

The party that says we can be fairer on our own, uses the powers it currently has to benefit the richest ahead of the poorest, has done for years now and claims it's a good thing!!

How is that 'fixing it'?

I did answer your question. I said they've done more than the Tory's have ever done to help working people, which is true.

Probably also true to say they've done less to harm them! No poll tax or bedroom tax so far.

Nobody can get it right 100% of the time.

[Mibbes Aye]

Of course I think people should be earning enough to live a decent life (its not much to ask for after all) but upping the minimum wage may price certain industries/people out of work? It's a real balancing act isn't it? I think more should be done to lower the real cost of living, especially for the low paid. Some real and proper affordable housing, subsidised utility bills and decent tax breaks would be a start. And that way we don't run the risk of pricing people out of work with an unachievable minimum wage.

It's an interesting point. I think the reality is that these are the levers that need to be used. Under Blair/Brown we saw some of that, in the form of tax credits for parents, pensioners and the low-paid. That did have a genuine impact, as anyone in receipt would probably testify. We didn't see the investment in affordable or social housing to the same extent. I can accept that there was massive investment in rebuilding schools and hospitals that weren't fit for purpose though, which maybe influenced that.

I think it comes down to people taking responsibility for the things they want as rights. As a nation, whether UK or Scotland, I suspect we can afford a living wage but we may have to accept this means paying slightly more in taxes. I remember the scare stories about the introduction of the minimum wage and how it would cost a million jobs or whatever. It didn't, but then we were in a time of economic growth and a bit of a virtuous circle. In a climate like this it maybe emphasises the need for interventionary tactics like you've described above.

[sauzee_4]

I'm not sure what all might be involved, but as a starter, ICAS appear to have said that the infrastructure and IT for a tax system would be significantly greater than the changes being implemented in New Zealand, which are around £750 million.

I reckon you will have a better sense than me as to ICAS's credibility :greengrin

Serious question though, would they be objective in your opinion?

I've seen that report. It's a completely seperate issue though changing the tax system. Not as if it's mandatory for us to do so if we say Yes.

But, after a Yes we can look at it, if it's value for money let's ****ing do it. It might cost us £700 million but save us £200 million a year, don't know until you look into it!

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112080]

Quite possibly, but with potentially (and quite probably really) less cash, those decisions become more difficult to implement don't they? National pride and a new feeling of self determination n that, won't pay the bills will it?

Sorry, I realise I am being a bit boring and practical now, so I will go back to daft puns and piss taking for a bit now. My brain is starting to hurt anyway! ;):D

Type in to youtube the economic case for independence Ivan Mckee, there will be plenty cash to go round and there is nobody on this earth who can predict whether the country as a whole will have more or less

The money we do have will be shared more equally

[Mibbes Aye]

I did answer your question. I said they've done more than the Tory's have ever done to help working people, which is true.

Probably also true to say they've done less to harm them! No poll tax or bedroom tax so far.

Nobody can get it right 100% of the time.

You're not answering my question at all, you are avoiding it.

You are posting stats about how much inequality there is in the UK as an argument for independence.

The party that says we can have a fairer Scotland through independence, has used the powers it has to implement a policy for the last eight years that benefits the rich over the poor. In fact they claim credit for it, have made it their cornerstone.

How does that tackle inequality?

How does eight years of that tackle inequality?

[over the line]

It's a real concern to whom? I haven't heard it raised by anyone, on either side, until now.

On the taxation issue, you're still assuming that higher interest rates are a given. However, lower tax rates attract businesses.... corporate and otherwise.....who might prefer to set up in Dumfries rather than Carlisle, for example, or anywhere in Scotland on an online basis. Larger numbers of businesses resident in Scotland generate a higher take in rates, Council Tax, PAYE, NI and VAT.

As for the "huge start-up costs", how much are they? What are they?

I meant 'real' as in it exists and will have some affect, along with many other things. I didn't mean that it was of great concern as a stand alone issue.

I think it is widely accepted an independent Scotland would pay more for its borrowing (certainly to start with anyway), even most Yes(ites) accept that I think? Thus leaving less room for tax cuts and the like. I assume that the rest of the UK would also look to compete on this basis and may be in a better position to undercut Scotland anyway?

Anyway, I hope you don't think I am being anti Scottish in anyway, because I'm not. I'm just pointing out 'real' (;)) and practical concerns and factors that may arise if the vote is Yes.
But if the latest polls are anything to go by, it doesn't look likely to go that way anyway? ;):D

Anyway, as I said in my last post, my brain is a bit sore now, going back to puns n piss taking for a bit! :D

[Mibbes Aye]

ICAS? Bunch of self-serving, self-satisfied, smug .... something else beginning with S...... except when they're paying me money :greengrin

To be fair, they have tried to be neutral in the debate, as I think they should be. I hadn't read that about the IT costs, but I would believe ICAS before I believed BT or the Yessers.

:greengrin

Cheers CWG, I don't doubt ICAS would be interested in representing their profession's view but I wasn't sure if they took a political view.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've seen that report. It's a completely seperate issue though changing the tax system. Not as if it's mandatory for us to do so if we say Yes.

But, after a Yes we can look at it, if it's value for money let's ****ing do it. It might cost us £700 million but save us £200 million a year, don't know until you look into it!

So we have agreement from HMRC to use their systems to gather tax post-independence? At no cost?

[over the line]

It's an interesting point. I think the reality is that these are the levers that need to be used. Under Blair/Brown we saw some of that, in the form of tax credits for parents, pensioners and the low-paid. That did have a genuine impact, as anyone in receipt would probably testify. We didn't see the investment in affordable or social housing to the same extent. I can accept that there was massive investment in rebuilding schools and hospitals that weren't fit for purpose though, which maybe influenced that.

I think it comes down to people taking responsibility for the things they want as rights. As a nation, whether UK or Scotland, I suspect we can afford a living wage but we may have to accept this means paying slightly more in taxes. I remember the scare stories about the introduction of the minimum wage and how it would cost a million jobs or whatever. It didn't, but then we were in a time of economic growth and a bit of a virtuous circle. In a climate like this it maybe emphasises the need for interventionary tactics like you've described above.

Very good point you make. My big concern with any wage rises at the moment, would be losing more manufacturing jobs because those industries get priced out of Scotland. Once they are gone, they rarely come back do they? A rise in the minimum wage has a knock on affect on all wages and I'm sure we would all love a wage rise but at what cost. You are dead right about the minimum wage when it first came out, we were on a high then and the nation was awash with cash and prosperity was abound! Very different days now though and we need to tread very carefully I fear.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4111987]

Who has been in control of the economy for the last 30 years?

The rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, that's not an accident accident

This is true (the rich and poor bit). But Scotland has played its part in this, the same as any other part of the UK. Scotland was fairly represented in government in quite recent times (Labour government) and played its part in the banking crisis and poor governmental decision making, just as much as anywhere in the UK. I don't think you have any right to point an accusing finger at me or the people of Ellesmere Port (for instance) and say we are anymore to blame for it all than you and your town/city. That probably sounds arseier than it is meant to really, but you get my point.:)

Anyway, I feel you and your fellow 'Yestapo' friends have been made to fight your corner somewhat harder than usual tonight by us Yes sceptics? And as much as I have enjoyed it, I am hanging me boots up for the night, as I'm knackered. Maybe see you tomorrow for some more jousting? :D

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112083]

This is true (the rich and poor bit). But Scotland has played its part in this, the same as any other part of the UK. Scotland was fairly represented in government in quite recent times (Labour government) and played its part in the banking crisis and poor governmental decision making, just as much as anywhere in the UK. I don't think you have any right to point an accusing finger at me or the people of Ellesmere Port (for instance) and say we are anymore to blame for it all than you and your town/city. That probably sounds arseier than it is meant to really, but you get my point.:)

Anyway, I feel you and your fellow 'Yestapo' friends have been made to fight your corner somewhat harder than usual tonight by us Yes sceptics? And as much as I have enjoyed it, I am hanging me boots up for the night, as I'm knackered. Maybe see you tomorrow for some more jousting? :D

Is there really any need for this.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112177]

Is there really any need for this.

Only a bit of rib tickling mate, nothing to get bent out of shape over. It's just a daft play on words, highlighting that the balance of power on this thread is overwhelmingly with the Yesites and their views and beliefs are ruthlessly enforced on here by the 'Yestapo'. There is no malice behind it, it is meant as a bit of fun really. :)

[marinello59]

Only a bit of rib tickling mate, nothing to get bent out of shape over. It's just a daft play on words, highlighting that the balance of power on this thread is overwhelmingly with the Yesites and their views and beliefs are ruthlessly enforced on here by the 'Yestapo'. There is no malice behind it, it is meant as a bit of fun really. :)

It's not funny, it's simply downright nasty. Pity because most of the stuff on the thread had been respectful despite getting pretty heated at times. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you then maybe this isn't the thread for you.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4112189]

Only a bit of rib tickling mate, nothing to get bent out of shape over. It's just a daft play on words, highlighting that the balance of power on this thread is overwhelmingly with the Yesites and their views and beliefs are ruthlessly enforced on here by the 'Yestapo'. There is no malice behind it, it is meant as a bit of fun really. :)

And the next thing you'll be drilling my teeth. No need IMO. Let's keep it robust without the need to have a play on words referring to a Nazi Killing machine.

[over the line]

It's not funny, it's simply downright nasty. Pity because most of the stuff on the thread had been respectful despite getting pretty heated at times. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you then maybe this isn't the thread for you.

It's not nasty at all, please don't be so touchy! If you read a lot of my posts on here they are tongue in cheek but not disrespectful at all. I like to think I've made some decent points on here, whether you agree with them or not, but I don't see any harm in a bit of banter with it as well? If you are saying there is no place for banter on this thread then maybe it isn't for me? Its not the case that I can't handle being disagreed with, or I wouldn't post on here at all. I rarely get agreed with on here, but that's the whole point of the thread/debate isn't it? But please lighten up, its just some daft wordplay, not meant to be malicious! :)

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112312]

And the next thing you'll be drilling my teeth. No need IMO. Let's keep it robust without the need to have a play on words referring to a Nazi Killing machine.

Believe me there is no offence intended. It was said in more an 'allo allo' kind of way, rather than a serious comparison to the actual Gestapo. But if people don't like it then fair enough I understand. :)

[sauzee_4]

You're not answering my question at all, you are avoiding it.

You are posting stats about how much inequality there is in the UK as an argument for independence.

The party that says we can have a fairer Scotland through independence, has used the powers it has to implement a policy for the last eight years that benefits the rich over the poor. In fact they claim credit for it, have made it their cornerstone.

How does that tackle inequality?

How does eight years of that tackle inequality?

I did answer your question, but to answer it more bluntly, it doesn't. But offsetting the bedroom tax does, along with several more of their policies, are you honestly arguing that a Tory government will do more to adress the wealth gap than the SNP?

And that's not to mention that it may not be the SNP in charge

[sauzee_4]

So we have agreement from HMRC to use their systems to gather tax post-independence? At no cost?

No idea, I have read nowhere that the tax system is going to be changed immediately after a Yes, only that it can be changed if we wish it to be.

Happy to be corrected though

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112083]

This is true (the rich and poor bit). But Scotland has played its part in this, the same as any other part of the UK. Scotland was fairly represented in government in quite recent times (Labour government) and played its part in the banking crisis and poor governmental decision making, just as much as anywhere in the UK. I don't think you have any right to point an accusing finger at me or the people of Ellesmere Port (for instance) and say we are anymore to blame for it all than you and your town/city. That probably sounds arseier than it is meant to really, but you get my point.:)

Anyway, I feel you and your fellow 'Yestapo' friends have been made to fight your corner somewhat harder than usual tonight by us Yes sceptics? And as much as I have enjoyed it, I am hanging me boots up for the night, as I'm knackered. Maybe see you tomorrow for some more jousting? :D

:D I like it that way, good discussion we're having. I am not pointing my fingers at anyone certainly not the good people of Ellesmere Port :D , what I am saying is the types of government we've been getting (Tories AND Labour), have increased the wealth gap, and will continue to do so until we adopt a different model.

Do you see that new model being adopted within the union? Or does independence offer a more realistic chance of it happening?

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112177]

:D I like it that way, good discussion we're having. I am not pointing my fingers at anyone certainly not the good people of Ellesmere Port :D , what I am saying is the types of government we've been getting (Tories AND Labour), have increased the wealth gap, and will continue to do so until we adopt a different model.

Do you see that new model being adopted within the union? Or does independence offer a more realistic chance of it happening?

It's a fair point about the increase in the wealth gap and I'm not really sure what the solution is. In a way though the gap is irrelevant really, what is important is people being generally and relatively better off. Up until the last 5 years or so, I think most people in the UK have had a steady increase in living standards for the last few decades haven't they? As you know I feel Scotland would have less money to go round if it was independent (I know you think otherwise), certainly for the immediate future anyway. And having a more equal share of less, doesn't necessarily benefit anyone really.

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112365]

It's a fair point about the increase in the wealth gap and I'm not really sure what the solution is. In a way though the gap is irrelevant really, what is important is people being generally and relatively better off. Up until the last 5 years or so, I think most people in the UK have had a steady increase in living standards for the last few decades haven't they? As you know I feel Scotland would have less money to go round if it was independent (I know you think otherwise), certainly for the immediate future anyway. And having a more equal share of less, doesn't necessarily benefit anyone really.

If Scotland is slightly poorer, but the wealth gap is reduced. The majority of people who live here will be better off than they are now.

I dont think living standards have increased for the poorest, were 1 million people using foodbanks in the 70s? What was the cost of living? Were the elderly finding it difficult to heat their homes? If you worked did you get a fair days pay for a fair days work?

[marinello59]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112177]

:D I like it that way, good discussion we're having. I am not pointing my fingers at anyone certainly not the good people of Ellesmere Port :D , what I am saying is the types of government we've been getting (Tories AND Labour), have increased the wealth gap, and will continue to do so until we adopt a different model.

Do you see that new model being adopted within the union? Or does independence offer a more realistic chance of it happening?

I think Independence will provide us with a better chance of reducing the wealth gap. The first thing to do though will be to vote the SNP out because they would rather provide populist middle class vote winning policies than target money to the areas where it is actually needed. More importantly their centralist power grab tendencies mean that they will never give real power to those who could do most to help people living in our more deprived areas, the residents themselves.
Moving control from Westminster to Holyrood will just be the start.

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112365]

I think Independence will provide us with a better chance of reducing the wealth gap. The first thing to do though will be to vote the SNP out because they would rather provide populist middle class vote winning policies than target money to the areas where it is actually needed. More importantly their centralist power grab tendencies mean that they will never give real power to those who could do most to help people living in our more deprived areas, the residents themselves.
Moving control from Westminster to Holyrood will just be the start.

Agree with most of that to be fair, if you were wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt you could say that these 'vote winning' or 'populist' policies were a means to an end.

But I'm not an SNP man so I won't :D

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4112330]

Believe me there is no offence intended. It was said in more an 'allo allo' kind of way, rather than a serious comparison to the actual Gestapo. But if people don't like it then fair enough I understand. :)

Fair do's:aok:

A couple of questions from me...

Do you have a vote in the referendum?

Where are you getting your information that we won't have enough money to look after ourselves/Keep the pound/get into the Eu etc?

[ronaldo7]

Wonderful piece in Bella. Yes to a richer future.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/07/31/yes-to-a-richer-future/

By Billy Kay

I will vote Yes on 18 September because I am a Scot and want my wonderful multi-ethnic, multilingual mongrel nation to draw on its rampant egalitarian traditions and create a country which the world will regard as a model for progressive social, environmental and political ideals of inclusion, fairness and justice.

That’s all – and within the first decade of independence we will be well on the way to achieving the kind of Scotland we want. “Aye right!” say the naesayers reading this. But so normal and successful will an independent Scotland be that you will become an embarrassed generation of “No deniers”, unable to admit to having voted against the international beacon of progress your nation has become. Instead, your descendants will hear invented tales of their grandparents being among the thousands that life-enhancing day on Calton Hill when visionaries like Margo and Patrick, Alex and Nicola gave us all a glimpse of the benevolent society Scotland has since achieved.

You need not belong to this lost generation of fearties and No deniers, if you join the vast majority of creative Scots and vote positively in September. From the creation of the modern national movement with writers like Hugh MacDiarmid, Eric Linklater, Sorley MacLean and Neil Gunn through to the present day with Liz Lochhead, Janice Galloway, William McIlvanney, James Kelman, Alasdair Gray, James Robertson and countless more, imagination, creativity and artistic brilliance have been at the core of the cause to create a Scotland we are proud to identify with.

One of my favourite people from Scottish history is the inspirational, flamboyant figure of RB Cunninghame Graham who was known as Don Roberto because of his Spanish blood and his gap years as a gaucho in Argentina. He founded the Scottish Labour Party with James Keir Hardie in 1888 and then the National Party of Scotland in 1928. His words are intensely relevant to the present debate: “The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls. Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination.”

