Scottish Independence

[Just Alf]

The IFS has predicted that Scotland will face a "fiscal gap" of 1.9% of the national income in comparison to 0.8% for the rest of the UK. With an ageing population and declining North Sea oil and gas revenues (to account for 2.2% of national income by 2017/18 according to the OBR) I agree with you - how can we afford everything that he has promised!?

I mentioned it on the other thread, but the same IFS report also said

"...the current system of income taxes and welfare benefits creates serious disincentives to work for many with relatively low potential earning power. The benefit system in particular is far too complex (though the proposed universal credit will help to some extent)...Scottish independence would provide an opportunity to make sensible changes to the tax system in Scotland that successive UK governments have failed to make...the creation of a new state is surely the best opportunity that is ever likely to present itself for radical and rational tax reform, starting from first principles, which has the potential to unlock really significant economic benefits".

..... looks like as usual our politicians cherry pick the bits that fit their argument even if taken as a whole the report actually says something different![

[allmodcons]

The IFS has predicted that Scotland will face a "fiscal gap" of 1.9% of the national income in comparison to 0.8% for the rest of the UK. With an ageing population and declining North Sea oil and gas revenues (to account for 2.2% of national income by 2017/18 according to the OBR) I agree with you - how can we afford everything that he has promised!?

The IFS themselves admit their projections in this report are 'inherently uncertain and could evolve differently if Scotland were independent rather than part of the UK; in addition they could be substantially affected by the policies chosen by the government of an independent Scotland'.

The whole point of independence is to equip Scotland with the competitive powers required to make the most of our vast natural resources and human talent and to follow a better path than the current Westminster system which, incidentally, the IFS report - and its projections - are based on.

[heretoday]

If we vote "no", will Scotland's position in the Union be stronger, or weaker? It's like Tam Dayell said, you can't go half way down the road to independence.

I'd say our position is pretty strong as things stand. We have a parliament.

[tcm1875]

Am I right in thinking that the Queen will still remain Head of State after Independence?

What's that all about? :confused:


Maybe be be incorrect, is she not queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England?

[ballengeich]

I'd say our position is pretty strong as things stand. We have a parliament.

with minimal ability to take macroeconomic decisions.

[hibby rae]

Maybe be be incorrect, is she not queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England?

That's correct.

[TariqE]

That's correct.

It is correct. But it's immaterial.

[JeMeSouviens]

I might not be directing my ire towards the correct group of people, but this is a bugbear I have with the SNP/Scottish Executive,,,,the lack of a plan B for each and every point it has made in the white paper.

Perhaps a little OTT for me to expect such things, but there is a rather important referendum on the horizon, we rarely get 'absolutes' from politicians but lately it's 'we will do this' and 'we will get that',,,but what if the promises made re EU, currency etc are beyond the powers of an independent Scotland? Where would an elected Scotland be if the £ was not an option, are we better/worse or the same?

Whilst I'm on my soap box, even the abolition of trident from the Clyde has softened from 'it will go' to something like 'it will go as soon as as safely and responsibly achieved',,,,not quite a flip-flop, certainly a flip!

There is no way anyone can stop us using the £. Various pegged currencies exist or have existed outside of currency unions. The Irish punt was pegged to sterling from the 30s to the late 70s.

[green glory]

There is no way anyone can stop us using the £. Various pegged currencies exist or have existed outside of currency unions. The Irish punt was pegged to sterling from the 30s to the late 70s.

The Bank of England has already agreed to start basic negotiations with the Scottish Government with regards to currency union.

[hibby rae]

It is correct. But it's immaterial.

Couldn't agree more. I'm firmly republican.

[green glory]

Great to see a big pro indy presence around ER on Saturday. Four different groups by my reckoning.

Hibs Yes, Jags Yes, Edinburgh North and Leith Yes and Radical Independence.

Nice bit of co-operation between rival supporters.

[yeezus.]

Worrying from an anti-independence perspective (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8520) YES is up 3 points from September and still makes me think the referendum is going to be tough to call.

[RyeSloan]

Worrying from an anti-independence perspective (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8520) YES is up 3 points from September and still makes me think the referendum is going to be tough to call.

Yes 34
No 57

And you suggest that is worrying from an anti independence perspective?

Considering the coverage the white paper received I would be worried if I was running the yes campaign and that's the size of the polling bump afterwards.

[Alex Trager]

Similar to what was posted earlier in the thread about the report on oil but here it is on video. Have a gander guys. http://youtu.be/Jg-nK_lhtfc

[yeezus.]

New YouGov poll for the Times has the following results:

YES 33%, NO 52%.

[Hibercelona]

I really can't get my head around why most Scottish folk wouldn't want us to be an independent country.

I see talk about us not being capable of making "big decisions". Well perhaps if we weren't in a union where we allowed people from another country to make all the "big decisions" for us, we would learn to make our own "big decisions". No? :confused:

[yeezus.]

I really can't get my head around why most Scottish folk wouldn't want us to be an independent country.

I see talk about us not being capable of making "big decisions". Well perhaps if we weren't in a union where we allowed people from another country to make all the "big decisions" for us, we would learn to make our own "big decisions". No? :confused:

But people from another country don't make all the big decisions for us. We have a fully elected Scottish Parliament and 50 odd MP's from Scotland representing us at Westminster. Also, I'm not sure that many on the pro-union side say we aren't capable...

[marinello59]

But people from another country don't make all the big decisions for us. We have a fully elected Scottish Parliament and 50 odd MP's from Scotland representing us at Westminster. Also, I'm not sure that many on the pro-union side say we aren't capable...

I havent heard anybody from the pro-union side saying we aren't capable of making our own decisions. Not one.

[marinello59]

Great to see a big pro indy presence around ER on Saturday. Four different groups by my reckoning.

Hibs Yes, Jags Yes, Edinburgh North and Leith Yes and Radical Independence.

Nice bit of co-operation between rival supporters.

If People who like Celery Yes join in I might be impressed.

[yeezus.]

I havent heard anybody from the pro-union side saying we aren't capable of making our own decisions. Not one.

Fair enough, I guess I'm not either. I get the impression that the Yes side are portraying Scotland as a "victim". I find it quite irritating.

[Glory Lurker]

Marinello 59 - I've heard plenty of folk who say they'll vote no say that the quality of Scottish politicians aren't up to the job of running the country, and being trusted to make decisions, along with various other incredible manifestations of the Scottish cringe.

Stranraer - Yes is not saying we're victims. It's saying we're not achieving our potential. It's saying that it's up to us whether we want to do something about that.

[marinello59]

Marinello 59 - I've heard plenty of folk who say they'll vote no say that the quality of Scottish politicians aren't up to the job of running the country, and being trusted to make decisions, along with various other incredible manifestations of the Scottish cringe.

.

Who? David Cameron has said that Scotland is more than capable of governing itself. The argument is would we be any better off. The Scottish cringe seems to be something ultra Nats claim exists. I don't know any Scots of any political persuasion who suffer from any sort of 'cringe' . It's a myth.

[Glory Lurker]

Who? David Cameron has said that Scotland is more than capable of governing itself. The argument is would we be any better off. The Scottish cringe seems to be something ultra Nats claim exists. I don't know any Scots of any political persuasion who suffer from any sort of 'cringe' . It's a myth.


I've heard plenty of folk who say they'll vote no say we're not capable of it. It's a central plank of what no-supporting Tory voters say. Too wee, too poor, too stupid is a mantra of plenty Scottish voters. I'm not an ultra Nat. There is a Scottish cringe.

[Beefster]

I really can't get my head around why most Scottish folk wouldn't want us to be an independent country.

I see talk about us not being capable of making "big decisions". Well perhaps if we weren't in a union where we allowed people from another country to make all the "big decisions" for us, we would learn to make our own "big decisions". No? :confused:

I don't know where you're reading that but it's not on here AFAIK.

It seems to be becoming common in this debate for folk to argue against points that haven't actually been made.

[marinello59]

I've heard plenty of folk who say they'll vote no say we're not capable of it. It's a central plank of what no-supporting Tory voters say. Too wee, too poor, too stupid is a mantra of plenty Scottish voters. I'm not an ultra Nat. There is a Scottish cringe.

A central plank? I haven't heard anybody say we are too stupid etc. Could you name a single politician who has taken that line?
What is the Scottish cringe and how does it manifest itself? Cringing doesn't sound like anything the majority of Scots would do. Most of us are pretty proud to be Scots so anybody making a deragatory claim against a large number of us should surely be challenged.

[Beefster]

A central plank? I haven't heard anybody say we are too stupid etc. Could you name a single politician who has taken that line?
What is the Scottish cringe and how does it manifest itself? Cringing doesn't sound like anything the majority of Scots would do. Most of us are pretty proud to be Scots so anybody making a deragatory claim against a large number of us should surely be challenged.

This 'Scottish cringe' seems to me to be a continuation/extension of the "Those who don't support independence are lesser Scots" line.

[Glory Lurker]

A central plank? I haven't heard anybody say we are too stupid etc. Could you name a single politician who has taken that line?
What is the Scottish cringe and how does it manifest itself? Cringing doesn't sound like anything the majority of Scots would do. Most of us are pretty proud to be Scots so anybody making a deragatory claim against a large number of us should surely be challenged.

You'll note I've not said it's a politician saying it. I'm talking about voters, and I have heard it plenty. Saying we're not good enough is a cringe - what else is it?

When did I say it was something the majority did? I made reference to it being something common among Tory supporters, notably not a majority of Scottish people.

[Beefster]

You'll note I've not said it's a politician saying it. I'm talking about voters, and I have heard it plenty. Saying we're not good enough is a cringe - what else is it?

When did I say it was something the majority did? I made reference to it being something common among Tory supporters, notably not a majority of Scottish people.

