Scottish Independence

[sauzee_4]

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?

Because the SNP were founded in 1934, and Alex Salmond was born in 1954, 20 years later. He is not the only Scot to ever believe that the Union doesn't work for Scotland.

The media like to paint it that way however

[marinello59]

Because the SNP were founded in 1934, and Alex Salmond was born in 1954, 20 years later. He is not the only Scot to ever believe that the Union doesn't work for Scotland.

The media like to paint it that way however

Eh?

[Northernhibee]

Because the SNP were founded in 1934, and Alex Salmond was born in 1954, 20 years later. He is not the only Scot to ever believe that the Union doesn't work for Scotland.

The media like to paint it that way however

But why would you trust a politician who wants power before he'll improve childcare?

[Moulin Yarns]

Listen up guys.

There are no voters who will rubbish everything a Yes voter says, likewise there will be Yes voters who will never believe anything a No voter says.

As someone that started out as a not sure, but want to be yes I've followed both sides, and have made my decision based on a fair few facts, a lot of reading and telly viewing, attended a few talks and listened to not a few predictions and my gut instinct.

There now only 6 weeks to go and i would like to give you a totally unbiased document to read. You can download it here.

http://scotlandseptember18.com/new-book-gives-facts-and-impartial-expert-opinion-to-help-voters-make-their-decision-in-the-independence-referendum/

I have not read it so don't know whether it will help you decide or not, but I'm willing to give it a go.

Enjoy, and in the words of Mother Glasgow, Let Scotland Flourish.

[JeMeSouviens]

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 will have a claim on a population based share of them, approx. 8.5%. Switching over from all tax collected going to Edinburgh instead of London doesn't sound like it will be any more expensive to implement than switching to collect based on tax bands set in 2 places under a fudge designed solely to keep the "Scottish" Labour party intact.

[JeMeSouviens]

It turns out that if you put them through the liberating experience of public humiliation and a spell at Her Majesty's pleasure, even cabinet ministers can tell the truth. :wink:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/03/scotland-independence-debate-economy-alex-salmond-alistair-darling

[JeMeSouviens]

But why would you trust a politician who wants power before he'll improve childcare?

This is very simple, just do the math. :wink:

Why would the (current pretendy) Scottish Government spend its limited pocket money on childcare improvements when the economic benefit expected to accrue (improved tax receipts) goes straight to the UK exchequer without passing go and with no improvement on next year's pocket money?

"No taxation without representation" as somebody once said has a corollary currently found here, a duplicate representation with no taxation.

Bring on a properly accountable democracy - vote Yes!

[JeMeSouviens]

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?


In a word, no ... and in a thousand words ...

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Life-Expectancy.jpg

[JeMeSouviens]

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?

Simply because it would be much higher (or actually on) our government's agenda. The EU works on a multitude of compromises. The UK government is quite happy to concede a bad deal on fishing to get a better deal on the things it cares about (this sort of thing mostly, http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2010/04/14/breakingviews-compromise-in-sight-on-eu-hedge-funds-directive/ ).

[southfieldhibby]

Simply because it would be much higher (or actually on) our government's agenda. The EU works on a multitude of compromises. The UK government is quite happy to concede a bad deal on fishing to get a better deal on the things it cares about (this sort of thing mostly, http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2010/04/14/breakingviews-compromise-in-sight-on-eu-hedge-funds-directive/ ).

Like the rebate? Currently standing at 4 billion euro per year and sure as damn it a bargaining chip westminster will deploy when asked to supportiScotland joining the eu.

Personally?I'd tell The EU to bolt and go EFTA...much less hastle and where rUK is heading imo.

[JeMeSouviens]

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?

... and the post-No vision is? Sorry, that's visions isn't it? Ranging from the fanciful Lib Dem federalism (tricky without any partners wanting to be in the federation) to the frankly incoherent Labour fudge. Tax bands you can raise but not lower? WTF!??

Detail? There isn't even a basic outline! The only proposal that looks beyond tenth baked is the Strathclyde pamphlet from those champions of devolution, the Tories, and you can bet your bottom non-shared pound that that will be kicked so far into the long grass that when they bring it back to water it down appropriately in the House of Lords it'll be the Strathclyde paragraph.

There are loads of similar to Scotland sized countries operating independently on the world stage and doing quite nicely thanks very much.

Where are the shining examples of countries sharing the vision of subsuming themselves completely into the unitary state of a much larger, overcentralised neighbour (excepting some asymmetric attempts at devolution around the fringes)? Attempts so stable that even their supporters are talking about ripping them up and changing them again within 2 decades of their foundation.

Why isn't Switzerland desperate to share the vision of uniting with Germany? Why doesn't Ireland clamour to rejoin the UK?

[JeMeSouviens]

Like the rebate? Currently standing at 4 billion euro per year and sure as damn it a bargaining chip westminster will deploy when asked to supportiScotland joining the eu.

Personally?I'd tell The EU to bolt and go EFTA...much less hastle and where rUK is heading imo.

The problem with that, as the Swiss and Norgs have found out, is that to get access to the market, you need to sign up to bilaterals that amount to the lion's share of the compromise you'd make by just joining the damned thing.

[sauzee_4]

But why would you trust a politician who wants power before he'll improve childcare?

I don't 'trust' any politician. I believe Scotland will be better off as an independent country.

Of the research I've done into the matter, none of it has involved listening to anything Alex Salmond says.

[sauzee_4]

Eh?

Alex Salmond didn't invent the idea of Scotland being an independent country, is what I am trying to say.

Fair comment no?

His character has been assassinated in the media however which is telling. Attack the argument not the person is what I was always told was the fairest way to debate with someone

[marinello59]

Alex Salmond didn't invent the idea of Scotland being an independent country, is what I am trying to say.

Fair comment no?

His character has been assassinated in the media however which is telling. Attack the argument not the person is what I was always told was the fairest way to debate with someone

Has it? Regularly describes as the cleverest political operator we have, often mentioned as one of the most able politicians in the Scots Parliament. I don't think he gets a harder time of it than any other leading politician.
(I think 99.999999999999% of the Scots electorate are well aware that Salmond didn't invent the idea of Scotland being an independent country. Hence my confusion at your remark although the relevance of it had me wondering as well.)

[Mibbes Aye]

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?

Could it though?

We can't even get a definitive answer on whether we would be full members from the off, let alone any guarantees that a small nation would get its own way ahead of what would be much bigger, more influential nations.

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's. That's no prospectus for our children's future.

[Mibbes Aye]

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 don't think either is serious about fairness, their policies don't reflect that.

As much as I can't abide Tory policies however, there's maybe a bit less hypocrisy in this regard. They don't claim to be working towards a fairer Scotland.

The flagship SNP policy benefits the rich ahead of the poor and you want me to believe they are serious about a fairer society?

[Mibbes Aye]

We will have a claim on a population based share of them, approx. 8.5%. Switching over from all tax collected going to Edinburgh instead of London doesn't sound like it will be any more expensive to implement than switching to collect based on tax bands set in 2 places under a fudge designed solely to keep the "Scottish" Labour party intact.

Says you but where's the evidence for this? And even if we did no one can explain how that works. How do you get 8.5% of an IT system? Do we take eight and a half out of every hundred employees?

There's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have to develop our own system and going by NZ's experience that's costing them the better part of a billion pounds.

[Mibbes Aye]

Simply because it would be much higher (or actually on) our government's agenda. The EU works on a multitude of compromises. The UK government is quite happy to concede a bad deal on fishing to get a better deal on the things it cares about (this sort of thing mostly, http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2010/04/14/breakingviews-compromise-in-sight-on-eu-hedge-funds-directive/ ).

That doesn't answer the question. You cannot guarantee Scotland would get a better deal than the UK, can you?

[Mibbes Aye]

... and the post-No vision is? Sorry, that's visions isn't it? Ranging from the fanciful Lib Dem federalism (tricky without any partners wanting to be in the federation) to the frankly incoherent Labour fudge. Tax bands you can raise but not lower? WTF!??

Detail? There isn't even a basic outline! The only proposal that looks beyond tenth baked is the Strathclyde pamphlet from those champions of devolution, the Tories, and you can bet your bottom non-shared pound that that will be kicked so far into the long grass that when they bring it back to water it down appropriately in the House of Lords it'll be the Strathclyde paragraph.

There are loads of similar to Scotland sized countries operating independently on the world stage and doing quite nicely thanks very much.

Where are the shining examples of countries sharing the vision of subsuming themselves completely into the unitary state of a much larger, overcentralised neighbour (excepting some asymmetric attempts at devolution around the fringes)? Attempts so stable that even their supporters are talking about ripping them up and changing them again within 2 decades of their foundation.

Why isn't Switzerland desperate to share the vision of uniting with Germany? Why doesn't Ireland clamour to rejoin the UK?

This is where the Yes campaign comes unstuck for me.

You need to persuade people to vote for something different and when asked to justify it all you have is a criticism of the status quo and some spurious comparison to Switzerland.

If you want people to vote Yes it surely has to be on the basis of selling people a vision of something better. And a lot of people just don't see it.

[hughio]

This is where the Yes campaign comes unstuck for me.

You need to persuade people to vote for something different and when asked to justify it all you have is a criticism of the status quo and some spurious comparison to Switzerland.

If you want people to vote Yes it surely has to be on the basis of selling people a vision of something better. And a lot of people just don't see it.

Well Mibbes Aye Mibbess naw sometimes you need to have the courage of your convictions and to have a vision yourself of what might be better.
You need to be able to see that our democratic process is unhealthy for those on the fringes (ie us Scots):that an increasingly centralised London-centric politic is not in our interests and perhaps most impotrtantly that a small country subsumed into the fabric of a larger more powerful neighbour does not nescessarily benefit from that model.

There is absolutely no reason why an independent country could not flourish.It might take some time ..some smart folk say maybe 20 years but "the pith o' sense and pride o' worth " returning to this country would make the wait worthwhile...IMO.

[Mibbes Aye]

Well Mibbes Aye Mibbess naw sometimes you need to have the courage of your convictions and to have a vision yourself of what might be better.
You need to be able to see that our democratic process is unhealthy for those on the fringes (ie us Scots):that an increasingly centralised London-centric politic is not in our interests and perhaps most impotrtantly that a small country subsumed into the fabric of a larger more powerful neighbour does not nescessarily benefit from that model.

There is absolutely no reason why an independent country could not flourish.It might take some time ..some smart folk say maybe 20 yeras but "the pride o' worth and pith o' sense" returning to this country would make the wait worthwhile...IMO.

That's not true.

I've voted in five Westminster elections and got the government I wanted three times.

I've voted in four Holyrood elections and never got the government I wanted.

Which process feels healthier to me?

[Just Alf]

Phew! Been away for a bit and had some (a lot! ) of catching up to do.....

On EU membership for a newly independent country....

Scotland already meets all requirements

One of EU central tenets for existing is to support domocracy

Spain has 4th/5th biggest fishing fleet worldwide, France is somewhat smaller but is very militant ... Both operate the majority of their time in Scottish waters (evidenced by the fact Spain successfully took the UK gov to court to win millions (£25 mill to one company) when we tried to restrict their access

Scottish residents are already EU citizens and will EU really go against its foundation principles to allow self determination etc? (Spain and France are likely to be key supporters to an IS re-entry.

Even assuming some countries go against EU principles and IS has to re-apply, why in the media are we compared to countries who have spent (in some cases) decades to get their legislature, government etc fit to join instead of someone like Finland (I think, on phone so can't check) who took just over 18 months and even they had to make legislative changes to comply that an IS wouldn't have to do?

On same theme
Where is our bigger bang for our buck being part of a larger UK?

Is it like the recent case where the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish agriculture ministers met to discuss the legalisation of GM crops in the UK? You know the one where 3 said they were against it? But one (who happened to have responsibility for England) supported it.
The agreement was that the representative at the meeting would explain the whole uk situation and wouldn't vote.
Turns out no negative view was expressed and the UK voted yes to the introduction of GM crops across ALL of the UK.... Guess which rep went to the meeting?... A clue ... They were based at Westminster :-)

Oh and when it was picked up in the press they claimed they'd forgotten about the meeting he had prior to leaving for Brussells.


Oh well....

[Just Alf]

That's not true.

I've voted in five Westminster elections and got the government I wanted three times.

I've voted in four Holyrood elections and never got the government I wanted.

Which process feels healthier to me?

It's a good point to be fair


Maybe the better question is which parliament has the closest make up to what the electorate as a whole voted for?

That way, even the "winners" would have some brakes put on their policies (I guess which is what's happening with the Westminster coalition at the mo?

[Moulin Yarns]

That doesn't answer the question. You cannot guarantee Scotland would get a better deal than the UK, can you?

But you could guarantee that the negotiations are more in keeping with the needs of Scottish farmers and fishermen for a start. Something Westminster has repeatedly failed to do.

[southfieldhibby]

Could it though?

We can't even get a definitive answer on whether we would be full members from the off, let alone any guarantees that a small nation would get its own way ahead of what would be much bigger, more influential nations.

It's all ifs and buts and maybe's. That's no prospectus for our children's future.

I have a wee thought you're playing devils advocate here, but I'm happy to debate.

Scotland will be a member of The EU if it so wishes, and the reason it'll be a member is the alternative is far more complicated and unattractive.

Consider every EU citizen working and living in Scotland just now having to either leave or apply for visas, consider the contributions Scotland makes to meeting green energy targets or defence of a pretty muckle part of the west/north EU border, consider how radio rental French and Spanish fishermen would be not being allowed to come here and fish.Then what about all the Scottish folk living in other EU countries?We're pretty good at international relations, we want to be part of Europe generally and we'd probably be net contributors.So I really can't see why folk are continuing down this road.

We'll be good inclusive international partners, we'll buy stuff and sell stuff and be generally sound to other EU nations.

And everything, EVERYTHING, is if buts and maybes, its just what ifs buts and maybes are more appealing to the individual voter

[Just Alf]

Still catching up! :D

Was in Berwick at the weekend and someone (in the Brown Bear :-) ) explained the debt/assets like this.....

Morag and Nigel have been happily married for years, but recently they think it's better if they went thier own ways....

They have a big (really big) hoose, but also they've been spending lots and lots on a flash new conservatory, upstairs extension (with gun turrets :D) and even one of those cool concrete drives.

Morag has only been paying into the pot to the tune of 10% of the dosh so Nigel (and his brothers Seamus and Gareth) claim they should get 90% of everything.

All agree

So Morag takes on 10% of the debt

She also takes on 10% of what that debt paid for.


Nigel an his brothers are now due Morag a lot of money which she uses some of to pay her 10% of debt off... Sorted.

Turns out Nigel etc don't have enough cash to pay their dues so agree to let Morag continue to use the new drive and a couple of room in return for her helping them out with their debts ( that everyone including themselves agree they are liable for)



Went summat like that anyway... There was a bit of role play but as he was from York his "Morag" accent was rubbish... Still funny tho :D

[ronaldo7]

: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?

In no particular order, have a Holiday, Buy the Hibs, Donate to a food bank, and some other unfortunates, work like hell to become an Independent nation.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

I have a wee thought you're playing devils advocate here, but I'm happy to debate.

Scotland will be a member of The EU if it so wishes, and the reason it'll be a member is the alternative is far more complicated and unattractive.

Consider every EU citizen working and living in Scotland just now having to either leave or apply for visas, consider the contributions Scotland makes to meeting green energy targets or defence of a pretty muckle part of the west/north EU border, consider how radio rental French and Spanish fishermen would be not being allowed to come here and fish.Then what about all the Scottish folk living in other EU countries?We're pretty good at international relations, we want to be part of Europe generally and we'd probably be net contributors.So I really can't see why folk are continuing down this road.

We'll be good inclusive international partners, we'll buy stuff and sell stuff and be generally sound to other EU nations.

And everything, EVERYTHING, is if buts and maybes, its just what ifs buts and maybes are more appealing to the individual voter

None of that offers any guarantees about EU membership.

None of that offers any security that we won't be worse off in what we can negotiate, because as part of the UK we have more clout.

None of that guarantees we would keep the rebate that we derive from being part of the UK.

It's all very well having good intentions and high hopes but in a few weeks we will be asked to vote for our future and that of our children and grandchildren.

And the people who want us to go alone can't offer even the most basic detail of how it will work.

[ronaldo7]

None of that offers any guarantees about EU membership.

None of that offers any security that we won't be worse off in what we can negotiate, because as part of the UK we have more clout.

None of that guarantees we would keep the rebate that we derive from being part of the UK.

It's all very well having good intentions and high hopes but in a few weeks we will be asked to vote for our future and that of our children and grandchildren.

And the people who want us to go alone can't offer even the most basic detail of how it will work.

It's been a hoot, can you give me some guarantees please.

If we are still part of the uk in 2017 ,will we be in the EU, after the in/out referendum?

Can you give me some evidence that we have more clout being part of the UK.

It's all very well having good intentions but everything they've said might be punted into the long grass if we vote No. Do you have any guarantees this won't happen?

The no camp just can't offer even the most basic detail of how it will work if Ukip get voted in with the Tories in a coalition.:greengrin

[Just Alf]

Can you give me some evidence that we have more clout being part of the UK.


TBH that's an unfair question.... The evidence (our take of the Agricultural policy compared to "smaller" countries, the reduced take allowed for our fishing industry and our total loss on GM crops) clearly shows we get zero clout compared to all other countries.

[Mibbes Aye]

TBH that's an unfair question.... The evidence (our take of the Agricultural policy compared to "smaller" countries, the reduced take allowed for our fishing industry and our total loss on GM crops) clearly shows we get zero clout compared to all other countries.

I'm sure the French and Italians would disagree when it comes to our rebate.

I'm sure I read that Scotland enjoys some of the highest per farmer payments across the EU from the CAP.

On the other hand Cameron appears to have consistently done his best to undermine the UK's status in Europe since he became Tory leader :dunno:

[southfieldhibby]

None of that offers any guarantees about EU membership.

None of that offers any security that we won't be worse off in what we can negotiate, because as part of the UK we have more clout.

None of that guarantees we would keep the rebate that we derive from being part of the UK.

It's all very well having good intentions and high hopes but in a few weeks we will be asked to vote for our future and that of our children and grandchildren.

And the people who want us to go alone can't offer even the most basic detail of how it will work.
The only thing that anyone can guarantee you is that the sun will set tonight and rise again tomorrow, nothing else.

A degree of trust, whatever your voting intentions is required.it is interesting that cast iron guarantees are only demanded of yes, when uncertainty is on both sides.

[Just Alf]

I'm sure the French and Italians would disagree when it comes to our rebate.

I'm sure I read that Scotland enjoys some of the highest per farmer payments across the EU from the CAP.

On the other hand Cameron appears to have consistently done his best to undermine the UK's status in Europe since he became Tory leader :dunno:

On phone so can't find it but on one of the two threads on the this topic, your para two is the exact opposite to what's been said (backed with the actual numbers) we are totally bottom of the pile :-(

[snooky]

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?

Simples.
We all have different reasons for voting "Yes" (or "No" btw).
Mine is that I'm fed up being dictated to by a bunch of greedy Eton schoolboys.
That said, I can think of several reasons for voting "No" however, the important issues weigh heavily on the "Yes" side.