One of the problems of Scots not being educated in their own history, art and literature is a debilitating cultural cringe which has developed – the Catalans call the same phenomenon the “slave mentality”. Most people of my generation, for example, were taught to look down on their native languages, be they Scots or Gaelic. MacDiarmid’s great quote “Tae be yersels and tae mak that worth bein/Nae harder job tae mortals has been gien” sums up the dilemma perfectly. It is difficult to be fully and confidently yourself if major cultural institutions like the media or the education system have given little prestige to your culture all your life. Given that, Don Roberto’s description of some Scottish people as “born without imagination” is perhaps harsh. It is though, perfectly apt in describing the career politicians of the Unionist parties, whose main vision has little to do with the welfare of their people, but all to do with an ermine-clad future for themselves as servants of the British state.

A few months ago the House of Lords had what they called a debate on Scottish independence. A clip from it was televised showing Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke obsequiously addressing “the Noble Lord, Lord Lang” and agreeing with his Lordship that Scottish independence would be the end of the world as they knew it – a world of elite privilege and power. Baroness Helen’s contribution was followed by another extremely wealthy scion of the people’s party, Lord Robertson, who suggested that giving political power to the Scottish people would unleash the forces of darkness.

When I hear the increasingly hysterical ranting of Labour placemen, I recall the words of Oliver Brown writing in the Scots Independent on the effects of Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory for the SNP in 1967: “A shudder went through the Scottish members of Parliament frantically looking for a spine to run up.”

The anti-Scottish interventions of major Labour figures gars me grue at the scunnersome decline in a pairty my Ayrshire an Fife mining grandfaithers luikit up til aw their days. So like many whose natural political home was the Labour Party, I feel not that I have left the party, but that the party has left me. Only with the radical shake-up of Scottish independence can it return to its core ideals and again become a voice for the Scottish people, rather than the voice of a privileged, self-serving elite. The attitude of genuine socialists to them was summed up perfectly in an interview I did with an ex-miner from Fife, Derrick McGuire. “Talk aboot folk birlin in their graves… Keir Hardie’s should be fitted wi a rev-*****er!”

To me it is significant that many socialists who are no longer dependent on the Labour Party machine for patronage, have come out in favour of independence. More will join them as they hear the positive message of hope and change from people like Dennis Canavan, Jeane Freeman and Alan Grogan of Labour for Independence.

My ideal Scotland is one that is strongly local, proudly national and totally international in outlook – the three are interdependent. In my book The Scottish World, I celebrate the incredible influence we Scots have had in every airt and pairt of the world. Due to the great Scottish tradition of the democratic intellect, the Scottish diaspora was a literate one able to keep records of family history. I have had the privilege of interviewing people like Professor Karol Taylor in Gdansk whose family were merchants to the Polish kings in the 17th century; the grandchildren of Mary Slessor in Calabar; the Jewish children, now elderly ladies, lovingly taught by Jane Haining in Budapest before she was arrested by the Gestapo to die, with her pupils from the Scottish Mission School, in Auschwitz. I have been thrilled to discover that major cultural icons like Grieg in Norway, **** in Germany, Lermontov in Russia and Faulkner in America were children of the Scottish diaspora and in many cases wrote proudly of their Caledonian connections.

While fascinated by our global reach, I also want our gifted young people to be able to flourish here in Scotland. Too many of us have had to leave Scotland in the past with no choice but to go. I am the father of one daughter, Joanna, who is a lawyer in Brussels; another, Catriona, who works with her Spanish and Portuguese linguistic skills in London; and a son, Euan, who is just back from promoting Russian football in Rio and is on his way back to Moscow. I would love my children to have the choice of living in Scotland or contributing to Scotland in their work abroad. With independence power will be centred in Edinburgh once again and more opportunities created for internationally minded Scots to fulfil themselves here in their homeland.

So, my brither and sister Scots, I appeal to you from whatever social, ethnic or religious background you come from to vote positively for Scotland come September. It is all to do with dignity. You may be comfortable in your dual Scottish and British identity, but for once in your life you have to choose which is most important to you – do you belong to a proud, ancient nation or a quaint and colourful British region? Vote No and you confirm to England and the world your provincial mentality and have to accept the provincial status Scotland will endure from then on. Vote Yes and restore Scotland to the international family of nations she will grace with her presence for evermore.

[JimBHibees]

Wonderful piece in Bella. Yes to a richer future.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/07/31/yes-to-a-richer-future/

By Billy Kay

I will vote Yes on 18 September because I am a Scot and want my wonderful multi-ethnic, multilingual mongrel nation to draw on its rampant egalitarian traditions and create a country which the world will regard as a model for progressive social, environmental and political ideals of inclusion, fairness and justice.

That’s all – and within the first decade of independence we will be well on the way to achieving the kind of Scotland we want. “Aye right!” say the naesayers reading this. But so normal and successful will an independent Scotland be that you will become an embarrassed generation of “No deniers”, unable to admit to having voted against the international beacon of progress your nation has become. Instead, your descendants will hear invented tales of their grandparents being among the thousands that life-enhancing day on Calton Hill when visionaries like Margo and Patrick, Alex and Nicola gave us all a glimpse of the benevolent society Scotland has since achieved.

You need not belong to this lost generation of fearties and No deniers, if you join the vast majority of creative Scots and vote positively in September. From the creation of the modern national movement with writers like Hugh MacDiarmid, Eric Linklater, Sorley MacLean and Neil Gunn through to the present day with Liz Lochhead, Janice Galloway, William McIlvanney, James Kelman, Alasdair Gray, James Robertson and countless more, imagination, creativity and artistic brilliance have been at the core of the cause to create a Scotland we are proud to identify with.

One of my favourite people from Scottish history is the inspirational, flamboyant figure of RB Cunninghame Graham who was known as Don Roberto because of his Spanish blood and his gap years as a gaucho in Argentina. He founded the Scottish Labour Party with James Keir Hardie in 1888 and then the National Party of Scotland in 1928. His words are intensely relevant to the present debate: “The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls. Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination.”

One of the problems of Scots not being educated in their own history, art and literature is a debilitating cultural cringe which has developed – the Catalans call the same phenomenon the “slave mentality”. Most people of my generation, for example, were taught to look down on their native languages, be they Scots or Gaelic. MacDiarmid’s great quote “Tae be yersels and tae mak that worth bein/Nae harder job tae mortals has been gien” sums up the dilemma perfectly. It is difficult to be fully and confidently yourself if major cultural institutions like the media or the education system have given little prestige to your culture all your life. Given that, Don Roberto’s description of some Scottish people as “born without imagination” is perhaps harsh. It is though, perfectly apt in describing the career politicians of the Unionist parties, whose main vision has little to do with the welfare of their people, but all to do with an ermine-clad future for themselves as servants of the British state.

A few months ago the House of Lords had what they called a debate on Scottish independence. A clip from it was televised showing Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke obsequiously addressing “the Noble Lord, Lord Lang” and agreeing with his Lordship that Scottish independence would be the end of the world as they knew it – a world of elite privilege and power. Baroness Helen’s contribution was followed by another extremely wealthy scion of the people’s party, Lord Robertson, who suggested that giving political power to the Scottish people would unleash the forces of darkness.

When I hear the increasingly hysterical ranting of Labour placemen, I recall the words of Oliver Brown writing in the Scots Independent on the effects of Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory for the SNP in 1967: “A shudder went through the Scottish members of Parliament frantically looking for a spine to run up.”

The anti-Scottish interventions of major Labour figures gars me grue at the scunnersome decline in a pairty my Ayrshire an Fife mining grandfaithers luikit up til aw their days. So like many whose natural political home was the Labour Party, I feel not that I have left the party, but that the party has left me. Only with the radical shake-up of Scottish independence can it return to its core ideals and again become a voice for the Scottish people, rather than the voice of a privileged, self-serving elite. The attitude of genuine socialists to them was summed up perfectly in an interview I did with an ex-miner from Fife, Derrick McGuire. “Talk aboot folk birlin in their graves… Keir Hardie’s should be fitted wi a rev-*****er!”

To me it is significant that many socialists who are no longer dependent on the Labour Party machine for patronage, have come out in favour of independence. More will join them as they hear the positive message of hope and change from people like Dennis Canavan, Jeane Freeman and Alan Grogan of Labour for Independence.

My ideal Scotland is one that is strongly local, proudly national and totally international in outlook – the three are interdependent. In my book The Scottish World, I celebrate the incredible influence we Scots have had in every airt and pairt of the world. Due to the great Scottish tradition of the democratic intellect, the Scottish diaspora was a literate one able to keep records of family history. I have had the privilege of interviewing people like Professor Karol Taylor in Gdansk whose family were merchants to the Polish kings in the 17th century; the grandchildren of Mary Slessor in Calabar; the Jewish children, now elderly ladies, lovingly taught by Jane Haining in Budapest before she was arrested by the Gestapo to die, with her pupils from the Scottish Mission School, in Auschwitz. I have been thrilled to discover that major cultural icons like Grieg in Norway, **** in Germany, Lermontov in Russia and Faulkner in America were children of the Scottish diaspora and in many cases wrote proudly of their Caledonian connections.

While fascinated by our global reach, I also want our gifted young people to be able to flourish here in Scotland. Too many of us have had to leave Scotland in the past with no choice but to go. I am the father of one daughter, Joanna, who is a lawyer in Brussels; another, Catriona, who works with her Spanish and Portuguese linguistic skills in London; and a son, Euan, who is just back from promoting Russian football in Rio and is on his way back to Moscow. I would love my children to have the choice of living in Scotland or contributing to Scotland in their work abroad. With independence power will be centred in Edinburgh once again and more opportunities created for internationally minded Scots to fulfil themselves here in their homeland.

So, my brither and sister Scots, I appeal to you from whatever social, ethnic or religious background you come from to vote positively for Scotland come September. It is all to do with dignity. You may be comfortable in your dual Scottish and British identity, but for once in your life you have to choose which is most important to you – do you belong to a proud, ancient nation or a quaint and colourful British region? Vote No and you confirm to England and the world your provincial mentality and have to accept the provincial status Scotland will endure from then on. Vote Yes and restore Scotland to the international family of nations she will grace with her presence for evermore.

Sums it up for me.

[DaveF]

Any pollster updates? Not seen some for a while on this thread.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112352]

Fair do's:aok:

A couple of questions from me...

Do you have a vote in the referendum?

Where are you getting your information that we won't have enough money to look after ourselves/Keep the pound/get into the Eu etc?

No I don't get a vote, as I am a long term exile. That will no doubt please you, as it would obviously be a No from me. ;):)

I think you are maybe misunderstanding some of my points? I have never said that Scotland couldn't look after itself. Although I realise this line is used as a Yes rallying call when anyone questions the financial viability of an independent Scotland. My point is that I think it is widely accepted (and logical) that an independent Scotland will be subject to higher interest rates on its national debt and also on any future money it borrows. So that will naturally leave less money in the pot for everything else. I also think an I S will have to shoulder a bigger financial responsibility than is currently being alluded to by certain people.

I don't think I have passed comment on the pound situation in any of my posts. Can't remember it anyway?

My point about the EU is that nobody knows what the set up will be at the moment. I expect an I S would be in the EU, but under what terms we don't know do we?

My overall point is that I just think there are far too many really important financial unknowns, that could cause real problems for an I S. It's fine that people vote yes for moral, nationalistic, self determination reasons or whatever. As it stands though I can't see how anyone can make a credible case for an I S being financially better off, there are just too many vital unknowns.

[CockneyRebel]

Someone else has answered the trams fiasco one so I'll leave that. The Scottish Parliament building was paid for by Westminster.

For examples of the Scottish Parliament looking after huge projects the current Forth bridge crossing might be a better example. Current estimates suggest its coming in early and under budget. I think the M74 extension was the same.

Built with imported steel.

[CockneyRebel]

Wonderful piece in Bella. Yes to a richer future.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/07/31/yes-to-a-richer-future/

By Billy Kay

I will vote Yes on 18 September because I am a Scot and want my wonderful multi-ethnic, multilingual mongrel nation to draw on its rampant egalitarian traditions and create a country which the world will regard as a model for progressive social, environmental and political ideals of inclusion, fairness and justice.

That’s all – and within the first decade of independence we will be well on the way to achieving the kind of Scotland we want. “Aye right!” say the naesayers reading this. But so normal and successful will an independent Scotland be that you will become an embarrassed generation of “No deniers”, unable to admit to having voted against the international beacon of progress your nation has become. Instead, your descendants will hear invented tales of their grandparents being among the thousands that life-enhancing day on Calton Hill when visionaries like Margo and Patrick, Alex and Nicola gave us all a glimpse of the benevolent society Scotland has since achieved.

You need not belong to this lost generation of fearties and No deniers, if you join the vast majority of creative Scots and vote positively in September. From the creation of the modern national movement with writers like Hugh MacDiarmid, Eric Linklater, Sorley MacLean and Neil Gunn through to the present day with Liz Lochhead, Janice Galloway, William McIlvanney, James Kelman, Alasdair Gray, James Robertson and countless more, imagination, creativity and artistic brilliance have been at the core of the cause to create a Scotland we are proud to identify with.

One of my favourite people from Scottish history is the inspirational, flamboyant figure of RB Cunninghame Graham who was known as Don Roberto because of his Spanish blood and his gap years as a gaucho in Argentina. He founded the Scottish Labour Party with James Keir Hardie in 1888 and then the National Party of Scotland in 1928. His words are intensely relevant to the present debate: “The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls. Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination.”

One of the problems of Scots not being educated in their own history, art and literature is a debilitating cultural cringe which has developed – the Catalans call the same phenomenon the “slave mentality”. Most people of my generation, for example, were taught to look down on their native languages, be they Scots or Gaelic. MacDiarmid’s great quote “Tae be yersels and tae mak that worth bein/Nae harder job tae mortals has been gien” sums up the dilemma perfectly. It is difficult to be fully and confidently yourself if major cultural institutions like the media or the education system have given little prestige to your culture all your life. Given that, Don Roberto’s description of some Scottish people as “born without imagination” is perhaps harsh. It is though, perfectly apt in describing the career politicians of the Unionist parties, whose main vision has little to do with the welfare of their people, but all to do with an ermine-clad future for themselves as servants of the British state.

A few months ago the House of Lords had what they called a debate on Scottish independence. A clip from it was televised showing Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke obsequiously addressing “the Noble Lord, Lord Lang” and agreeing with his Lordship that Scottish independence would be the end of the world as they knew it – a world of elite privilege and power. Baroness Helen’s contribution was followed by another extremely wealthy scion of the people’s party, Lord Robertson, who suggested that giving political power to the Scottish people would unleash the forces of darkness.

When I hear the increasingly hysterical ranting of Labour placemen, I recall the words of Oliver Brown writing in the Scots Independent on the effects of Winnie Ewing’s breakthrough victory for the SNP in 1967: “A shudder went through the Scottish members of Parliament frantically looking for a spine to run up.”

The anti-Scottish interventions of major Labour figures gars me grue at the scunnersome decline in a pairty my Ayrshire an Fife mining grandfaithers luikit up til aw their days. So like many whose natural political home was the Labour Party, I feel not that I have left the party, but that the party has left me. Only with the radical shake-up of Scottish independence can it return to its core ideals and again become a voice for the Scottish people, rather than the voice of a privileged, self-serving elite. The attitude of genuine socialists to them was summed up perfectly in an interview I did with an ex-miner from Fife, Derrick McGuire. “Talk aboot folk birlin in their graves… Keir Hardie’s should be fitted wi a rev-*****er!”

To me it is significant that many socialists who are no longer dependent on the Labour Party machine for patronage, have come out in favour of independence. More will join them as they hear the positive message of hope and change from people like Dennis Canavan, Jeane Freeman and Alan Grogan of Labour for Independence.

My ideal Scotland is one that is strongly local, proudly national and totally international in outlook – the three are interdependent. In my book The Scottish World, I celebrate the incredible influence we Scots have had in every airt and pairt of the world. Due to the great Scottish tradition of the democratic intellect, the Scottish diaspora was a literate one able to keep records of family history. I have had the privilege of interviewing people like Professor Karol Taylor in Gdansk whose family were merchants to the Polish kings in the 17th century; the grandchildren of Mary Slessor in Calabar; the Jewish children, now elderly ladies, lovingly taught by Jane Haining in Budapest before she was arrested by the Gestapo to die, with her pupils from the Scottish Mission School, in Auschwitz. I have been thrilled to discover that major cultural icons like Grieg in Norway, **** in Germany, Lermontov in Russia and Faulkner in America were children of the Scottish diaspora and in many cases wrote proudly of their Caledonian connections.

While fascinated by our global reach, I also want our gifted young people to be able to flourish here in Scotland. Too many of us have had to leave Scotland in the past with no choice but to go. I am the father of one daughter, Joanna, who is a lawyer in Brussels; another, Catriona, who works with her Spanish and Portuguese linguistic skills in London; and a son, Euan, who is just back from promoting Russian football in Rio and is on his way back to Moscow. I would love my children to have the choice of living in Scotland or contributing to Scotland in their work abroad. With independence power will be centred in Edinburgh once again and more opportunities created for internationally minded Scots to fulfil themselves here in their homeland.