Do you ask them if they are Tory supporters before or after they tell you that Scotland is collectively stupid?

[Glory Lurker]

This 'Scottish cringe' seems to me to be a continuation/extension of the "Those who don't support independence are lesser Scots" line.

No. It's a fair way to describe folk who go right to the other end of the argument and rubbish our potential.

As for the "lesser Scots" line, did you not just have a go at Hibercelona for picking fights over points that haven't been made? :na na:

[Glory Lurker]

Do you ask them if they are Tory supporters before or after they tell you that Scotland is collectively stupid?


The folk I have heard say that we can't do it are Tories.

[marinello59]

You'll note I've not said it's a politician saying it. I'm talking about voters, and I have heard it plenty. Saying we're not good enough is a cringe - what else is it?

When did I say it was something the majority did? I made reference to it being something common among Tory supporters, notably not a majority of Scottish people.

So you have heard plenty of people saying it and they are mainly identifiable as being Tory supporters. You are making this up now aren't you? :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25337494


Scotland's council tax will remain frozen for the seventh year running, John Swinney has confirmed.



sooooooperb :saltireflag

[Jonnyboy]

Fair enough, I guess I'm not either. I get the impression that the Yes side are portraying Scotland as a "victim". I find it quite irritating.

You're confusing them with Celtic fans :wink:

[Alex Trager]

I havent heard anybody from the pro-union side saying we aren't capable of making our own decisions. Not one.

Not people as in politicians. More so the fans. And obviously not a big amount. I know three who I constantly argue with about it say we couldn't run our own country. Lunacy if you ask me. And sheer ignorance. Obviously you can't apply that to everyone though

[allmodcons]

I havent heard anybody from the pro-union side saying we aren't capable of making our own decisions. Not one.

No politician on the pro union side is going to say that outright, but the fact remains that a fair number of voters will vote No because they don't think Scotland, as a small Independent State, is capable of running it's own affairs (i.e. - taking big decisions).

Why do a fair number of voters take this view, might it have something to do with constant scaremongering we get from the pro union side and MSM (i.e. - EU wouldn't want an Independent Scotland, NATO wouldn't want an Independent Scotland, we'd be totally anonymous as part of the UN, ecomony would be 'basket case', without oil revenues, blah, blah, blah)? It's embarrassing. Will it work? Lets wait and see.

[marinello59]

No politician on the pro union side is going to say that outright, but the fact remains that a fair number of voters will vote No because they don't think Scotland, as a small Independent State, is capable of running it's own affairs (i.e. - taking big decisions).

Why do a fair number of voters take this view, might it have something to do with constant scaremongering we get from the pro union side and MSM (i.e. - EU wouldn't want an Independent Scotland, NATO wouldn't want an Independent Scotland, we'd be totally anonymous as part of the UN, ecomony would be 'basket case', without oil revenues, blah, blah, blah)? It's embarrassing. Will it work? Lets wait and see.

Why the need to talk down Scots as running scared? I still don't know any Scot who doesn't think we are capable of doing anything we set our minds too. Don't most of us think we invented the modern world? There are plenty of Scots who think that we are better off as part of a larger country. That is a totally different thing and a perfectly valid viewpoint to hold. . Trying to suggest that Scots lack confidence in their own abilities is quite simply insulting and a bizarre viewpoint for anybody who wants us to be a proud Independent nation to take.

[allmodcons]

Why the need to talk down Scots as running scared? I still don't know any Scot who doesn't think we are capable of doing anything we set our minds too. Don't most of us think we invented the modern world? There are plenty of Scots who think that we are better off as part of a larger country. That is a totally different thing and a perfectly valid viewpoint to hold. . Trying to suggest that Scots lack confidence in their own abilities is quite simply insulting and a bizarre viewpoint for anybody who wants us to be a proud Independent nation to take.

I'm not doubting some Scots are confident but, on the otherhand, firmly believe a fair number take what they read and hear as gospel. I've spoken to a number of individuals who are voting No because they 'don't think Scotland could manage on it's own'. You might think this is insulting, I just think it's embarrassing.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25337494


Scotland's council tax will remain frozen for the seventh year running, John Swinney has confirmed.



sooooooperb :saltireflag

I wish they'd raise the council tax and fix the bloody potholes in the roads.

[Hibrandenburg]

I wish they'd raise the council tax and fix the bloody potholes in the roads.

Wish they'd put a mileage tax on those who wear the roads down, then those who don't drive don't have to pay for repairs for those who do. :greengrin

[marinello59]

I'm not doubting some Scots are confident but, on the otherhand, firmly believe a fair number take what they read and hear as gospel. I've spoken to a number of individuals who are voting No because they 'don't think Scotland could manage on it's own'. You might think this is insulting, I just think it's embarrassing.

So a fair number are unable to think for themselves as well?
Around about half the population of Scotland look likely to vote No. What percentage of them do you think are either unable to think for themselves or think we are simply not capable of running our own affairs?
And what percentage of those voting Yes do you think are unable to think for themselves?
And maybe you could you define the Scottish Cringe because until somebody does so I will go on thinking its a myth. If it does exist it surely affects us all no matter which way we intend voting next year.

[allmodcons]

So a fair number are unable to think for themselves as well?
Around about half the population of Scotland look likely to vote No. What percentage of them do you think are either unable to think for themselves or think we are simply not capable of running our own affairs?
And what percentage of those voting Yes do you think are unable to think for themselves?
And maybe you could you define the Scottish Cringe because until somebody does so I will go on thinking its a myth. If it does exist it surely affects us all no matter which way we intend voting next year.

Are you seriously suggesting that a fair number of voters (on both sides) are not heavily influenced by what the read and hear in/on MSM?

Can I ask which MSM publication openly supports the Yes campaign and how many openly back the No side?

I think a 'fair' proportion will vote 'No' because they think we are not capable of running our own affairs. Can you prove otherwise?

I never brought up the Scottish Cringe. IMO it is a myth too, however, I firmly believe the MSM plays a big part in determining how people perceive things, need I say more than Daily Mail readers.

[marinello59]

Are you seriously suggesting that a fair number of voters (on both sides) are not heavily influenced by what the read and hear in/on MSM?

Can I ask which MSM publication openly supports the Yes campaign and how many openly back the No side?

I think a 'fair' proportion will vote 'No' because they think we are not capable of running our own affairs. Can you prove otherwise?

I never brought up the Scottish Cringe. IMO it is a myth too, however, I firmly believe the MSM plays a big part in determining how people perceive things, need I say more than Daily Mail readers.

No.:greengrin
I think you may believe too much in the power of the media to influence how people will vote. The media doesn't lead opinion, it follows it. (The Sun is a perfect example, it takes a punt on which side will win any particular election and backs it.) My opinion is that the Scottish electorate in the main is far too politically aware to allow themselves to be conned by newspaper editors.
No, you didn't bring up the Scottish cringe, that was another poster. At least we can agree that it doesn't exist. :thumbsup:

[Alex Trager]

No.:greengrin
I think you may believe too much in the power of the media to influence how people will vote. The media doesn't lead opinion, it follows it. (The Sun is a perfect example, it takes a punt on which side will win any particular election and backs it.) My opinion is that the Scottish electorate in the main is far too politically aware to allow themselves to be conned by newspaper editors.
No, you didn't bring up the Scottish cringe, that was another poster. At least we can agree that it doesn't exist. :thumbsup:

For me I agree with everything the boy is saying. I have a multi group text set up about Indy now two of the three I talk to reply quite often. If I was to show you the texts you'd be quite surprised at how much they are letting the media influence them.

I swear to you they rubbished the white paper based on no, or virtually no- meaning about two pages- worth of reading.

Now all the things they say to me whenever I look at a no side of things it's like reading their texts back. I wished they would make their OWN opinion up about things. They seem to ignore that each time I bring it up. I beg of them to look into it themselves and make their own opinion up. They simply don't.

So to take an example. The day after the white paper came out I received a text explaining that 'all the papers and news stations I've read/heard have said it is this that and the next thing' I was and am astounded that people can argue so strongly based on opinions of the media. For me the media know where their bread is buttered and they'll stick to it. As he said earlier can you tell us what paper or other source of media supports the yes campaign? Or at least looks at it fairly? I can answer that.


They also tell me how we can't run our own country, mentioning things like the parliament and the trams.

Finally I assure you I don't think that this is the mass reason for no but I think it is naive for you to dismiss it.

[marinello59]

For me I agree with everything the boy is saying. I have a multi group text set up about Indy now two of the three I talk to reply quite often. If I was to show you the texts you'd be quite surprised at how much they are letting the media influence them.

I swear to you they rubbished the white paper based on no, or virtually no- meaning about two pages- worth of reading.

Now all the things they say to me whenever I look at a no side of things it's like reading their texts back. I wished they would make their OWN opinion up about things. They seem to ignore that each time I bring it up. I beg of them to look into it themselves and make their own opinion up. They simply don't.

So to take an example. The day after the white paper came out I received a text explaining that 'all the papers and news stations I've read/heard have said it is this that and the next thing' I was and am astounded that people can argue so strongly based on opinions of the media. For me the media know where their bread is buttered and they'll stick to it. As he said earlier can you tell us what paper or other source of media supports the yes campaign? Or at least looks at it fairly? I can answer that.


They also tell me how we can't run our own country, mentioning things like the parliament and the trams.

Finally I assure you I don't think that this is the mass reason for no but I think it is naive for you to dismiss it.