This whole situation is like the story of the old lag who has spent most of his time in prison.
When offered his freedom, he chooses to stay inside as he's too scared to face the world outside.
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
(A bit extreme maybe, but I use it to make my point. :wink:)

[Mibbes Aye]

On phone so can't find it but on one of the two threads on the this topic, your para two is the exact opposite to what's been said (backed with the actual numbers) we are totally bottom of the pile :-(

I'm going with what's been placed in the House of Commons Library - section 76.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmscotaf/1241/124108.htm

There's actual numbers in there too :greengrin :wink:

[Just Alf]

Ah... Cannae see that on my phone! :D

[Mibbes Aye]

Simples.
We all have different reasons for voting "Yes" (or "No" btw).
Mine is that I'm fed up being dictated to by a bunch of greedy Eton schoolboys.
That said, I can think of several reasons for voting "No" however, the important issues weigh heavily on the "Yes" side.

This whole situation is like the story of the old lag who has spent most of his time in prison.
When offered his freedom, he chooses to stay inside as he's too scared to face the world outside.
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
(A bit extreme maybe, but I use it to make my point. :wink:)

I think that's perhaps the most patronising argument the Yes campaign could come up with.

And as the clock ticks down and the polls don't shift, it was always a matter of time before the Yessers played the 'feart' card to explain why they weren't winning the argument.

I suspect a lot of people just don't want a Yes vote because they don't see the need. I certainly don't and I'm not hearing anything to convince me otherwise.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ah... Cannae see that on my phone! :D

Just as well. It's actually a link to Alistair Darling's Facebook page :wink:

[Just Alf]

Ah... Cannae see that on my phone! :D

And on hind sight, I'm sure it was geographic size/ business level rather than per farmer..... Dunno the implications of that wrinkle tho :-/



Ps did I REALLY quote myself? ..... Sigh.... Apologies!

[Just Alf]

Just as well. It's actually a link to Alistair Darling's Facebook page :wink:

Snake! Lol :D

[Mibbes Aye]

The only thing that anyone can guarantee you is that the sun will set tonight and rise again tomorrow, nothing else.

A degree of trust, whatever your voting intentions is required.it is interesting that cast iron guarantees are only demanded of yes, when uncertainty is on both sides.

To be honest I could live without cast-iron guarantees if there were even half-credible explanations but there's so much that just seems to be back of a fag packet and hope for the best.

[southfieldhibby]

Ok, I'm voting yes for Scotland to become independent, nothing more. So because of that, I'll automatically be expelled from being an eu citizen? That's sounds dubious and quite probably illegal.

[Just Alf]

Snake! Lol :D

Aw naw!.... I've just been "Doddied" haven't i?


:D

[southfieldhibby]

And to follow on from that, of anyone can point me on the direction of the mechanism for removing my eu citizenship, I'd appreciate it.

[Just Alf]

Ok, I'm voting yes for Scotland to become independent, nothing more. So because of that, I'll automatically be expelled from being an eu citizen? That's sounds dubious and quite probably illegal.

Dunno about the legality but it IS against all EU policy around self determination and the upholding of democracy which are the founding pillars that the EU was created upon in the 1st place. :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Ok, I'm voting yes for Scotland to become independent, nothing more. So because of that, I'll automatically be expelled from being an eu citizen? That's sounds dubious and quite probably illegal.

EU citizenship is dependent on holding nationality of a member state. I think that goes back to the Treaty of Rome and was maybe consolidated at Maastricht.

The crucial bit there though is 'member state'.

We still don't have an answer about whether Scotland would automatically be a member state.

No 'member state', no EU citizenship. Nothing dubious about that IMO.

[southfieldhibby]

EU citizenship is dependent on holding nationality of a member state. I think that goes back to the Treaty of Rome and was maybe consolidated at Maastricht.

The crucial bit there though is 'member state'.

We still don't have an answer about whether Scotland would automatically be a member state.

No 'member state', no EU citizenship. Nothing dubious about that IMO.

So I'm not only voting for self determination, I'm voting yes to have my eu rights removed?

[Mibbes Aye]

So I'm not only voting for self determination, I'm voting yes to have my eu rights removed?

Are you voting for self-determination?

[southfieldhibby]

Are you voting for self-determination?

I guess so, yes. The ability for Scotland to determine it's chosen path and be held responsible for their choices is what I'm keen on. Money, politics and left/right doesn't interest me.

That's why I prefer EFTA over eu

[Mibbes Aye]

I guess so, yes. The ability for Scotland to determine it's chosen path and be held responsible for their choices is what I'm keen on. Money, politics and left/right doesn't interest me.

That's why I prefer EFTA over eu

That's probably a cracking thread in its own right :greengrin

Re self-determination and chosen paths, I've posted this before:

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

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

It feels like my choices are better-served within the UK, doesn't it?

[southfieldhibby]

That's probably a cracking thread in its own right :greengrin

Re self-determination and chosen paths, I've posted this before:

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

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

It feels like my choices are better-served within the UK, doesn't it?
Yup, and a question I ask my labour supporting friends is this: knowing what you now now about Blair/Brown, would you have votes labour? And do you seriously think the current labour lot will win next year GE? And lastly, is the Labour Party really the party you want to elect?

[The_Exile]

Anybody know why the entire team from Hurricane Energy that found one of the potentially biggest oilfields in the world off the west coast of Shetland in their 'Lancaster well' recently have been put on paid leave until the 19th of September?

[Mibbes Aye]

Yup, and a question I ask my labour supporting friends is this: knowing what you now now about Blair/Brown, would you have votes labour? And do you seriously think the current labour lot will win next year GE? And lastly, is the Labour Party really the party you want to elect?

Yes, yes and yes :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

That's probably a cracking thread in its own right :greengrin

Re self-determination and chosen paths, I've posted this before:

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

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

It feels like my choices are better-served within the UK, doesn't it?

Think you might've misunderstood the "self" there. :wink:

The democratic deficit comes down to whether Scotland is a nation or a region.

If a nation, then we should have a national government that we voted for (as in won the election, not got 100% of the vote).

If we're just another region like Yorkshire or Cornwall then we have to accept the UK result and suck it up.

I think the voters divide into 3 groups.

1. Identify with Scotland as their country and are ready for self government - solid Yes
2. Identify with Scotland as their country but think self government might conflict with their own personal well being or Scotland just isn't ready - waverers
3. Identify with Britain as their country - solid No

I still think it's far from a given that enough of group 2 to give us a Yes won't see sense by Sep 18th.

[Mibbes Aye]

Think you might've misunderstood the "self" there. :wink:

The democratic deficit comes down to whether Scotland is a nation or a region.

If a nation, then we should have a national government that we voted for (as in won the election, not got 100% of the vote).

If we're just another region like Yorkshire or Cornwall then we have to accept the UK result and suck it up.

I think the voters divide into 3 groups.

1. Identify with Scotland as their country and are ready for self government - solid Yes
2. Identify with Scotland as their country but think self government might conflict with their own personal well being or Scotland just isn't ready - waverers
3. Identify with Britain as their country - solid No

I still think it's far from a given that enough of group 2 to give us a Yes won't see sense by Sep 18th.

The problem with that, in fact the problem with many in the Yes camp, is you are making a 19th or 20th-century argument in the 21st-century.

'Scottishness' is a cultural construction. It's not something inherent, regardless of what emotional arguments any one cares to make.

It's not about identifying with something - although I suspect the Yes campaign would like to pursue that approach around differentiation.

It's simply saying 'is there any need for this?' And the Yes campaign can't really provide the evidence that there is a need for this.

[JeMeSouviens]

The problem with that, in fact the problem with many in the Yes camp, is you are making a 19th or 20th-century argument in the 21st-century.

'Scottishness' is a cultural construction. It's not something inherent, regardless of what emotional arguments any one cares to make.

It's not about identifying with something - although I suspect the Yes campaign would like to pursue that approach around differentiation.

It's simply saying 'is there any need for this?' And the Yes campaign can't really provide the evidence that there is a need for this.

The problem with that, in fact the problem with many in the No camp, is that you are completely ignoring the reality of the world as you find it (or being dishonest for narrow party advantage). Sure, you can make an intellectual argument for internationalism and a world with no borders but the reality is that it's arranged into countries and we have to choose to be in one: Scotland or Britain.

... and if there's any country that's forever looking backward and can't move on from the 19th century, it's certainly Britain. :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

The problem with that, in fact the problem with many in the No camp, is that you are completely ignoring the reality of the world as you find it (or being dishonest for narrow party advantage). Sure, you can make an intellectual argument for internationalism and a world with no borders but the reality is that it's arranged into countries and we have to choose to be in one: Scotland or Britain.

... and if there's any country that's forever looking backward and can't move on from the 19th century, it's certainly Britain. :wink:

That's great, you're the second poster on this thread to quote my words back, swapping 'Yes' for 'No'. I'll take that as a compliment :greengrin

I think you do people a disservice. Most of us are more than capable of rising above the emotional nonsense and asking whether this actually makes sense.

That's not making an intellectual argument, it's just being pragmatic.

[JeMeSouviens]

Says you but where's the evidence for this? And even if we did no one can explain how that works. How do you get 8.5% of an IT system? Do we take eight and a half out of every hundred employees?

There's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have to develop our own system and going by NZ's experience that's costing them the better part of a billion pounds.

Probably we just take the part that's in Scotland and deals with tax in Scotland? There's nothing to suggest (or at least you haven't presented anything other than a vague sentence or 2 and waving a billion around) that we would need a whole new system either.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's great, you're the second poster on this thread to quote my words back, swapping 'Yes' for 'No'. I'll take that as a compliment :greengrin

I think you do people a disservice. Most of us are more than capable of rising above the emotional nonsense and asking whether this actually makes sense.

That's not making an intellectual argument, it's just being pragmatic.

I never claimed originality. :wink:

I think it's you that is doing people the disservice. People are more than capable of seeing that nationalism is every bit as important in British politics as it is in Scotland. My feeling is that Scotland will be a more outward looking country than Britain and find itself more comfortable in an interdependent world than the post-imperially hungover UK manages to be. Neither is it nonsense to recognise the role of emotion on both sides of this debate. Scratch the surface of any UK politician urging a No vote and you generally find worry and doubt over international clout and diminished status. As Hillary put it, it wouldn't be done to be seen "losing Scotland", would it? :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Probably we just take the part that's in Scotland and deals with tax in Scotland? There's nothing to suggest (or at least you haven't presented anything other than a vague sentence or 2 and waving a billion around) that we would need a whole new system either.

Is that how it works?

Does every aspect of my tax arrangements get dealt with in Scotland?

It still doesn't answer any of the questions I posed earlier?

[Mibbes Aye]

I never claimed originality. :wink:

I think it's you that is doing people the disservice. People are more than capable of seeing that nationalism is every bit as important in British politics as it is in Scotland. My feeling is that Scotland will be a more outward looking country than Britain and find itself more comfortable in an interdependent world than the post-imperially hungover UK manages to be. Neither is it nonsense to recognise the role of emotion on both sides of this debate. Scratch the surface of any UK politician urging a No vote and you generally find worry and doubt over international clout and diminished status. As Hillary put it, it wouldn't be done to be seen "losing Scotland", would it? :wink:

Anybody who is so hung-up about the importance of being 'Scottish' rather than 'British' is going to struggle to be outward-looking IMO.

[JeMeSouviens]

This is where the Yes campaign comes unstuck for me.

You need to persuade people to vote for something different and when asked to justify it all you have is a criticism of the status quo and some spurious comparison to Switzerland.

If you want people to vote Yes it surely has to be on the basis of selling people a vision of something better. And a lot of people just don't see it.

So far 42-47% of us do, that's miles better than anybody expected and while it's an uphill battle, it's winnable. A late swing of less than the SNP got in 2011 would do, as I'm sure you're all too aware.

... and let's be honest, the "Yes" campaign came unstuck for you by not being official Labour party policy. :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

So far 42-47% of us do, that's miles better than anybody expected and while it's an uphill battle, it's winnable. A late swing of less than the SNP got in 2011 would do, as I'm sure you're all too aware.

... and let's be honest, the "Yes" campaign came unstuck for you by not being official Labour party policy. :wink:

So you're saying the Yes prospectus is only meant to appeal to a minority?

[Mibbes Aye]

So far 42-47% of us do, that's miles better than anybody expected and while it's an uphill battle, it's winnable. A late swing of less than the SNP got in 2011 would do, as I'm sure you're all too aware.

... and let's be honest, the "Yes" campaign came unstuck for you by not being official Labour party policy. :wink:

That's beneath you.

[JeMeSouviens]

So you're saying the Yes prospectus is only meant to appeal to a minority?

Yes, that's obviously exactly what I'm saying without a word of a lie. :rolleyes:

Be honest, did you expect anything other than Alastair Darling to be doing victory laps towards his 70% by now?

If Yes gets 45% this time, it'll have exceeded my (pessimistic) expectations comfortably.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes, that's obviously exactly what I'm saying without a word of a lie. :rolleyes:

Be honest, did you expect anything other than Alastair Darling to be doing victory laps towards his 70% by now?

If Yes gets 45% this time, it'll have exceeded my (pessimistic) expectations comfortably.

Being honest, I genuinely wasn't sure.

If I'm being frank I probably would have thought that more mileage would have been made by the Yes camp out of Cameron, Osborne, Gove and the ideological stuff going on in England. Maybe devolution has insulated us from that to an extent?

And if I'm being candid, I don't think for a second that this is a once in a generation vote. The minute an opinion poll shows Yes being anywhere closer to a majority and there will be demand for another vote - and you can understand why. We live in a society predicated on immediacy, whether it's that purchase from Amazon or that voting somebody out on reality TV or that liking a status on Facebook.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's beneath you.

So you're genuinely open to persuasion if only everything could be guaranteed and none of those pesky negotiations had to happen?

[Mibbes Aye]

In no particular order, have a Holiday, Buy the Hibs, Donate to a food bank, and some other unfortunates, work like hell to become an Independent nation.:wink:

So you would put your winnings into a damn-fool romantic notion, with no evidence to back up that it would make any of our lives better?

But that's enough about buying Hibs :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

Being honest, I genuinely wasn't sure.

If I'm being frank I probably would have thought that more mileage would have been made by the Yes camp out of Cameron, Osborne, Gove and the ideological stuff going on in England. Maybe devolution has insulated us from that to an extent?

And if I'm being candid, I don't think for a second that this is a once in a generation vote. The minute an opinion poll shows Yes being anywhere closer to a majority and there will be demand for another vote - and you can understand why. We live in a society predicated on immediacy, whether it's that purchase from Amazon or that voting somebody out on reality TV or that liking a status on Facebook.


I can think of one way it could be a once in a generation vote - a 10% swing and we're home and hosed. Actually I think as little as 5% would probably do.

I think you might be right in the event of a No, I think the Tories will get in with a majority and we won't see any Devo anything for some considerable time and if we ever do it'll be Devo-watered-down. That might be enough to push a few % more waverers towards Yes in the long run. The big stumbling block though is the Scottish parliament's electoral maths. The SNP majority really was a bit of a fluke. It's hard to see Labour finding another leader of the calibre (cough) of Lamont and Gray, they surely must have *somebody*?

[sauzee_4]

Says you but where's the evidence for this? And even if we did no one can explain how that works. How do you get 8.5% of an IT system? Do we take eight and a half out of every hundred employees?

There's nothing to suggest we wouldn't have to develop our own system and going by NZ's experience that's costing them the better part of a billion pounds.

We have the most inefficient tax system in the world right now.

So IF your scenario came to pass and we had to completely re-design our tax system from the outset. It would not be difficult to design a simpler, more efficient tax system which would, in the end, save us money not cost us.

And IF that tax system didn't save us money then £700 million (again as a one-off start up cost) added to the £1.5billion which independent experts have cited comes to £2.2billion. This is dwarfed completely by the savings we are making on Trident, Iraq, HS2 and countless other things.

And again, that £1.5billion figure which Prof Dunleavy from the London School of Economics came up with, I would be surprised if the cost of updating the tax system wasn't considered within that figure, but even if it wasn't the above still stands.

[GoldenEagle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/300897MAJ.shtml



"Would hurt business. It would hurt people. It would take power away from individuals and mean higher taxes for Scots."






John Major in the lead up to the Devolution vote and similar nonsensical arguments being used to put doubt and fear into voters again.

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/news/300897MAJ.shtml



"Would hurt business. It would hurt people. It would take power away from individuals and mean higher taxes for Scots."






John Major in the lead up to the Devolution vote and similar nonsensical arguments being used to put doubt and fear into voters again.

Think this bit's right though:


It would eventually lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

I doubt we'd have got this far without devolution. Thanks Labour! :aok:

(I say this as a sometime serial Labour voter btw, I genuinely do thank them for setting us back on the road to being a real country.)

[Mibbes Aye]

So you're genuinely open to persuasion if only everything could be guaranteed and none of those pesky negotiations had to happen?

Probably not.

Philosophically, I find nationalism a distasteful idea. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself but I thought I would Google 'nationalism quotes'. These were some of the results and they reflect my feelings:


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind


Nationalism is power hungry tempered by self-deception


Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority


Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him


The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?

There are many more indictments of the idea of nationalism, the idea of differentiation. It's no rationale for a form of government IMO.

On the other hand I'm pragmatic. I've posted on here before that I can see the sense in a level of government that sits at a regional level, so if you live in Edinburgh say South-East Scotland or Lothian and Borders, maybe Fife too. Whether that sits with a UK government or within the EU structure I don't know. I'm open to discussing it :greengrin

It almost certainly doesn't sit with an independent or devolved Scottish government, they are too close.

My criticisms of the Yes campaign have tended to avoid this view however. My criticisms, like you've identified, have been about the paucity of detail, the dearth of guarantees, the very lack of any credible detail around the very basics it would take to function as a nation and a civil society.

We can't go ahead without these, surely. Were they available I would still have a fundamental issue however with this push to be 'independent'. It doesn't sound real and it's not really important to me. And I don't see how it makes anyone's life better. And it feels wrong - we are making out we are going to be better by being different from something we are just now. If that were the case why aren't we pushing to make everything better for everyone just now?

[Mibbes Aye]

We have the most inefficient tax system in the world right now.

So IF your scenario came to pass and we had to completely re-design our tax system from the outset. It would not be difficult to design a simpler, more efficient tax system which would, in the end, save us money not cost us.

And IF that tax system didn't save us money then £700 million (again as a one-off start up cost) added to the £1.5billion which independent experts have cited comes to £2.2billion. This is dwarfed completely by the savings we are making on Trident, Iraq, HS2 and countless other things.

And again, that £1.5billion figure which Prof Dunleavy from the London School of Economics came up with, I would be surprised if the cost of updating the tax system wasn't considered within that figure, but even if it wasn't the above still stands.

I counted four 'if's in only six sentences. And to be honest the second paragraph should really be one sentence :greengrin

That's a lot of ifs.

Re the inefficiency, I'm curious - is that measured? How do you benchmark? I'm not doubting you, genuinely interested.

[GoldenEagle]

When I get paid at the end of each month I don't give my salary to my neighbour and ask them to spend it for me and also decide what to spend it on. It's my choice how I spend my salary and although I concede it's a very basic argument as to why I should vote yes, it still strikes a chord.

You know what Independence might not make anyone is Scotland's life better but, by Christ, at least we'll have the ability to look the person who's making the decision in the eyes and ask them why.

[Mibbes Aye]

When I get paid at the end of each month I don't give my salary to my neighbour and ask them to spend it for me and also decide what to spend it on. It's my choice how I spend my salary and although I concede it's a very basic argument as to why I should vote yes, it still strikes a chord.

You know what Independence might not make anyone is Scotland's life better but, by Christ, at least we'll have the ability to look the person who's making the decision in the eyes and ask them why.

That's not true.

At the moment you vote for someone to go to the UK parliament. They give most of the money spent in Scotland to a bunch of people you voted for at Holyrood. They decide what happens with it.