So, my brither and sister Scots, I appeal to you from whatever social, ethnic or religious background you come from to vote positively for Scotland come September. It is all to do with dignity. You may be comfortable in your dual Scottish and British identity, but for once in your life you have to choose which is most important to you – do you belong to a proud, ancient nation or a quaint and colourful British region? Vote No and you confirm to England and the world your provincial mentality and have to accept the provincial status Scotland will endure from then on. Vote Yes and restore Scotland to the international family of nations she will grace with her presence for evermore.

Billy Kay - overdosed on Brigadoon - probably wrote the script for Braveheart

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112385]

If Scotland is slightly poorer, but the wealth gap is reduced. The majority of people who live here will be better off than they are now.

I dont think living standards have increased for the poorest, were 1 million people using foodbanks in the 70s? What was the cost of living? Were the elderly finding it difficult to heat their homes? If you worked did you get a fair days pay for a fair days work?

I agree the food bank situation is crap state of affairs, no doubt. But I did say 'other than the last 5 ish years, living standards have been rising generally' and I think this is true.

Things were obviously very different in the 70's in so many ways. We still had loads of manufacturing jobs and the social structure of the UK was unrecognisable in comparison to today. I for one would love to have all those manufacturing jobs back to support the communities they once did. But people then had very different expectations didn't they. Most normal people didn't have a car, they only had one TV, didn't holiday abroad and certainly didn't have a house full of electronic gadgets, a lot didn't even have a phone. Well they are my personal memories of the 70's anyway. So a fair days pay then got you a very basic lifestyle. Nothing wrong with it, I have very happy memories of my childhood in the 70's, but people wouldn't accept life like that now would they?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Built with imported steel.

Aye Ravenscraig was shut down by the Tories.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4112553]

No I don't get a vote, as I am a long term exile. That will no doubt please you, as it would obviously be a No from me. ;):)

I think you are maybe misunderstanding some of my points? I have never said that Scotland couldn't look after itself. Although I realise this line is used as a Yes rallying call when anyone questions the financial viability of an independent Scotland. My point is that I think it is widely accepted (and logical) that an independent Scotland will be subject to higher interest rates on its national debt and also on any future money it borrows. So that will naturally leave less money in the pot for everything else. I also think an I S will have to shoulder a bigger financial responsibility than is currently being alluded to by certain people.

I don't think I have passed comment on the pound situation in any of my posts. Can't remember it anyway?

My point about the EU is that nobody knows what the set up will be at the moment. I expect an I S would be in the EU, but under what terms we don't know do we?

My overall point is that I just think there are far too many really important financial unknowns, that could cause real problems for an I S. It's fine that people vote yes for moral, nationalistic, self determination reasons or whatever. As it stands though I can't see how anyone can make a credible case for an I S being financially better off, there are just too many vital unknowns.

Another one bites the dust:aok:

Most of your points have been based on maybe/might/If, we don't know what's round the corner with Independence or continuing to get pocket money from Westminster. I'm prepared to pay a bit more to allow my fellow countrymen to make decisions for us here in Scotland. I actually think we look after our own a bit better than relying on those from south east England. We shouldn't take any lessons on how to balance the books from people who've racked up such a large national debt, and I include the ermine robed Scots in that.

What National debt? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scottish-independence-rest-uk-guarantee-3019858

On the EU...If we are still in the Uk in 2017 whose to say we'll be in the EU after England vote to take us out with the upsurge of UKIP.

Have a read of this then come back and tell me we wouldn't be better off.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

[tcm1875]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4112553]

No I don't get a vote, as I am a long term exile. That will no doubt please you, as it would obviously be a No from me. ;):)

I think you are maybe misunderstanding some of my points? I have never said that Scotland couldn't look after itself. Although I realise this line is used as a Yes rallying call when anyone questions the financial viability of an independent Scotland. My point is that I think it is widely accepted (and logical) that an independent Scotland will be subject to higher interest rates on its national debt and also on any future money it borrows. So that will naturally leave less money in the pot for everything else. I also think an I S will have to shoulder a bigger financial responsibility than is currently being alluded to by certain people.

I don't think I have passed comment on the pound situation in any of my posts. Can't remember it anyway?

My point about the EU is that nobody knows what the set up will be at the moment. I expect an I S would be in the EU, but under what terms we don't know do we?

My overall point is that I just think there are far too many really important financial unknowns, that could cause real problems for an I S. It's fine that people vote yes for moral, nationalistic, self determination reasons or whatever. As it stands though I can't see how anyone can make a credible case for an I S being financially better off, there are just too many vital unknowns.

You have quoted the interest rates a few times,would the rates then be higher or lower than around the 10% we currently pay on £1.3 trillion?

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4112416]

I agree the food bank situation is crap state of affairs, no doubt. But I did say 'other than the last 5 ish years, living standards have been rising generally' and I think this is true.

Things were obviously very different in the 70's in so many ways. We still had loads of manufacturing jobs and the social structure of the UK was unrecognisable in comparison to today. I for one would love to have all those manufacturing jobs back to support the communities they once did. But people then had very different expectations didn't they. Most normal people didn't have a car, they only had one TV, didn't holiday abroad and certainly didn't have a house full of electronic gadgets, a lot didn't even have a phone. Well they are my personal memories of the 70's anyway. So a fair days pay then got you a very basic lifestyle. Nothing wrong with it, I have very happy memories of my childhood in the 70's, but people wouldn't accept life like that now would they?

My point is that many don't get a fair days pay now. They get £6.30 an hour. And they have to claim benefits on top to keep a roof over their heads.

We used to hope the labour party would represent Scotland's interests at Westminster. But they no longer do. Theyve sided with the Tories on almost every policy they've come out with.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112722]

You have quoted the interest rates a few times,would the rates then be higher or lower than around the 10% we currently pay on £1.3 trillion?

I'm pretty sure we don't pay a 10 % interest rate on the national debt. Unless the government has consolidated all their existing loans into one easy to manage loan with Ocean Finance? ;) :) I mean I can get a loan at a lower rate than that, so I'm sure the government get a better deal than me? I have seen some figures that say we spend about 10% of the GDP servicing the national debt, but this of course is not the interest rate on it.

But to answer your question, the rate would likely (and realistically)be higher than it is now for an I S, that has always been my point. Obviously an I S would shoulder its fair share of the national debt but pay a higher interst rate on it and also on future lending.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112722]

Another one bites the dust:aok:

Most of your points have been based on maybe/might/If, we don't know what's round the corner with Independence or continuing to get pocket money from Westminster. I'm prepared to pay a bit more to allow my fellow countrymen to make decisions for us here in Scotland. I actually think we look after our own a bit better than relying on those from south east England. We shouldn't take any lessons on how to balance the books from people who've racked up such a large national debt, and I include the ermine robed Scots in that.

What National debt? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/scottish-independence-rest-uk-guarantee-3019858

On the EU...If we are still in the Uk in 2017 whose to say we'll be in the EU after England vote to take us out with the upsurge of UKIP.

Have a read of this then come back and tell me we wouldn't be better off.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/

I thought you'd be pleased about my inability to vote! Oh well I suppose I've brought at least one a smile to your face anyway! ;):)

You are right, most of my points are ifs buts and maybe, that is exactly the point, we just don't know do we. The Yes campaign don't even know a lot of the future financial implications, so how can they possibly predict a glorious financial future for an I S ? We do know what we have at the moment and yes its far from perfect, but also its not a total train wreck either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing Westminster or backing any politicians in particular, I just don't see an I S as the 'answer'.

I haven't seen the Mirror story in your link before, very interesting. I think its scary that Alex Salmond is/was threatening to default on the debt, that would put an I S in the same league (or even worse) as the likes of Greece. An I S with that attitude toward repaying its debt would hold zero credibility in the financial world and therefore fall flat on its face I'm afraid to say.

I have seen your other link and yes it paints a good picture of Scotland indeed. I personally don't need convincing that Scotland is a great place and a successful place, I know that and totally agree it is a wonderful nation. But it has become the wonderful nation we all know and love, whilst being part of the union. The Yes campaign seems to apportion all the blame for the negatives in Scotland to the rest of the UK, but does not give any credit what so ever to the UK for any of the success stories. Now that my friend is political spin and propaganda in all its unenviable glory. The Yes politicians are just as devious and serpent like as any of the others, so don't be fooled by them.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4112790]

My point is that many don't get a fair days pay now. They get £6.30 an hour. And they have to claim benefits on top to keep a roof over their heads.

We used to hope the labour party would represent Scotland's interests at Westminster. But they no longer do. Theyve sided with the Tories on almost every policy they've come out with.

I know what you mean, it wouldn't be nice living on minimum wage and benefits to top up, you are right. I am now lucky enough not to be in that boat, but I have struggled in the past on very poor wages, before the minimum wage existed and also had a couple of spells on the dole. So I know what its like to be on the bones of yer arse I'm afraid. Even on minimum wages now, I feel most have more than a lot of working people in the seventies. Everyone now has mobiles, more that one tv, most have cars etc etc. I think we've (or at least I've) veered of the independence debate here a but still quite an interesting point I think? :)

The people in poverty measurements are all quite literally relative aren't they? They compare the poorest, to the average earners etc. So the definition of poverty changes in relation to the average earnings of any given nation at an given time. So if the average earner is doing quite well, the poor seem to fall further behind. Where as if the average earner isn't doing so well, the poor compare more favourably, but they could still be earning exactly the same wage in both cases, meaning they are no worse or better of in either comparison. Does that make sense, I've slightly confused myself with that one!?!? :)

[tcm1875]

[QUOTE=tcm1875;4113074]

I'm pretty sure we don't pay a 10 % interest rate on the national debt. Unless the government has consolidated all their existing loans into one easy to manage loan with Ocean Finance? ;) :) I mean I can get a loan at a lower rate than that, so I'm sure the government get a better deal than me? I have seen some figures that say we spend about 10% of the GDP servicing the national debt, but this of course is not the interest rate on it.

But to answer your question, the rate would likely (and realistically)be higher than it is now for an I S, that has always been my point. Obviously an I S would shoulder its fair share of the national debt but pay a higher interst rate on it and also on future lending.

Apologies, I've not worded the question correctly. Lets then do the maths.

Currently as part of the uk Scotland's share of the debt is 130 billion. According to GERS for 2011\2012 our interest payments alone were over £4 billion. So if my maths is correct (I'm open to be corrected on any of the figures) we currently have an interest rate of around 3%.(on debt that's not ours - which is another discussion ;-) )Therefore would our interest rate be higher than 3% and what is the uks current interest rate?

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113112]

Apologies, I've not worded the question correctly. Lets then do the maths.

Currently as part of the uk Scotland's share of the debt is 130 billion. According to GERS for 2011\2012 our interest payments alone were over £4 billion. So if my maths is correct (I'm open to be corrected on any of the figures) we currently have an interest rate of around 3%.(on debt that's not ours - which is another discussion ;-) )Therefore would our interest rate be higher than 3% and what is the uks current interest rate?

Ok I see what you mean now. I think even 3% sounds quite high, but I don't know the exact interst rate that is paid on the bankers, I mean national debt. ;)

It is widely accepted that an I S would pay higher rates than the UK. This is because it would be a new country with no proven track record with regards to borrowing/repaying money. The banks would see an I S as a higher risk to lend to (well certainly for a good few years at least) and therefore they would want a higher return on their money to offset the perceived extra risk. This would be extra money Scotland would be paying straight into fat greedy bankers pockets, we would get nothing in return for that money.

Also have a look at the link to a Mirror article that was posted by ronaldo 7 a few posts back. I think the stand taken by the SNP toward paying or defaulting on the debt is scary. That kind of attitude will give an I S zero credibility with the financiers and certainly result in a much higher interest rate for the nation. The SNP is playing a very dangerous game there, it is trying to point score and get one over on the rest of the UK (purely to promote the yes campaign) and at the same time discrediting itself and any possible future I S with the global financiers.

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4112911]

I thought you'd be pleased about my inability to vote! Oh well I suppose I've brought at least one a smile to your face anyway! ;):)

I really couldn't care what you would vote bud:greengrin

You are right, most of my points are ifs buts and maybe, that is exactly the point, we just don't know do we. The Yes campaign don't even know a lot of the future financial implications, so how can they possibly predict a glorious financial future for an I S ? We do know what we have at the moment and yes its far from perfect, but also its not a total train wreck either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing Westminster or backing any politicians in particular, I just don't see an I S as the 'answer'.

We know what we pay currently to WM. We know what that we balance the books with our pocket money, and we also know that more cash is being lost to Scotland by the inadequacies of the WM system. We have enough cash which would be generated by an Independent Scotland to more than pay our way in the world .

You also mention that "We do know what we have at the moment", but fail to know what's round the corner...Just like the Yes campaign. It works both ways.

I know that £25 Billion of cuts are coming down the line from WM whatever party gets into power. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534337/More-hard-choices-needed-secure-long-term-recovery-says-Osborne-Chancellor-warns-spending-cuts-needed.html

I haven't seen the Mirror story in your link before, very interesting. I think its scary that Alex Salmond is/was threatening to default on the debt, that would put an I S in the same league (or even worse) as the likes of Greece. An I S with that attitude toward repaying its debt would hold zero credibility in the financial world and therefore fall flat on its face I'm afraid to say.

I think Salmond was quoted as saying as much because he was being told Scotland would get zero assets from the Uk on Independence, which was patently garbage. He went on to say if we're not getting any of the assets, then why should we take the debt. Simples really. This then led Danny boy to put out his pledge for the rUK to take ALL of the debt.
We all know that we've helped build up the assets for the last 300 years so we should get a share of the assets. Check this out.

https://twitter.com/AssetScotland

I have seen your other link and yes it paints a good picture of Scotland indeed. I personally don't need convincing that Scotland is a great place and a successful place, I know that and totally agree it is a wonderful nation. But it has become the wonderful nation we all know and love, whilst being part of the union. The Yes campaign seems to apportion all the blame for the negatives in Scotland to the rest of the UK, but does not give any credit what so ever to the UK for any of the success stories. Now that my friend is political spin and propaganda in all its unenviable glory. The Yes politicians are just as devious and serpent like as any of the others, so don't be fooled by them.

I have not been fooled by anyone. I've been engaged again in politics, and the referendum through the grass roots campaign of Yes, and through many of it's various groups. Most of the meetings I've attended have been with normal punters who've been re-engaged about what our country is going through, and whatever the vote in September, those groups will not be going back to how it was.

As an aside, I'm not surprised you hadn't seen the Mirror story as the press give people in England one story whilst telling us another.:wink:

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113126]

I have not been fooled by anyone. I've been engaged again in politics, and the referendum through the grass roots campaign of Yes, and through many of it's various groups. Most of the meetings I've attended have been with normal punters who've been re-engaged about what our country is going through, and whatever the vote in September, those groups will not be going back to how it was.

As an aside, I'm not surprised you hadn't seen the Mirror story as the press give people in England one story whilst telling us another.:wink:

Fair enough, we obviously have different viewpoints on what we believe is best for Scotland and that's fine. You are right in saying that neither of us (or anyone else) knows what the future holds do we? Both viewpoints can be supported and equally discredited by searching for articles that favour either Yes or No. For example I was searching trying to establish what the interest rate paid on the national debt was to respond to another post and read two articles that came up next to each other on Google. One made a convincing case that the national debt was no big deal on the scale of things. The other made out it was terrible and we should all be worried sick. My point is you can find information/articles to support almost anything, if that is what you are looking for. It's a bit like googling the symptoms of an illness, one site says you've got a terminal illness the next one says you are fine and stop worrying! ;)

I think independence is a huge step and an unnecessary risk to take, especially whilst the economy (nationally and globally) is still so fragile. I believe in less divisions not more and I think the Yes campaign is dividing Scotland unnecessarily, never mind the UK as a whole.

Obviously you will and should vote for what you think is right. I just hope that you and others vote more with your heads than your hearts? (Which I'm sure you will). :)

[allmodcons]

I thought you'd be pleased about my inability to vote! Oh well I suppose I've brought at least one a smile to your face anyway! ;):)

You are right, most of my points are ifs buts and maybe, that is exactly the point, we just don't know do we. The Yes campaign don't even know a lot of the future financial implications, so how can they possibly predict a glorious financial future for an I S ? We do know what we have at the moment and yes its far from perfect, but also its not a total train wreck either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing Westminster or backing any politicians in particular, I just don't see an I S as the 'answer'.

I haven't seen the Mirror story in your link before, very interesting. I think its scary that Alex Salmond is/was threatening to default on the debt, that would put an I S in the same league (or even worse) as the likes of Greece. An I S with that attitude toward repaying its debt would hold zero credibility in the financial world and therefore fall flat on its face I'm afraid to say.