Is it any more naïve than dismissing the Scottish electorate as unthinking on the strength of a few texts ? If a large number of those voting No are only doing so because they are unthinkingly accepting everything they read in the media then there must be a equal number on the Yes side unthinkingly voting that way because the accept everything they are told by others. There is plenty of decent writing on both sides of the debate if you open your eyes and read the commentary sections of newspapers. Some people only see what they want to see. Maybe it's time to stop making excuses in advance.....''.The media did for us''...........and concentrating more on winning over the don't knows.
I think the Scottish electorate is much more sophisticated than you are willing to give then credit for and it's quite disheartening that there are a few on here who really have no respect for their fellow Scots. I hope it isn't just because they are voting differently from themselves. No matter which way this goes we all have to live with the decision and with each other afterwards.

[Alex Trager]

Is it any more naïve than dismissing the Scottish electorate as unthinking on the strength of a few texts ? If a large number of those voting No are only doing so because they are unthinkingly accepting everything they read in the media then there must be a equal number on the Yes side unthinkingly voting that way because the accept everything they are told by others. There is plenty of decent writing on both sides of the debate if you open your eyes and read the commentary sections of newspapers. Some people only see what they want to see. Maybe it's time to stop making excuses in advance.....''.The media did for us''...........and concentrating more on winning over the don't knows.
I think the Scottish electorate is much more sophisticated than you are willing to give then credit for and it's quite disheartening that there are a few on here who really have no respect for their fellow Scots. I hope it isn't just because they are voting differently from themselves. No matter which way this goes we all have to live with the decision and with each other afterwards.

I don't know if I said 'now I know this is only a few people but it stresses that it does exist' but it if I never then I should have. And if I did then you have completely blown what I was saying out of proportion. I'm not dismissing the whole Scottish electorate under the category I speak of, merely expressing that what the boy above has said DOES exist

[allmodcons]

Is it any more naïve than dismissing the Scottish electorate as unthinking on the strength of a few texts ? If a large number of those voting No are only doing so because they are unthinkingly accepting everything they read in the media then there must be a equal number on the Yes side unthinkingly voting that way because the accept everything they are told by others. There is plenty of decent writing on both sides of the debate if you open your eyes and read the commentary sections of newspapers. Some people only see what they want to see. Maybe it's time to stop making excuses in advance.....''.The media did for us''...........and concentrating more on winning over the don't knows.
I think the Scottish electorate is much more sophisticated than you are willing to give then credit for and it's quite disheartening that there are a few on here who really have no respect for their fellow Scots. I hope it isn't just because they are voting differently from themselves. No matter which way this goes we all have to live with the decision and with each other afterwards.


There is not a single MSM outlet backing a Yes vote. I agree you'll find some decent pro Yes pieces in the likes of the Herald but, that apart, you'll have to move away from MSM to find any media support for a Yes vote. I can name a whole host of pro No newspapers (Daily Record, Daily Mail, P&J, Daily Express, Times, Telegraph, Scotsman) but can't think of any that back the Yes campaign.

With regard to the having 'no respect for my fellow Scots' why would I want to respect anybody who intends to vote No because they believe their own countrymen incapable of running their own affairs?

[marinello59]

allmodcons]There is not a single MSM outlet backing a Yes vote. I agree you'll find some decent pro Yes pieces in the likes of the Herald but, that apart, you'll have to move away from MSM to find any media support for a Yes vote. I can name a whole host of pro No newspapers (Daily Record, Daily Mail, P&J, Daily Express, Times, Telegraph, Scotsman) but can't think of any that back the Yes campaign.
With regard to the having 'no respect for my fellow Scots' why would I want to respect anybody who intends to vote No because they believe their own countrymen incapable of running their own affairs?

I would suggest that the number of No voters who actually believe that nonsense is pretty insignificant. I assume that you do have respect for the vast majority of No voters who will be doing so because, after weighing up all the arguments, they believe we are better off as part of the UK.
You are being disrespectful to the electorate if you think many of us are dumb enough to vote the way a Newspaper editorial tells us to. The debate around the publication of the White Paper was fairly balanced. Support for Independence has actually increased since then hasn't it? Looks like the Scottish electorate is more than capable of making its own mind up. Your bleating about the media would suggest that you think otherwise.
When we collectively decided to give the Tories a kicking we didn't need a newspaper telling us to vote tactically. Result? Westminster Tory MP's were wiped out.
A majority SNP Government at Holyrood was impossible according to the press. Well we didn't listen to that either did we? As I said before the press don't lead, they follow. If opinion polls started to show a major surge in support for a Yes vote then you can bet your bottom dollar that some will shift sides.

[allmodcons]

I would suggest that the number of No voters who actually believe that nonsense is pretty insignificant. I assume that you do have respect for the vast majority of No voters who will be doing so because, after weighing up all the arguments, they believe we are better off as part of the UK.
You are being disrespectful to the electorate if you think many of us are dumb enough to vote the way a Newspaper editorial tells us to. The debate around the publication of the White Paper was fairly balanced. Support for Independence has actually increased since then hasn't it? Looks like the Scottish electorate is more than capable of making its own mind up. Your bleating about the media would suggest that you think otherwise.
When we collectively decided to give the Tories a kicking we didn't need a newspaper telling us to vote tactically. Result? Westminster Tory MP's were wiped out.
A majority SNP Government at Holyrood was impossible according to the press. Well we didn't listen to that either did we? As I said before the press don't lead, they follow. If opinion polls started to show a major surge in support for a Yes vote then you can bet your bottom dollar that some will shift sides.

You make some good points here M59. Not sure where I sit on the 'respect' issue, I have some good mates who will most likely vote No. Them I respect, but those in the No camp who seek to convince others that Scotland is some kind of economic basket case or those on the right (the rule Britannia brigade) I despise.

I qualified my earlier post by saying 'will it work, lets wait and see' and live in hope that, as you rightly point out in the case of the 2011 election, the electorate will (once again) see through the daily anti Independence/anti SNP diatribe of MSM.

[hibeeleicester]

This is simply a once in a lifetime chance. Why wouldn't we want independence?

We are better off WITHOUT them. :thumbsup:

[yeezus.]

This is simply a once in a lifetime chance. Why wouldn't we want independence?

We are better off WITHOUT them. :thumbsup:

By "them" I take it you mean England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I disagree anyway, we have a strong devolved Parliament but also great Labour representation at Westminster :greengrin

[The Harp Awakes]

I'll be voting no - in fact I don't personally know anyone (out of the few people I've discussed it with) who intends to vote yes. These things tend to work like that, you tend to hang around with people with similar opinions to yourself which can lead to a bit of an echo chamber forming.

Its a purely heart over head thing for me. I'm British and Scottish and I can't imagine being anything else. I'm proud to be British and Scottish. I was born that way and I'll die that way, a referendum can't change it.

Having said that my head says stay with the Union too. I think we'll be better off economically, be more stable and have more influence as part of the UK.

I would like change though. My own preferred solution would be to move to a federal model with separate Scottish, Welsh, N Irish, English (probably more than one English, maybe North, Mid, South and London) parliaments handling all local issues and a British parliament to deal with foreign policy, defence and serious crime.

It's a definite YES for me. Wouldn't hesitate for one minute. It's a massive opportunity for us to take control of our country and sort out our social problems. A life expectancy of ~50 in parts of Scotland is simply not acceptable in a developed country in 2013. Westminster rule has failed us in that respect. Getting rid of nuclear submarines and weapons of mass destruction from our country is a clincher for me. Think of what we could spend Scotland's proportion of that massive budget on.

I guess my views are diametrically opposite to those expressed in the post above. I am Scottish and do not know what it means to be British. Never have. I do however, agree with the point about folk tending to be around others of similar views and opinions. Of the 11 members of my immediate family who are old enough to vote in the referendum, 10 will vote yes and 1 is undecided. The 10 includes my 87 year old mother who was born in Merseyside.

I believe that as we get closer to the referendum the 'YES' vote will increase. Whether it will increase enough to win the referendum I'm not sure.

[Hibrandenburg]

If I'd been lied to and cheated in any other relationship then that relationship would be terminated on those grounds alone. The Union is no different.

[Just Alf]

Interesting take on Alistair Carmichael's '20 reasons for voting against independence'

http://wingsoverscotland.com/taking-our-best-shot/#more-47426

[Sylar]

Interesting take on Alistair Carmichael's '20 reasons for voting against independence'

http://wingsoverscotland.com/taking-our-best-shot/#more-47426


“18. A strong university research base and infrastructure.”
Um, which we already have (http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-soot-covered-cockerel/) and which is already independent. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that England might bomb our universities as well as our airports (http://archive.is/ODBre).

Erm, no, it 100% isn't. University research in Scotland is funded primarily through RCUK - although our Universities are more successful than most south of the borders (in terms of attracting research funding), we take out more than we put in.

£3 billion to be precise and the only mention of the loss of access to RCUK in the White Paper was 'we promise we'll discuss and negotiate' (single ' rather than " used as I'm paraphrasing). £3 billion and no plan B...

Plus, it was announced today that any efforts to charge RUK students tuition fees if the vote is 'Yes' would be illegal, that's another loss of funding income for research.

The ridiculous uncertainty and haphazard economics surrounding University and research funding are the exact reason most academics will vote 'no'.

[allmodcons]

Erm, no, it 100% isn't. University research in Scotland is funded primarily through RCUK - although our Universities are more successful than most south of the borders (in terms of attracting research funding), we take out more than we put in.

£3 billion to be precise and the only mention of the loss of access to RCUK in the White Paper was 'we promise we'll discuss and negotiate' (single ' rather than " used as I'm paraphrasing). £3 billion and no plan B...

Plus, it was announced today that any efforts to charge RUK students tuition fees if the vote is 'Yes' would be illegal, that's another loss of funding income for research.

The ridiculous uncertainty and haphazard economics surrounding University and research funding are the exact reason most academics will vote 'no'.

You should of course make it clear in your post that the £3 billion figure you quote is the total UK spend, 10.7% of which came to Scotland in 2012/13. On a population share of 8.4%, if we lose the funding and it's a big if, you're talking about £69 million. So much for your £3 billion and no plan B.