Being frank, I don't think you're any likelier to look your MP or MSP in the eye but that's neither here nor there.

How money is spent on your hospitals, your children's schools, the carers who go into your grandparent's house, the guys who collect your bins, the state of your roads, whether the police patrol your neighborhood, where your nearest fire station and ambulance station are and a million and one other things that actually affect us on a daily basis - they are all decided in Scotland.

[MyJo]

Probably not.

Philosophically, I find nationalism a distasteful idea. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself but I thought I would Google 'nationalism quotes'. These were some of the results and they reflect my feelings:











There are many more indictments of the idea of nationalism, the idea of differentiation. It's no rationale for a form of government IMO.

On the other hand I'm pragmatic. I've posted on here before that I can see the sense in a level of government that sits at a regional level, so if you live in Edinburgh say South-East Scotland or Lothian and Borders, maybe Fife too. Whether that sits with a UK government or within the EU structure I don't know. I'm open to discussing it [/FONT][/COLOR]:greengrin

It almost certainly doesn't sit with an independent or devolved Scottish government, they are too close.

My criticisms of the Yes campaign have tended to avoid this view however. My criticisms, like you've identified, have been about the paucity of detail, the dearth of guarantees, the very lack of any credible detail around the very basics it would take to function as a nation and a civil society.

We can't go ahead without these, surely. Were they available I would still have a fundamental issue however with this push to be 'independent'. It doesn't sound real and it's not really important to me. And I don't see how it makes anyone's life better. And it feels wrong - we are making out we are going to be better by being different from something we are just now. If that were the case why aren't we pushing to make everything better for everyone just now?


Its impossible to give any detail on how things will work post-independence because Dave and his mates in westminster will not discuss or negotiate how separation will be implemented or things like the tax system and other such things that we currently share with rUK until there is a yes vote in the referendum.......oh apart from them telling us we wont get to keep our oil and wont get to use the pound and wont get any more MoD contracts as a foreign country...im sensing a pattern here.

Unfortunately you arent going to get the details and guarantees that you are looking for to help you make a decision because those that want a NO vote in september will not allow it

[GoldenEagle]

That's not true.

At the moment you vote for someone to go to the UK parliament. They give most of the money spent in Scotland to a bunch of people you voted for at Holyrood. They decide what happens with it.

Being frank, I don't think you're any likelier to look your MP or MSP in the eye but that's neither here nor there.

How money is spent on your hospitals, your children's schools, the carers who go into your grandparent's house, the guys who collect your bins, the state of your roads, whether the police patrol your neighborhood, where your nearest fire station and ambulance station are and a million and one other things that actually affect us on a daily basis - they are all decided in Scotland.

Very true to a certain extent. However, if we take the NHS as an example, and England decide to reduce spending on the public purse by privatising the NHS then as a direct result of that Scotland gets less money through the Barnet formula..which makes it extremely hard for the Scottish Government to continue to provide the level of services that we currently have.

I'd argue that we give more, per head of population, to the UK than we receive back.

Oh and perhaps your right about looking them in the eye...much easier though to vote them out at the next election though ;)

[Mibbes Aye]

Very true to a certain extent. However, if we take the NHS as an example, and England decide to reduce spending on the public purse by privatising the NHS then as a direct result of that Scotland gets less money through the Barnet formula..which makes it extremely hard for the Scottish Government to continue to provide the level of services that we currently have.

I'd argue that we give more, per head of population, to the UK than we receive back.

Oh and perhaps your right about looking them in the eye...much easier though to vote them out at the next election though ;)

It's a curious thing. As a consequence of the Lansley changes, the NHS has seen a considerable shift. GPs are essentially private contractors - no different from a sparkie or a joiner really - and the Tories chose to pass the budgets for healthcare to them. Yet people seem to generally trust GPs to make good decisions. That notwithstanding, I don't think they could win an argument on full-scale privatisation yet. I think Labour has already said it would reverse the changes and even if there was a future Tory majority it's hard to see what they could do. The NHS is still a touchstone for people and the Tories know how vulnerable they are on it. Plus all the TUPE implications would mean it wasn't a saving. if anything the only saving would be from renegotiating consultants' fees and I think even the Tories would be scared of going there :greengrin

Re Barnett I missed that, how do we end up getting less?

[Mibbes Aye]

Its impossible to give any detail on how things will work post-independence because Dave and his mates in westminster will not discuss or negotiate how separation will be implemented or things like the tax system and other such things that we currently share with rUK until there is a yes vote in the referendum.......oh apart from them telling us we wont get to keep our oil and wont get to use the pound and wont get any more MoD contracts as a foreign country...im sensing a pattern here.

Unfortunately you arent going to get the details and guarantees that you are looking for to help you make a decision because those that want a NO vote in september will not allow it

I have to be honest and say that I think that's a cop-out on the Yes side.

Why couldn't they work up detailed proposals, put them in the public domain and challenge the UK government to answer or refute?

It reads too much like, ooh, let's blame the English bogeyman again, they won't help us.

It's symbolic of a worrying side of the Yes campaign, one where they portray us as some sort of victim, subtext of being powerless against the English.

Where's the hope? It's the politics of differentiation and envy IMO

[GoldenEagle]

It's a curious thing. As a consequence of the Lansley changes, the NHS has seen a considerable shift. GPs are essentially private contractors - no different from a sparkie or a joiner really - and the Tories chose to pass the budgets for healthcare to them. Yet people seem to generally trust GPs to make good decisions. That notwithstanding, I don't think they could win an argument on full-scale privatisation yet. I think Labour has already said it would reverse the changes and even if there was a future Tory majority it's hard to see what they could do. The NHS is still a touchstone for people and the Tories know how vulnerable they are on it. Plus all the TUPE implications would mean it wasn't a saving. if anything the only saving would be from renegotiating consultants' fees and I think even the Tories would be scared of going there :greengrin

Re Barnett I missed that, how do we end up getting less?


If public spending in England goes down then the formula dictates that it reduces in Scotland. Doesn't seem fair does it...do you trust the English tories not to cut public spending and hand everything they can to the private sector.

As a Labour voter I suspect I know your answer. :wink:

[ronaldo7]

That's not true.

At the moment you vote for someone to go to the UK parliament. They give most of the money spent in Scotland to a bunch of people you voted for at Holyrood. They decide what happens with it.

Being frank, I don't think you're any likelier to look your MP or MSP in the eye but that's neither here nor there.

How money is spent on your hospitals, your children's schools, the carers who go into your grandparent's house, the guys who collect your bins, the state of your roads, whether the police patrol your neighborhood, where your nearest fire station and ambulance station are and a million and one other things that actually affect us on a daily basis - they are all decided in Scotland.

Apart from Foreign policy, Defence, Taxation, Welfare, Continental shelf, Fisheries, Farming, and a Million and one other things:wink:

[ronaldo7]

Can any of the NO camp tell me how much it will cost Scotland to stay in the Union?

[Mibbes Aye]

If public spending in England goes down then the formula dictates that it reduces in Scotland. Doesn't seem fair does it...do you trust the English tories not to cut public spending and hand everything they can to the private sector.

As a Labour voter I suspect I know your answer. :wink:

Despite their best efforts I think the Tories are having to spend £60bn more this year than they were in 2010.

Anyhow, don't we have the powers to increase funding for public services?

Firstly, through the tax-raising powers we haven't bothered to use.

Secondly, through ending the council tax freeze?

[Mibbes Aye]

Apart from Foreign policy, Defence, Taxation, Welfare, Continental shelf, Fisheries, Farming, and a Million and one other things:wink:

So these would all be new bills in an independent Scotland?

How much do they cost? How much for all those foreign embassies?

Will I see my income tax go up as a consequence?

[Mibbes Aye]

Can any of the NO camp tell me how much it will cost Scotland to stay in the Union?

We will have to fund Alex Salmond's MP pension on top of his MSP pension?

[ronaldo7]

So these would all be new bills in an independent Scotland?

How much do they cost? How much for all those foreign embassies?

Will I see my income tax go up as a consequence?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

Any chance you could respond to 2780 you might have missed in the fog of war.:greengrin

I will pick it up in the morning:greengrin

EDIT: Glad you asked about foreign embassies. This guy thinks we're due money back. https://twitter.com/AssetScotland

[ronaldo7]

We will have to fund Alex Salmond's MP pension on top of his MSP pension?

No figures to hand:wink: I would have thought the no camp might have done some work on how much it's going to cost Scotland to stay in the Union.

[Bristolhibby]

EU citizenship is dependent on holding nationality of a member state. I think that goes back to the Treaty of Rome and was maybe consolidated at Maastricht.

The crucial bit there though is 'member state'.

We still don't have an answer about whether Scotland would automatically be a member state.

No 'member state', no EU citizenship. Nothing dubious about that IMO.

It's quite simple. There is no president.

However why would Scotland not be immediately admitted.

My moot point is why is the assumption that the Rump UK the successor state, why is that believed to be the case. Scotland has equal rights to be the successor state.

J

[Bristolhibby]

The problem with that, in fact the problem with many in the Yes camp, is you are making a 19th or 20th-century argument in the 21st-century.

'Scottishness' is a cultural construction. It's not something inherent, regardless of what emotional arguments any one cares to make.

It's not about identifying with something - although I suspect the Yes campaign would like to pursue that approach around differentiation.

It's simply saying 'is there any need for this?' And the Yes campaign can't really provide the evidence that there is a need for this.

Don't buy that. We are getting into the question about being Scottish.

I believe for the bulk of us being Scottish is inherent. From your Mum & your Dad, it's where you grew up, it's where you identify with.

Even for no voters I know, they still head to Hampden and Murrayfield and support Scotland.

Do we have to set up the North British Football Association for those who don't identify?

J

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

Any chance you could respond to 2780 you might have missed in the fog of war.:greengrin

I will pick it up in the morning:greengrin

I read it but didn't get to the reply stage, sorry! Like you say, in the rush it got missed, sorry for that.

In the thread on the PM board I've made posts as to why I don't think we will opt out if there's a referendum in 2017. You're a PM so I'm guessing you can read them there, but happy to discuss further on here if you like. It would make an interesting thread in its own right and I'm far from certain I'm right.

Re clout, politics is politics. I'm quite happy for anyone to say a nation of five million people will have more clout than a nation of sixty million, in an organisation that covers 500 million people, but I would hazard that they are talking nonsense. Especially given that the levers we have successfully deployed in the past would seem to remain with the UK.

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

Any chance you could respond to 2780 you might have missed in the fog of war.:greengrin

I will pick it up in the morning:greengrin

EDIT: Glad you asked about foreign embassies. This guy thinks we're due money back. https://twitter.com/AssetScotland

Well thank **** we have a reputable source :aok: :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

It's quite simple. There is no president.

However why would Scotland not be immediately admitted.

My moot point is why is the assumption that the Rump UK the successor state, why is that believed to be the case. Scotland has equal rights to be the successor state.

J

It's the fact you and I can't answer that with certainty which is the concern.

Isn't it shambolic that I'm being asked to vote on my future, my children's future, and we can't authoritatively answer that?

[Mibbes Aye]

Don't buy that. We are getting into the question about being Scottish.

I believe for the bulk of us being Scottish is inherent. From your Mum & your Dad, it's where you grew up, it's where you identify with.

Even for no voters I know, they still head to Hampden and Murrayfield and support Scotland.

Do we have to set up the North British Football Association for those who don't identify?

J

Are you Scottish? If so, what is it that makes you Scottish?

[Bristolhibby]

Are you Scottish? If so, what is it that makes you Scottish?

Yes and I feel that your identity comes from a number of places, it's from your Mum & your Dad, your family, it's where you grew up, it's where you are from, it's where you are, its where you end up, it's where you identify with.

J

[Bristolhibby]

It's the fact you and I can't answer that with certainty which is the concern.

Isn't it shambolic that I'm being asked to vote on my future, my children's future, and we can't authoritatively answer that?

Yet England, lead by Dave and Boris will lead us out of the EU.

"Isn't it shambolic that I'm being asked to vote on my future, my children's future, and we can't authoritatively answer that?"

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Yet England, lead by Dave and Boris will lead us out of the EU.

"Isn't it shambolic that I'm being asked to vote on my future, my children's future, and we can't authoritatively answer that?"

J

The polls don't back that up.

Try again?

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes and I feel that your identity comes from a number of places, it's from your Mum & your Dad, your family, it's where you grew up, it's where you are from, it's where you are, its where you end up, it's where you identify with.

J

Okay, that's all a bit vague but I can understand it. So what's 'Scottish'?

[Bristolhibby]

Okay, that's all a bit vague but I can understand it. So what's 'Scottish'?

Not sure what the point is that you are aiming to make?

J

[Bristolhibby]

The polls don't back that up.

Try again?

Back what up?

[Mibbes Aye]

Not sure what the point is that you are aiming to make?

J

I asked what it is that made you 'Scottish'. You seemed to say it came from a variety of sources/influences. I'm asking what that actually is though. If you are saying you are 'Scottish', what does being 'Scottish' actually mean or represent?

[Mibbes Aye]

Back what up?

You said that England, led by Dave and Boris will lead us out of the EU.

But the polls don't back that up.

Why do you think they are wrong?

[Beefster]

You said that England, led by Dave and Boris will lead us out of the EU.

But the polls don't back that up.

Why do you think they are wrong?

Believing that polls are usually right would mean that the game was up.

[JeMeSouviens]

You said that England, led by Dave and Boris will lead us out of the EU.

But the polls don't back that up.

Why do you think they are wrong?

Don't they?

Survation in the Mail on Sunday this week:

http://survation.com/latest-westminster-voting-intention-and-eu-views-in-survationmail-on-sunday-poll/



EU Referendum

We asked how respondents would vote if there was a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union (with changes since March 2014)

Vote for the UK to leave the EU: 47% (-1)

Vote for the UK to remain a member of the EU: 39% (NC)

Don’t know: (+1)

[Moulin Yarns]

That's probably a cracking thread in its own right :greengrin

Re self-determination and chosen paths, I've posted this before:

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

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

It feels like my choices are better-served within the UK, doesn't it?

I've been wanting to check this since you posted. So here goes....

From this I take you to be a Labour supporter.

The thing that needs to be taken into account is the different electoral systems at Westminster and Holyrood.

A purely first past the post system will almost always give a government that the majority of people didn't vote for, but you were fortunate that 60% of the time you got what you wanted at Westminster.

At Holyrood the system is a mix of FPTP (73MSPs) and Additional Members (56 MSPs) this was designed to make it difficult for a single party to have a majority to ensure consensus politics were used so that, as much as possible, decisions made at Holyrood were agreed across the chamber. In this way it would be almost impossible for anybody to say they got the government they wanted because we are all greedy and want our party to win, not be part of a coalition (unless you are a Lib/Dem at Westminster :wink:)

In 1999 Labour had 39% of the vote, and 43% of seats (fair?) You got what you voted for (Labour MSPs were the largest group) = Coalition
SNP had 29% vote and 27% seats (fair?)

In 2003 Labour had 35% vote and 39% seats (fair?) Again, Labour MSPs were the largest group) = Coalition
SNP had 24% vote and 21% seats (fair?)

In 2007 Labour had 32% vote and 36% seats (fair?)
SNP had 33% vote and 37% seats (unfair?) You didn't get what you voted for (For the first time SNP made up the largest group at Holyrood, and formed a minority administration)

In 2011, the unthinkable happened and a single party gained a majority of seats.

Labour had 32% votes and 29% seats (unfair?)
SNP had 45% votes and 53% seats (unfair?) And so we come to where we are today.

What does it actually mean "my choices are better-served within the UK"? Well, if you are happy that the party you vote for has absolutely NO influence in Government for a minimum period of 5 years in the event of losing a General Election, then yes. If, on the other hand, as happened in 3 out of the 4 Holyrood parliaments (including 2007) your party has worked with all other parties to reach decisions that are to the benefit of Scotland within the financial constraints laid down by Westminster, then your choices are most definately better served by the Scottish Government.

There is a very good chance of a Conservative, or even Conservative/UKIP Government at the next General Election, and that frightens me. In Scotland, there is a better chance of a coalition involving Labour with minority parties, like the Lib Dems or Greens. Your choice is greater in Scotland than it is in the UK.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's not true.

At the moment you vote for someone to go to the UK parliament. They give most of the money spent in Scotland to a bunch of people you voted for at Holyrood. They decide what happens with it.

Being frank, I don't think you're any likelier to look your MP or MSP in the eye but that's neither here nor there.

How money is spent on your hospitals, your children's schools, the carers who go into your grandparent's house, the guys who collect your bins, the state of your roads, whether the police patrol your neighborhood, where your nearest fire station and ambulance station are and a million and one other things that actually affect us on a daily basis - they are all decided in Scotland.

They are decided in Scotland, but the amount available is decided in London, and, at the moment we get back 92% of what we give to London. How is that fair?

Another way to look at that is, If you get a take home pay of £1000, but when you go to withdraw it from the bank, there is only £920, who' has the other £80?

[ronaldo7]

Well thank **** we have a reputable source :aok: :greengrin

Taken directly from HM Government.

[ronaldo7]

They are decided in Scotland, but the amount available is decided in London, and, at the moment we get back 92% of what we give to London. How is that fair?

Another way to look at that is, If you get a take home pay of £1000, but when you go to withdraw it from the bank, there is only £920, who' has the other £80?

That's the sharing bit that better together keep talking about.

[Moulin Yarns]

I read it but didn't get to the reply stage, sorry! Like you say, in the rush it got missed, sorry for that.

In the thread on the PM board I've made posts as to why I don't think we will opt out if there's a referendum in 2017. You're a PM so I'm guessing you can read them there, but happy to discuss further on here if you like. It would make an interesting thread in its own right and I'm far from certain I'm right.

Re clout, politics is politics. I'm quite happy for anyone to say a nation of five million people will have more clout than a nation of sixty million, in an organisation that covers 500 million people, but I would hazard that they are talking nonsense. Especially given that the levers we have successfully deployed in the past would seem to remain with the UK.

Malta, population 421,400 has 6 seats (same as Scotland) and 3 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?
Luxembourg population 537,000 has 6 seats (same as Scotland) and 4 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?
Denmark population 5,602,600 (SO close to Scotland) has 13 seats (double Scotland) and 7 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?

The most recent member state is Croatia (remember how it got Independence?) Population 4,262,100 has 12 seats (double Scotland) and 7 Council Votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?

[Moulin Yarns]

It is worth looking at the nations who were in Glasgow over the past couple of weeks to look at the dates they choose to celebrate.



13203

[Moulin Yarns]

Remember folks, we keep hearing about all those businesses that are desperate to move out of Scotland on the 19th of September.

It is good to get a balanced view, ocassionaly.


https://archive.today/0wOxJ (https://archive.today/0wOxJ)

[Moulin Yarns]

Remember how we keep being told that banks will relocate to London.

RBS, Based in London

Lloyds TSB Based in London

HBOS Guess? Yep, London

They might have what they call head offices in Edinburgh, but they are in name only. We will not lose banks because they already operate across borders, and currencies.

Proof?

http://mib.rbs.com/our-locations/americas.html


Remember this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321

Oh woe is me, Don't you dare vote for Independence. Scottish Widows (owned by Aberdeen Asset Management, Head Office Raratonga, the Cook Islands) Aye, like it will bother a Global company where they have offices.