I have seen your other link and yes it paints a good picture of Scotland indeed. I personally don't need convincing that Scotland is a great place and a successful place, I know that and totally agree it is a wonderful nation. But it has become the wonderful nation we all know and love, whilst being part of the union. The Yes campaign seems to apportion all the blame for the negatives in Scotland to the rest of the UK, but does not give any credit what so ever to the UK for any of the success stories. Now that my friend is political spin and propaganda in all its unenviable glory. The Yes politicians are just as devious and serpent like as any of the others, so don't be fooled by them.

How many times???? It is not possible to default on debt where there is no 'debt obligation'.

The SNP Government have made it quite clear on numerous occasions that they would be happy to take on a fair share of the UK debt (despite having no obligation to do so) in return for a fair share of assets. What is wrong with this?

As to your comments about "zero credibility" are you seriously suggesting that international money lenders would take the moral high ground and refuse to lend to what would be (in this scenario) a debt free country? Do you think they are going to say, lets not lend here they've had a dispute with another country?

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4113210]

Fair enough, we obviously have different viewpoints on what we believe is best for Scotland and that's fine. You are right in saying that neither of us (or anyone else) knows what the future holds do we? Both viewpoints can be supported and equally discredited by searching for articles that favour either Yes or No. For example I was searching trying to establish what the interest rate paid on the national debt was to respond to another post and read two articles that came up next to each other on Google. One made a convincing case that the national debt was no big deal on the scale of things. The other made out it was terrible and we should all be worried sick. My point is you can find information/articles to support almost anything, if that is what you are looking for. It's a bit like googling the symptoms of an illness, one site says you've got a terminal illness the next one says you are fine and stop worrying! ;)

I think independence is a huge step and an unnecessary risk to take, especially whilst the economy (nationally and globally) is still so fragile. I believe in less divisions not more and I think the Yes campaign is dividing Scotland unnecessarily, never mind the UK as a whole.

Obviously you will and should vote for what you think is right. I just hope that you and others vote more with your heads than your hearts? (Which I'm sure you will). :)

:aok: I never vote for Hearts:wink:

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113232]

:aok: I never vote for Hearts:wink:

I thought that might be coming, good answer! I'm glad we share at least one philosophy! GGTTH! :D

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4113210]

Fair enough, we obviously have different viewpoints on what we believe is best for Scotland and that's fine. You are right in saying that neither of us (or anyone else) knows what the future holds do we? Both viewpoints can be supported and equally discredited by searching for articles that favour either Yes or No. For example I was searching trying to establish what the interest rate paid on the national debt was to respond to another post and read two articles that came up next to each other on Google. One made a convincing case that the national debt was no big deal on the scale of things. The other made out it was terrible and we should all be worried sick. My point is you can find information/articles to support almost anything, if that is what you are looking for. It's a bit like googling the symptoms of an illness, one site says you've got a terminal illness the next one says you are fine and stop worrying! ;)

I think independence is a huge step and an unnecessary risk to take, especially whilst the economy (nationally and globally) is still so fragile. I believe in less divisions not more and I think the Yes campaign is dividing Scotland unnecessarily, never mind the UK as a whole.

Obviously you will and should vote for what you think is right. I just hope that you and others vote more with your heads than your hearts? (Which I'm sure you will). :)

Divisions.

So let's not talk about our futures, we might disagree?
Let's not debate benefit cuts, we might disagree?
Let's not debate the £18 billion lost to the UK treasury via illegal tax avoidance every year, we might disagree?

Might aswell not have an election every 5 years. We might disagree

This is a democracy. And I for one love it.

But to turn your argument on it's head again.. 'Less divisions not more' what division will it cause exactly if Scotland gets it's own government?

None

Let's combine the UK with France, we'll have the parliament there and sing the French national anthem. But we need less divisions so it will be ok :D

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113232]

Divisions.

So let's not talk about our futures, we might disagree?
Let's not debate benefit cuts, we might disagree?
Let's not debate the £18 billion lost to the UK treasury via illegal tax avoidance every year, we might disagree?

Might aswell not have an election every 5 years. We might disagree

This is a democracy. And I for one love it.

But to turn your argument on it's head again.. 'Less divisions not more' what division will it cause exactly if Scotland gets it's own government?

None

Let's combine the UK with France, we'll have the parliament there and sing the French national anthem. But we need less divisions so it will be ok :D

Errrm, I think you've stretched my point all out of shape there and you know it! ;):)

But since you've mentioned France, I don't see the Catalans or the Normans etc, trying to divide France up along ancient national boundaries, they just seem to be getting on with it as far as I can see? Que some link to a Catalan separatist website................ :D

Plus you know full well I am open to debate etc. Just because I don't agree with making more divisions in one certain area/subject doesn't mean I'm anti democracy does it?

[over the line]

How many times???? It is not possible to default on debt where there is no 'debt obligation'.

The SNP Government have made it quite clear on numerous occasions that they would be happy to take on a fair share of the UK debt (despite having no obligation to do so) in return for a fair share of assets. What is wrong with this?

As to your comments about "zero credibility" are you seriously suggesting that international money lenders would take the moral high ground and refuse to lend to what would be (in this scenario) a debt free country? Do you think they are going to say, lets not lend here they've had a dispute with another country?

I don't agree that an I S would not have an obligation to pay a share of the debt built up whilst it was part of the union. I think it would be expected to shoulder its share and in reality it probably would. My point is that if an I S did walk away from the debt, it would be viewed by the banks as some sort of defaulting and make an I S seem like a risk to lend to. (Nothing to do with moral high ground) Either way I think if an I S comes into existence it will shoulder its share, all the talk about it is just political jousting and point scoring.

An I S will still pay more interest on any borrowed money though, do you agrree with that point?

On a lighter note, you do know that an I S has no claim to the red white an blue mod targets don't you? You would have to hand yours back! :D;)

[over the line]

[QUOTE=allmodcons;4113255]How many times???? It is not possible to default on debt where there is no 'debt obligation'.

The SNP Government have made it quite clear on numerous occasions that they would be happy to take on a fair share of the UK debt (despite having no obligation to do so) in return for a fair share of assets. What is wrong with this?

As to your comments about "zero credibility" are you seriously suggesting that international money lenders would take the moral high ground and refuse to lend to what would be (in this scenario) a debt free country? Do you think they are going to say, lets not lend here they've had a dispute with another


Duplicate post.

[Moulin Yarns]

Errrm, I think you've stretched my point all out of shape there and you know it! ;):)

But since you've mentioned France, I don't see the Catalans or the Normans etc, trying to divide France up along ancient national boundaries, they just seem to be getting on with it as far as I can see? Que some link to a Catalan separatist website................ :D

Plus you know full well I am open to debate etc. Just because I don't agree with making more divisions in one certain area/subject doesn't mean I'm anti democracy does it?


:worms:

The following countries all have separatist groups or political parties that want autonomy

Albania
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzogovenia
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France (11 secessionary states as you mention it)
Georgia
Germany
Italy
Kosovo
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4113375]

Errrm, I think you've stretched my point all out of shape there and you know it! ;):)

But since you've mentioned France, I don't see the Catalans or the Normans etc, trying to divide France up along ancient national boundaries, they just seem to be getting on with it as far as I can see? Que some link to a Catalan separatist website................ :D

Plus you know full well I am open to debate etc. Just because I don't agree with making more divisions in one certain area/subject doesn't mean I'm anti democracy does it?

Haha yeah I jest with some of that, but it's true, what divisions are going to be caused? The scots get the egalitarian government they have been looking for, and the English, Welsh and N.Irish suffer a few more years of Tory rule, until they see what a success we're making of it up here.

The Catalans are based in Spain and are actually campaigning for independence :)

[over the line]

:worms:

The following countries all have separatist groups or political parties that want autonomy

Albania
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzogovenia
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France (11 secessionary states as you mention it)
Georgia
Germany
Italy
Kosovo
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom

I am sure there are even more than that. I imaging most countries have some sort of separatist movement and some probably have more than one. But the vast majority of them aren't considered as serious alternative or a viable option are they and I'm sure most of them aren't having a referendum. (Here come the 'so you do think an I S is a viable option' comments) :) But you know what I mean. ;)

[Moulin Yarns]

I am sure there are even more than that. I imaging most countries have some sort of separatist movement and some probably have more than one. But the vast majority of them aren't considered as serious alternative or a viable option are they and I'm sure most of them aren't having a referendum. (Here come the 'so you do think an I S is a viable option' comments) :) But you know what I mean. ;)

Orkney and Shetland want autonomy from the UK as well.
Basque separatists use bombs.
3 different groups want to split Bosna-Hertzogovenia further on sectarian lines.
Scotland at least are using democracy

[over the line]

Orkney and Shetland want autonomy from the UK as well.
Basque separatists use bombs.
3 different groups want to split Bosna-Hertzogovenia further on sectarian lines.
Scotland at least are using democracy

No, no, no, I definitely don't want to get involved in a debate that involves any kind of disagreements between Balkan states! This debate is tricky enough for me! :)

The ballot over the bomb every time, absolutely agree with you there, no doubt.

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113412]

Haha yeah I jest with some of that, but it's true, what divisions are going to be caused? The scots get the egalitarian government they have been looking for, and the English, Welsh and N.Irish suffer a few more years of Tory rule, until they see what a success we're making of it up here.

The Catalans are based in Spain and are actually campaigning for independence :)

I thought you were tickling my ribs a bit there! :)

Catalan straddles the French/Spanish border (think its also in Andorra?). I know that for defo, as I have been to Perpignon to watch the Catalan Dragons RL, and I was defo in France! ;):) Red and yellow Catalan flags everywhere as well, so no doubt on that one.:D

[CockneyRebel]

aldo,
you really ought to start viewing SNP's agenda re everything above. With the exception of your Rosyth question, they've already all been answered by the party.

None of the questions have been answered satisfactorily. The SNP just repeat what they will do despite being told that they can't. They have policies but they are like cheats in a maths exam where they don't show the workings. You are being led into oblivion by the man who would be king - the scottish Arthur Daley.

[Hibrandenburg]

None of the questions have been answered satisfactorily. The SNP just repeat what they will do despite being told that they can't. They have policies but they are like cheats in a maths exam where they don't show the workings. You are being led into oblivion by the man who would be king - the scottish Arthur Daley.

"Led into oblivion?"

More Greta Garbo than Arthur Daley me thinks.

[allmodcons]

I don't agree that an I S would not have an obligation to pay a share of the debt built up whilst it was part of the union. I think it would be expected to shoulder its share and in reality it probably would. My point is that if an I S did walk away from the debt, it would be viewed by the banks as some sort of defaulting and make an I S seem like a risk to lend to. (Nothing to do with moral high ground) Either way I think if an I S comes into existence it will shoulder its share, all the talk about it is just political jousting and point scoring.

An I S will still pay more interest on any borrowed money though, do you agrree with that point?

On a lighter note, you do know that an I S has no claim to the red white an blue mod targets don't you? You would have to hand yours back! :D;)

Sorry, but you are completely missing the point about debt. If an iScotland does as the SNP is suggesting and takes on a fair proportion of the debt then International Money Markets will be quite happy to lend to an iScotland. At what rate of interest? Who knows? Are we to assume it would be higher than rUK simply because Better Together say so? What proof have you, apart from supposition, that an iScotland would be subject to higher borrowing rates than rUK? You've heard it repeated so often by Better Together you believe it as gospel!

Scenario 2 is an iScotland with no debt (remember an iScotland has no debt obligation). International Money Markets are interested only in how likely a nation is to repay its debts. Are you seriously suggesting that a potential lender will look at an iScotland who didn't pay lots of money to Westminster and conclude that oil-rich, asset-rich, resource-rich, debt-free Scotland is a bad credit risk?

With regard to mod targets, The Jam are a quintessentially English band who (as an unashamed Scottish Nationalist) I love dearly but you know of course that this vote is not about Scotland versus England!





None of the questions have been answered satisfactorily. The SNP just repeat what they will do despite being told that they can't. They have policies but they are like cheats in a maths exam where they don't show the workings. You are being led into oblivion by the man who would be king - the scottish Arthur Daley.

Great post GH. "Led to oblivion". Nice to know you have faith in your fellow Scots being able to successfully manage their own affairs!

[over the line]

[QUOTE=allmodcons;4113965]Sorry, but you are completely missing the point about debt. If an iScotland does as the SNP is suggesting and takes on a fair proportion of the debt then International Money Markets will be quite happy to lend to an iScotland. At what rate of interest? Who knows? Are we to assume it would be higher than rUK simply because Better Together say so? What proof have you, apart from supposition, that an iScotland would be subject to higher borrowing rates than rUK? You've heard it repeated so often by Better Together you believe it as gospel!

Scenario 2 is an iScotland with no debt (remember an iScotland has no debt obligation). International Money Markets are interested only in how likely a nation is to repay its debts. Are you seriously suggesting that a potential lender will look at an iScotland who didn't pay lots of money to Westminster and conclude that oil-rich, asset-rich, resource-rich, debt-free Scotland is a bad credit risk?

With regard to mod targets, The Jam are a quintessentially English band who (as an unashamed Scottish Nationalist) I love dearly but you know of course that this vote is not about Scotland versus England!

Firstly, I accept your apology (you started with a 'Sorry') ;)

Anyhoo..... I live in England, so I am barely exposed to the No lot, or the Yes lot tbh. So I've not heard anything repeated from any side at all really. Most financial and banking types seem to be saying the rate will be higher for an I S and their explanation for that makes perfect sense to me. We may get to see in the future anyway? There are few cast iron facts in this debate/referendum, its all a bit 'ifs buts and maybe'. It's difficult to have cast iron facts when talking about the future isn't it?

What ever the SNP may say about having no debt obligation, in reality an I S would end up paying its share and that's fair enough all round I think. I don't think an I S will want to look like a nation that walks away from its financial responsibilities. (But we are going round in circles a bit now aren't we?).

As for The Jam, I think I'm right in saying Paul Weller has said if Scotland votes yes, he is coming up to take all his CD's/records back personally. But I'm not 100% on that one! ;) :)

All Mod Cons is maybe my fave Jam album, might dig it out and have a listen now you've reminded me of it. :D

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4113232]

Divisions.

So let's not talk about our futures, we might disagree?
Let's not debate benefit cuts, we might disagree?
Let's not debate the £18 billion lost to the UK treasury via illegal tax avoidance every year, we might disagree?

Might aswell not have an election every 5 years. We might disagree

This is a democracy. And I for one love it.

But to turn your argument on it's head again.. 'Less divisions not more' what division will it cause exactly if Scotland gets it's own government?

None

Let's combine the UK with France, we'll have the parliament there and sing the French national anthem. But we need less divisions so it will be ok :D

I have given your proposal of unifying with France some thought and I think you might be onto something you know, I agree it is a great idea! They have great food, nice wine & Cognac, the weather is better and the national anthem is a cracker, plus they invented (your beloved ;) )democracy. I for one am sold on the idea! I don't know if there is enough time to change the ballot papers from YES & NO to OUI et NON, but its worth a try! Vive le France, mon ami ! ;):D

[snooky]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4113375]

I have given your proposal of unifying with France some thought and I think you might be onto something you know, I agree it is a great idea! They have great food, nice wine & Cognac, the weather is better and the national anthem is a cracker, plus they invented (your beloved ;) )democracy. I for one am sold on the idea! I don't know if there is enough time to change the ballot papers from YES & NO to OUI et NON, but its worth a try! Vive le France, mon ami ! ;):D

Eh, nice thought but no francs. :wink:

[southfieldhibby]

So it looks like some very interesting things happened in Shetland this week, but I've been away so may have missed it being missed here?

David Cameron makes a very quiet visit to the islands, the 1st PM in 35 years to do so.

To coincide with an apparent news embargo being put in place to stop reports of Shell finding the single biggest oil field discovery they have ever made and according to the gossips, it's 'sweet oil' and very easily drilled.What is not in doubt from this weeks Shetland activities, is that North Sea oil is very viable and essential to the running of The UK.


Now the embargo may be bollocks, but if anyone can suggest why The PM went all the way to Shetland and didn't make any kind of statements, I'm all ears.

[green glory]

So it looks like some very interesting things happened in Shetland this week, but I've been away so may have missed it being missed here? David Cameron makes a very quiet visit to the islands, the 1st PM in 35 years to do so. To coincide with an apparent news embargo being put in place to stop reports of Shell finding the single biggest oil field discovery they have ever made and according to the gossips, it's 'sweet oil' and very easily drilled.What is not in doubt from this weeks Shetland activities, is that North Sea oil is very viable and essential to the running of The UK. Now the embargo may be bollocks, but if anyone can suggest why The PM went all the way to Shetland and didn't make any kind of statements, I'm all ears.

It's called the 'Greater Claire' field. Supposedly one of the biggest oil fields ever discovered.