Can I ask who made the 'announcement' you reference?

How do you know that most academics will vote 'no'? This is just a bland statement based on your own voting intention.

[Sylar]

Who made this 'announcement' I wonder?

How do know that most academics will vote 'no'? This is just a bland statement based on your own voting intention.

I got it through Aberdeen University's staff news circular but here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/13/scotland-independence-university-tuition-fees-illegal_n_4587811.html

I know most academics are leaning towards 'no' because we do all speak. Through our Unions, through our institutions, through pooling initiatives, conferences, meetings etc...

Since well before the White Paper was published (and certainly since!), there's a real fear amongst academics that the 'plans' for funding higher education are utterly non-existent and the SNP are hoping that the status quo can be maintained. As a result, there have been several open forums, round table debates, touring presentations, Union polls, Q&A sessions where there's a genuine concensus of doubt and worry.

[allmodcons]

I got it through Aberdeen University's staff news circular but here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/13/scotland-independence-university-tuition-fees-illegal_n_4587811.html

I know most academics are leaning towards 'no' because we do all speak. Through our Unions, through our institutions, through pooling initiatives, conferences, meetings etc...

Since well before the White Paper was published (and certainly since!), there's a real fear amongst academics that the 'plans' for funding higher education are utterly non-existent and the SNP are hoping that the status quo can be maintained. As a result, there have been several open forums, round table debates, touring presentations, Union polls, Q&A sessions where there's a genuine concensus of doubt and worry.

Sorry having some trouble with laptop. Can you address the first point in my edited post?

[allmodcons]

I got it through Aberdeen University's staff news circular but here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/13/scotland-independence-university-tuition-fees-illegal_n_4587811.html

I know most academics are leaning towards 'no' because we do all speak. Through our Unions, through our institutions, through pooling initiatives, conferences, meetings etc...

Since well before the White Paper was published (and certainly since!), there's a real fear amongst academics that the 'plans' for funding higher education are utterly non-existent and the SNP are hoping that the status quo can be maintained. As a result, there have been several open forums, round table debates, touring presentations, Union polls, Q&A sessions where there's a genuine concensus of doubt and worry.


It's a report by Academics for Better Together!!!

[allmodcons]

I got it through Aberdeen University's staff news circular but here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/13/scotland-independence-university-tuition-fees-illegal_n_4587811.html

I know most academics are leaning towards 'no' because we do all speak. Through our Unions, through our institutions, through pooling initiatives, conferences, meetings etc...

Since well before the White Paper was published (and certainly since!), there's a real fear amongst academics that the 'plans' for funding higher education are utterly non-existent and the SNP are hoping that the status quo can be maintained. As a result, there have been several open forums, round table debates, touring presentations, Union polls, Q&A sessions where there's a genuine concensus of doubt and worry.

Real fear comes from individuals like you using headline figures of £3 billion when the worst case scenario is a 'potential' loss in funding of around £60 million - £70 million.

[Sylar]

You should of course make it clear in your post that the £3 billion figure you quote is the total UK spend, 10.7% of which came to Scotland in 2012/13. On a population share of 8.4%, if we lose the funding and it's a big if, you're talking about £69 million. So much for your £3 billion and no plan B.

Can I ask who made the 'announcement' you reference?

How do you know that most academics will vote 'no'? This is just a bland statement based on your own voting intention.

Sorry, you're quite correct of course! I thought I had bracketed our percentage secured in my last edit but haven't. Not quite sure where your figures come from but in 2013 we secured £257 million of funding, which is 13.1% of the total UK spend on research compared to our 8.4% proportion.

Regardless, that's still £93 million and it's not really a big 'if' at all - we leave the UK, we have no right to access UK based funding bodies, just like I'm not able to apply for funding from Irish, Spanish, Swedish or Dutch funding pools.

If the SNP (or post Independence parliament, as I'm aware this isn't party specific) cannot supplement that deficit (bearing in mind the likely loss of RUK tuition fees of £150 million added on to the aforementioned £93 million), researchers (and students) will leave Scotland if they can't get their research/courses funded accordingly.

That last point is obviously personal opinion but in our line of work, funding is key and if access to it becomes squeezed (unless you can suggest where the money might be sourced from otherwise, short of raising taxes?) it becomes unsustainable.

[Sylar]

It's a report by Academics for Better Together!!!

This discussion appears to have now drawn in 2 reports published on the same day...

I'm conscious of the important of source, without a doubt, but the facts and figures presented here are readily available to access regardless of your stance. It should be stressed that the report on RUK students being exempt from tuition fees come from a group of academic legal experts who aren't affiliated with Academics Together in any way. They're a research group based at Aberdeen (which is the report I'm referring to) and are world leading in their field.


Real fear comes from individuals like you using headline figures of £3 billion when the worst case scenario is a 'potential' loss in funding of around £60 million - £70 million.

It wasn't there to be deliberately misleading, it was a simple error of type. As I said, I thought i had included the % bracket and I'm willing to admit that. Also, you cite £60-70 (actually £93) million as if it's an insubstantial amount of money (compared to £3 billion, I suppose it is mind you :greengrin ).

You might not believe it but I'm still open to being convinced that a 'Yes' vote is feasible - however, in order to do that, they're going to have to substantiate their claims and ideas with facts and figures. Whilst I'm aware many of the other discussions make a strong case, with evidence, for Independence, this for me personally, is a deal-breaker until it's less of a gamble.

[Sylar]

I'm aware it's hard to find balance and I've no intention here of 'scaremongering' but I've worked for the past 10 years to make my career in academia and the potential loss of major funding avenues, although a worst case scenario, is also a very real prospect, supported in evidence of the figures.

What we could be doing with is the RCUK or Westminster government coming out and providing a clear answer as to what is going to happen. Saying this will be done after the vote is utter stupidity.

Hand on heart, if the Scottish Government could confirm in advance of the vote that discussions had secured access to the funding post-Indy, I'd vote Yes. This, for me, is the only stumbling block but it's monumental from a personal (and professional) standpoint.

[allmodcons]

It wasn't there to be deliberately misleading, it was a simple error of type. As I said, I thought i had included the % bracket and I'm willing to admit that. Also, you cite £60-70 (actually £93) million as if it's an insubstantial amount of money (compared to £3 billion, I suppose it is mind you :greengrin ).

What we could be doing with is the RCUK or Westminster government coming out and providing a clear answer as to what is going to happen. Saying this will be done after the vote is utter stupidity.

Hand on heart, if the Scottish Government could confirm in advance of the vote that discussions had secured access to the funding post-Indy, I'd vote Yes. This, for me, is the only stumbling block but it's monumental from a personal (and professional) standpoint.


Against my better judement, the figures I quoted come directly from a UK Government Paper published late last year - £60 million is the figure stated in the report - and headlined as 'fact' without any balanced comment by the pro Union propaganda machine that is the BBC. :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24892825

To balance matters, however, here is a link to the pro independence website Wings Over Scotland. This piece disputes the analysis coming from the UK Government and might help allay some of the fears the pro Union side have managed to plant in your academic head. :sairhead:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-soot-covered-cockerel/

[Sylar]

Against my better judement, the figures I quoted come directly from a UK Government Paper published late last year - £60 million is the figure stated in the report - and headlined as 'fact' without any balanced comment by the pro Union propaganda machine that is the BBC. :greengrin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24892825

To balance matters, however, here is a link to the pro independence website Wings Over Scotland. This piece disputes the analysis coming from the UK Government and might help allay some of the fears the pro Union side have managed to plant in your academic head. :sairhead:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-soot-covered-cockerel/

Cheers - it was nice to read some perspective from the other side actually.

I agree with Ian Diamond that it's in our interests to still be able to access RCUK funding and collaborate with UK Universities if the vote is a Yes but that's not enough. I agree with many of the statements in the White Paper about how various changes to the current system would be beneficial for our HE system but without an outline as to how this is funded, they too are not enough.

What we need are solid answers and supportive economic details from those who control the funding and regulate it and when the cabinet minister who controls the education purse strings is coming out and saying that Scotland would need to supplement the loss of RCUK funding, you can understand why academics north of the border are worried, bearing in mind that although the RCUKs control where money goes based on applicant quality, their funding is allocated by Parliament.

One thing I would say from the article:


Within the UK, funding for research is based on a “dual support” system, described below by Rick Rylance (the Chair of Research Councils UK) in his submission (http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/programmes/2012-13/speaker_notes/RickRylance.pdf) to the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s ‘Enlightening the Constitutional Debate – Science and Higher Education’ project.
“Research Councils UK (RCUK) is, as the name suggests, a UK-wide organisation. Its seven autonomous Councils distribute grants and awards to recognised Research Organisations (ROs). These comprise UK universities, but also research institutes (which are sometimes wholly or partially-owned by individual Research Councils), and some independent bodies, such as major museums, known as Independent Research Organisations or IROs. The grants are awarded on the basis of open competition and decided through peer review by appropriate expert researchers on a project-specific basis. They are thus not allocated on the basis of location, either geographic or political.The distribution that arises does so naturally as a function of quality. By and large, ROs located in Scotland achieve success at a rate and to an extent that is above what one might notionally think of as an even distribution across the UK. This recognises the distinctive excellence of Scottish research.

Whilst it might be true that the awarding of grants is not geographical based across the UK, institutions in the Republic of Ireland, France, Italy, the USA, Swaziland or Papa New Guinea can't apply from funding from the UK Research Councils - if Scotland leave the UK, they are not automatically entitled to access a UK system, regardless of how much it's in ours and the UK's interests. What we need is someone to come out and categorically say 'Yes, this funding will be made available to Scotland' or 'no, sorry, this will be for UK based research institutions only'. If it turns out to be the latter, that then gives the Scottish Government enough time to put together some figures and work out how they would continue funding research to the currently high level.