[southfieldhibby]

It looks like there is an over riding require for evidence or proof of how Scotland would fund itself post independence, and when the cry of oil revenue is used it's shouted down as being finite and almost finished.I tend to shy away from the oil chat as it's not becoming of a gent like I is. :agree:

But I had a crack at reading this and was sufficiently impressed to share it here.I've not read it all as it's there's alot of data from impartial sources and alot of phrases used that, quite frankly, bore my thrupnies aff, but if you have an hour or so, fill yer galloshes.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/11/the-real-state-of-scotlands-oil-and-gas-reserves/

[JeMeSouviens]

Probably not.
There are many more indictments of the idea of nationalism, the idea of differentiation. It's no rationale for a form of government IMO.


That's all fine and dandy but, for me, every one of those quotes is at least (if not considerably more) applicable to the nationalism espoused by "One Nation" Milliband, "British jobs for British people" Brown and that's before we go anywhere near the Tories, UKIP, etc. than it does to anyone involved with Yes Scotland. We can only vote on the choice we have in front of us and I'd say if you want less patriotic chauvinism in your national government, vote Yes.



On the other hand I'm pragmatic. I've posted on here before that I can see the sense in a level of government that sits at a regional level, so if you live in Edinburgh say South-East Scotland or Lothian and Borders, maybe Fife too. Whether that sits with a UK government or within the EU structure I don't know. I'm open to discussing it [/FONT][/COLOR]:greengrin


That sounds great! Come back when you've fleshed that one out just a tad more, built a movement behind it and are on track to push it through. 2214 or thereabouts maybe?



We can't go ahead without these, surely. Were they available I would still have a fundamental issue however with this push to be 'independent'. It doesn't sound real and it's not really important to me. And I don't see how it makes anyone's life better. And it feels wrong - we are making out we are going to be better by being different from something we are just now. If that were the case why aren't we pushing to make everything better for everyone just now?

Although you have acknowledged in your masterplan above (I infer) that the over centralisation of the UK needs broken up and power delivered wherever possible as close to the communities whose lives it can be used to affect?

How long do you wait before you realise that that runs counter to everything Westminster government is about? Power is only to be devolved in a grudging fashion using half baked ideas made up on the hoof to deliver the absolute minimum you think you can get away with if it starts to look like you're up against an electoral wall.

[Moulin Yarns]

It looks like there is an over riding require for evidence or proof of how Scotland would fund itself post independence, and when the cry of oil revenue is used it's shouted down as being finite and almost finished.I tend to shy away from the oil chat as it's not becoming of a gent like I is. :agree:

But I had a crack at reading this and was sufficiently impressed to share it here.I've not read it all as it's there's alot of data from impartial sources and alot of phrases used that, quite frankly, bore my thrupnies aff, but if you have an hour or so, fill yer galloshes.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/06/11/the-real-state-of-scotlands-oil-and-gas-reserves/


I know what you are saying about the oil arguments, but the oil isn't finished, or close to running out, and companies are still pouring money into exploration.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/shell-vows-to-invest-billions-in-north-sea.24925660

There is the rumour of (hidden) news just last week that possibly the World's largest ever Oil field had been discovered in the Clair field off Shetland. (Actual news is being suppressed)

There is almost all of the west coast that has not even been touched yet because of the MOD block on exploration due to the presence of Trident. Get rid of Trident and there are untold possibilities of black gold.

As to other sources of funding, look no further than savings that can be made. I don't have the time to get all the sources, but here are some of the savings following Independence.

Scotland's share of the:

Cost of Westminster, both Houses.
Cost of Trident. (about £650million per year, to Scotland)
Cost of HS2
Cost of London Crossrail

That comes to a not insubstantial amount of Billions of pounds.

[southfieldhibby]

I know what you are saying about the oil arguments, but the oil isn't finished, or close to running out, and companies are still pouring money into exploration.



I know that, click on the link in my last post and see if you can make it to the end...it's basically aload of geologists saying there is much,much more to the west of Scotland than there is to the east.

[RyeSloan]

Interesting debate the last few days and hats off to a few for their indefatigably ;-)

One thing I have seen a few times though is the alleged suppression of news regarding the worlds biggest oil find.

Now I might be daft but if BP or whoever it is has found such huge quantities of oil is it even remotely possible that a) They would happily keep it quiet just for Dave's benefit and b) they would even happily ignore stock exchange rules and c) pi$$ off their vast institutional shareholder base by failing to mention a material oil find that could impact their share price substantially and d) we would know all about it on here but the news continues to be called suppressed or unreported or whatever

I find the whole rumour rather odd.

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting debate the last few days and hats off to a few for their indefatigably ;-)

One thing I have seen a few times though is the alleged suppression of news regarding the worlds biggest oil find.

Now I might be daft but if BP or whoever it is has found such huge quantities of oil is it even remotely possible that a) They would happily keep it quiet just for Dave's benefit and b) they would even happily ignore stock exchange rules and c) pi$$ off their vast institutional shareholder base by failing to mention a material oil find that could impact their share price substantially and d) we would know all about it on here but the news continues to be called suppressed or unreported or whatever

I find the whole rumour rather odd.

on my phone so not able to link but the news is reported in oil industry site somewhere about early findings very promising. Think it is Hurricane that reported.

[The_Exile]

It is Hurricane Energy, a friend of a friend (I know I know!!!) was on the exploration team west of Shetland recently and allegedly they have all been told to stay off work, full pay plus a "wee bit extra", until the 19th of September. This is second hand info and I don't pretend to know if this is indeed what is actually going down up there at the moment.

Edit: Also, forgot to say, apparently David Cameron was up in Shetland recently and had a bit of a hush hush visit to an oil rig? (Are there any rigs up beside Shetland?). If true then am I correct in saying this is the first time since Heath and Thatcher (both also Tories) that a PM has visited a rig?

[Moulin Yarns]

Regarding the rig. I believe it has been moved as the exploration has been completed. The staff being paid is probably not anything sinister. Some won't be needed until it is in the next location.

I have friend on Brent but have not been in touch.

[marinello59]

Regarding the rig. I believe it has been moved as the exploration has been completed. The staff being paid is probably not anything sinister. Some won't be needed until it is in the next location.

I have friend on Brent but have not been in touch.

There is nothing to this story. The potential of this field is already well known and has been extensively reported. It's a huge oil field, we already know that, nothing has been hidden.

[JeMeSouviens]

Big move in the Ipsos/MORI poll for stv.

Y 42
N 58

Think that's a 4% cut in the no lead. They've been consistently the most strongly no pollster.

[over the line]

Big move in the Ipsos/MORI poll for stv.

Y 42
N 58

Think that's a 4% cut in the no lead. They've been consistently the most strongly no pollster.

Does it state what percentage of 'undecided' were removed from the result? I think that is the interesting bit of these polls, as obviously they are the ones both sides are desperate to recruit.

[Northernhibee]

It'll be interesting to see the polls in a couple of days once it all settles. That wasn't even close - a clear Darling victory.

[over the line]

It'll be interesting to see the polls in a couple of days once it all settles. That wasn't even close - a clear Darling victory.

Didn't see it, will try and watch it tomorrow. Did they have live polls during the broadcast and if so what were they indicating?

[joebakerforever]

Didn't see it, will try and watch it tomorrow. Did they have live polls during the broadcast and if so what were they indicating?

An instant Guardian/ICM poll conducted immediately after the debate concludes that Darling won the debate by 56 per cent to 44 per cent.

[over the line]

An instant Guardian/ICM poll conducted immediately after the debate concludes that Darling won the debate by 56 per cent to 44 per cent.

I have to say I am surprised by that that really, I thought Alex Salmond would do well in that sort of thing? What do you think were the key points and issues that swung it that way?

[JeMeSouviens]

Does it state what percentage of 'undecided' were removed from the result? I think that is the interesting bit of these polls, as obviously they are the ones both sides are desperate to recruit.

DKs were only 6% I think but Mori doesn't include respondents not certain to vote. Don't know how many of them there were?

[SmithyHibee]

Salmonds complete refusal to answer Alistair Darlings question on currency done him no good whatsoever, also bringing up quotes that were clearly said as jokes and making them sound like they'd been said as serious statements backfired massively and made him seem like a clown.

[Northernhibee]

I have to say I am surprised by that that really, I thought Alex Salmond would do well in that sort of thing? What do you think were the key points and issues that swung it that way?

Part two on the STV website is particularly surprising - even as a supporter of the no campaign I'm not a fan of Alistair Darling and he was absolutely outstanding in that section.

[over the line]

DKs were only 6% I think but Mori doesn't include respondents not certain to vote. Don't know how many of them there were?

That's quite a low amount of DK's, I've seen some polls that remove 12% before doing the calculation. Maybe more people have made their minds up now?

I personally think if you are a DK this late in the day, you are much more likely to go with the safe vote and stick to what you know (so a No vote in other words). Would you agree?

[over the line]

Salmonds complete refusal to answer Alistair Darlings question on currency done him no good whatsoever, also bringing up quotes that were clearly said as jokes and making them sound like they'd been said as serious statements backfired massively and made him seem like a clown.

There are just too many very important unknowns in the Yes camp, currency being a prime example. I just think all these unknowns make a Yes vote far to risky. There is far too much to be lost and far too little to he gained. People's livelihoods and futures are at risk here and for what?

[over the line]

Part two on the STV website is particularly surprising - even as a supporter of the no campaign I'm not a fan of Alistair Darling and he was absolutely outstanding in that section.

I'm not a big fan of A D myself, but he is a ruthless, efficient and slick politician if nothing else.

[barcahibs]

I found the TV debate really interesting but not sure it settled much.

Salmond clearly had the nicest tie and the shiniest shoes so that put him in an instant lead - but then I noticed that Darling is both taller, thinner and has better hair. That edged him into a narrow lead if only it wasn't for his weird eyebrows.
Neither of them really fluffed any of their pre-prepared lines or accidentally said something out of policy so that was really disappointing, as an error made under pressure by a minor politician on live TV would almost certainly have made my mind up about my country's future for the next 100 years. Hopefully one of them will slip up next time.

I think for the next debate the key battle will be between both sides joke writers. Neither managed to really land anything funny this time around, I feel a real zinger from either camp will probably swing it. If I were them I'd try to work ducks into the debate somehow as "duck" is a both a funny word and a funny looking bird.

I really think TV debates are the future of democracy. Though it maybe a better idea to just put up pictures of them both smiling and then we can decide on whoever has the whitest teeth.

[over the line]

I found the TV debate really interesting but not sure it settled much.

Salmond clearly had the nicest tie and the shiniest shoes so that put him in an instant lead - but then I noticed that Darling is both taller, thinner and has better hair. That edged him into a narrow lead if only it wasn't for his weird eyebrows.
Neither of them really fluffed any of their pre-prepared lines or accidentally said something out of policy so that was really disappointing, as an error made under pressure by a minor politician on live TV would almost certainly have made my mind up about my country's future for the next 100 years. Hopefully one of them will slip up next time.

I think for the next debate the key battle will be between both sides joke writers. Neither managed to really land anything funny this time around, I feel a real zinger from either camp will probably swing it. If I were them I'd try to work ducks into the debate somehow as "duck" is a both a funny word and a funny looking bird.

I really think TV debates are the future of democracy. Though it maybe a better idea to just put up pictures of them both smiling and then we can decide on whoever has the whitest teeth.

I am still a big fan of deciding really important things with arm wrestles! One left arm and one right arm, just to get the political balance. Now tell me you wouldn't want to see Salmond and Darling doing that?!?! Who do you think would win?

[RyeSloan]

I am still a big fan of deciding really important things with arm wrestles! One left arm and one right arm, just to get the political balance. Now tell me you wouldn't want to see Salmond and Darling doing that?!?! Who do you think would win?

The guy in the middle?

[RyeSloan]

Only caught a wee bit of the debate tonight...not sure it will change any minds to be honest.

Salmond was roasted on the currency and his right hand side of the road and aliens stuff was truly pathetic.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Only caught a wee bit of the debate tonight...not sure it will change any minds to be honest.

Salmond was roasted on the currency and his right hand side of the road and aliens stuff was truly pathetic.

:agree: Darling won clearly. Not sure where the pundits were going with the no clear winner stuff.

Embarrassing stuff about the currency - no answer, no contingency from Salmond, yet when he thought he could repay Darling he went OTT on the “yes or no” stuff. His tactics seemed to be the Tories are unpopular in Scotland and they want a NO so keep tarring Darling with the Tories and frighten folk into thinking a NO = Tory. It was clear he came with a dose of newspaper clippings that he needed to read out so forced them in when he could. He even had Sturgeon stating the same thing over and over in the “spin room” despite Darling having clarified he’d been taken out of context.

If anyone thought Salmond came across well last night I think they should take the blinkers off and try and watch it from a neutral point of view. The boy in the crowd got it right when he said all he'd seen from Salmond was a few snide comments.

[Northernhibee]

:agree: Darling won clearly. Not sure where the pundits were going with the no clear winner stuff.

Embarrassing stuff about the currency - no answer, no contingency from Salmond, yet when he thought he could repay Darling he went OTT on the “yes or no” stuff. His tactics seemed to be the Tories are unpopular in Scotland and they want a NO so keep tarring Darling with the Tories and frighten folk into thinking a NO = Tory. It was clear he came with a dose of newspaper clippings that he needed to read out so forced them in when he could. He even had Sturgeon stating the same thing over and over in the “spin room” despite Darling having clarified he’d been taken out of context.

If anyone thought Salmond came across well last night I think they should take the blinkers off and try and watch it from a neutral point of view. The boy in the crowd got it right when he said all he'd seen from Salmond was a few snide comments.

Salmonds 'yes or no' was embarrasing - Darling was answering his question and Salmond shouted over the top of all of it.

As you say, Darling the clear winner.

[#FromTheCapital]

There are just too many very important unknowns in the Yes camp, currency being a prime example. I just think all these unknowns make a Yes vote far to risky. There is far too much to be lost and far too little to he gained. People's livelihoods and futures are at risk here and for what?

Agreed. Too many questions and not enough answers. I thought Salmond was a complete embarrassment last night. The currency issue is huge and he made an arse of that part of the debate last night. Quite frankly I've no idea how the yes campaign has picked up as much support as it has.

[Hibrandenburg]

Don't get this about Salmond not coming clean on currency. He's said over and over again that the pound is our currency and is as much Scotland's as it is the rest of the UK's.

However I do agree that Darling was much more composed and probably edged the first round. But just because you put your argumentation well doesn't mean your arguments are correct and that's why I don't like these American style TV debates, it's the personality that wins the day and not the policies.

[Beefster]

:agree: Darling won clearly. Not sure where the pundits were going with the no clear winner stuff.

Keeps them safe from the Twitter loonies.

[JeMeSouviens]

Only caught a wee bit of the debate tonight...not sure it will change any minds to be honest.

Salmond was roasted on the currency and his right hand side of the road and aliens stuff was truly pathetic.

I don't think it'll change any minds at all. The No camp's pre-spin that basically said their guy was expected to be crap and didn't have to win anyway did its job.

I must admit I don't really understand the line on currency. The Scottish Government has commissioned serious work on this (link below if anyone hasn't seen it) by serious people including 2 nobel laureate economists. It carefully considers all the options and while it concludes currency union is the best option it certainly doesn't suggest that a Scottish pound initially pegged wouldn't work. I get that they don't want to give away their initial negotiating position but they are allowing themselves to be portrayed as a bunch of cowboys that haven't even thought of it.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Economy/Council-Economic-Advisers/FCWG

[JeMeSouviens]

That's quite a low amount of DK's, I've seen some polls that remove 12% before doing the calculation. Maybe more people have made their minds up now?

I personally think if you are a DK this late in the day, you are much more likely to go with the safe vote and stick to what you know (so a No vote in other words). Would you agree?

I don't think so, on either count. Remember these are DKs who say they're certain to vote, I would expect that number to be low. The reason MORI apply a "certain to vote" filter is that it makes the polls much closer to actual turnout figures in elections. More people will tell pollsters they're likely to vote than actually end up voting. In fact, even retrospectively, when pollsters ask how people voted in previous elections they get a much higher turnout figure than actually happened. I guess people are just embarrassed to admit they didn't bother.

Polling evidence so far (asking DKs which way they lean, asking people if they've recently made their mind up) suggests DKs are slightly more likely to break to Yes.

[JeMeSouviens]

There are just too many very important unknowns in the Yes camp, currency being a prime example. I just think all these unknowns make a Yes vote far to risky. There is far too much to be lost and far too little to he gained. People's livelihoods and futures are at risk here and for what?

People's livelihoods are at risk from Labour's inept plan to devolve some income tax but only allow it to be raised. People's livelihoods are at risk from the UK pulling out of the EU. People's livelihoods are at risk from George Osbourne's ideological drive for austerity (even though the economy only started to grow when he paused it.) People's livelihoods are at risk from the cuts that will follow in Scotland from the reworking of the Barnett formula. People's actual lives are at risk from having nuclear weapons based a few miles from our largest population centre.

I am deeply worried about what follows a No.

[JeMeSouviens]

btw, I didn't actually watch the debate (there was some obscure gaelic football on another channel :wink:) but interesting stats from ICM's post-debate poll:

http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/ScotDebate_Aug2014.pdf

As you'd expect, firm Y or Ns overwhelmingly thought their man won but the undecideds at the start went 55-45 to Salmond. Still undecided at the end went 74-26 to Salmond.

It looks like Salmond heeded the pre-debate warnings about toning down the smugness and triumphalism. Perhaps that "lost" him the debate in media eyes but will pay off in the long run.

Another thing to note - Ipsos/MORI not only did the pre-debate poll, they also picked the audience. As their numbers tend to No-friendly, it means it was a 60-40 N friendly crowd which will inevitably have had an effect on the questions asked but also the mood music, how much applause, boos, cheers, etc.

[JeMeSouviens]

... and another thing ... calling Brian Taylor of the Beeb ... Brian, please lay off the pies man, I'm getting seriously worried for your health.

[marinello59]

I'd love to be in the room today when Salmond and his advisors do a post mortem on that one. The f-word will be used more than once I would think.
Please, please, please let Nicola Sturgeon take centre stage for the rest of the campaign. This is still winnable.

[over the line]

People's livelihoods are at risk from Labour's inept plan to devolve some income tax but only allow it to be raised. People's livelihoods are at risk from the UK pulling out of the EU. People's livelihoods are at risk from George Osbourne's ideological drive for austerity (even though the economy only started to grow when he paused it.) People's livelihoods are at risk from the cuts that will follow in Scotland from the reworking of the Barnett formula. People's actual lives are at risk from having nuclear weapons based a few miles from our largest population centre.

I am deeply worried about what follows a No.

So does an I S have plans to lower taxes? I seriously doubt taxes will go down in an I S, most the Yes posts on here seem to think they would go up anyway.

I really don't think the UK will pull out of the EU. The UKIP thing is just a protest vote. The UK will probably tweek its EU membership, along with quite a few other member states who had a similar protest vote in the EU elections.

Austerity is painful all round, no doubt. Whoever was in charge for the last few years would have had to make really tough cuts, no matter what they might say. Plus you can't run your first point alongside this one, as Osbourne won't be deciding on the budget, whilst Labour are giving taxation powers to Scotland, will they? ;)

Don't get how having nuclear weapons put peoples lives at risk in Scotland. They have undoubtedly stopped a global war in the past and I feel they are a necessary evil today. Just think of all the dodgey states that have, or are developing nuclear weapons. We still need nukes I'm afraid. Plus I feel that the nukes would stay in an I S anyway, it would just be one of the many things that would realistically be negotiated over.

I can't see how anyone could be deeply worried about what would follow a No? It would be something like what it is now, which on the grand scale of things isn't too bad really.

[JeMeSouviens]

So does an I S have plans to lower taxes? I seriously doubt taxes will go down in an I S, most the Yes posts on here seem to think they would go up anyway.