13187



13188



13189

[sauzee_4]

[QUOTE=sauzee_4;4113375]

I have given your proposal of unifying with France some thought and I think you might be onto something you know, I agree it is a great idea! They have great food, nice wine & Cognac, the weather is better and the national anthem is a cracker, plus they invented (your beloved ;) )democracy. I for one am sold on the idea! I don't know if there is enough time to change the ballot papers from YES & NO to OUI et NON, but its worth a try! Vive le France, mon ami ! ;):D

Well Frank Sauzee would be delighted, might be our best chance to bring him back to Scotland? No passports required :D

[ronaldo7]

So it looks like some very interesting things happened in Shetland this week, but I've been away so may have missed it being missed here?

David Cameron makes a very quiet visit to the islands, the 1st PM in 35 years to do so.

To coincide with an apparent news embargo being put in place to stop reports of Shell finding the single biggest oil field discovery they have ever made and according to the gossips, it's 'sweet oil' and very easily drilled.What is not in doubt from this weeks Shetland activities, is that North Sea oil is very viable and essential to the running of The UK.


Now the embargo may be bollocks, but if anyone can suggest why The PM went all the way to Shetland and didn't make any kind of statements, I'm all ears.


http://yes2014.net/2014/08/01/oil-around-shetland-could-be-more-than-it-appears/
:aok:

In an exclusive turn of events, several anonymous sources have advised us about strange going on’s in the Clair field near Shetland. A few days ago we were made aware that contractors working for BP were stood down after obtaining the results of the latest test drilling statistics. While the source refused to name the actual test drilling rig, other sources of information point to it being in the Clair field. It was said that the test results “far exceeded expectations”.

We have had other information that contractors have in fact been sent home on full pay just after receiving these results and that they were advised that they would not be recalled until after the referendum. All of this happened just shortly before Prime Minister David Cameron became the first Prime Minister to visit Shetland in 34 years. His visit was shrouded in secrecy and up until he was snapped by a photographer getting off the plane had been denied altogether.

We put questions to BP’s press office.

In an email to Yes International the BP Group press officer said that “we don’t comment on individual test results”. He went on to say that this week “Our CEO made the positive point during our 2Q results this week that the company has just given the go–ahead for a 6th appraisal well on Greater Clair.”

“We intend to invest billions in the area in the coming years” – BP Source

We also contacted other sources who described the results as “above expected”‘ and “a job for life”.

The number 10 press office declined to answer our emails.

[Moulin Yarns]

So it looks like some very interesting things happened in Shetland this week, but I've been away so may have missed it being missed here?

David Cameron makes a very quiet visit to the islands, the 1st PM in 35 years to do so.

To coincide with an apparent news embargo being put in place to stop reports of Shell finding the single biggest oil field discovery they have ever made and according to the gossips, it's 'sweet oil' and very easily drilled.What is not in doubt from this weeks Shetland activities, is that North Sea oil is very viable and essential to the running of The UK.


Now the embargo may be bollocks, but if anyone can suggest why The PM went all the way to Shetland and didn't make any kind of statements, I'm all ears.


http://yes2014.net/2014/08/01/oil-around-shetland-could-be-more-than-it-appears/
:aok:

In an exclusive turn of events, several anonymous sources have advised us about strange going on’s in the Clair field near Shetland. A few days ago we were made aware that contractors working for BP were stood down after obtaining the results of the latest test drilling statistics. While the source refused to name the actual test drilling rig, other sources of information point to it being in the Clair field. It was said that the test results “far exceeded expectations”.

We have had other information that contractors have in fact been sent home on full pay just after receiving these results and that they were advised that they would not be recalled until after the referendum. All of this happened just shortly before Prime Minister David Cameron became the first Prime Minister to visit Shetland in 34 years. His visit was shrouded in secrecy and up until he was snapped by a photographer getting off the plane had been denied altogether.

We put questions to BP’s press office.

In an email to Yes International the BP Group press officer said that “we don’t comment on individual test results”. He went on to say that this week “Our CEO made the positive point during our 2Q results this week that the company has just given the go–ahead for a 6th appraisal well on Greater Clair.”

“We intend to invest billions in the area in the coming years” – BP Source

We also contacted other sources who described the results as “above expected”‘ and “a job for life”.

The number 10 press office declined to answer our emails.

OH well, that's that then!!Tavish Scott MSP (LIB/DEM) for Shetland is already leading a move for Shetland becoming independent from Scotland but staying in the UK or becoming Crown Dependency/Overseas Territory (I KID YOU NOT) OH AYE, and the MP at Westminster for Shetland is none other than Alistair Carmichael(LIB/DEM and Secretary of State for Scotland)

[over the line]

OH well, that's that then!!Tavish Scott MSP (LIB/DEM) for Shetland is already leading a move for Shetland becoming independent from Scotland but staying in the UK or becoming Crown Dependency/Overseas Territory (I KID YOU NOT) OH AYE, and the MP at Westminster for Shetland is none other than Alistair Carmichael(LIB/DEM and Secretary of State for Scotland)




Not heard that one before. Do you think it has legs, or is it just hot air?

[Moulin Yarns]

Not heard that one before. Do you think it has legs, or is it just hot air?

A bit more than hot air, but only taking baby steps

Some sources

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/uk-scotland-independence-shetland-idUKBREA3F0SH20140416


http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html


and the list of European separatist groups

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

[southfieldhibby]

A bit more than hot air, but only taking baby steps

Some sources

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/uk-scotland-independence-shetland-idUKBREA3F0SH20140416


http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shetland-orkney-and-the-outer-hebrides-demand-independence-referendums-of-their-own-if-scotland-votes-yes-9217514.html


and the list of European separatist groups

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

I've just returned from a massively enjoyable holiday round Scotland, including the outer hebrides.I absolutely loved it, North Uist in particular. And during my time I spoke to lots of folk about the referendum and I never heard one of them ask for indpendence from Scotland post-yes.If they had their way we'd be voting yes in September.

I stayed on one camp site and spoke at length with the owner/crofter who had become a prawn fisherman over the last ten years or so.He was telling me the exploration subs west of Barra are discovering huge fields not close to being reported yet.He's seen flares light up the ocean from his boat as they hit pockets of gas.

[snooky]

Interesting figures in the poll at the top of the thread.
They contradicts all other 'offishul' poll results.
Has our poll been tampered with?
Shame on you Hibsnet. :cool2: :wink:

[over the line]

Interesting figures in the poll at the top of the thread.
They contradicts all other 'offishul' poll results.
Has our poll been tampered with?
Shame on you Hibsnet. :cool2: :wink:

Don't tell me the Yes lot are cooking the books already!?!? :eek:

Although some of the claims, statistics and predictions being made are a bit far fetched, so no surprise really! ;)

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't tell me the Yes lot are cooking the books already!?!? :eek:

Although some of the claims, statistics and predictions being made are a bit far fetched, so no surprise really! ;)

right enough, Scotland's oil will be the thing to keep an Independent Scotland going, now that the latest huge oil field has been found that is another far fetched Yes claim to be proved right.

[over the line]

right enough, Scotland's oil will be the thing to keep an Independent Scotland going, now that the latest huge oil field has been found that is another far fetched Yes claim to be proved right.

Maybe? But it won't be much help to an I S if Shetland pull up the drawbridge.

I seem to remember being berated a couple of weeks ago for making a point that included Shetland doing exactly what they are proposing to do now (although to be fair I don't think it was by you, if I remember rightly?). Now admittedly I was only illustrating a theoretical point, rather than making a prediction. But my point was then, what it is now, where does it end? I have been consistent throughout with my posts on here (consistently wrong I hear you say;) ), I don't believe in more divisions and that is a big part of why I think No is the way.

Although with all this talk of further fragmentation of the UK, it might be a good time for me (in Ellesmere Port), to start my "Fill in the Mersey tunnels" campaign and keep the Scousers off the Wirral! ;):)

[southfieldhibby]

Maybe? But it won't be much help to an I S if Shetland pull up the drawbridge.

I seem to remember being berated a couple of weeks ago for making a point that included Shetland doing exactly what they are proposing to do now (although to be fair I don't think it was by you, if I remember rightly?). Now admittedly I was only illustrating a theoretical point, rather than making a prediction. But my point was then, what it is now, where does it end? I have been consistent throughout with my posts on here (consistently wrong I hear you say;) ), I don't believe in more divisions and that is a big part of why I think No is the way.

Although with all this talk of further fragmentation of the UK, it might be a good time for me (in Ellesmere Port), to start my "Fill in the Mersey tunnels" campaign and keep the Scousers off the Wirral! ;):)

all of these myths are easily debunked, shame the msm aren't prepared to share them...

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

Continental shelf: If Westminster retains control of Shetland, Orkney and Rockall, Scotland will have no oil resources.

If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won't be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).

However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.

The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.

Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited

Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.

Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too.

[Glory Lurker]

There's no evidence at all that Shetland wants to leave Scotland, so that really spoils the party.

[over the line]

all of these myths are easily debunked, shame the msm aren't prepared to share them...

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

Continental shelf: If Westminster retains control of Shetland, Orkney and Rockall, Scotland will have no oil resources.

If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won't be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).

However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.

The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.

Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited

Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.

Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too.

A lot of detail there, fair do's. This may all be the case, but as we all know too well, treaties, agreements and laws are open to interpretation, negotiation and just flat abuse by global powers. If sovereign countries can be invaded for obviously spurious reasons as they have been quite recently, then "negotiating" a bit of oil, sea or a few well placed islands is not beyond the realms of possibility is it? Just a thought.

Anyway, are there any treaties etc that you know of, that prohibit me from having the Mersey tunnels filled in? :D

[Moulin Yarns]

I wouldn't go through the Mersey Tunnel for toffee

[over the line]

I wouldn't go through the Mersey Tunnel for toffee

:D Very wise. Don't get the ferry for an Everton mint either! :)

Actually I've just thought, I will have to scuttle the ferries as well won't I ? ;)

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe? But it won't be much help to an I S if Shetland pull up the drawbridge.

I seem to remember being berated a couple of weeks ago for making a point that included Shetland doing exactly what they are proposing to do now (although to be fair I don't think it was by you, if I remember rightly?). Now admittedly I was only illustrating a theoretical point, rather than making a prediction. But my point was then, what it is now, where does it end? I have been consistent throughout with my posts on here (consistently wrong I hear you say;) ), I don't believe in more divisions and that is a big part of why I think No is the way.

Although with all this talk of further fragmentation of the UK, it might be a good time for me (in Ellesmere Port), to start my "Fill in the Mersey tunnels" campaign and keep the Scousers off the Wirral! ;):)


Ellesmere Port, the Grangemouth of the South. Not much point of Ellesmere Port after Independence

I prefer Port Sunlight myself. Lord Leverhume's successful social experiment, unlike Leverburgh

[Mibbes Aye]

You're not answering my question at all, you are avoiding it.

You are posting stats about how much inequality there is in the UK as an argument for independence.

The party that says we can have a fairer Scotland through independence, has used the powers it has to implement a policy for the last eight years that benefits the rich over the poor. In fact they claim credit for it, have made it their cornerstone.

How does that tackle inequality?

How does eight years of that tackle inequality?


I did answer your question, but to answer it more bluntly, it doesn't.

Thank you.

So we agree - the party that wants independence has spent the last eight years boasting about a policy that benefits the rich ahead of the poor.

[Mibbes Aye]

So we have agreement from HMRC to use their systems to gather tax post-independence? At no cost?


No idea, I have read nowhere that the tax system is going to be changed immediately after a Yes, only that it can be changed if we wish it to be.

Happy to be corrected though

This isn't a dig at you, but it's basic things like this that undermine the credibility of the Yes campaign.

How many nations provide the infrastructure to calculate and collect tax to a different country, free of charge?

It's shambolic that simple but critical things like this aren't clear. Back of a fag packet stuff.

It's like the drunken bigmouth guy in the pub, spouting his opinions but with nothing to back it up. Zero credibility.

[over the line]

There's no evidence at all that Shetland wants to leave Scotland, so that really spoils the party.

Have you seen Golden Fleece's post about six back from yours? Not necessarily evidence but certainly an indication. I didn't know anything about the story either. Whatever the real story/agenda behind it, its quite an interesting turn of events isn't it? The plot thickens! ;)

[sauzee_4]

This isn't a dig at you, but it's basic things like this that undermine the credibility of the Yes campaign.

How many nations provide the infrastructure to calculate and collect tax to a different country, free of charge?

It's shambolic that simple but critical things like this aren't clear. Back of a fag packet stuff.

It's like the drunken bigmouth guy in the pub, spouting his opinions but with nothing to back it up. Zero credibility.

Not really sure what you want to know though, Are you saying the UK will charge us for continuing to use their tax system? Is it not also "our" tax system? and if so, why should we be charged for continuing to use it?

[sauzee_4]

Thank you.

So we agree - the party that wants independence has spent the last eight years boasting about a policy that benefits the rich ahead of the poor.

You are talking about one policy here, out of hundreds.

Since I was fair enough to answer your question though why don't you answer mine, are the Tory's more likely to achieve a fairer society than the SNP?

[Mibbes Aye]

Not really sure what you want to know though, Are you saying the UK will charge us for continuing to use their tax system? Is it not also "our" tax system? and if so, why should we be charged for continuing to use it?

It's pretty straightforward. As I posted earlier, it appears it's costing NZ not far off a billion to rejig their tax system. I think they are of a similar population to Scotland. How much will it cost us?

I'll ask you again, how many nations let other countries use their tax infrastructure free of charge?

You talk about it being 'our' system but in the case of a Yes vote, we are opting out of being part of the UK. What claim do we have on HMRC staff, computers, stationery cupboards, going forward?

[Mibbes Aye]

You are talking about one policy here, out of hundreds.

Since I was fair enough to answer your question though why don't you answer mine, are the Tory's more likely to achieve a fairer society than the SNP?

It's a flagship policy. It's one they highlight.

The party that says we can be fairer by being independent, has made a totem out of giving the rich a better deal at the expense of the poor.

Fairer Scotland my erse.

In answer to your question, I don't think the Tories or the SNP are seriously bothered about a fairer society. Their policies don't reflect that.

[Glory Lurker]

Have you seen Golden Fleece's post about six back from yours? Not necessarily evidence but certainly an indication. I didn't know anything about the story either. Whatever the real story/agenda behind it, its quite an interesting turn of events isn't it? The plot thickens! ;)

Speak for yourself, chief - where did I say I don't know about the story? :greengrin I read GF's links, like I've read other articles on the topic since becoming interested in politics thirty years ago.

Given the location, it's entirely understandable that there has been a wish for more autonomy for some time. I agree with that. However, there is no evidence at all of a popular demand for independence for the islands. I can understand why the No campaign might want to pretend there is, which is sadly predictable. There's no logic to that, though - surely if independence/protectorate status is best for Shetland, they should be actively campaigning for that to happen now? They really do take folk for mugs.

[over the line]

Speak for yourself, chief - where did I say I don't know about the story? :greengrin I read GF's links, like I've read other articles on the topic since becoming interested in politics thirty years ago.

Given the location, it's entirely understandable that there has been a wish for more autonomy for some time. I agree with that. However, there is no evidence at all of a popular demand for independence for the islands. I can understand why the No campaign might want to pretend there is, which is sadly predictable. There's no logic to that, though - surely if independence/protectorate status is best for Shetland, they should be actively campaigning for that to happen now? They really do take folk for mugs.

Well now you've explained your point it makes more sense to me. I couldn't possibly know what you may or may not have already read could I now fella? ;) Your original post suggested you may not have seen the story that's all, so I was merely pointing it out. :)

That aside, whether the Shetland thing has genuine legs or not, it's a great piece of political manoeuvring isn't it?

[Glory Lurker]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4114639]Well now you've explained your point it makes more sense to me. I couldn't possibly know what you may or may not have already read could I now fella? ;) Your original post suggested you may not have seen the story that's all, so I was merely pointing it out. :)

That aside, whether the Shetland thing has genuine legs or not, it's a great piece of political manoeuvring isn't it?[/

i'm far too biased to agree with your biased opinion! :greengrin I don't see it as a good play because in my opinion it's flawed, transparent, and is just a re-hash of rubbish that was put about in 1979. It might have left a mark then, but it's a busted flush now.

[sauzee_4]

It's a flagship policy. It's one they highlight.

The party that says we can be fairer by being independent, has made a totem out of giving the rich a better deal at the expense of the poor.

Fairer Scotland my erse.

In answer to your question, I don't think the Tories or the SNP are seriously bothered about a fairer society. Their policies don't reflect that.

Haha well if I avoided your question I think you've just avoided mine. If you had to pick one, who are more likely to produce a fairer society? The Tories or the SNP?

And that's before we mention that Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the Scottish Socialist Party will also be on the menu

[over the line]

[QUOTE=E/Port_Hibee;4114639]Well now you've explained your point it makes more sense to me. I couldn't possibly know what you may or may not have already read could I now fella? ;) Your original post suggested you may not have seen the story that's all, so I was merely pointing it out. :)

That aside, whether the Shetland thing has genuine legs or not, it's a great piece of political manoeuvring isn't it?[/

i'm far too biased to agree with your biased opinion! :greengrin I don't see it as a good play because in my opinion it's flawed, transparent, and is just a re-hash of rubbish that was put about in 1979. It might have left a mark then, but it's a busted flush now.