[allmodcons]

Whilst it might be true that the awarding of grants is not geographical based across the UK, institutions in the Republic of Ireland, France, Italy, the USA, Swaziland or Papa New Guinea can't apply from funding from the UK Research Councils - if Scotland leave the UK, they are not automatically entitled to access a UK system, regardless of how much it's in ours and the UK's interests. What we need is someone to come out and categorically say 'Yes, this funding will be made available to Scotland' or 'no, sorry, this will be for UK based research institutions only'. If it turns out to be the latter, that then gives the Scottish Government enough time to put together some figures and work out how they would continue funding research to the currently high level.

You'll (presumably) know more about this than me, but does the RCUK not already commit serious funding overseas to it's foreign 'partners'
(e.g. - £150 million over 5 years in India)?

[Sylar]

You'll (presumably) know more about this than me, but does the RCUK not already commit serious funding overseas to it's foreign 'partners'
(e.g. - £150 million over 5 years in India)?

Not quite - funding is allocated to the following units/groups:

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/noparentrcs.aspx

It is often the case that funding is set aside to fund research in foreign countries or that foreign partners become involved in RCUK funded projects through partnership with UK institutions but If I were an academic based in any country outwith the UK, I couldn't independently apply for funding with them without partnership with a UK University/Research Agency.

The scheme you're referring to enables Indian Universities to access RCUK funding so long as they submit a proposal in partnership with a UK institution as the lead, as India (and China) are deemed to be international research priorities.

[allmodcons]

Not quite - funding is allocated to the following units/groups:

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/noparentrcs.aspx

It is often the case that funding is set aside to fund research in foreign countries or that foreign partners become involved in RCUK funded projects through partnership with UK institutions but If I were an academic based in any country outwith the UK, I couldn't independently apply for funding with them without partnership with a UK University/Research Agency.

The scheme you're referring to enables Indian Universities to access RCUK funding so long as they submit a proposal in partnership with a UK institution as the lead, as India (and China) are deemed to be international research priorities.

What's to stop you doing this in an Independent Scotland.

Without wishing to give you an overinflated ego, my understanding is that you guys in the Scottish Research sector are up there with the best in the world. You presumably already work hand in glove with other rUK institutions, so why would they not want you as one of their partners when Scotland becomes an Independent Nation State?

Maybe you need to have bit more belief in your own ability!!

[Sylar]

What's to stop you doing this in an Independent Scotland.

Without wishing to give you an overflated ego, my understanding is that you guys in the Scottish Research sector are up there with the best in the world. You presumably already work hand in glove with other rUK institutions, so why would they not want you as one of their partners when Scotland becomes an Independent Nation State?

Maybe you need to have bit more belief in your own ability!!

Nothing would stop us doing this but it's not the best way to go about it from personal or institutional points of view.

When we're assessed by various auditing agencies for University quality/rankings, or indeed when we apply for jobs or funding, evidence of funding acquired as a Principal Investigator is crucial.

To take the approach you're suggesting would mean that, although access would become available, it would always be as a co-funded/co-investigator as the UK institute is always the first named on any such application.

Whilst that becomes a different issue, the access to the funding is only part 1 of the problem. I guess when you start to scrape at the complexities, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that there's no blueprint for HE funding yet.

[heretoday]

I'm a lifelong Labour voter, but, having heard the crap coming out of the Tories this week, I am seriously considering voting 'Yes' in the referendum if that is going to be the future.
I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts.

Surely, a dislike of the Tories is not sufficient reason to split and form a separate country?

It's how you feel in your heart about Scotland that's the key.....or should be.

[steakbake]

The ridiculous uncertainty and haphazard economics surrounding University and research funding are the exact reason most academics will vote 'no'.

For a clearly very intelligent fellow, that last remark is nonsense. Most - some - all? How do you know? Academics, I would image will vote pretty much in the same way that those outside of the ivory towers will vote and for the same or similar reasons.

There are many prominent academics who have put forward their academic opinions in the areas of law, international relations, economics, politics etc to support both sides of the debate.

Academics are not isolated from having political opinions shaped on experience, personal viewpoint and so on, just like other mere mortals.

[Sylar]

For a clearly very intelligent fellow, that last remark is nonsense. Most - some - all? How do you know? Academics, I would image will vote pretty much in the same way that those outside of the ivory towers will vote and for the same or similar reasons.

There are many prominent academics who have put forward their academic opinions in the areas of law, international relations, economics, politics etc to support both sides of the debate.

Academics are not isolated from having political opinions shaped on experience, personal viewpoint and so on, just like other mere mortals.

Apologies, I'm not claiming it as a known 'matter of fact' SB, it's simply my opinion based on the interactions, opinions and discussions I've shared with a wide range of colleagues and students on the matter.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, most Universities have hosted debates, Q&A sessions, public lectures and various information has been circulated by the Unions that govern lecturers, research and teaching staff. There have been opinion polls conducted amongst such staff and there's an overwhelming lean towards one outcome. Granted, this doesn't represent ALL academics but that, combined with the ones I've interacted with, all share the same concerns that are driving them towards a 'no'.

I'm not trying to put us in another echelon here either, somehow suggesting everyday politics, experiences etc don't factor in but you can't seriously believe that the possible loss of our primary revenue isn't going to impact the way we'll vote or weigh our options. It's horses for courses and people will vote on the aspects of the manifesto/promises (hopefully) which are important to them. HE funding isn't going to be a priority for anyone outwith academia but it is a huge factor on the direction we're going to vote as an industry.

[Just Alf]

Surely, a dislike of the Tories is not sufficient reason to split and form a separate country?

It's how you feel in your heart about Scotland that's the key.....or should be.

Agreed, I'm sure I've mentioned on this thread (months ago!) that my folks are split, One is a labour voter, the other is a tory.... Both have voted SNP in recent times and say they're voting "Yes", both also say they"ll revert to what they really want to vote for once the SNP have done their job (and it ain't the SNP).

[hibby rae]

Agreed, I'm sure I've mentioned on this thread (months ago!) that my folks are split, One is a labour voter, the other is a tory.... Both have voted SNP in recent times and say they're voting "Yes", both also say they"ll revert to what they really want to vote for once the SNP have done their job (and it ain't the SNP).

If the 'Yes' vote wins I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP splinter afterwards into a leftist party and a centreist one.

[allmodcons]

Surely, a dislike of the Tories is not sufficient reason to split and form a separate country?

It's how you feel in your heart about Scotland that's the key.....or should be.

I take your point about 'the heart' but one of the main reasons for voting 'Yes' is that Scotland will, thereafter, always get the Government the Scottish Electorate vote for. In the highly unlikley event of Scottish Conservative Government being elected, even their policies will no doubt be formulated in what they term to be Scotland's best interest. That is to say, we will not have the policies formulated on what is best for the SE of England and aimed, in the case of the current UK Conservative Party, at keeping their right wing rump and UKIP in check.



Agreed, I'm sure I've mentioned on this thread (months ago!) that my folks are split, One is a labour voter, the other is a tory.... Both have voted SNP in recent times and say they're voting "Yes", both also say they"ll revert to what they really want to vote for once the SNP have done their job (and it ain't the SNP).

This is how it should be. The Yes campaign is not about voting SNP.



If the 'Yes' vote wins I wouldn't be surprised if the SNP splinter afterwards into a leftist party and a centreist one.

I doubt this will happen. There is no doubt that voters on the left and right of politics vote SNP, however, the vast majority of SNP members are left of centre minded, which is why the SNP consider themselves to be a left of centre social democratic party. IMO this is how the party will stay in the event of Yes vote.

[One Day Soon]

Voters aren't idiots. In this case it is a straightforward agree or disagree question so there is no ambiguity.

I think when you have a government whose main objective is independence, conducting an independence Referendum whose timing and question they have framed then there can be little doubt that the ensuing result tells whether or not the people of Scotland agree with the proposition being put to them.

In this context the opposition parties and the Better Together campaign barely matter. This is going to be either a collision or a union between the most cherished policy of the SNP and the sovereign will of the Scottish people. If there is a substantial defeat of the independence proposal it will be fascinating to see how the SNP responds in the short and medium term to such a rejection from the people it so dearly wishes to represent. It can't blame them. It can't attack them.

As to a Scottish cringe, the only time that is manifest is when some McGlashanite forgets the party line on the English during this campaign and rails against 'them' as though there was some conspiracy to do Scotland down. It is truly a cringe to see Scots defining themselves by reference to what they are not (English) as opposed to what they are (Scottish).

I do wonder how these mid to late evening political programmes, the political commentators and the politicians themselves are going to manage to acclimatise themselves to addressing bread and butter issues again once this is over, whatever the result.

[Hibrandenburg]

"as though there was some conspiracy to do Scotland down"

You make it sound as if Westminster conspiring to do Scotland down was a nutty theory. It's real and factual and the attitude of Westminster towards Scotland can easily be interpreted by reading the McCrone report. We've been lied to and swindled for decades if not centuries and all without any chance to hold those responsible to account.

The independence vote is not about revenge or righting past wrong doings, it's about making sure it doesn't happen again or if it does then those responsible can be held to account, it's about determining our own fate and building governmental policy designed to serve the Scottish electorate and not Westminster's home base.

Those who fail to learn from the past will be damned to relive the past.

[Future17]

I think when you have a government whose main objective is independence, conducting an independence Referendum whose timing and question they have framed then there can be little doubt that the ensuing result tells whether or not the people of Scotland agree with the proposition being put to them.


I don't disagree with your general point but the Scottish Government didn't frame the question; the wording was recommended by the Electoral Commission after a question assessment consultation.