You've missed the point. Political structures are for life, not just for Xmas. If one set of politicians get in, raise taxes and make an arse of things, the electorate has to have the power to boot them out for a party that will lower them again.



I really don't think the UK will pull out of the EU. The UKIP thing is just a protest vote. The UK will probably tweek its EU membership, along with quite a few other member states who had a similar protest vote in the EU elections.


So, it's not a risk because you've got a hunch everything'll be ok. Well that's alright then. :rolleyes: The UKIP thing is a protest that will keep the Tories in eurosceptic mode. Cameron has hitched himself firmly to renegotiation/referendum and can't go back on it again. French/German patience is running thin, imo they will call his bluff and there are Tory ministers already saying they will campaign to pull out. Your hunch notwithstanding, it's a large risk.



Austerity is painful all round, no doubt. Whoever was in charge for the last few years would have had to make really tough cuts, no matter what they might say. Plus you can't run your first point alongside this one, as Osbourne won't be deciding on the budget, whilst Labour are giving taxation powers to Scotland, will they? ;)


All risks are risks ahead of an event even if some are mutually exclusive. I think the Labour plan is low risk because I don't think they'll get in, but it's still a risk. Otoh, I think Osbourne austerity is high risk and is ideologically driven. Yes, you have to balance books over the medium to long term (not that successive UK governments have made much of a stab at it) but cutting further in a recession is a dangerous game. The economy has only recovered since austerity was quietly put on pause. It doesn't suit either side of westminster politics to admit that, Labour still want to bang on about Tory cuts, Osbourne doesn't want to admit he's backtracked, but a quick gander at the initial targets for deficit reduction vs what's actually happened clearly show a pause.



Don't get how having nuclear weapons put peoples lives at risk in Scotland. They have undoubtedly stopped a global war in the past and I feel they are a necessary evil today. Just think of all the dodgey states that have, or are developing nuclear weapons. We still need nukes I'm afraid. Plus I feel that the nukes would stay in an I S anyway, it would just be one of the many things that would realistically be negotiated over.


This is predicated on Britain continuing to strut around in post-imperial faded pomp trying to stick an oar into various world messes. "Dodgy" states don't generally point nukes at western europe. North Korea use them as a starightforward deterrent to US backed regime change. The others (Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc) are pointing them at each other. The UK's status as a "great power" has long gone, we have no more need for nukes now than any of the other western european countries that don't waste money on them.



I can't see how anyone could be deeply worried about what would follow a No? It would be something like what it is now, which on the grand scale of things isn't too bad really.

How did we get on post-1979, the last time a relieved Tory government contemplated fending off the uppity Jocks? We have been potrayed for years in England as whinging, scrounging subsidy junkies without a word of protest from those who now proclaim they want us to to stay. The pressure has been building to scrap Barnett, in my view that will be inevitable post-No.

[southfieldhibby]

So the main poll being used tells us AD bested AS, aye?

actually, naw.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/

[over the line]

You've missed the point. Political structures are for life, not just for Xmas. If one set of politicians get in, raise taxes and make an arse of things, the electorate has to have the power to boot them out for a party that will lower them again.



So, it's not a risk because you've got a hunch everything'll be ok. Well that's alright then. :rolleyes: The UKIP thing is a protest that will keep the Tories in eurosceptic mode. Cameron has hitched himself firmly to renegotiation/referendum and can't go back on it again. French/German patience is running thin, imo they will call his bluff and there are Tory ministers already saying they will campaign to pull out. Your hunch notwithstanding, it's a large risk.



All risks are risks ahead of an event even if some are mutually exclusive. I think the Labour plan is low risk because I don't think they'll get in, but it's still a risk. Otoh, I think Osbourne austerity is high risk and is ideologically driven. Yes, you have to balance books over the medium to long term (not that successive UK governments have made much of a stab at it) but cutting further in a recession is a dangerous game. The economy has only recovered since austerity was quietly put on pause. It doesn't suit either side of westminster politics to admit that, Labour still want to bang on about Tory cuts, Osbourne doesn't want to admit he's backtracked, but a quick gander at the initial targets for deficit reduction vs what's actually happened clearly show a pause.



This is predicated on Britain continuing to strut around in post-imperial faded pomp trying to stick an oar into various world messes. "Dodgy" states don't generally point nukes at western europe. North Korea use them as a starightforward deterrent to US backed regime change. The others (Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc) are pointing them at each other. The UK's status as a "great power" has long gone, we have no more need for nukes now than any of the other western european countries that don't waste money on them.



How did we get on post-1979, the last time a relieved Tory government contemplated fending off the uppity Jocks? We have been potrayed for years in England as whinging, scrounging subsidy junkies without a word of protest from those who now proclaim they want us to to stay. The pressure has been building to scrap Barnett, in my view that will be inevitable post-No.

So does an I S have plans to lower taxes? Or even a non I S for that matter? Genuine question, as I don't know.

The Yes route seems to aspire to a Norwegian or Danish template, which would mean much higher taxes anyway. So you may as well argue for the right to build a ladder to the moon, as to argue for the right to lower taxes. ;)

Yes the EU question is just my opinion but its a realistic prospect that the EU will change in response to the recent elections and it is highly likely the UK will stay in it in some way. I'm not sure the Yes campaign can throw stones with regards to the EU, they don't have any certainties what so ever within it do they?

Your point about the nukes was that it puts Scottish peoples lives at risk. Explain how?

As I said before, nukes are a necessary evil. Whether the UK is the power it once was is irrelevant. With Russia playing a dangerous game again, I feel N W give us real security and clout when it comes to global affairs. Also who's to say the countries you have listed wouldn't point their N W at us if we didn't have any? I would rather have them and hope never to use them, than not have them and have to 'bend over and take it' from nations that do have them.This is something I feel particularly strongly about and I could debate this subject all day long.

You will have to educate me with regards to the after affects of 1979, I was too young to know/care about politics back then. :)

As a long term exile in England, I really don't agree with your views on Scotland's image down here. The vast majority of people I know look at Scotland favourably and with genuine affection. I don't see what you see at all.

[JeMeSouviens]

So does an I S have plans to lower taxes? Or even a non I S for that matter? Genuine question, as I don't know.


The SNP plan (afaik, I've voted for them a few times but I'm not a member or supporter) is to leave personal taxation largely unchanged. However, they may not win in 2016 and may never be the government of the iScotland they seek to create. Or might be for one term. Whatever the Telegraph says, we're not heading for one party state. An iScotland will of course, like any other country, have full control over all its rates of taxation and its electorate will, like any other country's electorate, have full control over whether it rewards the government with re-election or boots them out for somebody else. A devolved regional Scotland won't.



Yes the EU question is just my opinion but its a realistic prospect that the EU will change in response to the recent elections and it is highly likely the UK will stay in it in some way. I'm not sure the Yes campaign can throw stones with regards to the EU, they don't have any certainties what so ever within it do they?


Fwiw, I think there is very little chance of the sort of EU reform that would satisy the eurosceptics, tweaks as you say, but that's about it. There will be a referendum and imo it's very difficult to call, but if you don't think there's a considerable risk of UK pull out then I think you're being extremely short sighted.

Otoh, while we will not get a guarantee up front for political reasons, I think there is almost zero chance that Scotland will find itself outside the EU for any time at all, even if continuing membership is not automatic (which my hunch, see I have them too, is that it will be).



Your point about the nukes was that it puts Scottish peoples lives at risk. Explain how?


By Russians launching submarine based nuclear missiles at Faslane. Wasn't that obvious? Have a play with this ...

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/



As I said before, nukes are a necessary evil. Whether the UK is the power it once was is irrelevant. With Russia playing a dangerous game again, I feel N W give us real security and clout when it comes to global affairs. Also who's to say the countries you have listed wouldn't point their N W at us if we didn't have any? I would rather have them and hope never to use them, than not have them and have to 'bend over and take it' from nations that do have them.This is something I feel particularly strongly about and I could debate this subject all day long.


Nukes might be a necessary evil if you're the US or China. For a small european country like iScotland they most certainly are not. I don't want clout in the world. I want to be a peaceable country that enters into mutually supportive arrangements with others and gives help where it's needed and we're asked, in co-operation with the world. I want a defence strategy based on the geopolitics of 2014, not 1950.



You will have to educate me with regards to the after affects of 1979, I was too young to know/care about politics back then. :)


Google is your friend.



As a long term exile in England, I really don't agree with your views on Scotland's image down here. The vast majority of people I know look at Scotland favourably and with genuine affection. I don't see what you see at all.

I am in regular contact with colleagues based in the M4 corridor and semi-regularly visit. To a man, they think they are subsidising our "freebies".

[Beefster]

So the main poll being used tells us AD bested AS, aye?

actually, naw.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/

So, even if Salmond gets the same majority of undecideds to actually vote 'Yes', it's still game over?

[sauzee_4]

So does an I S have plans to lower taxes? Or even a non I S for that matter? Genuine question, as I don't know.

The Yes route seems to aspire to a Norwegian or Danish template, which would mean much higher taxes anyway. So you may as well argue for the right to build a ladder to the moon, as to argue for the right to lower taxes. ;)

Yes the EU question is just my opinion but its a realistic prospect that the EU will change in response to the recent elections and it is highly likely the UK will stay in it in some way. I'm not sure the Yes campaign can throw stones with regards to the EU, they don't have any certainties what so ever within it do they?

Your point about the nukes was that it puts Scottish peoples lives at risk. Explain how?

As I said before, nukes are a necessary evil. Whether the UK is the power it once was is irrelevant. With Russia playing a dangerous game again, I feel N W give us real security and clout when it comes to global affairs. Also who's to say the countries you have listed wouldn't point their N W at us if we didn't have any? I would rather have them and hope never to use them, than not have them and have to 'bend over and take it' from nations that do have them.This is something I feel particularly strongly about and I could debate this subject all day long.

You will have to educate me with regards to the after affects of 1979, I was too young to know/care about politics back then. :)

As a long term exile in England, I really don't agree with your views on Scotland's image down here. The vast majority of people I know look at Scotland favourably and with genuine affection. I don't see what you see at all.

If somebody nukes us, how exactly are we supposed to nuke them back?

[Hibrandenburg]

If somebody nukes us, how exactly are we supposed to nuke them back?

We've got subs capable of a retaliatory strike covertly prowling the oceans.

[over the line]

If somebody nukes us, how exactly are we supposed to nuke them back?

That is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent, so we don't get nuked. The enemy, who ever they may be at any given time, knows that any launch of N W, will be met and equalled by its intended target. Thus making an attack wholly undesirable in the first place. End result, no world wars for 70 years, everyone's a winner!

Even if an enemy did succeed in a sneak attack (unlikely) that resulted in N W hitting the UK mainland before any retaliation was launched, we still have our sub based missiles for the enemy to worry about.

[over the line]

The SNP plan (afaik, I've voted for them a few times but I'm not a member or supporter) is to leave personal taxation largely unchanged. However, they may not win in 2016 and may never be the government of the iScotland they seek to create. Or might be for one term. Whatever the Telegraph says, we're not heading for one party state. An iScotland will of course, like any other country, have full control over all its rates of taxation and its electorate will, like any other country's electorate, have full control over whether it rewards the government with re-election or boots them out for somebody else. A devolved regional Scotland won't.



Fwiw, I think there is very little chance of the sort of EU reform that would satisy the eurosceptics, tweaks as you say, but that's about it. There will be a referendum and imo it's very difficult to call, but if you don't think there's a considerable risk of UK pull out then I think you're being extremely short sighted.

Otoh, while we will not get a guarantee up front for political reasons, I think there is almost zero chance that Scotland will find itself outside the EU for any time at all, even if continuing membership is not automatic (which my hunch, see I have them too, is that it will be).



By Russians launching submarine based nuclear missiles at Faslane. Wasn't that obvious? Have a play with this ...

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/



Nukes might be a necessary evil if you're the US or China. For a small european country like iScotland they most certainly are not. I don't want clout in the world. I want to be a peaceable country that enters into mutually supportive arrangements with others and gives help where it's needed and we're asked, in co-operation with the world. I want a defence strategy based on the geopolitics of 2014, not 1950.



Google is your friend.



I am in regular contact with colleagues based in the M4 corridor and semi-regularly visit. To a man, they think they are subsidising our "freebies".

Tax: Fair enough, seems like another grey area? Not sure its a particularly valid point of argument about lowering taxes though, seeing as the SNP would prob keep it the same (ish) and realistically a more left wing alternative would almost certainly put taxes up. Also who's to say that the Scottish parliament won't be given or negotiate the power to lower taxes in the future?

I also think an I S would be part of the EU in some way, but this is one of the many important gaps/unknowns in the Yes campaign. Along with all the other ifs buts and maybes, it just doesn't stack up for me. How can anyone vote Yes with so many unknowns in vital areas?

Your view of a non nuclear Scotland is all very well and good when dealing with nations of similar outlooks to us. What happens when dealing with ugly and unreasonable states? Does Scotland just leave it up to the 'big boys' to sort out and hope they look after us as well? Or does it turn up to the knife fight armed with its blue and white balloons of peace? In which case at some point it would have to sit down, shut up and do as its told, or run the risk of getting stabbed. :( or at least get our balloons burst! ;):)

The people in the M4 corridor probably think they subsidise me, up here in the NW of England? You know how I deal with that, I shrug my shoulders and think so f'in what! :)

[steakbake]

If somebody nukes us, how exactly are we supposed to nuke them back?

If someone nukes us, nuking them back will achieve what, exactly?

So that we can all go to our fiery graves -(those lucky enough to be killed outright in the blast because to be honest, I'd rather be toast than a slowly dying, wandering survivor in a radioactive wasteland) - somehow comforted in the knowledge that we landed some kind of minimal blow?

This is the absolute and to be frank, ******ing stupidity of the nuclear deterrent issue.

[steakbake]

That is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent, so we don't get nuked. The enemy, who ever they may be at any given time, knows that any launch of N W, will be met and equalled by its intended target. Thus making an attack wholly undesirable in the first place. End result, no world wars for 70 years, everyone's a winner!

Even if an enemy did succeed in a sneak attack (unlikely) that resulted in N W hitting the UK mainland before any retaliation was launched, we still have our sub based missiles for the enemy to worry about.

The UK has a minimal nuclear armory. If Russia (for example) launched a strike on us, with even some of their many thousands of warheads, we have around 160 small level weapons to fire back with. From subs, with a medium range.

Our nuclear weapons are nothing more than bargaining chips to ensure we have a very expensive seat on the largely ineffective UN Security Council, on which Russia and China have vetoes.

[over the line]

The UK has a minimal nuclear armory. If Russia (for example) launched a strike on us, with even some of their many thousands of warheads, we have around 160 small level weapons to fire back with. From subs, with a medium range.

Our nuclear weapons are nothing more than bargaining chips to ensure we have a very expensive seat on the largely ineffective UN Security Council, on which Russia and China have vetoes.

I'm not sure on the total figure of nukes the UK may have, but for arguments sake ill accept the 160 figure. Russia undoubtedly have a lot more than that but they can only annihilate us the once, so most of them are irrelevant. Let's say for instance if only 10% of the 160 get through in retaliation, that would still make an undesirable mess of St. Petersburgh, Moscow etc. This definitely acts as a deterrent I feel.

I mean the Russian army is also much larger that the British army, do you think we shouldn't bother with an army either?

[Just Alf]

Tax isn't a grey area I don't think. AS clearly stated in the past that in the event of a yes that he'd slightly reduce corporation tax and all further changes would only happen once a new Scottish government was voted in.

About last night, watched it on catchup and I can't help thinking AS didn't help himself in the currency part of the debate.
There IS a plan listing 4 (I think) options, he even mentioned it... He should just have listed them then restated he was still going to argue for the best outcome for Scotland, which just happens to be the best for rUK business as well.

It's something like
1 shared sterling
2 sterling without an agreement
3 Scottish pound
4 euro

Something like that and has a breakdown of the whys and wherefore's etc.

EU. I can list the financial reasons why an iScotland will be admitted along with the application process (look at wiki and Finland, thier timescales were a couple of years and that was because they had to make changes to thier legislature to conform to EU standards, we already fully comply. But won't! :-)
Bottom line for me is that the EU is built to uphold democracy as a key underpinning element and there is no way that I can see the EU totally going against all it stands for because some of its current citizens have decided to follow the EU ideal.

[steakbake]

I'm not sure on the total figure of nukes the UK may have, but for arguments sake ill accept the 160 figure. Russia undoubtedly have a lot more than that but they can only annihilate us the once, so most of them are irrelevant. Let's say for instance if only 10% of the 160 get through in retaliation, that would still make an undesirable mess of St. Petersburgh, Moscow etc. This definitely acts as a deterrent I feel.

I mean the Russian army is also much larger that the British army, do you think we shouldn't bother with an army either?

That's great, then - we can all celebrate from the dust that we managed to take out the Hermitage and a bit of Red Square.

No, an army is entirely different from weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sorry to say, that if a president somewhere in the world is reaching for the launch codes, the situation is pretty much game over and no-one is going to feel any the better for coming through it comparatively unscathed.

We have 160 warheads - I think, if I'm not wrong, that's spread over 32 missiles.

Russia have around 1,800 active missiles, with a further 3000+ stockpiled (source: UN).

[PeeJay]

Tax isn't a grey area I don't think. AS clearly stated in the past that in the event of a yes that he'd slightly reduce corporation tax and all further changes would only happen once a new Scottish government was voted in.

About last night, watched it on catchup and I can't help thinking AS didn't help himself in the currency part of the debate.
There IS a plan listing 4 (I think) options, he even mentioned it... He should just have listed them then restated he was still going to argue for the best outcome for Scotland, which just happens to be the best for rUK business as well.

It's something like
1 shared sterling
2 sterling without an agreement
3 Scottish pound
4 euro



Well, the euro is not actually an option - a country wishing to join the euro has to have its own currency and it has to comply with the euro convergence criteria.

Watched the broadcast and was astonished at how poorly advised Salmond obviously was on such a crucial debate - wasting time harking on about aliens from space and driving on the wrong side of the road as well as "project Fear" when he had an opportunity to present the cold hard facts was an incredibly poor strategy to follow -assuming he had one that is. Sturgeon claiming he was performing quite well was par for the evening for the Yes camp - Darling bowled him over, didn't expect that to happen at all, surprised about that.

[Just Alf]

Re your 1st para, I suppose arguably we do have a currency at the mo, the convergence criteria is all out how you move from one to the other with minimal market fluctuations etc... On phone so can't actually see their original doc.

Not wrong on para 2... Maybe valid points in some discussions but not the time and place for it last night IMHO :agree:

[over the line]

That's great, then - we can all celebrate from the dust that we managed to take out the Hermitage and a bit of Red Square.

No, an army is entirely different from weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sorry to say, that if a president somewhere in the world is reaching for the launch codes, the situation is pretty much game over and no-one is going to feel any the better for coming through it comparatively unscathed.

We have 160 warheads - I think, if I'm not wrong, that's spread over 32 missiles.

Russia have around 1,800 active missiles, with a further 3000+ stockpiled (source: UN).

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick? I'm not advocating, or celebrating nuclear war at all. I'm just arguing for the undoubted advantage of having a nuclear deterrent. We can't turn back time can we, nukes exist and unfortunately they are in the hands of undesirable states. My point is I would much rather have them and hope to never use them, than not have them and hope others don't use them on us.

I'll go back to my comparison with taking balloons to a knife fight. We need a deterrent IMO.

[sauzee_4]

That is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent, so we don't get nuked. The enemy, who ever they may be at any given time, knows that any launch of N W, will be met and equalled by its intended target. Thus making an attack wholly undesirable in the first place. End result, no world wars for 70 years, everyone's a winner!