So you're biased against bias, like it! I suppose like me you just won't tolerate intolerance and won't stand for laziness either? :D

[sauzee_4]

It's pretty straightforward. As I posted earlier, it appears it's costing NZ not far off a billion to rejig their tax system. I think they are of a similar population to Scotland. How much will it cost us?

I'll ask you again, how many nations let other countries use their tax infrastructure free of charge?

You talk about it being 'our' system but in the case of a Yes vote, we are opting out of being part of the UK. What claim do we have on HMRC staff, computers, stationery cupboards, going forward?

We get a population share of the chairs :D

Seriously though, do we not get a share of anything? It is what I imagine will happen.

If your £700 million New Zealand scenario was to be a requirement for iScotland (i find it unlikely) would that not simply be an addition to the £1.5bn set up costs, which are already offset anyway by not contributing to HS2 (£4.7bn) and a new Trident(£150bn)?

[Mibbes Aye]

We get a population share of the chairs :D

Seriously though, do we not get a share of anything? It is what I imagine will happen.

If your £700 million New Zealand scenario was to be a requirement for iScotland (i find it unlikely) would that not simply be an addition to the £1.5bn set up costs, which are already offset anyway by not contributing to HS2 (£4.7bn) and a new Trident(£150bn)?

Would it?

Where's the evidence for all this, where's the actual breakdown, the detail of what costs what and who is agreeing to pay for what? The SNP aren't providing it.




It is what I imagine will happen.

That's reassuring :rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

Haha well if I avoided your question I think you've just avoided mine. If you had to pick one, who are more likely to produce a fairer society? The Tories or the SNP?

And that's before we mention that Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and the Scottish Socialist Party will also be on the menu

This isn't about whether the Greens are more likely to tackle inequality than the SSP.

There's been a few posts about inequality in the UK and how an independent Scotland could be fairer.

Yet the party pushing for independence has made a showcase of a policy which increases inequality.

On that basis, why should anyone believe an independent Scotland would lead to a fairer society?

[Mibbes Aye]

If your £700 million New Zealand scenario was to be a requirement for iScotland (i find it unlikely)?

Why do you find it unlikely?

NZ are updating a single system, already in place.

Scotland would have to create an absolutely new one.

Why do you think NZ's approach would cost less?

[Bristolhibby]

There's no evidence at all that Shetland wants to leave Scotland, so that really spoils the party.

This.

J

[Bristolhibby]

It's pretty straightforward. As I posted earlier, it appears it's costing NZ not far off a billion to rejig their tax system. I think they are of a similar population to Scotland. How much will it cost us?

I'll ask you again, how many nations let other countries use their tax infrastructure free of charge?

You talk about it being 'our' system but in the case of a Yes vote, we are opting out of being part of the UK. What claim do we have on HMRC staff, computers, stationery cupboards, going forward?

A 10% claim, and what ever we trade off by taking our to portion of the debt.

J

[Bristolhibby]

This isn't about whether the Greens are more likely to tackle inequality than the SSP.

There's been a few posts about inequality in the UK and how an independent Scotland could be fairer.

Yet the party pushing for independence has made a showcase of a policy which increases inequality.

On that basis, why should anyone believe an independent Scotland would lead to a fairer society?

Because you can vote a fairer party in the day after Independence.

The SNP will fracture after a yes vote as their rason d'être would have disappeared.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

A 10% claim, and what ever we trade off by taking our to portion of the debt.

J


Because you can vote a fairer party in the day after Independence.

The SNP will fracture after a yes vote as their rason d'être would have disappeared.

J

And the proof?

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's........or mibbes.

Why should anyone risk their livelihood, or that of their children, on such an empty or vague bunch of promises?

[Bristolhibby]

And the proof?

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's........or mibbes.

Why should anyone risk their livelihood, or that of their children, on such an empty or vague bunch of promises?

My second point stands, that's fact. There will be a General Election, and the people of Scotland will vote representatives that will represent Scotland, for Scotland.

Not some bit player on the side. There will be an elected Second house, not the abomination to democracy that is the House of Lords. For me that's the real reason for voting yes.

And tomorrow you could get hit by a bus.

Equally our Lords and Masters on London could continue the UK on our current trajectory unabated.

I'd love to have it so good that it's not worth changing.

See I'm a glass half full, I say Scotland's taking the risk by not voting yes. As the current government and those before them have taken a great shat on the working man.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Because you can vote a fairer party in the day after Independence.

The SNP will fracture after a yes vote as their rason d'être would have disappeared.

J


And the proof?

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's........or mibbes.

Why should anyone risk their livelihood, or that of their children, on such an empty or vague bunch of promises?


My second point stands, that's fact. There will be a General Election, and the people of Scotland will vote representatives that will represent Scotland, for Scotland.

Not some bit player on the side. There will be an elected Second house, not the abomination to democracy that is the House of Lords. For me that's the real reason for voting yes.

And tomorrow you could get hit by a bus.

Equally our Lords and Masters on London could continue the UK on our current trajectory unabated.

I'd love to have it so good that it's not worth changing.

See I'm a glass half full, I say Scotland's taking the risk by not voting yes. As the current government and those before them have taken a great shat on the working man.

J

So, when all your talking is put to one side.

Give us something evidence-based?

It's only fair to ask for that, isn't it?

[over the line]

My second point stands, that's fact. There will be a General Election, and the people of Scotland will vote representatives that will represent Scotland, for Scotland.

Not some bit player on the side. There will be an elected Second house, not the abomination to democracy that is the House of Lords. For me that's the real reason for voting yes.

And tomorrow you could get hit by a bus.

Equally our Lords and Masters on London could continue the UK on our current trajectory unabated.

I'd love to have it so good that it's not worth changing.

See I'm a glass half full, I say Scotland's taking the risk by not voting yes. As the current government and those before them have taken a great shat on the working man.

J

I'm not sure if you are a glass half full person, but after reading some of your posts, I'm pretty sure you have emptied quite a few glasses of something fairly potent!?!?! ;););):):D

Sorry but you lined it up perfectly! :)

[Bristolhibby]

So, when all your talking is put to one side.

Give us something evidence-based?

It's only fair to ask for that, isn't it?

I don't get the question mate?

Do you want me to 100% predict the future?

J

[ronaldo7]

And the proof?

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's........or mibbes.

Why should anyone risk their livelihood, or that of their children, on such an empty or vague bunch of promises?

Maybe it's because we currently know what we get, and think we can do better.

Maybe we want to remove WMD from Scotland.
Maybe we want to improve the lot of our disabled by not allowing the bedroom tax to be foisted on them.
Maybe we want to have a seat at the top table in Europe without having to have some Tory toff forget to mention Scotland when they have the chance.
Maybe we want to put our money where we want to put it without having to furnish London with cash for HS2.
Maybe we want to have a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation that doesn't align itself with the CBI.
Maybe we want to have a mail service that's for the people and not for the profit of the Chancellors pals.
Maybe we want to have our Fishermen and Farmers get deals that they should be getting.
Maybe we want to build ships that are useful to our nation and not ones that will be mothballed when completed, or don't even have planes to fly from them.
Maybe we want the chance to have the government we actually voted for.
Maybe we want the chance to end the need for food banks in our country.
Maybe we don't want to be dragged into illegal wars.


Maybe we have a vision for a better future, instead of the austerity of WM elitism, and with Independence we will be able to give it a go.

[Moulin Yarns]

To anybody that wants some entertaining debate over the next month, a series of lunchtime events are happening in St Andrew's Square.

It is called "All Back To Bowie's" after David Bowie invited Scotland to "stay with us".

http://edinburghfestival.list.co.uk/article/62881-all-back-to-bowies-set-to-tackle-scottish-referendum-debate-at-2014-edinburgh-festival-fringe/

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe it's because we currently know what we get, and think we can do better.

Maybe we want to remove WMD from Scotland.
Maybe we want to improve the lot of our disabled by not allowing the bedroom tax to be foisted on them.
Maybe we want to have a seat at the top table in Europe without having to have some Tory toff forget to mention Scotland when they have the chance.
Maybe we want to put our money where we want to put it without having to furnish London with cash for HS2.
Maybe we want to have a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation that doesn't align itself with the CBI.
Maybe we want to have a mail service that's for the people and not for the profit of the Chancellors pals.
Maybe we want to have our Fishermen and Farmers get deals that they should be getting.
Maybe we want to build ships that are useful to our nation and not ones that will be mothballed when completed, or don't even have planes to fly from them.
Maybe we want the chance to have the government we actually voted for.
Maybe we want the chance to end the need for food banks in our country.
Maybe we don't want to be dragged into illegal wars.


Maybe we have a vision for a better future, instead of the austerity of WM elitism, and with Independence we will be able to give it a go.

You could also add

If we vote no it is very likely we will have even less say in Europe
If we vote no we are guaranteed more spending cuts
If we vote no trade with our biggest market will become more difficult
If we vote no there is no guarantee of further powers for Scotland (Remember, it was David Cameron that didn't want a 3rd question on the ballot paper, but suddenly when it is looking to be close 'Devo Max' is back on the table, but with no chance to vote for it, other than voting no with your fingers crossed that whichever government is in Westminster in 2015 makes good on its promise)

[BroxburnHibee]

You could also add

If we vote no it is very likely we will have even less say in Europe
If we vote no we are guaranteed more spending cuts
If we vote no trade with our biggest market will become more difficult
If we vote no there is no guarantee of further powers for Scotland (Remember, it was David Cameron that didn't want a 3rd question on the ballot paper, but suddenly when it is looking to be close 'Devo Max' is back on the table, but with no chance to vote for it, other than voting no with your fingers crossed that whichever government is in Westminster in 2015 makes good on its promise)

That last point you make is a good one. I remember John Major coming up with some pish about 'taking stock' of the Scottish situation just before the 92 election. He won and of course it was quickly forgotten about.

All this talk of devo max is the exact same tactic. I'm not falling for it.

[Moulin Yarns]

Closer, and closer.

http://yesscotland.net/news/three-percent-will-put-yes-ahead-polls-show-gap-continues-close

Excluding don’t knows it’s YES 47%, NO 53%, the same as Survation’s last poll.

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe it's because we currently know what we get, and think we can do better.

Maybe we want to remove WMD from Scotland.
Maybe we want to improve the lot of our disabled by not allowing the bedroom tax to be foisted on them.
Maybe we want to have a seat at the top table in Europe without having to have some Tory toff forget to mention Scotland when they have the chance.
Maybe we want to put our money where we want to put it without having to furnish London with cash for HS2.
Maybe we want to have a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation that doesn't align itself with the CBI.
Maybe we want to have a mail service that's for the people and not for the profit of the Chancellors pals.
Maybe we want to have our Fishermen and Farmers get deals that they should be getting.
Maybe we want to build ships that are useful to our nation and not ones that will be mothballed when completed, or don't even have planes to fly from them.
Maybe we want the chance to have the government we actually voted for.
Maybe we want the chance to end the need for food banks in our country.
Maybe we don't want to be dragged into illegal wars.


Maybe we have a vision for a better future, instead of the austerity of WM elitism, and with Independence we will be able to give it a go.

Excellent post!!!

May I borrow this please?

[Hibrandenburg]

You could also add

If we vote no it is very likely we will have even less say in Europe
If we vote no we are guaranteed more spending cuts
If we vote no trade with our biggest market will become more difficult
If we vote no there is no guarantee of further powers for Scotland (Remember, it was David Cameron that didn't want a 3rd question on the ballot paper, but suddenly when it is looking to be close 'Devo Max' is back on the table, but with no chance to vote for it, other than voting no with your fingers crossed that whichever government is in Westminster in 2015 makes good on its promise)


This too!!!

[ronaldo7]

Excellent post!!!

May I borrow this please?

:aok:

[Hibrandenburg]

You could also add

If we vote no it is very likely we will have even less say in Europe
If we vote no we are guaranteed more spending cuts
If we vote no trade with our biggest market will become more difficult
If we vote no there is no guarantee of further powers for Scotland (Remember, it was David Cameron that didn't want a 3rd question on the ballot paper, but suddenly when it is looking to be close 'Devo Max' is back on the table, but with no chance to vote for it, other than voting no with your fingers crossed that whichever government is in Westminster in 2015 makes good on its promise)


This too!!!

[GlesgaeHibby]

Interesting reports coming out of Shetland at the minute on a newly discovered oil field, that is a lot bigger than expected. Important enough for Mr Cameron to sneak up and meet oil executives...

http://yes2014.net/2014/08/01/oil-around-shetland-could-be-more-than-it-appears/

[snooky]

Interesting figures in the poll at the top of the thread.
They contradicts all other 'offishul' poll results.
Has our poll been tampered with?
Shame on you Hibsnet. :cool2: :wink:

In the absence of a sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek smiley some may have taken my post literally.
My apologies. :cool2:

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybe it's because we currently know what we get, and think we can do better.

Maybe we want to remove WMD from Scotland.
Maybe we want to improve the lot of our disabled by not allowing the bedroom tax to be foisted on them.
Maybe we want to have a seat at the top table in Europe without having to have some Tory toff forget to mention Scotland when they have the chance.
Maybe we want to put our money where we want to put it without having to furnish London with cash for HS2.
Maybe we want to have a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation that doesn't align itself with the CBI.
Maybe we want to have a mail service that's for the people and not for the profit of the Chancellors pals.
Maybe we want to have our Fishermen and Farmers get deals that they should be getting.
Maybe we want to build ships that are useful to our nation and not ones that will be mothballed when completed, or don't even have planes to fly from them.
Maybe we want the chance to have the government we actually voted for.
Maybe we want the chance to end the need for food banks in our country.
Maybe we don't want to be dragged into illegal wars.


Maybe we have a vision for a better future, instead of the austerity of WM elitism, and with Independence we will be able to give it a go.


You could also add

If we vote no it is very likely we will have even less say in Europe
If we vote no we are guaranteed more spending cuts
If we vote no trade with our biggest market will become more difficult
If we vote no there is no guarantee of further powers for Scotland (Remember, it was David Cameron that didn't want a 3rd question on the ballot paper, but suddenly when it is looking to be close 'Devo Max' is back on the table, but with no chance to vote for it, other than voting no with your fingers crossed that whichever government is in Westminster in 2015 makes good on its promise)

As per previous, why does the party that says we could be fairer if we were independent, use its powers to give the rich a better deal at the expense of the poor? Is that 'a vision for a better future'?

What deals will we get for our fishermen and farmers that's better than we can secure as part of the UK?

Why wouldn't we have food banks? We already control most of the social policy levers and yet we still have deprivation. How does being independent change the life expectancy of a man in Shettleston?

As for spending cuts, please......public finances are under pressure whatever flag is fluttering at Holyrood.

All of the points above don't really stand up to scrutiny but the best is the one about getting the government we want.

In five Westminster elections I've got the government I wanted three times.

In four Holyrood elections I've never got the government I wanted.

Tell me which one delivers for me?

[Mibbes Aye]

A 10% claim, and what ever we trade off by taking our to portion of the debt.

J

And how does that work in practice?

How do you get 10% of the staff - how do you get 10% of the head of HR, 10% of the cleaners? What if they don't want to leave HMRC? What if they don't want to work in Scotland?

How do you get 10% of an IT system - surely it's either the whole thing or nothing?

These things simply don't make sense, there's no explanation, just spurious claims about how we will take "10%" as if that's all sensible and reasonable.

Where's the agreement for all this as well?

[Mibbes Aye]

Because you can vote a fairer party in the day after Independence.

The SNP will fracture after a yes vote as their rason d'être would have disappeared.

J

I don't believe you.

The party that professes to want a better Scotland is happy to put policies in place that seem essentially to be about winning votes, not making this place fairer.

Why would you exect that to change post-Yes?

And post-Yes, it's not just my vote that counts.

How can you guarantee I can ensure a 'fairer party' is voted in?

[PeeJay]

Not some bit player on the side. There will be an elected Second house, not the abomination to democracy that is the House of Lords.

J

No - you're wrong there : there will not be an elected second chamber or indeed any second chamber at all ... if having an elected second chamber is the real reason for you voting yes: you may want to change your mind :greengrin

622. Will the Scottish Parliament have a second chamber?
No. The current Scottish Government proposes that, from the date of independence, the Scottish Parliament will keep its current single chamber structure.

[marinello59]

Interesting reports coming out of Shetland at the minute on a newly discovered oil field, that is a lot bigger than expected. Important enough for Mr Cameron to sneak up and meet oil executives...

http://yes2014.net/2014/08/01/oil-around-shetland-could-be-more-than-it-appears/

I posted this on another thread.
There's nowt in this which has not already been reported in the MSM. Trevor Garlick of BP gave an interview about the Clair Field prospects in June. As for the 'mystery' surrounding Cameron's visit to Shetland there is none. Given that BP's HQ is in Aberdeen travelling to Shetland to 'secretly' meet BP executives looks like a sure fire way of bringing attention to himself. As for the secret de-manning of a rig, ever met any riggers? The 'secret' would be out before the 9:52 train from Aberdeen to London had reached Stonehaven.
If BP are holding back on anything it would be in the hope of a more favourable tax situation being announced by Westminster to offset the high production costs incurred in the very deep waters up there.