[jodjam]

"as though there was some conspiracy to do Scotland down"

You make it sound as if Westminster conspiring to do Scotland down was a nutty theory. It's real and factual and the attitude of Westminster towards Scotland can easily be interpreted by reading the McCrone report. We've been lied to and swindled for decades if not centuries and all without any chance to hold those responsible to account.

The independence vote is not about revenge or righting past wrong doings, it's about making sure it doesn't happen again or if it does then those responsible can be held to account, it's about determining our own fate and building governmental policy designed to serve the Scottish electorate and not Westminster's home base.

Those who fail to learn from the past will be damned to relive the past.

Excellent post

[allmodcons]

Voters aren't idiots. In this case it is a straightforward agree or disagree question so there is no ambiguity.

I think when you have a government whose main objective is independence, conducting an independence Referendum whose timing and question they have framed then there can be little doubt that the ensuing result tells whether or not the people of Scotland agree with the proposition being put to them.

As to a Scottish cringe, the only time that is manifest is when some McGlashanite forgets the party line on the English during this campaign and rails against 'them' as though there was some conspiracy to do Scotland down. It is truly a cringe to see Scots defining themselves by reference to what they are not (English) as opposed to what they are (Scottish).

Business as usual ODS?

If it's a straightforward agree or disgaree with no ambiguity, how on earth can the question have been framed by the SNP.

What is truly cringeworthy is watching Scottish Politicians talking down their own country in an effort to save to their beloved Union. Did you witness Johann Lamont at FMQ's last Thursday? Absolute embarrassment! Talking us down as subsidy junkies when Scotland's net fiscal balance is in a better position than that of the UK. By JL's reckoning it's ok for any country in the world to run a fiscal deficit except Scotland. God help us all if she becomes First Minister.

[One Day Soon]

"as though there was some conspiracy to do Scotland down"

You make it sound as if Westminster conspiring to do Scotland down was a nutty theory. It's real and factual and the attitude of Westminster towards Scotland can easily be interpreted by reading the McCrone report. We've been lied to and swindled for decades if not centuries and all without any chance to hold those responsible to account.

Let's see what the Scottish people think about that.

The independence vote is not about revenge or righting past wrong doings, it's about making sure it doesn't happen again or if it does then those responsible can be held to account, it's about determining our own fate and building governmental policy designed to serve the Scottish electorate and not Westminster's home base.

Let's see what the Scottish people think about that too.


Those who fail to learn from the past will be damned to relive the past.

Mmm, let's see what the SNP learn if they lose this vote

[One Day Soon]

I don't disagree with your general point but the Scottish Government didn't frame the question; the wording was recommended by the Electoral Commission after a question assessment consultation.

That's true. Was it changed substantially from the SNP proposed version, other than to take out the leading "Do you agree.." preference they had gone with?

[One Day Soon]

Business as usual ODS?

How's it going AMC?

If it's a straightforward agree or disgaree with no ambiguity, how on earth can the question have been framed by the SNP.

Are you saying that an SNP Government cannot be running a Referendum that is unambiguous? I'm not sure what you mean here. In any event I think we can all agree that it is a completely unambiguous question. "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

What is truly cringeworthy is watching Scottish Politicians talking down their own country in an effort to save to their beloved Union. Did you witness Johann Lamont at FMQ's last Thursday? Absolute embarrassment! Talking us down as subsidy junkies when Scotland's net fiscal balance is in a better position than that of the UK. By JL's reckoning it's ok for any country in the world to run a fiscal deficit except Scotland. God help us all if she becomes First Minister.

You ignored my point here. Do you agree that defining Scotland and Scottish things by reference to England is a cringe?

I don't now watch FMQs or the other political programmes because I find they generate virtually no useful information or knowledge whatsoever. But that's beside the point because as I said this Referendum isn't a debate or argument between Johann Lamont and Alex Salmond, it's either a big disagreement or a big agreement between Alex Salmond's SNP and the Scottish people.

However, what is sauce for the goose and all that...I deprecate any politician talking down Scotland - whether they do so to support the Union or to further the case for Independence.

Make no mistake, SNP politicians talk down the current Scotland every chance they get in order to argue that we could do so much better if only we were independent.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether to be depressed about another nine months of this stuff or excited by the prospect that its nearly over.

[One Day Soon]

He's exactly the type of greedy self serving fat cat that brought us into this union in the first place. If the Scottish people had been consulted in the beginning we would not be having this debate. Nothing has changed and never will until those who make the decision on Scotland's behalf can be held accountable by those who are effected by those decisions.

Does this really have to descend to personal abuse?

[Hibrandenburg]

Does this really have to descend to personal abuse?

Point taken, I've deleted the post after re-reading it. It looked like I was having a go at you because of a typo, but that certainly wasn't the case. Apologise if you understandably got the wrong end of the stick. I actually meant Lamont.

[Future17]

That's true. Was it changed substantially from the SNP proposed version, other than to take out the leading "Do you agree.." preference they had gone with?

Not substantially, but it's important to note that the question was essentially framed by "the people", which supports your overall point...just without the anti-Scottish Government slant. :-)

[allmodcons]

You ignored my point here. Do you agree that defining Scotland and Scottish things by reference to England is a cringe?

I'm good, thanks for asking. Me ignoring your points, never! I do agree that defining Scotland and Scottish things by reference to England is a cringe. That said, I don't think defining things in Scotland by reference to the UK is a cringe, how else would I argue that Scotland is better out of the union than in?


I don't now watch FMQs or the other political programmes because I find they generate virtually no useful information or knowledge whatsoever. But that's beside the point because as I said this Referendum isn't a debate or argument between Johann Lamont and Alex Salmond, it's either a big disagreement or a big agreement between Alex Salmond's SNP and the Scottish people.

Don't agree with this though. The referendum is not all about Alex Salmond and the SNP. Check out the earlier post on this thread by Just Alf.


However, what is sauce for the goose and all that...I deprecate any politician talking down Scotland - whether they do so to support the Union or to further the case for Independence.

Make no mistake, SNP politicians talk down the current Scotland every chance they get in order to argue that we could do so much better if only we were independent.

Here, I think you confuse the talking down of Scotland with the right of politicians to highlight poor (Westminister) goverance and where its has got us as a country. The UK economy is a shambles and, unfortunately, Scotland is part of that shambles. Successive Westminister Governments have had almost 70 years since the end of WWII to address the needs of the Scotland and, judging by what I see on a day to day basis, have failed miserably. I'm not suggesting that Independence is a panacea for all of our problems, but my argument stands that the current system has failed Scotland.


Anyway, I'm not sure whether to be depressed about another nine months of this stuff or excited by the prospect that its nearly over.


If you're depressed, might I suggest you stay away from the main message board. There is so much pish posted there that you might even find yourself agreeing with me!

[yeezus.]

I've been invited to a debate on the referendum on Friday in Dumfries. Can't wait!

[Future17]

I've been invited to a debate on the referendum on Friday in Dumfries. Can't wait!

Who's hosting?

[One Day Soon]

Who's hosting?


A Referendum debate in Dumfries on a Friday night.

It would have to be co-hosted by Kylie Minogue, Scarlett Johanson and Nicole Kidman to get me to attend.

TBF that would apply regardless of where it was taking place.

[yeezus.]

Who's hosting?

Brian Taylor. Got my invite yesterday and the printer broke down :rolleyes:

[lord bunberry]

Brian Taylor. Got my invite yesterday and the printer broke down :rolleyes:

I had Brian Taylor in my taxi a couple of months ago, he was a really nice man. I was trying to get his views on the referendum but he was giving nothing away, he's spent far to much time around politicians to give anything away to a novice like me.

[lucky]

Looking like another terrible night night for the SNP. Labour win Motherwell North council by election with 68.1% of the vote and looking likely to win Cowdenbeath with around 55%. Wheels coming of the separatists bandwagon

[Bristolhibby]

Looking like another terrible night night for the SNP. Labour win Motherwell North council by election with 68.1% of the vote and looking likely to win Cowdenbeath with around 55%. Wheels coming of the separatists bandwagon

A by election in staunch labour heartland.

Proves nothing. Put a goat in a red rosette and it'd get elected.

And despite what he says, that wasn't a vote for Independence, it was a MSP by-election.

J

[allmodcons]

Looking like another terrible night night for the SNP. Labour win Motherwell North council by election with 68.1% of the vote and looking likely to win Cowdenbeath with around 55%. Wheels coming of the separatists bandwagon


I'm not disputing it was a bad night for the SNP and a good night for Labour, but I wouldn't go getting too excited if I were you. A by election in a safe Labour seat with the SNP 7 years in power at Holyrood? What were you expecting?

A bad night for the SNP, but on reflection not such a bad night for the 'Separatists' - over 11000 voters canvassed and in the process asked how they intended to vote in the independence referendum. The largest percentage said they were going to vote yes. Of the 11727 people who gave their opinion, 41% said yes, 36% said no, and 23% said they were undecided. This in a Labour stronghold.

[Beefster]

but on reflection not such a bad night for the 'Separatists' - over 11000 voters canvassed and in the process asked how they intended to vote in the independence referendum. The largest percentage said they were going to vote yes. Of the 11727 people who gave their opinion, 41% said yes, 36% said no, and 23% said they were undecided. This in a Labour stronghold.

Who carried out the poll? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

[Lincoln Green]

Just read 35 pages of this thread.

I'll throw in a little aside from an Anglo Scot.

In face to face discussion with my local MP (Labour) I asked her view of Scottish Independence.

Her exact words were...

"Scottish people will not have the confidence and courage to break away."

I found this a very dismissive attitude from a normally very serious and responsive politician.