Even if an enemy did succeed in a sneak attack (unlikely) that resulted in N W hitting the UK mainland before any retaliation was launched, we still have our sub based missiles for the enemy to worry about.

Sorry, what wars have been prevented by nuclear weapons?

I must have been dreaming the Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands, Gaza, situations.

[over the line]

Sorry, what wars have been prevented by nuclear weapons?

I must have been dreaming the Iraq, Afghanistan, Falklands, Gaza, situations.

Have another read of my post, quite clearly says 'world wars'. :) Big difference I feel?

I've little doubt that communism and capitalism would have had a world war at some point during the 40's, 50's or 60's (or even more recent than that) if it were not for nuclear deterrents.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've been wanting to check this since you posted. So here goes....

From this I take you to be a Labour supporter.

The thing that needs to be taken into account is the different electoral systems at Westminster and Holyrood.

A purely first past the post system will almost always give a government that the majority of people didn't vote for, but you were fortunate that 60% of the time you got what you wanted at Westminster.

At Holyrood the system is a mix of FPTP (73MSPs) and Additional Members (56 MSPs) this was designed to make it difficult for a single party to have a majority to ensure consensus politics were used so that, as much as possible, decisions made at Holyrood were agreed across the chamber. In this way it would be almost impossible for anybody to say they got the government they wanted because we are all greedy and want our party to win, not be part of a coalition (unless you are a Lib/Dem at Westminster :wink:)

In 1999 Labour had 39% of the vote, and 43% of seats (fair?) You got what you voted for (Labour MSPs were the largest group) = Coalition
SNP had 29% vote and 27% seats (fair?)

In 2003 Labour had 35% vote and 39% seats (fair?) Again, Labour MSPs were the largest group) = Coalition
SNP had 24% vote and 21% seats (fair?)

In 2007 Labour had 32% vote and 36% seats (fair?)
SNP had 33% vote and 37% seats (unfair?) You didn't get what you voted for (For the first time SNP made up the largest group at Holyrood, and formed a minority administration)

In 2011, the unthinkable happened and a single party gained a majority of seats.

Labour had 32% votes and 29% seats (unfair?)
SNP had 45% votes and 53% seats (unfair?) And so we come to where we are today.

What does it actually mean "my choices are better-served within the UK"? Well, if you are happy that the party you vote for has absolutely NO influence in Government for a minimum period of 5 years in the event of losing a General Election, then yes. If, on the other hand, as happened in 3 out of the 4 Holyrood parliaments (including 2007) your party has worked with all other parties to reach decisions that are to the benefit of Scotland within the financial constraints laid down by Westminster, then your choices are most definately better served by the Scottish Government.

There is a very good chance of a Conservative, or even Conservative/UKIP Government at the next General Election, and that frightens me. In Scotland, there is a better chance of a coalition involving Labour with minority parties, like the Lib Dems or Greens. Your choice is greater in Scotland than it is in the UK.

That undermines your whole argument.

When the history of politics during the 2010-15 UK administration comes to be written, these are going to be some of the leading stories:

The Syria vote
Murdoch, the NOTW and Leveson
Energy prices

In all three cases the opposition made the running, effectively changed Government policy.

[Mibbes Aye]

Taken directly from HM Government.

Actually taken from HMG, then divided up according to a formula decided by a pro-Yesser?

You would be going ape if the oil revenues were being split up on a per head of population basis, this doesn't seem any different.

Why not argue that defence costs should be split by amount of coastline being defended, rather than per head of population?

(I'm being a bit facetious I know, but you can see where I'm coming from :greengrin)

[Mibbes Aye]

Malta, population 421,400 has 6 seats (same as Scotland) and 3 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?
Luxembourg population 537,000 has 6 seats (same as Scotland) and 4 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?
Denmark population 5,602,600 (SO close to Scotland) has 13 seats (double Scotland) and 7 Council votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?

The most recent member state is Croatia (remember how it got Independence?) Population 4,262,100 has 12 seats (double Scotland) and 7 Council Votes (Scotland has none) Go figure!?

I'm not arguing whether Scotland would have more MEPs, should it be admitted to the EU.

I am saying I believe the UK has more clout to negotiate deals in its favour than Malta does.

[Mibbes Aye]

That's all fine and dandy but, for me, every one of those quotes is at least (if not considerably more) applicable to the nationalism espoused by "One Nation" Milliband, "British jobs for British people" Brown and that's before we go anywhere near the Tories, UKIP, etc. than it does to anyone involved with Yes Scotland. We can only vote on the choice we have in front of us and I'd say if you want less patriotic chauvinism in your national government, vote Yes.



That sounds great! Come back when you've fleshed that one out just a tad more, built a movement behind it and are on track to push it through. 2214 or thereabouts maybe?



Although you have acknowledged in your masterplan above (I infer) that the over centralisation of the UK needs broken up and power delivered wherever possible as close to the communities whose lives it can be used to affect?

How long do you wait before you realise that that runs counter to everything Westminster government is about? Power is only to be devolved in a grudging fashion using half baked ideas made up on the hoof to deliver the absolute minimum you think you can get away with if it starts to look like you're up against an electoral wall.

To be honest, some of that is a bit cheap and uncalled for. I didn't claim to have a masterplan, was only putting out there a half-formed theory and I acknowledged that it needed debate and critique.

Unlike Salmond I'm happy to admit when I don't have the answers :greengrin :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

I know what you are saying about the oil arguments, but the oil isn't finished, or close to running out, and companies are still pouring money into exploration.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/shell-vows-to-invest-billions-in-north-sea.24925660

There is the rumour of (hidden) news just last week that possibly the World's largest ever Oil field had been discovered in the Clair field off Shetland. (Actual news is being suppressed)

There is almost all of the west coast that has not even been touched yet because of the MOD block on exploration due to the presence of Trident. Get rid of Trident and there are untold possibilities of black gold.

As to other sources of funding, look no further than savings that can be made. I don't have the time to get all the sources, but here are some of the savings following Independence.

Scotland's share of the:

Cost of Westminster, both Houses.
Cost of Trident. (about £650million per year, to Scotland)
Cost of HS2
Cost of London Crossrail

That comes to a not insubstantial amount of Billions of pounds.

I don't see the problem with that.

You may as well argue what benefit the burghers of Ullapool and Peterhead and Stornoway and Lerwick derive from the Borders Railway. They're still paying for it though. Or what's the share of the new Forth bridge for the citizens of Jura or North Uist or Ardnamurchan?

[ronaldo7]

I don't think either is serious about fairness, their policies don't reflect that.

As much as I can't abide Tory policies however, there's maybe a bit less hypocrisy in this regard. They don't claim to be working towards a fairer Scotland.

The flagship SNP policy benefits the rich ahead of the poor and you want me to believe they are serious about a fairer society?

I knew something was bugging me about the FLAGSHIP POLICY:greengrin

http://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/11/tax/9659/snp-flagship-policy-is-dropped.html

Seems the SNP were going to introduce a 3p local taxation policy to replace the Communtiy charge and were scuppered by the pesky WM treasury.

Well that's my reading of it anyway:wink:

The Scottish National party has today been forced to drop a policy which was central to its agenda when elected to power. The local taxation policy would have seen an extra three pence in the pound used to replace council taxes in what the party believes would have been a fairer allocation of costs between the low-income and high-income population of Scotland. However, due to a mixture of lukewarm support from the business community, legal issues and the stubborn behaviour of the UK Treasury, Alex Salmond has been forced to drop this policy in an embarrassing U-turn.



However, the SNP has now promised to freeze council taxes for the next three years using funds from the UK Treasury which were originally allocated for different areas of the Scottish economy. This has the potential to cause serious upset south of the border where English council taxes are rising by anything up to 3% while Scotland is effectively being subsidised by the English taxpayer.



There is a sneaking suspicion that the SNP is looking to cause as much friction between English taxpayers and the Scottish taxpayers in order to strengthen its case for independence which will go before a referendum next year. This suspicion has been backed up by recent changes to Alex Salmond's cabinet where he has brought in a number of hardline SNP MPs who are very pro-independence for Scotland.

[Mibbes Aye]

I knew something was bugging me about the FLAGSHIP POLICY:greengrin

http://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/11/tax/9659/snp-flagship-policy-is-dropped.html

Seems the SNP were going to introduce a 3p local taxation policy to replace the Communtiy charge and were scuppered by the pesky WM treasury.

Well that's my reading of it anyway:wink:

The Scottish National party has today been forced to drop a policy which was central to its agenda when elected to power. The local taxation policy would have seen an extra three pence in the pound used to replace council taxes in what the party believes would have been a fairer allocation of costs between the low-income and high-income population of Scotland. However, due to a mixture of lukewarm support from the business community, legal issues and the stubborn behaviour of the UK Treasury, Alex Salmond has been forced to drop this policy in an embarrassing U-turn.



However, the SNP has now promised to freeze council taxes for the next three years using funds from the UK Treasury which were originally allocated for different areas of the Scottish economy. This has the potential to cause serious upset south of the border where English council taxes are rising by anything up to 3% while Scotland is effectively being subsidised by the English taxpayer.



There is a sneaking suspicion that the SNP is looking to cause as much friction between English taxpayers and the Scottish taxpayers in order to strengthen its case for independence which will go before a referendum next year. This suspicion has been backed up by recent changes to Alex Salmond's cabinet where he has brought in a number of hardline SNP MPs who are very pro-independence for Scotland.

As we have just exchanged on the PM Board, I don't think this helps your argument :greengrin

What interference?

The SNP wanted to scrap the Council Tax but keep the money that the UK government paid in Council Tax Benefit to make it more affordable for the poor.

How do you scrap a tax but propose to still keep the discount someone else is paying?

They hadn't done their sums and made false assumptions. Unfortunately eight years on, has anything changed?

They scrapped a flagship policy because it didn't add up and introduced a new one that they have been singing the praises of for eight years but which contributes to a more inequal Scotland.

I would call it amateurish if that didn't underplay the effects on the poorest in our communities.

[ronaldo7]

Actually taken from HMG, then divided up according to a formula decided by a pro-Yesser?

8.5-10% I think...Fair?

You would be going ape if the oil revenues were being split up on a per head of population basis, this doesn't seem any different.

Oil revenues have already gone the the WM exchequer. Don't think we own the oilfields do we?

"Prof Alex Kemp, from the University of Aberdeen, is the leading expert on Scotland's oil industry.

He says if Scotland were to become independent the "median line" principle would be the "obvious one" to use.

This means drawing a dividing line on which all points are the same distance from the Scottish and rest of the UK (RUK) coastline.

Prof Kemp says this is the method which was used when the North Sea was originally divided up between the UK and other countries in the 1960s.

The most important treaty was signed between the UK and Norway in 1965 using the median line, although later, when the oil began to flow in the Norwegian sector, there were many who said the UK had been far too lenient.

The median line approach was also used to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fisheries after devolution in 1999.

I don't think London should be under the assumption they automatically have the median line they should not even have to negotiate it”

Professor David Scheffer
US international lawyer
On this occasion, the line was effectively imposed on Scotland by Westminster and there were opponents who said that it took away a large amount of Scottish territory.

Why not argue that defence costs should be split by amount of coastline being defended, rather than per head of population?

(I'm being a bit facetious I know, but you can see where I'm coming from :greengrin)

.

[ronaldo7]

As we have just exchanged on the PM Board, I don't think this helps your argument :greengrin

What interference?

The SNP wanted to scrap the Council Tax but keep the money that the UK government paid in Council Tax Benefit to make it more affordable for the poor.

How do you scrap a tax but propose to still keep the discount someone else is paying?

They hadn't done their sums and made false assumptions. Unfortunately eight years on, has anything changed?

They scrapped a flagship policy because it didn't add up and introduced a new one that they have been singing the praises of for eight years but which contributes to a more inequal Scotland.

I would call it amateurish if that didn't underplay the effects on the poorest in our communities.

:dunno: Wasn't party to the discussions but if their form in the last 18 months is anything to go by then, Interference as has been reported is what it would have been.

They seemed to have stopped us doing one thing to help the poor, and then made us find £50m from this years budget to mitigate the bedroom tax.

They want their cake and have a very healthy appetite....For them.

[over the line]

I don't see the problem with that.

You may as well argue what benefit the burghers of Ullapool and Peterhead and Stornoway and Lerwick derive from the Borders Railway. They're still paying for it though. Or what's the share of the new Forth bridge for the citizens of Jura or North Uist or Ardnamurchan?

Totally agree. I made a similar point on here a few weeks ago and gave the example of when the Metro was built on Tyne and Wear. The vast majority of it was built on Tyneside and the people of Sunderland were rightly pissed off about it. My point was that it doesn't matter where you draw a line or boundary, or how locally decisions are made, there will always be disagreements about who spends what money and where.

There are bridges, roads, railways, airports, hospitals etc etc all over the UK that I will never use and don't directly benefit me. Some of my money may go toward these projects and that's fine because that is how things work and always will do.

[Mibbes Aye]

Totally agree. I made a similar point on here a few weeks ago and gave the example of when the Metro was built on Tyne and Wear. The vast majority of it was built on Tyneside and the people of Sunderland were rightly pissed off about it. My point was that it doesn't matter where you draw a line or boundary, or how locally decisions are made, there will always be disagreements about who spends what money and where.

There are bridges, roads, railways, airports, hospitals etc etc all over the UK that I will never use and don't directly benefit me. Some of my money may go toward these projects and that's fine because that is how things work and always will do.

:agree:

It's playing the envy card and that's not good debate. Scottish people aren't victims and it doesn't do the Yes vote any credit to portray us as such.

[over the line]

:agree:

It's playing the envy card and that's not good debate. Scottish people aren't victims and it doesn't do the Yes vote any credit to portray us as such.

I just don't see that Scotland is so hard done to, like the Yesites would have us believe. Scotland is a wealthy, successful, well respected place and it has become that place whilst being part of the UK. I don't see where the victim mentality comes from, Scotland is great as it is!

[Mibbes Aye]

I just don't see that Scotland is so hard done to, like the Yesites would have us believe. Scotland is a wealthy, successful, well respected place and it has become that place whilst being part of the UK. I don't see where the victim mentality comes from, Scotland is great as it is!

I think there are two different strands to the Yes argument, that do overlap but essentially aim for different responses .

One is negative and wants to sell a story about being victims and hard done by. That taps into anger and envy.

One is positive and wants to sell a story about 'shaping our destiny'. It's more positive and aspirational but doesn't bear rigorous scrutiny IMO.

It will be interesting to see whether the Yes camp strategists go heavy on one or the other or try and strike a balance.

[over the line]

I think there are two different strands to the Yes argument, that do overlap but essentially aim for different responses .

One is negative and wants to sell a story about being victims and hard done by. That taps into anger and envy.

One is positive and wants to sell a story about 'shaping our destiny'. It's more positive and aspirational but doesn't bear rigorous scrutiny IMO.

It will be interesting to see whether the Yes camp strategists go heavy on one or the other or try and strike a balance.

I feel the Yes campaign is heavy on slogans and dewy eyed nationalism, based on the victim/chip on the shoulder mentality. But they are very light on the practicalities and reality factor of an I S. This is shown on here by the way many of the Yes lot, who when asked to explain how their claims/policies would work in the real world, they respond in one of three ways:

The old 'so you don't have faith in Scottish people running the country' number.

They put on a link to some scewd propaganda.

Or they just flat avoid the question and change their point/line of attack on that given subject.

I have to say this doesn't apply to all Yes minded people, some make good points that I often agree with. I don't actually disagree with everything the Yes campaign have to say, I just think overall No is currently the best option.

[ronaldo7]

I feel the Yes campaign is heavy on slogans and dewy eyed nationalism, based on the victim/chip on the shoulder mentality. But they are very light on the practicalities and reality factor of an I S. This is shown on here by the way many of the Yes lot, who when asked to explain how their claims/policies would work in the real world, they respond in one of three ways:

The old 'so you don't have faith in Scottish people running the country' number.

They put on a link to some scewd propaganda.

Or they just flat avoid the question and change their point/line of attack on that given subject.

I have to say this doesn't apply to all Yes minded people, some make good points that I often agree with. I don't actually disagree with everything the Yes campaign have to say, I just think overall No is currently the best option.

As opposed to the Dewy eyed Nationalism, and flag waving British imperialists with clout you mean. If you're bigger you must be better eh. Better Together, No Thanks, Vote No Borders, UKOK.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the No's about how much it will cost Scotland to stay in the Union?

Not holding my breath:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

As opposed to the Dewy eyed Nationalism, and flag waving British imperialists with clout you mean. If you're bigger you must be better eh. Better Together, No Thanks, Vote No Borders, UKOK.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the No's about how much it will cost Scotland to stay in the Union?

Not holding my breath:wink:

Come on :greengrin

I've not seen anything on here from No voters that could remotely be construed as imperialist. Or even flag-waving, quite the opposite in fact.

From what I've read of No voters other than myself, it's been nothing to do with flags and simply a quiet but determined resistance against hollow appeals to 'our destiny' while seeking something approaching concrete evidence.

[Hibrandenburg]

Come on :greengrin

I've not seen anything on here from No voters that could remotely be construed as imperialist. Or even flag-waving, quite the opposite in fact.

From what I've read of No voters other than myself, it's been nothing to do with flags and simply a quiet but determined resistance against hollow appeals to 'our destiny' while seeking something approaching concrete evidence.

Come on :greengrin

What Hibby would come on here waving a union flag? Next we'll have folks admitting they're Tories.

[over the line]

As opposed to the Dewy eyed Nationalism, and flag waving British imperialists with clout you mean. If you're bigger you must be better eh. Better Together, No Thanks, Vote No Borders, UKOK.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the No's about how much it will cost Scotland to stay in the Union?

Not holding my breath:wink:

I'm not a flag waver of any denomination, I think it's outdated and pointless. I'm not opposed to an I S because I'm a staunch unionist or anything like that, I just don't think it is best for Scotland right now IMO. My views are purely pragmatic and not emotional.

I am repeating myself but I think Scotland is great how it is and if its not broke don't fix it.

As for the union cost thing, I'm not exactly sure what calculation you are asking for, or how it would be worked out with any certainty? Someone may know the answer? At a guess I'd say nothing? It will probably even out, as it has done in the past?

[Mibbes Aye]

Come on :greengrin

What Hibby would come on here waving a union flag? Next we'll have folks admitting they're Tories.

:greengrin I'm sure there used to be a poster with a Boris Johnson avatar.

[ronaldo7]

Come on :greengrin

I've not seen anything on here from No voters that could remotely be construed as imperialist. Or even flag-waving, quite the opposite in fact.

From what I've read of No voters other than myself, it's been nothing to do with flags and simply a quiet but determined resistance against hollow appeals to 'our destiny' while seeking something approaching concrete evidence.

I was meaning the No camp in general.

[Mibbes Aye]

I was meaning the No camp in general.

I've not seen Alistair Darling waving any flags. To be honest I've not seen that many numpties on either side though I don't think the Orange Order backing No is good for business and I don't think Lloyd Quinlan saying No voters are 'bad parents' is what the Yes campaign wants as its core message either........

[ronaldo7]

I've not seen Alistair Darling waving any flags. To be honest I've not seen that many numpties on either side though I don't think the Orange Order backing No is good for business and I don't think Lloyd Quinlan saying No voters are 'bad parents' is what the Yes campaign wants as its core message either........