[Bristolhibby]

And how does that work in practice?

How do you get 10% of the staff - how do you get 10% of the head of HR, 10% of the cleaners? What if they don't want to leave HMRC? What if they don't want to work in Scotland?

How do you get 10% of an IT system - surely it's either the whole thing or nothing?

These things simply don't make sense, there's no explanation, just spurious claims about how we will take "10%" as if that's all sensible and reasonable.

Where's the agreement for all this as well?

It's called negotiating, Scotland may allow Trident in Faslane in exchange for a currency union.

We may give up our 10% of Scottish taxpayers funded portion of the DVLA in return for an extra 2 fast patrol boats.

IT could be free user rights to certain IT systems in exchange for having no claim on the Intellectual Property Rights.

You catch my drift?

J

[Bristolhibby]

No - you're wrong there : there will not be an elected second chamber or indeed any second chamber at all ... if having an elected second chamber is the real reason for you voting yes: you may want to change your mind :greengrin

622. Will the Scottish Parliament have a second chamber?
No. The current Scottish Government proposes that, from the date of independence, the Scottish Parliament will keep its current single chamber structure.

Even better, no House of Lords completely.

Thanks for that.

#streamlinedgovernment

J

[Bristolhibby]

I don't believe you.

The party that professes to want a better Scotland is happy to put policies in place that seem essentially to be about winning votes, not making this place fairer.

Why would you exect that to change post-Yes?

And post-Yes, it's not just my vote that counts.

How can you guarantee I can ensure a 'fairer party' is voted in?

You can't, it's called democracy. You can read the manifestos of the Parties and choose what one represents you.

You can bet that the Scottish parties will have a better accountability to the Scottish electorate for implementing policies that the majority of the people want.

As opposed to seeing what flys with the rest of the UK.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

It's called negotiating, Scotland may allow Trident in Faslane in exchange for a currency union.

We may give up our 10% of Scottish taxpayers funded portion of the DVLA in return for an extra 2 fast patrol boats.

IT could be free user rights to certain IT systems in exchange for having no claim on the Intellectual Property Rights.

You catch my drift?

J

You're making things up :greengrin

Have any of these things been agreed?

Do you even know who has the intellectual property rights for HMRC's IT system?

Why not be honest and say that the people wanting to take us out of the UK can't give us even some of the most basic answers about how it might actually work?

[Mibbes Aye]

You can't, it's called democracy. You can read the manifestos of the Parties and choose what one represents you.

You can bet that the Scottish parties will have a better accountability to the Scottish electorate for implementing policies that the majority of the people want.

As opposed to seeing what flys with the rest of the UK.

J

How's that?

The majority of Scots consistently say they don't want independence but we have a Scottish government hellbent on pushing it through.

[PeeJay]

Even better, no House of Lords completely.

Thanks for that.

#streamlinedgovernment

J

I know there are arguments for and against, but I'm not convinced myself that it's a good thing, if Scotland does make the move for independence I think those in power should be kept under close scrutiny and a second chamber would be an immediate means of doing just that - elections every 5 years are not enough IMO.

[DaveF]

How's that?

The majority of Scots consistently say they don't want independence but we have a Scottish government hellbent on pushing it through.

Well, yes, only because the Scottish electorate voted in a government which has Independence on it's agenda :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

Well, yes, only because the Scottish electorate voted in a government which has Independence on it's agenda :confused:

But the majority don't want their main policy, which was the point of the reply.

[DaveF]

But the majority don't want their main policy, which was the point of the reply.

Sorry, I was only dipping in and not really paying much attention to what's gone before.

Mind you, says something about the Scottish electorate if they vote in a pro-Independence party and then refuse the main goal of that party.

I voted SNP for the chance to vote for Independence. My vote is up for grabs once that has been achieved (and it will be, whether now or the next time)

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry, I was only dipping in and not really paying much attention to what's gone before.

Mind you, says something about the Scottish electorate if they vote in a pro-Independence party and then refuse the main goal of that party.

I voted SNP for the chance to vote for Independence. My vote is up for grabs once that has been achieved (and it will be, whether now or the next time)

No worries :greengrin

I think that the numbers who poll 'yes' pretty much match the SNP vote in 2011, round about the low to mid-forties. I wonder whether it's an exact crossover though - I bet there are some Labour voters who will be 'Yes' camp and I bet there would be some 'No's who voted SNP in 2011 because they gave the impression of managerial competence.

I'm definitely a 'No' voter but it doesn't stop me being curious about what the landscape will look like should there be a 'Yes' vote in September.

[ronaldo7]

As per previous, why does the party that says we could be fairer if we were independent, use its powers to give the rich a better deal at the expense of the poor? Is that 'a vision for a better future'?
We can measure fairness in many ways. You are continually trying to make hay on one subject, I prefer to take the collective of policies which would make up a more fair and equal society.

What deals will we get for our fishermen and farmers that's better than we can secure as part of the UK?

Take a read of this. Although Ireland has a slightly lower agricultural area than Scotland, its average per hectare Pillar 2 payment rate is almost 6 times that of Scotland (€69 per hectare in Ireland and €12 per hectare in Scotland).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/CAP/CAPEurope10112012/budget-facts31102012

I could do the same for the Fishing industry but we will be lucky to have any boats left as the decimation of the Industry since the 70's has been drastic.

I won't go into the subject of Uk Government ministers "forgetting" what he had agreed with the Scots and Welsh prior to discussions in Europe.

Why wouldn't we have food banks? We already control most of the social policy levers and yet we still have deprivation. How does being independent change the life expectancy of a man in Shettleston?

I ask, why should we have food banks? Give us ALL the levers, not only a few.

As for spending cuts, please......public finances are under pressure whatever flag is fluttering at Holyrood.

Please what? The condems have decided to make the people pay for their inadequacies through the cuts to welfare. I prefer to look after our people rather than have them starving themselves and stealing food to try and live. Too many links to mention.

All of the points above don't really stand up to scrutiny but the best is the one about getting the government we want.
:wink:
In five Westminster elections I've got the government I wanted three times.

In four Holyrood elections I've never got the government I wanted.

Tell me which one delivers for me?

The Greens:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

As per previous, why does the party that says we could be fairer if we were independent, use its powers to give the rich a better deal at the expense of the poor? Is that 'a vision for a better future'?
We can measure fairness in many ways. You are continually trying to make hay on one subject, I prefer to take the collective of policies which would make up a more fair and equal society.

What deals will we get for our fishermen and farmers that's better than we can secure as part of the UK?

Take a read of this. Although Ireland has a slightly lower agricultural area than Scotland, its average per hectare Pillar 2 payment rate is almost 6 times that of Scotland (€69 per hectare in Ireland and €12 per hectare in Scotland).
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/fa...-facts31102012 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/CAP/CAPEurope10112012/budget-facts31102012)

I could do the same for the Fishing industry but we will be lucky to have any boats left as the decimation of the Industry since the 70's has been drastic.

I won't go into the subject of Uk Government ministers "forgetting" what he had agreed with the Scots and Welsh prior to discussions in Europe.

Why wouldn't we have food banks? We already control most of the social policy levers and yet we still have deprivation. How does being independent change the life expectancy of a man in Shettleston?

I ask, why should we have food banks? Give us ALL the levers, not only a few.

As for spending cuts, please......public finances are under pressure whatever flag is fluttering at Holyrood.

Please what? The condems have decided to make the people pay for their inadequacies through the cuts to welfare. I prefer to look after our people rather than have them starving themselves and stealing food to try and live. Too many links to mention.

All of the points above don't really stand up to scrutiny but the best is the one about getting the government we want.
:wink:
In five Westminster elections I've got the government I wanted three times.

In four Holyrood elections I've never got the government I wanted.

Tell me which one delivers for me?

The Greens:greengrin

1. You say I'm making hay on one subject. Why's that, do you think? It's the SNP's flagship fiscal policy and it promotes inequality. Where's the fairness there?

2. You've said that Ireland get a better deal for their farmers but you haven't answered my question. How exactly would an independent Scotland get a better deal than the UK would?

3. The Scottish Government hasn't managed to fix the endemic deprivation that blights certain parts of of our society - what levers are they missing? And if they are missing, why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it?

4. Spending cuts - you do get that whatever party had formed the government in 2010 we would still have to deal with a massive gap between demand and available resource? I've no time for the Coalition either but it is nonsense to pretend that there isn't huge pressure on the NHS and local authorities from the demographic situation. We simply can't keep doing what we currently do. Are you seriously suggesting it's because the Tories are in government that the over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years?

5. Simple question. 'Yes' campaigners keep saying we can get the government we want. I've been able to vote in the last five Westminster elections and got my choice three times. I've been able to vote in the four Holyrood elections and never got the government I want. Am I not better off with Westminster?

[snooky]

1. You say I'm making hay on one subject. Why's that, do you think? It's the SNP's flagship fiscal policy and it promotes inequality. Where's the fairness there?

2. You've said that Ireland get a better deal for their farmers but you haven't answered my question. How exactly would an independent Scotland get a better deal than the UK would?

3. The Scottish Government hasn't managed to fix the endemic deprivation that blights certain parts of of our society - what levers are they missing? And if they are missing, why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it?

4. Spending cuts - you do get that whatever party had formed the government in 2010 we would still have to deal with a massive gap between demand and available resource? I've no time for the Coalition either but it is nonsense to pretend that there isn't huge pressure on the NHS and local authorities from the demographic situation. We simply can't keep doing what we currently do. Are you seriously suggesting it's because the Tories are in government that the over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years?

5. Simple question. 'Yes' campaigners keep saying we can get the government we want. I've been able to vote in the last five Westminster elections and got my choice three times. I've been able to vote in the four Holyrood elections and never got the government I want. Am I not better off with Westminster?

I would vote 'No' too if that were the case for me - but it's not. :cb

[Mibbes Aye]

I would vote 'No' too if that were the case for me - but it's not. :cb

Cheers :aok:

And yes, I guess it comes down to our individual preferences.

I'm curious as to why the 'Yes' campaigners/voters don't seem to address why a majority is consistently against leaving the UK.

There's enough who post on here :greengrin

Why are the majority not agreeing with you?

[ronaldo7]

1. You say I'm making hay on one subject. Why's that, do you think? It's the SNP's flagship fiscal policy and it promotes inequality. Where's the fairness there?

2. You've said that Ireland get a better deal for their farmers but you haven't answered my question. How exactly would an independent Scotland get a better deal than the UK would?

Did you read the link? If you have, can you point out where Scotland has benefited by the deal. Even Croatia a new member state has negotiated a better deal than we're getting, Over 20 time more than us. The Uk GOV must think we're zipped up the back. Move over and let us negotiate the deals.

Pillar 1 – what the deal means for Scotland

Overall Scottish Ceiling will initially fall from €596.6 million in 2013 to €580.0 million in 2014 before rising slightly to €587.1 million in 2019
Scotland’s ceiling for 2014-2019 = €3,499 million
This is an overall fall of 1.6% in cash terms (or 12.6% in real terms) over the period.
By comparison, with the full external convergence uplift Scotland’s direct payment ceiling would have gone up 7.3%.
By 2019 Scotland’s average per hectare rate will drop to around €128 per hectare - the lowest in the EU
That is because countries like Estonia and Latvia (who will get €196/ha by 2019) overtake us.
Even new Member State, Croatia, will overtake Scotland by 2017 when its average per hectare rate reaches €141.7 per hectare and continues to rise.


Pillar 2 – what the deal means for Scotland

Scotland will get €477.8m in cash terms for 2014-2020, compared with €443.1m for 2007-13.
This is a 7.8% increase in cash terms but a 5.5% decrease in real terms.
UK Government has decided to allocate according to each administration’s share of the 2007 – 2013 Pillar 2 budget. This means:
a) England’s share = 58.9%

b) Scotland’s share = 18.5%

c) Wales’ share = 13.8%

d) Northern Ireland’s share = 8.8%

The deal means Scotland’s Pillar 2 per hectare rate will remain the lowest in the EU at around €12 per hectare.
By comparison new Member State Croatia’s Pillar 2 budget for 2014 – 2020 amounts to €2.325 billion which works out at an average of €250 per hectare per year – over 20 times that of Scotland.


How does Scotland compare to other countries?

Pillar 1 (in 2014)

Czech Republic has a smaller P1 eligible area than Scotland (3.5m hectares compared with Scotland's 4.6m hectares) and yet the Czech Republic gets 50 per cent more Pillar 1 funding than Scotland (€875m compared with Scotland's €580m) which means the average Pillar 1 rate per hectare in Czech Republic is almost twice that in Scotland.

Denmark has an even smaller area which is less than two thirds of Scotland's eligible area (2.7m hectares compared with Scotland's 4.6m) and yet Denmark gets more than 50 per cent more Pillar 1 funding than Scotland (€926m compared with Scotland's €580m) which means that the average per hectare Pillar 1 rate in Denmark is almost three times the Scottish average Pillar 1 rate.

Although Ireland has only slightly more eligible land under Pillar 1 than Scotland (4.64m hectares compared with Scotland's 4.60m) Ireland gets more than twice as much as Scotland to fund Pillar 1 (€1216.5m compared with Scotland's €580m) which means the Irish average per hectare Pillar 1 rate is just over double the Scottish average.

Pillar 2 (2014 – 2020)

Although the area of agricultural land is smaller in Czech Republic than the area in Scotland, the Czech Republic is able to pay Pillar 2 average per hectare rates which are more than 7 times those in Scotland (€88 per hectare in Czech Republic compared with €12 per hectare in Scotland).

Denmark with less than two thirds of the agricultural area of Scotland, has average per hectare Pillar 2 rates which are more than two and a half times as high as Scottish Pillar 2 rates (€34 per hectare in Denmark compared with €12 per hectare in Scotland).

Although Ireland has a slightly lower agricultural area than Scotland, its average per hectare Pillar 2 payment rate is almost 6 times that of Scotland (€69 per hectare in Ireland and €12 per hectare in Scotland).

The total allocation to Scotland under the Rural Development Regulation 2014 - 2020 amounts to €477.8 million. This compares to some €2.4 billion allocated to Finland – a country of similar size to Scotland in population terms (5.2 million people) or €2.2 billion allocated to Ireland – a country smaller than Scotland in terms of utilised agriculture area.

3. The Scottish Government hasn't managed to fix the endemic deprivation that blights certain parts of of our society - what levers are they missing? And if they are missing, why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it?

I've already answered you. All financial levers which would come under Independence. The continental shelf funds would do for starters though:greengrin
How long have the Scottish Government been sitting in Holyrood? Compare that to WM and you expect them to have dealt with poverty and depravation which has been foisted on the Scottish people for Centuries.

4. Spending cuts - you do get that whatever party had formed the government in 2010 we would still have to deal with a massive gap between demand and available resource? I've no time for the Coalition either but it is nonsense to pretend that there isn't huge pressure on the NHS and local authorities from the demographic situation. We simply can't keep doing what we currently do. Are you seriously suggesting it's because the Tories are in government that the over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years?

I do realise how we got into the crap, and you want me to stay with them. Who is this WE you keep talking about? Tory/Labour/Lib Dem? They've all proven themselves to be inadequate and we need change. Who's next Ukip?

5. Simple question. 'Yes' campaigners keep saying we can get the government we want. I've been able to vote in the last five Westminster elections and got my choice three times. I've been able to vote in the four Holyrood elections and never got the government I want. Am I not better off with Westminster?

I've got to work within the system, so should you, I prefer working with the ballot box, rather than the gun. The outcome from the last Scottish Parly elections was a majority of SNP Msp's were returned with Independence in their manifesto. Do you think we shouldn't be having the ref?

[Mibbes Aye]

I've got to work within the system, so should you, I prefer working with the ballot box, rather than the gun. The outcome from the last Scottish Parly elections was a majority of SNP Msp's were returned with Independence in their manifesto. Do you think we shouldn't be having the ref?

Happy to have a referendum :greengrin

You still haven't answered any of my questions though. You've posted a lot but there's no actual answers to the specific points I made!!

Just to jog your memory :greengrin

1. You say I'm making hay on one subject. Why's that, do you think? It's the SNP's flagship fiscal policy and it promotes inequality. Where's the fairness there?

2. You've said that Ireland get a better deal for their farmers but you haven't answered my question. How exactly would an independent Scotland get a better deal than the UK would?

3. The Scottish Government hasn't managed to fix the endemic deprivation that blights certain parts of of our society - what levers are they missing? And if they are missing, why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it?