Generally people here in the Midlands just don't see the referendum as an issue. Nobody seriously considers a 'yes' vote remotely possible.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

[allmodcons]

Who carried out the poll? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

SNP asked question on every doorstep they canvassed. I'm sure you'll be quick to dismiss findings, but might want to reflect on what SNP canavssing was telling them in the run up to the 2011 Scottish Election, when the only polling company anywhere close to correctly predicting the result was Panelbase (who, despite this, are still commonly portrayed by the pro Union press as SNP biased :rolleyes:).

[One Day Soon]

I'm not disputing it was a bad night for the SNP and a good night for Labour, but I wouldn't go getting too excited if I were you. A by election in a safe Labour seat with the SNP 7 years in power at Holyrood? What were you expecting?

A bad night for the SNP, but on reflection not such a bad night for the 'Separatists' - over 11000 voters canvassed and in the process asked how they intended to vote in the independence referendum. The largest percentage said they were going to vote yes. Of the 11727 people who gave their opinion, 41% said yes, 36% said no, and 23% said they were undecided. This in a Labour stronghold.

I think the static nature of the opinion polls tells the story on the Referendum. I think the Yes campaign needed to be exceptionally good to have a chance of pulling it off but instead it has been pretty second rate. Not that Better Together have been much good, but then they don't really need to be. Of course I would say all that, but it does at least have the merit of being true.

With the likelihood of a defeat on independence - and probably quite a heavy defeat - it is the post Referendum political scenario that promises most interest in my view. If the SNP have to face a world without Salmond post Referendum - and the gloss is cracked by the result - it becomes a much more open contest.

I was at something Sturgeon spoke at recently and she did well - she's no Salmond though. Perversely I think if Sturgeon becomes leader it cranks up the pressure on all the opposition leaders. No-one really expects any of them to lay a glove on Salmond as he's such a big political beast, but they would be much more harshly judged if they couldn't cut it against Sturgeon.

As an aside I think I saw on another thread a comment about Sturgeon adopting Salmond's irritating speaking style. She's not the only one, Stewart Hosie is always at it too. I think he's quite effective though when he plays it straight and stays above the party politics.

God knows how you keep yourself motivated if you are a Lib/Dem politician.

[allmodcons]

I think the static nature of the opinion polls tells the story on the Referendum. I think the Yes campaign needed to be exceptionally good to have a chance of pulling it off but instead it has been pretty second rate. Not that Better Together have been much good, but then they don't really need to be. Of course I would say all that, but it does at least have the merit of being true.

With the likelihood of a defeat on independence - and probably quite a heavy defeat - it is the post Referendum political scenario that promises most interest in my view. If the SNP have to face a world without Salmond post Referendum - and the gloss is cracked by the result - it becomes a much more open contest.

I was at something Sturgeon spoke at recently and she did well - she's no Salmond though. Perversely I think if Sturgeon becomes leader it cranks up the pressure on all the opposition leaders. No-one really expects any of them to lay a glove on Salmond as he's such a big political beast, but they would be much more harshly judged if they couldn't cut it against Sturgeon.

As an aside I think I saw on another thread a comment about Sturgeon adopting Salmond's irritating speaking style. She's not the only one, Stewart Hosie is always at it too. I think he's quite effective though when he plays it straight and stays above the party politics.

God knows how you keep yourself motivated if you are a Lib/Dem politician.

This is getting silly, I find myself agreeing with you again!!

In the event of a 'No' vote the next Scottish Election in 2016 could be a good contest. A lot, however, will depend on who is elected at UK level in 2015. As you know, I'm biased, but if the Conservatives win the UK election in 2015, I would expect the SNP (even if I was leader) to clear up in 2016! The only way Labour in Scotland would be able to prevent such a scenario would be to offer the Scottish Electorate something close to full fiscal autonomy.

FWIW, I also agreed that there is far too much 'training' of politicians. I like Salmond, but this making sure you stand correctly with your arm in the correct place (i.e. - just across the stomach) really pisses me off. For me, this stems from the days of Michael Foot, when 'the early spin doctors' became convinced that being clever was less important in order to achieve electoral success than the mannerisms and looks of our politicians.

Imagine being a Lib Dem and a Jambo right now!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Still waiting for Better Together to come up with positive reasons to stay in the Union. This latest salvo over border controls suggests they have no idea how other EU countries, including the UK and Eire, deal with this.

They don't know what they're doing.

[Beefster]

SNP asked question on every doorstep they canvassed. I'm sure you'll be quick to dismiss findings, but might want to reflect on what SNP canavssing was telling them in the run up to the 2011 Scottish Election, when the only polling company anywhere close to correctly predicting the result was Panelbase (who, despite this, are still commonly portrayed by the pro Union press as SNP biased :rolleyes:).

From about a month before the 2011 election, just about every single polling company was predicting a big SNP victory. Given the way the campaign panned out, I'd wager that the polling was an accurate reflection of the electorate's intention.

You're more than entitled to cling to whatever polling you want, irrespective of how partial or how much of an outlier it is. I just wanted to know if I should take it seriously or not.

[marinello59]

SNP asked question on every doorstep they canvassed. I'm sure you'll be quick to dismiss findings, but might want to reflect on what SNP canavssing was telling them in the run up to the 2011 Scottish Election, when the only polling company anywhere close to correctly predicting the result was Panelbase (who, despite this, are still commonly portrayed by the pro Union press as SNP biased :rolleyes:).
Didn't all the polls point to an SNP victory? The chances of an outright majority were dismissed by political pundits but that's different from the polls being wrong.

[HiBremian]

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8598-broadcasters-favouring-no-campaign-according-to-new-academic-study

An interesting study of broadcast news coverage of the referendum just been published. Surprise, surprise, little or no coverage of it in the mainstream media.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/8598-broadcasters-favouring-no-campaign-according-to-new-academic-study

An interesting study of broadcast news coverage of the referendum just been published. Surprise, surprise, little or no coverage of it in the mainstream media.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will be voting YES.
But all this pathetic getting the excuses in early cr@p does my head in. If the Yes campaign are not getting their message out properly then they need to try harder instead of wasting their energy bleating about how unfair things are. It turns people off and changes nothing.

[HiBremian]

I will be voting YES.
But all this pathetic getting the excuses in early cr@p does my head in. If the Yes campaign are not getting their message out properly then they need to try harder instead of wasting their energy bleating about how unfair things are. It turns people off and changes nothing.

To be fair, I don't think the "Yes campaign" has done anything with this study for the very reasons you cite. And I'm not a "YES campaigner", couldn't be if I live abroad. Posting this has nowt to do with excuses or bleating. It's an interesting study, that stands alongside similar studies carried out since the 1970's by the Glasgow Media Group, covering how broadcasters deal with a wide range of issues, not just independence. I used to teach trades unionists about exactly the same bias that was used against them. And we always said the way to deal with the bias was not to bleat, but get out there and try to find journalists who will listen to the other side. Doesn't deny the importance of these studies - TV pundits like Brian Taylor like to think that they are unbiased, so it does them good to look more closely at their output.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

To be fair, I don't think the "Yes campaign" has done anything with this study for the very reasons you cite. And I'm not a "YES campaigner", couldn't be if I live abroad. Posting this has nowt to do with excuses or bleating. It's an interesting study, that stands alongside similar studies carried out since the 1970's by the Glasgow Media Group, covering how broadcasters deal with a wide range of issues, not just independence. I used to teach trades unionists about exactly the same bias that was used against them. And we always said the way to deal with the bias was not to bleat, but get out there and try to find journalists who will listen to the other side. Doesn't deny the importance of these studies - TV pundits like Brian Taylor like to think that they are unbiased, so it does them good to look more closely at their output.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fair points.

[allmodcons]

From about a month before the 2011 election, just about every single polling company was predicting a big SNP victory. Given the way the campaign panned out, I'd wager that the polling was an accurate reflection of the electorate's intention.

You're more than entitled to cling to whatever polling you want, irrespective of how partial or how much of an outlier it is. I just wanted to know if I should take it seriously or not.


Didn't all the polls point to an SNP victory? The chances of an outright majority were dismissed by political pundits but that's different from the polls being wrong.

In March 2011, less than 2 months before the 2011 Scottish Election, the opinion polls had Labour on a double digit lead. We're still 8 months away from the Independence vote and IMO the result will be a lot closer than the polls are currently predicting.

Just so that you know Beefster, I'm not 'clinging' anything, simply highlighting what the SNP found whilst canvassing in Cowdenbeath. Your patronising tone always assumes me though.

[steakbake]

Still waiting for Better Together to come up with positive reasons to stay in the Union. This latest salvo over border controls suggests they have no idea how other EU countries, including the UK and Eire, deal with this.

They don't know what they're doing.

Every time I fly to London for work, I take my passport for ID for the airline/checking in.

Anytime I've crossed a land border on the mainland in the past few years - which I've done a decent number of times - I've never had to show my ID.

Funnily enough in the independence debate, the former is suddenly a massive problem and the latter would suddenly not apply.

Better Together like to invent problems that are simply not found elsewhere or are uniquely insurmountable in our apparently advanced part of the world.

[allmodcons]

Every time I fly to London for work, I take my passport for ID for the airline/checking in.

Anytime I've crossed a land border on the mainland in the past few years - which I've done a decent number of times - I've never had to show my ID.

Funnily enough in the independence debate, the former is suddenly a massive problem and the latter would suddenly not apply.

Better Together like to invent problems that are simply not found elsewhere or are uniquely insurmountable in our apparently advanced part of the world.

Fear and confusion are part and parcel of the BT campaign.

[Beefster]

In March 2011, less than 2 months before the 2011 Scottish Election, the opinion polls had Labour on a double digit lead. We're still 8 months away from the Independence vote and IMO the result will be a lot closer than the polls are currently predicting.