He went missing for a while. Heard he was making the tea for Big Blair.:greengrin

Back with a bang last night I heard. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

He went missing for a while. Heard he was making the tea for Big Blair.:greengrin

Back with a bang last night I heard. :greengrin

I didn't see it. Barely caught the last five minutes of the Hibs game in fact.

Not sure from the post-debate comment whether it's worth giving up the time for? Doesn't sound like much new was said by either protagonist :greengrin

[sauzee_4]

I'm not a flag waver of any denomination, I think it's outdated and pointless. I'm not opposed to an I S because I'm a staunch unionist or anything like that, I just don't think it is best for Scotland right now IMO. My views are purely pragmatic and not emotional.

I am repeating myself but I think Scotland is great how it is and if its not broke don't fix it.

As for the union cost thing, I'm not exactly sure what calculation you are asking for, or how it would be worked out with any certainty? Someone may know the answer? At a guess I'd say nothing? It will probably even out, as it has done in the past?

Haha, nail on head. Ok to ask the yes campaign for costs though?

I have come to accept that there's a decent case for staying in the union, but Scotland blatantly has a completely different set of political values to the current majority in the rUK, so being able to see those values expressed is important, and swings it.

[ronaldo7]

I didn't see it. Barely caught the last five minutes of the Hibs game in fact.

Not sure from the post-debate comment whether it's worth giving up the time for? Doesn't sound like much new was said by either protagonist :greengrin

Never seen it either, I was at the Tattoo watching the last murmurings of the British Imperialists.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I'm not a flag waver of any denomination, I think it's outdated and pointless. I'm not opposed to an I S because I'm a staunch unionist or anything like that, I just don't think it is best for Scotland right now IMO. My views are purely pragmatic and not emotional.

I am repeating myself but I think Scotland is great how it is and if its not broke don't fix it.

As for the union cost thing, I'm not exactly sure what calculation you are asking for, or how it would be worked out with any certainty? Someone may know the answer? At a guess I'd say nothing? It will probably even out, as it has done in the past?

:faf: Brilliant, you've made my night.

[over the line]

Haha, nail on head. Ok to ask the yes campaign for costs though?

I have come to accept that there's a decent case for staying in the union, but Scotland blatantly has a completely different set of political values to the current majority in the rUK, so being able to see those values expressed is important, and swings it.

I see your point about the figures etc, but there will always be more pressure/expectancy on a campaign to change things. People want and need convincing that the alternative will be better than what we have now. We all know what we already have, the Yes campaign has to persuade us they can provide a better life for the Scottish people. I don't think they have done that IMO.

I think all people (except the extremist types) want the same really. Politics is all about compromise for me and most. You never get what you really want do you? We all just choose the best compromise on offer and hope for the best. Let's be honest, this referendum is no fall of the Berlin wall moment is it. It's all relatively small potatoes, either way things will be much of a muchness on the scale of things.

[over the line]

:faf: Brilliant, you've made my night.

Happy to help! ;)

Difficult to be more precise with such a vague question. Plus I'm not an accountant for the No campaign or the UK itself, so to be fair, how would I know? As I said in my last post on here, its up to the Yes campaign to persuade the Scottish people they can better provide for them. Scotland already knows its working pretty well as it stands IMO.

[ronaldo7]

Anybody know what Cameron's plan B oris is?:wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm not arguing whether Scotland would have more MEPs, should it be admitted to the EU.

I am saying I believe the UK has more clout to negotiate deals in its favour than Malta does.

And I'm not arguing that either, I am pointing out the fact that these nations have more clout than Scotland, that is the whole point of the Independence debate, not whether UK is bigger than Malta.

In the event of Independence Scotland in Europe will be more on a par with Denmark in voting rights. In the event of a no vote it is a fair bet that the UK will vote to leave the EU and will have less clout than Malta.

[JeMeSouviens]

I see your point about the figures etc, but there will always be more pressure/expectancy on a campaign to change things. People want and need convincing that the alternative will be better than what we have now. We all know what we already have, the Yes campaign has to persuade us they can provide a better life for the Scottish people. I don't think they have done that IMO.

I think all people (except the extremist types) want the same really. Politics is all about compromise for me and most. You never get what you really want do you? We all just choose the best compromise on offer and hope for the best. Let's be honest, this referendum is no fall of the Berlin wall moment is it. It's all relatively small potatoes, either way things will be much of a muchness on the scale of things.

I agree about the much of a muchness initially, but I think over time (decades) there will be a divergence. I think we've already seen that to a very limited extent with our very limited devolution: no sudden change but a slow divergence.

[JeMeSouviens]

I feel the Yes campaign is heavy on slogans and dewy eyed nationalism, based on the victim/chip on the shoulder mentality. But they are very light on the practicalities and reality factor of an I S. This is shown on here by the way many of the Yes lot, who when asked to explain how their claims/policies would work in the real world, they respond in one of three ways:

The old 'so you don't have faith in Scottish people running the country' number.

They put on a link to some scewd propaganda.

Or they just flat avoid the question and change their point/line of attack on that given subject.

I have to say this doesn't apply to all Yes minded people, some make good points that I often agree with. I don't actually disagree with everything the Yes campaign have to say, I just think overall No is currently the best option.

I think the above is mostly wishful thinking. I suppose I should be thankful you didn't mention Braveheart though. :rolleyes:

Of course individuals on a message board will feel hard done by, that's human nature and exists everywhere. I think the actual Yes campaign has pretty well avoided the negative line for the most part.

Tbh I resent being labelled as some kind of deluded romantic when the other side comes up with just as much finger waving and guesswork but calls itself cool headed and pragmatic.

Emotion is involved in both sides. In the expat (I include England here :wink:) case, I think this is largely down to a feeling they'll somehow lose a connection to "home". One of BT's main banging-on-about points is about family and friends becoming "foreigners". Seems a total non-point to me when you consider how many of us have family and friends in Ireland, Australia, etc, etc but I guess it must work in the focus groups?

[over the line]

I think the above is mostly wishful thinking. I suppose I should be thankful you didn't mention Braveheart though. :rolleyes:

Of course individuals on a message board will feel hard done by, that's human nature and exists everywhere. I think the actual Yes campaign has pretty well avoided the negative line for the most part.

Tbh I resent being labelled as some kind of deluded romantic when the other side comes up with just as much finger waving and guesswork but calls itself cool headed and pragmatic.

Emotion is involved in both sides. In the expat (I include England here :wink:) case, I think this is largely down to a feeling they'll somehow lose a connection to "home". One of BT's main banging-on-about points is about family and friends becoming "foreigners". Seems a total non-point to me when you consider how many of us have family and friends in Ireland, Australia, etc, etc but I guess it must work in the focus groups?

Please don't feel resentful, I did qualify my admittedly sweeping and slightly abrasive initial statement, with a bit about not including all Yes types. :)

I have to admit I'm not sure how to feel about possibly being made a foreigner by my own country and I've no idea how it will work, or what the implications would be in practice? It is different to moving to Ireland or Australia, then you are moving away from Scotland/UK. If Scotland becomes independent, its sort of moving away from me, in a way?

[TrinityHibs]

Tax isn't a grey area I don't think. AS clearly stated in the past that in the event of a yes that he'd slightly reduce corporation tax and all further changes would only happen once a new Scottish government was voted in.

About last night, watched it on catchup and I can't help thinking AS didn't help himself in the currency part of the debate.
There IS a plan listing 4 (I think) options, he even mentioned it... He should just have listed them then restated he was still going to argue for the best outcome for Scotland, which just happens to be the best for rUK business as well.

It's something like
1 shared sterling
2 sterling without an agreement
3 Scottish pound
4 euro

Something like that and has a breakdown of the whys and wherefore's etc.

EU. I can list the financial reasons why an iScotland will be admitted along with the application process (look at wiki and Finland, thier timescales were a couple of years and that was because they had to make changes to thier legislature to conform to EU standards, we already fully comply. But won't! :-)
Bottom line for me is that the EU is built to uphold democracy as a key underpinning element and there is no way that I can see the EU totally going against all it stands for because some of its current citizens have decided to follow the EU ideal.

Alf or anybody A few questions about EU/Eurozone membership if Scotland gains Independence

Will we have to apply to join or is Scotland already an existing member as it is part of the UK?
If we have to apply can we keep the £/Scottish £ or do we have to adopt the Euro?
Finland joined the EU in 1995 and used the Euro exclusively in 2002. Are the rules about membership the same now or have they changed?
Can you join the EU but not join the Eurozone?


There seems to be 2 schools of thought. I think the Yes view is we have to apply and will get in within 2 years but will keep the £ as we already have some standing within the EU and the No view is we have to apply, it will take longer to get in and we will have to use the Euro. If it is the latter all this chat about keeping the £ seems pointless.

Can anyone clarify what the real position is?

[marinello59]

Alf or anybody A few questions about EU/Eurozone membership if Scotland gains Independence

Will we have to apply to join or is Scotland already an existing member as it is part of the UK?
If we have to apply can we keep the £/Scottish £ or do we have to adopt the Euro?
Finland joined the EU in 1995 and used the Euro exclusively in 2002. Are the rules about membership the same now or have they changed?
Can you join the EU but not join the Eurozone?


There seems to be 2 schools of thought. I think the Yes view is we have to apply and will get in within 2 years but will keep the £ as we already have some standing within the EU and the No view is we have to apply, it will take longer to get in and we will have to use the Euro. If it is the latter all this chat about keeping the £ seems pointless.

Can anyone clarify what the real position is?

I doubt it. :greengrin

[over the line]

I agree about the much of a muchness initially, but I think over time (decades) there will be a divergence. I think we've already seen that to a very limited extent with our very limited devolution: no sudden change but a slow divergence.

You could be right, there may well be some gradual improvements in certain areas and maybe even over time, overall improvements in most areas of Scottish life? But this will/would almost certainly be the case anyway, as you rightly point out this has already been happening (whilst being part of the UK). So in that case, where is the incentive/point in the undoubted upheaval, cost and risk involved in an I S?

I refered to the fall of the Berlin wall because that's an example of a group of people who definitely and undoubtedly benefited from change. The East Germans trully were repressed and hard done to and they were guaranteed a sharp improvement in their lives, with little to no risk of it backfiring on them.

I'm not opposed to an I S in principal, its just that the Yes campaign hasn't sold it to me (and many others), as a worthwhile venture/gamble.

[Moulin Yarns]

Is anybody wondering about the currency plan B, C, D.....?

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-release-an-independent-scotland-should-keep-the-pound-without-ruks-permission/

There is also a good discussion on a number of points including economy

http://scotlandseptember18.com/section-summaries-of-the-16-questions-book/

NOTE: both links are from totally independent sources, not affiliated to either camp so that nobody can accuse me of being in one camp or the other.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I'm going to Brussels at the end of September, what happens to my UK passport if we have a winning YES vote?

[Hibrandenburg]

There's a lot of former East Germans who question that thesis.Many of those who grew up in the old system left their comfort zone and had real trouble adapting to the new system. That said an independent Scotland will only have minor tweaks in the system to adapt it to our needs rather than a complete overhaul like the Germans experienced.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm going to Brussels at the end of September, what happens to my UK passport if we have a winning YES vote?

Don't worry, there'll be a period of transaction where UK documentation is concerned.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm going to Brussels at the end of September, what happens to my UK passport if we have a winning YES vote?

Independence itself wouldn't happen for about 18 months after the vote.

[Moulin Yarns]

Independence itself wouldn't happen for about 18 months after the vote.

23rd March 2016 is the proposed date

[Just Alf]

Alf or anybody A few questions about EU/Eurozone membership if Scotland gains Independence

Will we have to apply to join or is Scotland already an existing member as it is part of the UK?
no one knows! I've looked into it (reading up on EU legislation :confused:) and there's a good argument that Scottish citizens cant be excluded because they've taken a democratic decision and would therefore remain members, its very gray though as the Scottish Parliament would need to negotiate "something". That said even if we were bumped the road back in is more like Finland's than Turkey!

If we have to apply can we keep the £/Scottish £ or do we have to adopt the Euro?
Candidates for euro currency membership must sign up to ERM II for at least two years before adopting the euro as currency, however it is entirely up to the discretion of each individual member state when they want to sign up to ERM II and begin the process of adopting the Euro. Both the Czechs and the Swedes have decided not to take the step

Finland joined the EU in 1995 and used the Euro exclusively in 2002. Are the rules about membership the same now or have they changed?
As mentioned above, I've done a lot of reading (some of it is an impact assessment for my work) and I cant see anything that's changed in this area

Can you join the EU but not join the Eurozone?
Yup


There seems to be 2 schools of thought. I think the Yes view is we have to apply and will get in within 2 years but will keep the £ as we already have some standing within the EU and the No view is we have to apply, it will take longer to get in and we will have to use the Euro. If it is the latter all this chat about keeping the £ seems pointless.

Can anyone clarify what the real position is?
Both sides are unsurprisingly pushing the scenario that's best for their own argument :agree:


I doubt it. :greengrin


You ain't wrong!

Also this from Norman Tebbitt

"Perhaps the most important matter (for both to the Scots and the rest of us) is the future relationship with the EU. The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.

When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

did I mention grey areas???? :confused:

[TrinityHibs]

You ain't wrong!

Also this from Norman Tebbitt

"Perhaps the most important matter (for both to the Scots and the rest of us) is the future relationship with the EU. The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.

When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

did I mention grey areas???? :confused:

Thanks Alf

[Hibrandenburg]

You ain't wrong!

Also this from Norman Tebbitt

"Perhaps the most important matter (for both to the Scots and the rest of us) is the future relationship with the EU. The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.

When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

did I mention grey areas???? :confused:

It's a good point and begs the question why would the rest of the UK need a vote on retaining EU membership should Scotland gain independence? Surely they'd need to figure out whether they want to apply for membership or not.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Don't worry, there'll be a period of transaction where UK documentation is concerned.

I presumed that would be the case, I'm going with my old boy and he is actually getting on my bosoms asking me about the passport situation every 5 mins!

[Just Alf]

Thanks Alf

Here to please :wink:




and a disclaimer... I originally was a very soft no but quickly became undecided, over the period I moved to a soft yes which is now pretty firm :thumbsup:


oh and this is one of the reasons...... our bigger bang for our buck within the EU by staying in the UK

Here's an example.... http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/04/27/uk-government-ignores-scotlands-opposition-gm-crops-eu/#.U-NUZPldV9s

[RyeSloan]

It's a good point and begs the question why would the rest of the UK need a vote on retaining EU membership should Scotland gain independence? Surely they'd need to figure out whether they want to apply for membership or not.

I think the accepted view is that Scotland is planning to remove itself from the United Kingdom...ergo the United Kingdom still remains but less 5m Scots. So all current EU treaties that state UK would automatically mean rUK.

There is nothing definitive though and that is exactly the type of grey area that exists in so many of these Yes/No arguments.

[Moulin Yarns]

If anybody is interested this went live earlier today. Broadcasting live every lunchtime at 1pm

http://www.referendumtv.net

[Bristolhibby]

You ain't wrong!

Also this from Norman Tebbitt

"Perhaps the most important matter (for both to the Scots and the rest of us) is the future relationship with the EU. The 1972 treaty of accession was made between the European Community and the United Kingdom. Subsequent revisions of the founding treaty have converted that "EC" into the EU and the subsequent treaties, Maastricht and all, have been endorsed by the United Kingdom. But if Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom the 1707 Treaty, and with it the UK, would be no more.

When I asked a former (Labour) Lord Chancellor if that would mean that the new state of Scotland would need to apply for EU membership, if that was its wish, he said he thought that would be so. Then after a moment's thought he said: "But what about the new state of England, Northern Ireland and Wales? Would we remain members? After all our new state would not have been a party to the Treaty either."

did I mention grey areas???? :confused:

Your last point is a good point, open I keep making up my English chums down here. There is quite simply no president.

And when there is no president the break up of the UK becomes the president.

But Scotland has met all criteria for entry (because we are in the EU already).
Scotland's citizens are already EU Citizens (how would the WU strip 5m of its own citizens of EU citizenship).
Would the EU want to lose free rights to the Scottish market, including fishing rights to Scottish waters?
Would the rUK want transaction costs to a major trade partner that it shares the same island with?
Would rUK become a successor state? If so why? It could equally be argued that there are no successor states.
I would argue that there would be two successor states who would have to share treaty obligations.

So in a nutshell, there ain't much to worry about regarding the EU, the transition will be smooth.

My biggest worry is a populist looking right leaning Tory/UKIP coalition taking the UK out of the EU anyway in a post No situation.
That's the real threat. It's funny how to a man, business is very much pro EU, as it allows free trade, critically free movement of labour, and allows exports to flourish. Nobody wants to see a barrier to that.

Yet the immigration issue has muddied the waters and middle England is lapping it up. IMO leaving the EU is a greater threat to jobs and recovery, especially ones that rely in exporting to the EU than anything else.

J

[Stranraer]

I too was reasonably excited at the prospect of a good debate but I'm finding the whole debate rather boring now. I thought Darling came across surprisingly well in the debate.

[AgentDaleCooper]

I'm going to Brussels at the end of September, what happens to my UK passport if we have a winning YES vote?

firstly - you'll be fine. scotland won't actually be leaving the UK until an 18 month negotiation period has passed.

secondly - please god say this wouldn't make a difference to the way you would vote.

[AgentDaleCooper]

i've not followed this thread, but feel compelled to vent about some stuff that i think is bull****.


bull****:


anything anyone says about what scotland will be like after the referendum - we could obviously be fine, or it could be crap. depends if whoever's in charge does a decent job of it.

anything anyone says criticising the Yes campaign for making up bull**** about what scotland would be like after the referendum. if they didn't present a 'vision', i.e. 'ideology-based speculation', they would be utterly slaughtered. in order to appeal to as many people as possible, this ideology has to be very broad, i.e. vague. if they didn't do this, the media/idiots would criticise them for not having a vision.

anything anyone says about salmond not having a plan b. here's my synopsis of that part of the debate:

"what's your plan B?"
"i don't need a plan B, because you're all on record saying that plan A is absolutely fine, normal, sound and inevitably what everyone would agree on if we vote yes"
"what's your plan B though?"
"for when you deliberately sabotage both of our countries for the sole reason of maintaining a consistent position (because you've always cared about that so much)?"
"what's your plan B?"
"**** off"


- the only reason the Yes campaign now need a plan B, is because leaders in westminster and in better together are literally LYING, BAREFACED, THROUGH THEIR TEETH, about there being some sort of possibility that they would stand in the way of this if scotland becomes independent. this is PURE political blackmail, and is utterly scandalous IMO.


anything the media says about anything to do with the referendum. the coverage has been shocking, as it always is with politics, culminating in an utterly absurd debate in which the two campaign leaders were trying to squeeze admissions out of each other, admissions which would have been utterly meaningless to anyone save for a complete pituitary ******s, had it not been for the media's power to drive sensationalist messages into peoples' understandings of narratives. i know that this will probably never change, but it does my absolute nut in.