4. Spending cuts - you do get that whatever party had formed the government in 2010 we would still have to deal with a massive gap between demand and available resource? I've no time for the Coalition either but it is nonsense to pretend that there isn't huge pressure on the NHS and local authorities from the demographic situation. We simply can't keep doing what we currently do. Are you seriously suggesting it's because the Tories are in government that the over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years?

5. Simple question. 'Yes' campaigners keep saying we can get the government we want. I've been able to vote in the last five Westminster elections and got my choice three times. I've been able to vote in the four Holyrood elections and never got the government I want. Am I not better off with Westminster?

[southfieldhibby]

Cheers :aok:

And yes, I guess it comes down to our individual preferences.

I'm curious as to why the 'Yes' campaigners/voters don't seem to address why a majority is consistently against leaving the UK.

There's enough who post on here :greengrin

Why are the majority not agreeing with you?

It depends how much validity you put into polling, I guess.Using the last Scottish holyrood election as the nearest and best comparison, they're not very good.


And I don't care about tory governments or any of the other bollcks being used by either side in the last year or so, I just want to live in a country that takes responsibility for itself, full responsibility and accountability at home and abroad.Within the current set up, that's not possible.

[sauzee_4]

I don't believe you.

The party that professes to want a better Scotland is happy to put policies in place that seem essentially to be about winning votes, not making this place fairer.

Why would you exect that to change post-Yes?

And post-Yes, it's not just my vote that counts.

How can you guarantee I can ensure a 'fairer party' is voted in?

You are asking for something evidence-based, perfectly reasonable. I am going to try and give you some evidence.

Look at the make up of the Scottish Parliament. The Greens, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and SSP.

Now look at the Westminster parliament. UKIP, Tories, Labour (effectively Tories) and Lib Dems.

Which of those two 'political menus' is more likely to deliver a fairer society?

[sauzee_4]

You are asking for something evidence-based, perfectly reasonable. I am going to try and give you some evidence.

Look at the make up of the Scottish Parliament. The Greens, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and SSP.

Now look at the Westminster parliament. UKIP, Tories, Labour (effectively Tories) and Lib Dems.

Which of those two 'political menus' is more likely to deliver a fairer society?

And by a 'fairer society' a nation which does not sell weaponry to Israel so innocent Palestinians can be killed is by de-facto fairer than one which does no?

And one which has a proportional representation system in parliament vs one which does not is also de-facto fairer.

[Mibbes Aye]

You are asking for something evidence-based, perfectly reasonable. I am going to try and give you some evidence.

Look at the make up of the Scottish Parliament. The Greens, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and SSP.

Now look at the Westminster parliament. UKIP, Tories, Labour (effectively Tories) and Lib Dems.

Which of those two 'political menus' is more likely to deliver a fairer society?

That doesn't really work.

Your Scottish parliament has delivered a council tax freeze for the last eight years.

Can anyone defend that as contributing to a fairer society?

[ronaldo7]

Happy to have a referendum :greengrin

You still haven't answered any of my questions though. You've posted a lot but there's no actual answers to the specific points I made!!

Just to jog your memory :greengrin

1. You say I'm making hay on one subject. Why's that, do you think? It's the SNP's flagship fiscal policy and it promotes inequality. Where's the fairness there?

2. You've said that Ireland get a better deal for their farmers but you haven't answered my question. How exactly would an independent Scotland get a better deal than the UK would?

3. The Scottish Government hasn't managed to fix the endemic deprivation that blights certain parts of of our society - what levers are they missing? And if they are missing, why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it?

4. Spending cuts - you do get that whatever party had formed the government in 2010 we would still have to deal with a massive gap between demand and available resource? I've no time for the Coalition either but it is nonsense to pretend that there isn't huge pressure on the NHS and local authorities from the demographic situation. We simply can't keep doing what we currently do. Are you seriously suggesting it's because the Tories are in government that the over-75 population doubles over the next twenty years?

5. Simple question. 'Yes' campaigners keep saying we can get the government we want. I've been able to vote in the last five Westminster elections and got my choice three times. I've been able to vote in the four Holyrood elections and never got the government I want. Am I not better off with Westminster?

See posts 2718 and 2722:greengrin

We're not going to see eye to eye on this mate. I think the Uk Gov have been given enough time to get things sorted for us however they just don't care enough.

If a wee country like Croatia can waltz into the EU and gain a better deal in one area for their people, 20 times more than the Scots get in aid. SEE POST 2722 then I don't see how we can't do it.

YES WE CAN.

[Mibbes Aye]

And by a 'fairer society' a nation which does not sell weaponry to Israel so innocent Palestinians can be killed is by de-facto fairer than one which does no?

And one which has a proportional representation system in parliament vs one which does not is also de-facto fairer.

I'm curious - is this a UK company selling arms to Israel? If that's wrong then we are complicit because we are part of the UK. Time to take responsibility.

If we become independent do we lose the capacity to sell arms (or do we keep 10% :greengrin)?

I think there's an interesting point around strategy - the US will almost certainly want to keep access to Machrahanish and Edzell and the likes. Will an independent Scotland reject that? I think not.

[Mibbes Aye]

See posts 2718 and 2722:greengrin

We're not going to see eye to eye on this mate. I think the Uk Gov have been given enough time to get things sorted for us however they just don't care enough.

If a wee country like Croatia can waltz into the EU and gain a better deal in one area for their people, 20 times more than the Scots get in aid. SEE POST 2722 then I don't see how we can't do it.

YES WE CAN.

Okay. And you're right, we won't agree but I genuinely respect your views :agree:

Just give me some real proof though :rolleyes: :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Okay. And you're right, we won't agree but I genuinely respect your views :agree:

Just give me some real proof though :rolleyes: :greengrin

:agree: And I you. Still not read the link though:rolleyes::greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree: And I you. Still not read the link though:rolleyes::greengrin

I read the link :greengrin

It's hardly objective but regardless of that, how do we know what deal we will negotiate? The truth is that as part of the UK we have negotiated deals, we know what they are, we know they gave us certain benefits.

What guarantee do we have of deals as an independent Scotland? Just list them for me, please?

[Bristolhibby]

I read the link :greengrin

It's hardly objective but regardless of that, how do we know what deal we will negotiate? The truth is that as part of the UK we have negotiated deals, we know what they are, we know they gave us certain benefits.

What guarantee do we have of deals as an independent Scotland? Just list them for me, please?

You are doing that "asking somone to predict the future" thing again.

I'm glad you are content with your lot and have infinite access to all the future decisions that the UK government will make on Scotland's behalf.

:-)

J

[over the line]

Cheers :aok:

And yes, I guess it comes down to our individual preferences.

I'm curious as to why the 'Yes' campaigners/voters don't seem to address why a majority is consistently against leaving the UK.

There's enough who post on here :greengrin

Why are the majority not agreeing with you?

For me I think there are a couple of things that help to explain your point/question:

Firstly I think people realise that Scotland is a great place already. On the whole I think its pretty good as it is and it has become as good as it is, whilst being part of the UK. I've said it before but if its not broke, don't fix it. Fairly straight forward would you agree?

Secondly I just don't think people are buying all the fairytale predictions of this "fairer" utopia the Yes campaign are promising. This Norwegian style 'Scotopia' , where everyone will be free to become some sort of genius-artist-entrepreneur, where money problems will become a thing of the past and debt will become irrelevant. Where there will be no poverty and we can all have the heating on full all year round. Their 'Scotopia' won't have to worry about complying to the usual conventions or restrictions (or reality as its known), because it will have thrown off the evil shackles of that demonic place know as Westminster, who of course are responsible for ALL the evil in the world. (I may have got a bit carried away there, but only a bit ;) ).

I think people can see through the Yes campaigns wafer thin explanations for everything and more importantly they can see that they haven't even got the really important bits worked out yet! This is obvious to see by the way Yesites are so quick to jump to accuse anyone who may question the details of the Yes 'plan' , of 'not trusting in their fellow countrymen', or saying 'so you don't think Scotland can look after/run itself'.

The question isn't, could Scotland look after itself, I've no doubt it could. The question is, what is BEST for Scotland?

I think you have made some excellent points the last couple of days, that highlight the huge gaps and inconsistencies in the Yes campaign. You have also highlighted how fickle and divided some of the Yes lot are. They already have their knives drawn and sharpened, ready to plunge into the SNP's back, the second they (may) deliver them what they crave.

I can see how people can vote Yes with their hearts, but if you use your heads, there is only one way to vote and that is No.

Just my humble opinion like and no offence! :)

[Mibbes Aye]

You are doing that "asking somone to predict the future" thing again.

I'm glad you are content with your lot and have infinite access to all the future decisions that the UK government will make on Scotland's behalf.

:-)

J

No worries.

But yet again I have to ask - why should I commit my future and my children's future to a vision that isn't defined in the slightest?

Why is it wrong to ask for some detail?

[ronaldo7]

I read the link :greengrin

It's hardly objective but regardless of that, how do we know what deal we will negotiate? The truth is that as part of the UK we have negotiated deals, we know what they are, we know they gave us certain benefits.

What guarantee do we have of deals as an independent Scotland? Just list them for me, please?

I've said on this thread on numerous occasions, that Nobody knows what the future holds. We can only look at our History books to see how we've been treated, and how we've treated others.

What I will say though, if Croatia, Latvia, Ireland, Czech Republic can ALL get better deals from the EU in one area then why can't we. Come 2019 Scotland will have the worst deal in the EU.

Unless we vote Yes of course.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've said on this thread on numerous occasions, that Nobody knows what the future holds. We can only look at our History books to see how we've been treated, and how we've treated others.

What I will say though, if Croatia, Latvia, Ireland, Czech Republic can ALL get better deals from the EU in one area then why can't we. Come 2019 Scotland will have the worst deal in the EU.

Unless we vote Yes of course.

So an independent Scotland is guaranteed EU membership and is guaranteed preferential deals on farming and fishing.......

Have we got that in writing?

[ronaldo7]

So an independent Scotland is guaranteed EU membership and is guaranteed preferential deals on farming and fishing.......

Have we got that in writing?

Now you're trying to twist my words. I've not mentioned preferential either. Maybe we should have comparable deals with, let's say Croatia. Better than just now.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Now you're trying to twist my words. I've not mentioned preferential either. Maybe we should have comparable deals with, let's say Croatia. Better than just now.:wink:

Is it though?

What's wrong with the deals we've got and what are we guaranteed that would be better?

As I understand, there's a fair bit of resentment at what the UK has negotiated. Wouldn't we be weaker negotiating as an entity one-tenth the size?

[ronaldo7]

Is it though?
Yes
What's wrong with the deals we've got and what are we guaranteed that would be better? Worst in the EU currently

As I understand, there's a fair bit of resentment at what the UK has negotiated. Wouldn't we be weaker negotiating as an entity one-tenth the size?

No


One final thought, can you give me the numbers for the Euro Lottery on Tuesday please:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

One final thought, can you give me the numbers for the Euro Lottery on Tuesday please:greengrin

:greengrin

I could give you the numbers but would you come back and answer the questions?

You're raising an interesting point though.

If one of us, Yes or No, were to win multi-millions, would it change the way we vote?

I'm sure we would all profess to stick to our guns, but if you really won millions what would you do?

[snooky]

For me I think there are a couple of things that help to explain your point/question:

Firstly I think people realise that Scotland is a great place already. On the whole I think its pretty good as it is and it has become as good as it is, whilst being part of the UK. I've said it before but if its not broke, don't fix it. Fairly straight forward would you agree?

Secondly I just don't think people are buying all the fairytale predictions of this "fairer" utopia the Yes campaign are promising. This Norwegian style 'Scotopia' , where everyone will be free to become some sort of genius-artist-entrepreneur, where money problems will become a thing of the past and debt will become irrelevant. Where there will be no poverty and we can all have the heating on full all year round. Their 'Scotopia' won't have to worry about complying to the usual conventions or restrictions (or reality as its known), because it will have thrown off the evil shackles of that demonic place know as Westminster, who of course are responsible for ALL the evil in the world. (I may have got a bit carried away there, but only a bit ;) ).

I think people can see through the Yes campaigns wafer thin explanations for everything and more importantly they can see that they haven't even got the really important bits worked out yet! This is obvious to see by the way Yesites are so quick to jump to accuse anyone who may question the details of the Yes 'plan' , of 'not trusting in their fellow countrymen', or saying 'so you don't think Scotland can look after/run itself'.

The question isn't, could Scotland look after itself, I've no doubt it could. The question is, what is BEST for Scotland?

I think you have made some excellent points the last couple of days, that highlight the huge gaps and inconsistencies in the Yes campaign. You have also highlighted how fickle and divided some of the Yes lot are. They already have their knives drawn and sharpened, ready to plunge into the SNP's back, the second they (may) deliver them what they crave.

I can see how people can vote Yes with their hearts, but if you use your heads, there is only one way to vote and that is No.

Just my humble opinion like and no offence! :)

Oddly enough, swap the YES & NO and that's exactly how I feel about it.

[southfieldhibby]

Is it though?

What's wrong with the deals we've got and what are we guaranteed that would be better?

As I understand, there's a fair bit of resentment at what the UK has negotiated. Wouldn't we be weaker negotiating as an entity one-tenth the size?

The Common Fisheries policy is a disaster for Scottish fishermen.Removing the debate about the rights and wrongs of prawn fishermen throwing back perfectly good cod ( it's wrong incase you didn't know :greengrin ) the deal they get, in comparison to what they produce is mental.

Scottish boats land 87% of The UKs total stocks, so we're pretty good at fishing, but they only get 41% of the UKs Euro fishing fund.Of the entire allowable EU catch of fish in a year, 37% comes from Scottish waters...whether that's from Scottish/French/Spanish boats.

So out waters are prime grounds, our fishermen are outstanding at their job, and yet they get less than half of the EU funds and yet catch almost all the stock.Surely Holyrood could negotiate a better deal than that, no?

[Moulin Yarns]

The Common Fisheries policy is a disaster for Scottish fishermen.Removing the debate about the rights and wrongs of prawn fishermen throwing back perfectly good cod ( it's wrong incase you didn't know :greengrin ) the deal they get, in comparison to what they produce is mental.

Scottish boats land 87% of The UKs total stocks, so we're pretty good at fishing, but they only get 41% of the UKs Euro fishing fund.Of the entire allowable EU catch of fish in a year, 37% comes from Scottish waters...whether that's from Scottish/French/Spanish boats.

So out waters are prime grounds, our fishermen are outstanding at their job, and yet they get less than half of the EU funds and yet catch almost all the stock.Surely Holyrood could negotiate a better deal than that, no?

Thanks for putting figures to the Fisheries agreement. The same (or similar) is the case for other EU agreements, the UK has negotiated for the South East and nobody else. At present Scotland has no voice in Europe other than what Westminster decides. In the event of a yes vote, Scotland would likely have a 50% increase in MSPs to bring them in line with Luxembourg. Scotland would be able to negotiate directly on Fisheries, agriculture etc, and not be given the deal negotiated for the benefit of Westminster.

[sauzee_4]

That doesn't really work.

Your Scottish parliament has delivered a council tax freeze for the last eight years.

Can anyone defend that as contributing to a fairer society?

But it has also offset the bedroom tax.

With respect, you are repeating a point which has already been discredited. You are looking at one policy instead of all of the policies.

I will repeat my question again, who will deliver a fairer society? The Tory's or SNP?

[sauzee_4]

So an independent Scotland is guaranteed EU membership and is guaranteed preferential deals on farming and fishing.......

Have we got that in writing?

No, but it's guaranteed the worst deal if we vote no.

[marinello59]

But it has also offset the bedroom tax.

With respect, you are repeating a point which has already been discredited. You are looking at one policy instead of all of the policies.

I will repeat my question again, who will deliver a fairer society? The Tory's or SNP?

Neither.

[Hibrandenburg]

But it has also offset the bedroom tax.

With respect, you are repeating a point which has already been discredited. You are looking at one policy instead of all of the policies.

I will repeat my question again, who will deliver a fairer society? The Tory's or SNP?

I'd imagine whoever is in power after the first Scottish General Election and I'd wage that won't be the Tories or the SNP.

[Northernhibee]

But it has also offset the bedroom tax.

With respect, you are repeating a point which has already been discredited. You are looking at one policy instead of all of the policies.

I will repeat my question again, who will deliver a fairer society? The Tory's or SNP?

By withholding childcare improvements to after the referendum Salmond to me appears if he wants us to give him a huge amount of personal power before he will create a supposedly fairer society.

Why are the yes campaign so trusting of a man with so much to gain?

[sauzee_4]

Neither.

Sorry, my question was actually (initially), who was 'more likely' to provide a fairer society, and in my opinion I'd back the SNP to do so before the Tories.

Mibbes Aye talks about the council tax freeze (one policy) but neglects to mention the Poll tax, bedroom tax, Margaret Thatcher, the bankers being let off Scot-Free, Universal Credit, selling weapons to Israel and committing to buying a new Nuclear weapon.

All of which have been a major stumbling block to our 'fairer society' goal which I believe we all share.