[over the line]

i've not followed this thread, but feel compelled to vent about some stuff that i think is bull****.


bull****:


anything anyone says about what scotland will be like after the referendum - we could obviously be fine, or it could be crap. depends if whoever's in charge does a decent job of it.

anything anyone says criticising the Yes campaign for making up bull**** about what scotland would be like after the referendum. if they didn't present a 'vision', i.e. 'ideology-based speculation', they would be utterly slaughtered. in order to appeal to as many people as possible, this ideology has to be very broad, i.e. vague. if they didn't do this, the media/idiots would criticise them for not having a vision.

anything anyone says about salmond not having a plan b. here's my synopsis of that part of the debate:

"what's your plan B?"
"i don't need a plan B, because you're all on record saying that plan A is absolutely fine, normal, sound and inevitably what everyone would agree on if we vote yes"
"what's your plan B though?"
"for when you deliberately sabotage both of our countries for the sole reason of maintaining a consistent position (because you've always cared about that so much)?"
"what's your plan B?"
"**** off"


- the only reason the Yes campaign now need a plan B, is because leaders in westminster and in better together are literally LYING, BAREFACED, THROUGH THEIR TEETH, about there being some sort of possibility that they would stand in the way of this if scotland becomes independent. this is PURE political blackmail, and is utterly scandalous IMO.


anything the media says about anything to do with the referendum. the coverage has been shocking, as it always is with politics, culminating in an utterly absurd debate in which the two campaign leaders were trying to squeeze admissions out of each other, admissions which would have been utterly meaningless to anyone save for a complete pituitary ******s, had it not been for the media's power to drive sensationalist messages into peoples' understandings of narratives. i know that this will probably never change, but it does my absolute nut in.

In the words of Ross Perot (US Presidential Candidate 1988), "War has rules, mud wresting has rules ............. Politics has no rules"
(straight off 'The Campaign', hilarious film). :D

Say what you like about Westminster politicians, they are ruthlessly efficient political animals if nothing else (well some of them anyway).

[JeMeSouviens]

Your last point is a good point, open I keep making up my English chums down here. There is quite simply no president.

And when there is no president the break up of the UK becomes the president.

But Scotland has met all criteria for entry (because we are in the EU already).
Scotland's citizens are already EU Citizens (how would the WU strip 5m of its own citizens of EU citizenship).
Would the EU want to lose free rights to the Scottish market, including fishing rights to Scottish waters?
Would the rUK want transaction costs to a major trade partner that it shares the same island with?
Would rUK become a successor state? If so why? It could equally be argued that there are no successor states.
I would argue that there would be two successor states who would have to share treaty obligations.

So in a nutshell, there ain't much to worry about regarding the EU, the transition will be smooth.

My biggest worry is a populist looking right leaning Tory/UKIP coalition taking the UK out of the EU anyway in a post No situation.
That's the real threat. It's funny how to a man, business is very much pro EU, as it allows free trade, critically free movement of labour, and allows exports to flourish. Nobody wants to see a barrier to that.

Yet the immigration issue has muddied the waters and middle England is lapping it up. IMO leaving the EU is a greater threat to jobs and recovery, especially ones that rely in exporting to the EU than anything else.

J

Agree. (Apart from I assume you mean precedent, although I think in the medium term the break up of the UK means we'll also get a president. :wink:)

[JeMeSouviens]

Please don't feel resentful, I did qualify my admittedly sweeping and slightly abrasive initial statement, with a bit about not including all Yes types. :)

I have to admit I'm not sure how to feel about possibly being made a foreigner by my own country and I've no idea how it will work, or what the implications would be in practice? It is different to moving to Ireland or Australia, then you are moving away from Scotland/UK. If Scotland becomes independent, its sort of moving away from me, in a way?

You left first and we're all still in the huff! So :na na:

Slightly more seriously, the WP says:



We plan that British citizens habitually resident
in Scotland on independence will be considered Scottish citizens. This will
include British citizens who hold dual citizenship with another
country. Scottish born British citizens currently living outside
of Scotland will also be considered Scottish citizens.

Following independence, other people will be able to apply
for Scottish citizenship. For example, citizenship by descent
will be available to those who have a parent or grandparent
who qualifies for Scottish citizenship. Those who have a
demonstrable connection to Scotland and have spent at least
ten years living here at some stage, whether as a child or an
adult, will also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship.
Migrants on qualifying visas will also have the option of applying
for naturalisation as a Scottish citizen.

The UK allows dual or multiple citizenship for British citizens.
If a British citizen acquires citizenship and a passport of another
country, this does not affect their British citizenship, right to
hold a British passport or right to live in the UK. The Scottish
Government will also allow dual citizenship. It will be for the
rest of the UK to decide whether it allows dual UK/Scottish
citizenship, but we expect the normal rules to extend to
Scottish citizens.

[JeMeSouviens]

You could be right, there may well be some gradual improvements in certain areas and maybe even over time, overall improvements in most areas of Scottish life? But this will/would almost certainly be the case anyway, as you rightly point out this has already been happening (whilst being part of the UK). So in that case, where is the incentive/point in the undoubted upheaval, cost and risk involved in an I S?

I refered to the fall of the Berlin wall because that's an example of a group of people who definitely and undoubtedly benefited from change. The East Germans trully were repressed and hard done to and they were guaranteed a sharp improvement in their lives, with little to no risk of it backfiring on them.

I'm not opposed to an I S in principal, its just that the Yes campaign hasn't sold it to me (and many others), as a worthwhile venture/gamble.

Remember it's not just about what we decide to do, it's also about what we decide not to do. Would an iScotland ever have had the poll tax for example? The first rumblings of the Tories talking about a flat tax are starting to appear (ie. scrap the 20% and 40% income tax bands in favour of one in the middle, great for the rich, f*** the poor). It would be a UK wide measure. Would that even be talked about in iScotland?

There are loads of other things we might do differently such as put more focus on renewable energy as we have massive potential, eg. tidal power in the Pentland Firth, real land reform to end the scandal of the absentee-landlord-ignored highland estates, set up an oil fund when these atlantic margin mega-wells start pumping :wink: , look at ways of bringing power closer to the people, eg. autonomy for the islands and hopefully develop that for the mainland. There's a few off the top of my head.

[JeMeSouviens]

i LYING, BAREFACED, THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

The No campaign is the perfect opportunity for political lying. Say wtf you like in order to win and then, since independence never happened, nobody will ever be able to check up on how many of your scare stories were pish. :rolleyes:

[Northernhibee]

The No campaign is the perfect opportunity for political lying. Say wtf you like in order to win and then, since independence never happened, nobody will ever be able to check up on how many of your scare stories were pish. :rolleyes:

Unlike Salmond's lies such as the ones on seeking legal advice over EU membership which actually have been checked up on :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Remember it's not just about what we decide to do, it's also about what we decide not to do. Would an iScotland ever have had the poll tax for example? The first rumblings of the Tories talking about a flat tax are starting to appear (ie. scrap the 20% and 40% income tax bands in favour of one in the middle, great for the rich, f*** the poor). It would be a UK wide measure. Would that even be talked about in iScotland? There are loads of other things we might do differently such as put more focus on renewable energy as we have massive potential, eg. tidal power in the Pentland Firth, real land reform to end the scandal of the absentee-landlord-ignored highland estates, set up an oil fund when these atlantic margin mega-wells start pumping :wink: , look at ways of bringing power closer to the people, eg. autonomy for the islands and hopefully develop that for the mainland. There's a few off the top of my head.

Renewables are still wayyy more expensive than conventional power generation and tidal is the worst of the lot.

An oil fund? With what money? Considering the size of the state in Scotland's GDP I doubt we will be running a significant surplus any time soon to be able to start putting significant sums into an oil fund...I doubt there would be the political will to forego current spending to ever set up an oil fund no matter who was in charge.

Flat rate tax....well I've seen the merging if income tax and national insurance mooted. Would be sensible and allow people to understand just how much of their income is being taken but it's political suicide (as well as more complicated than it sounds thanks to the complex nature of the tax laws) so doubt that will realistically happen any time soon.

Land reform? Do we need to be independent to do that?

And finally more power to the people...aye right! I'll believe that when I see it, the current administration seems to quite like centralising power and I doubt there would be any less pressure to do so in a newly independent nation where immediate cries of renationalising the post office and railways would probably be the order of the day.

Anyhoo none of that is really about the yea or nae but is my (probably worthless) tuppence worth anyway ;-)

[Hibs Class]

In the words of Ross Perot (US Presidential Candidate 1988), "War has rules, mud wresting has rules ............. Politics has no rules"
(straight off 'The Campaign', hilarious film). :D

Say what you like about Westminster politicians, they are ruthlessly efficient political animals if nothing else (well some of them anyway).

Not sure your last sentence needed "Westminster" in it. I've seen at first hand the ruthlessness and duplicity of Scottish politicians too, including Salmond and some of his cabinet and MSPs.

[Just Alf]

Your last point is a good point, open I keep making up my English chums down here. There is quite simply no president.

And when there is no president the break up of the UK becomes the president.

But Scotland has met all criteria for entry (because we are in the EU already).
Scotland's citizens are already EU Citizens (how would the WU strip 5m of its own citizens of EU citizenship).
Would the EU want to lose free rights to the Scottish market, including fishing rights to Scottish waters?
Would the rUK want transaction costs to a major trade partner that it shares the same island with?
Would rUK become a successor state? If so why? It could equally be argued that there are no successor states.
I would argue that there would be two successor states who would have to share treaty obligations.

So in a nutshell, there ain't much to worry about regarding the EU, the transition will be smooth.

My biggest worry is a populist looking right leaning Tory/UKIP coalition taking the UK out of the EU anyway in a post No situation.
That's the real threat. It's funny how to a man, business is very much pro EU, as it allows free trade, critically free movement of labour, and allows exports to flourish. Nobody wants to see a barrier to that.

Yet the immigration issue has muddied the waters and middle England is lapping it up. IMO leaving the EU is a greater threat to jobs and recovery, especially ones that rely in exporting to the EU than anything else.

J

bit in bold.... our risk assessment team puts that scenario, if it happened, as a much higher problem for the company than if independence became a reality... we already work across international boundaries so an iS is (relatively) easily accommodated... the UK leaving the EU (in fact even the rUK, if Scotland did vote for independence) is currently being seen as pretty much a disaster.... yes, the change can be accommodated similarly to Scotland becoming independent but the costs to the company are prohibitive and we are already looking at various plans to mitigate the rise in costs (stopping site expansions, downsizing in some areas, less jobs etc) if it happens.

[danhibees1875]

What are the extra costs/concerns that businesses face in an iScotland? Import and export taxes? Potential currency transaction costs if we don't keep the £?...

[JeMeSouviens]

Renewables are still wayyy more expensive than conventional power generation and tidal is the worst of the lot.


... but will get cheaper as technology improves and why shouldn't we be at the forefront of that? An iScotland has (proportionally) a bigger potential and a greater imperative (the end of fossil fuels).



An oil fund? With what money? Considering the size of the state in Scotland's GDP I doubt we will be running a significant surplus any time soon to be able to start putting significant sums into an oil fund...I doubt there would be the political will to forego current spending to ever set up an oil fund no matter who was in charge.


The comment was slightly tongue in cheek, presumably you missed the smiley? But as the economy improves Scotland will run a surplus again. Given the current (and let's face it, forseeable future) middle east situation, can't see oil prices slumping whatever the "independent" OBR propaganda says.



Flat rate tax....well I've seen the merging if income tax and national insurance mooted. Would be sensible and allow people to understand just how much of their income is being taken but it's political suicide (as well as more complicated than it sounds thanks to the complex nature of the tax laws) so doubt that will realistically happen any time soon.


No, nothing to to with Income tax/NI merger. A single tax band. The Tories have been talking about this among themselves for years:

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2011/06/flat-tax.html

... and it's now reached cabinet circles:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/listen-tory-oliver-letwin-letting-3933116#.U-SC4yTHL8s



Land reform? Do we need to be independent to do that?


Obviously the UK gov could but won't as they don't care/would oppose it (delete as applicable).



And finally more power to the people...aye right! I'll believe that when I see it, the current administration seems to quite like centralising power and I doubt there would be any less pressure to do so in a newly independent nation where immediate cries of renationalising the post office and railways would probably be the order of the day.


http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_LocalGovernmentandRegenerationCommittee/lg_OurIslandsOurFuture.pdf



Anyhoo none of that is really about the yea or nae but is my (probably worthless) tuppence worth anyway ;-)

Indeed, but thanks for rubbishing my short selection of examples of possible divergence. :rolleyes: The point was really that although nobody can predict the future, there are plenty enough divergent interests between Scotland and rUK for it to be imo very likely that the countries will diverge significantly over say 50 years to do the things that are more important to their respective electorates.

[JeMeSouviens]

Not sure your last sentence needed "Westminster" in it. I've seen at first hand the ruthlessness and duplicity of Scottish politicians too, including Salmond and some of his cabinet and MSPs.

They may all be ruthless and duplicitous but I'm not sure anyone would accuse the second division Lab/Libs at Holyrood (who are essentially those left behind as considered not good enough for Westminster) of being in any way efficient.

Another of my personal reasons for wanting independence. I think Labour especially takes in people that want to change the lives of those around them but spirits anyone showing any competence away to London where their focus inevitably drifts away from Scotland to fulfil their personal ambitions.

[JeMeSouviens]

What are the extra costs/concerns that businesses face in an iScotland? Import and export taxes? Potential currency transaction costs if we don't keep the £?...

Good question. I don't think there would be import/export duty unless/until rUK leaves the EU? Currency transaction costs would nil under either a CU or sterlingisation.

[over the line]

Not sure your last sentence needed "Westminster" in it. I've seen at first hand the ruthlessness and duplicity of Scottish politicians too, including Salmond and some of his cabinet and MSPs.

Too true, they are all pretty serpent-like.

Have you seen the film 'The Campaign' (where the quote is from)? It is hilarious and ridiculous, but there are also some real home truths about the politics game.

[over the line]

If anybody is interested this went live earlier today. Broadcasting live every lunchtime at 1pm

http://www.referendumtv.net

Cool, I will try and watch it later.

[over the line]

You left first and we're all still in the huff! So :na na:

Slightly more seriously, the WP says:

Glad to see I am still being missed up there!?!?!?;):)

Cheers for the info though, feel a bit better about it now. :)

[Just Alf]

What are the extra costs/concerns that businesses face in an iScotland? Import and export taxes? Potential currency transaction costs if we don't keep the £?...


Good question. I don't think there would be import/export duty unless/until rUK leaves the EU? Currency transaction costs would nil under either a CU or sterlingisation.

:agree:

[over the line]

There's a lot of former East Germans who question that thesis.Many of those who grew up in the old system left their comfort zone and had real trouble adapting to the new system. That said an independent Scotland will only have minor tweaks in the system to adapt it to our needs rather than a complete overhaul like the Germans experienced.

Yes I bet the members of the Stasi found it particularly difficult to adjust! ;)

But you are right, any form of change will result in winners and losers . Obviously the vast majority of the East Germans where and are a lot better off now and their futures are certainly a lot brighter now. As you say any change in Scotland will be on a whole different scale compared to the E G example. That's why I think the risk far outweighs any possible benefit IMO.

[PeeJay]

Yes I bet the members of the Stasi found it particularly difficult to adjust! ;)

But you are right, any form of change will result in winners and losers . Obviously the vast majority of the East Germans where and are a lot better off now and their futures are certainly a lot brighter now. As you say any change in Scotland will be on a whole different scale compared to the E G example. That's why I think the risk far outweighs any possible benefit IMO.

Not only the Stasi, I fear - you haven't spoken to many East Germans I take it ... the former GDR is a hotbed of unrest. Most of its young people have left because there are no future prospects for them in their "homeland" (i.e. no work) and they've had to go west or - even to the UK or other EU countries to find work and the bright future you refer to - the one they were promised. The East is now full of old people and empty autobahns and the discontented who are nostalgic for the days when bread and flat rentals were extremely low and job security was a given. "West" Germans rarely mix with "East" Germans (even though we are so far down the road of reunification) - If I was going to be very cynical one could simply say West Germany won and East Germany lost. When the wall came down West German capitalistic pragmatism simply bowled over the inexperienced and naive East Germans. No doubt some will see this differently, but it's never quite as black & white as you infer (this may well apply to me too, come to think of it):greengrin.

Still, people should be very wary of promises made by politicians before the great event ... not out of fear, simply out of experience.

[Beefster]

So...

Anything the SNP promise post-referendum= vision.

Anything Labour, Lib Dems, Tories promise post-referendum = bare-faced lies.

Right...

[Stranraer]

So...

Anything the SNP promise post-referendum= vision.

Anything Labour, Lib Dems, Tories promise post-referendum = bare-faced lies.

Right...

That's the way we are supposed to see it. This whole "project fear" catchphrase is wearing thing. The Yes campaign's poster that one should vote Yes to stop 100,000 more children living in poverty was as negative as anything I've seen from the No camp.

[over the line]

Not only the Stasi, I fear - you haven't spoken to many East Germans I take it ... the former GDR is a hotbed of unrest. Most of its young people have left because there are no future prospects for them in their "homeland" (i.e. no work) and they've had to go west or - even to the UK or other EU countries to find work and the bright future you refer to - the one they were promised. The East is now full of old people and empty autobahns and the discontented who are nostalgic for the days when bread and flat rentals were extremely low and job security was a given. "West" Germans rarely mix with "East" Germans (even though we are so far down the road of reunification) - If I was going to be very cynical one could simply say West Germany won and East Germany lost. When the wall came down West German capitalistic pragmatism simply bowled over the inexperienced and naive East Germans. No doubt some will see this differently, but it's never quite as black & white as you infer (this may well apply to me too, come to think of it):greengrin.

Still, people should be very wary of promises made by politicians before the great event ... not out of fear, simply out of experience.

Well I did not know that. I kind of imagine Germany as the model of well planned industrial development and social progressivism. I have spent a bit of time in 'West' Germany, with the army, but to be fair I didn't pay a great deal of attention to the intricacies of their politics, or indeed mingle with the Germans that much (the British Army aren't fondly thought of by most Germans). It was mainly 'playing war' and drinking beer for me! ;)

[Northernhibee]

That's the way we are supposed to see it. This whole "project fear" catchphrase is wearing thing. The Yes campaign's poster that one should vote Yes to stop 100,000 more children living in poverty was as negative as anything I've seen from the No camp.

As was the ex SNP MSP who said that anyone who votes no is a bad parent.

For one side to pretend that they are more positive or less negative than the other is as far as I'm concerned a pointless exercise by now.

[Stranraer]

As was the ex SNP MSP who said that anyone who votes no is a bad parent.

For one side to pretend that they are more positive or less negative than the other is as far as I'm concerned a pointless exercise by now.

Bloody hell I hadn't heard that one. I'm sick of both campaigns. I have a view and will be voting in September but the Yes and Better Together lot are acting childish and have been for some time now.

[sauzee_4]

Bloody hell I hadn't heard that one. I'm sick of both campaigns. I have a view and will be voting in September but the Yes and Better Together lot are acting childish and have been for some time now.

Agreed. It's a shame that politicians can't just attack each others arguments instead of taking personal swipes at each other.

That's what the public want to see. Would be nice if we could develop this sort of political culture and not impossible IMO

[JeMeSouviens]

Bad poll for yes from Survation today. 57-43 ex DK. 4% swing to N. Probably a bit of post debate bounce and these things usually fade but not good. :-(

[stoneyburn hibs]

Bad poll for yes from Survation today. 57-43 ex DK. 4% swing to N. Probably a bit of post debate bounce and these things usually fade but not good. :-(

Agree that it isn't good for those who base it on the polls, personally I am not taking anything from any poll. Disappointed to say the least in Salmond's tv performance, he missed a great opportunity to win undecided voters.

[Glory Lurker]

Better Together saying 25% of votes will be cast by post. Consequently they're against any TV debates after 25 August, which I assume is when the ballots will be sent out.

Raises a few questions......

1. I thought Darling said he would debate any time?

2. One quarter of the electorate is voting by post? I personally don't know anyone who is. Obviously move in the wrong circles...

3. Are Better Together going to stop campaigning on 25 August, too?

4. Was it a condition of the talks with broadcasters in 2010 that no televised leaders debate could take after postal ballots were sent out?