Just so that you know Beefster, I'm not 'clinging' anything, simply highlighting what the SNP found whilst canvassing in Cowdenbeath. Your patronising tone always assumes me though.

Apologies if I was patronising. The SNP 'poll' is rubbish though and wouldn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The fact that polling had Labour in the lead way before the election just reflects the fact that the electorate moved to the SNP as the election approached. It doesn't mean that the polling was wrong.


Fear and confusion are part and parcel of the BT campaign.

Fear and confusion are part and parcel of both sides' campaigns. It's one of the reasons why the entire saga hasn't been worthy of the issue. IMHO the quality of the debate hasn't moved on from the initial flurry of "Aye, it will" "No, it won't" mince we got in the early days.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Every time I fly to London for work, I take my passport for ID for the airline/checking in.

Anytime I've crossed a land border on the mainland in the past few years - which I've done a decent number of times - I've never had to show my ID.

Funnily enough in the independence debate, the former is suddenly a massive problem and the latter would suddenly not apply.

Better Together like to invent problems that are simply not found elsewhere or are uniquely insurmountable in our apparently advanced part of the world.

USA and Canada have a system where frequent travellers sign up to an annual scheme. They have an express lane to drive through when they reach the border.

Wonder when Better Together are going to fess up and admit the people who will suffer most are those MPs that will no longer be able to claim a wage for sleeping at Westminster.

[ancienthibby]

I've been invited to a debate on the referendum on Friday in Dumfries. Can't wait!

SH,

I hope you enjoyed the debate.

I listened as I always do to this programme though always frustrated with the Moderator who hardly lets anyone get a dozen words in, before he buts in!

At the end of the programme which concentrated only on the IndyRef issue, he asked for a show of hands as to voters' intentions, saw the Yes hands, saw the No hands and then said 'oh my goodness' before the radio broadcast ceased!

Can you give your own impartial result?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Apologies if I was patronising. The SNP 'poll' is rubbish though and wouldn't stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The fact that polling had Labour in the lead way before the election just reflects the fact that the electorate moved to the SNP as the election approached. It doesn't mean that the polling was wrong.



Fear and confusion are part and parcel of both sides' campaigns. It's one of the reasons why the entire saga hasn't been worthy of the issue. IMHO the quality of the debate hasn't moved on from the initial flurry of "Aye, it will" "No, it won't" mince we got in the early days.

Fear and confusion is the better togethers number 1 tool since day one and they are getting to use it to great effect by having a bias media on side.
The feart voters will decide the outcome in September.

[Booker5time]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0
Think this Video sums up the better together lot... wtf is this ****:confused:

[allmodcons]

Two good news stories for Yes campaign today. One confirming shocking tactics of UK Government and a very encouraging independent poll.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484


http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-within-snp-s-grasp-poll-1-3281655

[allmodcons]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFksxhV-0
Think this Video sums up the better together lot... wtf is this ****:confused:

Sorry, that's 3 good news stories for the Yes campaign today!

[One Day Soon]

Two good news stories for Yes campaign today. One confirming shocking tactics of UK Government and a very encouraging independent poll.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484


http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-within-snp-s-grasp-poll-1-3281655


AMC, in the interest of fostering a return to disagreement between us I thought I would post.

1. I will see your Barrowman and call it with a bunch of equivalent welts (I believe that is the .net phrase in vogue at the moment) on the Yes side

2. The Herald story is just space filling. Salmond has been up to almost exactly the same stuff wherever he can, soliciting support for his views on various questions from EU membership to the future of the pound.

3. The poll is a lark and makes it a wee bit more interesting except that the over 44 year olds aren't shifting to Yes at all and the shift in the teens is so enormous as to be clearly unreliable. That's mainly because the pollsters have difficulty getting significant numbers of them to put their pizza and playstations down for long enough to get them to think/speak to them.

There is still a 7 point gap. Imagine what would happen if the Better Together team started some actual campaigning? What could be interesting I suppose is if concern about polls forced the Devo Max parties to crystalise the detail of their post-referendum proposals for increasing powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Anyway how can there be good news stories for Yes in the 'MSM' when everything they write is supposedly a giant Unionist conspiracy? :wink:

[allmodcons]

[QUOTE=One Day Soon;3883883]AMC, in the interest of fostering a return to disagreement between us I thought I would post.

1. I will see your Barrowman and call it with a bunch of equivalent welts (I believe that is the .net phrase in vogue at the moment) on the Yes side

2. The Herald story is just space filling. Salmond has been up to almost exactly the same stuff wherever he can, soliciting support for his views on various questions from EU membership to the future of the pound.

3. The poll is a lark and makes it a wee bit more interesting except that the over 44 year olds aren't shifting to Yes at all and the shift in the teens is so enormous as to be clearly unreliable. That's mainly because the pollsters have difficulty getting significant numbers of them to put their pizza and playstations down for long enough to get them to think/speak to them.

There is still a 7 point gap. Imagine what would happen if the Better Together team started some actual campaigning? What could be interesting I suppose is if concern about polls forced the Devo Max parties to crystalise the detail of their post-referendum proposals for increasing powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Anyway how can there be good news stories for Yes in the 'MSM' when everything they write is supposedly a giant Unionist conspiracy? QUOTE]



Business as usual ODS?

1. Maybe so, but JB really is a top 'welt'. Can you trump him with someone on the Yes side, would be interested to know who you think 'matches up'?

2. No way is this story space filling. If any space filling is required by MSM it will be an anti Independence story :wink:. In all sincerity, for me, The Herald is the most balanced MSM outlet.

3. You're being extremely selective with the numbers here. The sample of those questioned aged 16 - 24 was only 74. If you ignore this 'pizza eating play station category' by balancing them out (i.e. - 28 yes, 28 no & 18 undecided) you still have an end result of 36.6% yes and 44.8% no. If you're looking to ignore anyone under 44 then you're just being ridiculous.

Better Together will always struggle to campaign well. With a UK election looming in 2015, the 2 main players Labour and the Conservatives will soon be at each other's throats whilst trying to maintain a 'mutual working relationship' up here in Scotland. Recipe for a disaster.

MSM is a Unionist conspiracy. Sticking with .net phraseology this is FACT.

[IndieHibby]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/27/scotland-england-independence-referendum-divorce

Some interesting comments re the Czech-Slovak separation.

[stoneyburn hibs]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/27/scotland-england-independence-referendum-divorce

Some interesting comments re the Czech-Slovak separation.

This wee snippet has made me think that i might consider changing my vote.........

Much more likely is that the impact of a Yes on England's self-esteem, identity and politics would be profoundly negative.

[jodjam]

House of Lords are to debate the independence referendum today. Should be worth a point or two swing to the Yes camp

[Sylar]

House of Lords are to debate the independence referendum today. Should be worth a point or two swing to the Yes camp

They need it after the speech from Mark Carney yesterday.

[allmodcons]

House of Lords are to debate the independence referendum today. Should be worth a point or two swing to the Yes camp

Total embarrassment. The unelected and priviliged spending the day (at our expense) criticising the democratically elected Scottish Government and the taking every opportunity they can (without facing any opposition) to talk down the prospects of an iScotland. Makes me sick, nothing but a house full of blood sucking leeches.


They need it after the speech from Mark Carney yesterday.

You really need to stop listening to/believing Alistair Darling's take on everything.

Mark Carney simply listed some of the possible advantages and disadvantages of a currency agreement between the rest of the UK and an iScotland. He said that a currency union could work but that safeguards would have to be agreed between both sides which would mean the ceding of some power. He went to great lengths to stress he was neither arguing in favour of or against independence.

Both sides appear to have taken some positives from his speech, which would suggest it was fairly neutral in content.

[Sylar]

Total embarrassment. The unelected and priviliged spending the day (at our expense) criticising the democratically elected Scottish Government and the taking every opportunity they can (without facing any opposition) to talk down the prospects of an iScotland. Makes me sick, nothing but a house full of blood sucking leeches.

Our School of Politics hosted an evening with Lord Ashdown last night and although a self-confessed Unionist, he was fully advocating that full fiscal control should have been made available to devolved regional powers long before we got to this stage, acknowledging that for the most part, Westminster make decisions in their own interests and don't give much of a toss about provincial regions. He also highlighted that there are a growing number of people in the Conservative government who want Scotland to go Independent, so they won't need to worry about us any longer. A sad and eye-opening (though not necessarily surprising) indictment to the small handful of Scots who were present in the room.


You really need to stop listening to/believing Alistair Darling's take on everything.

Mark Carney simply listed some of the possible advantages and disadvantages of a currency agreement between the rest of the UK and an iScotland. He said that a currency union could work but that safeguards would have to be agreed between both sides which would mean the ceding of some power. He went to great lengths to stress he was neither arguing in favour of or against independence.

Both sides appear to have taken some positives from his speech, which would suggest it was fairly neutral in content.

I tend to avoid that unfortunate mouth-piece whenever I can AMC - although I do subscribe to a lot of the Better Together commentaries, that man is not one I give any time of day and I always go out of my way to listen to the Yes opinion once I've listened to his and deduce a middle-ground accordingly, disparate from all of the hyperbole, scaremongering- and rose-tinted language.

Of course it was a neutral speech - he was giving a technical overview, not a political standpoint on the issue - However, given the standpoint of 'ability to control fiscal policy' as one of the key motivators for Independence, doesn't ceding some degree of sovereignty and handing that power back to the BoE/Westminster, just to retain the pound not seem entirely counter-intuitive to you?

[allmodcons]

I tend to avoid that unfortunate mouth-piece whenever I can AMC - although I do subscribe to a lot of the Better Together commentaries, that man is not one I give any time of day and I always go out of my way to listen to the Yes opinion once I've listened to his and deduce a middle-ground accordingly, disparate from all of the hyperbole, scaremongering- and rose-tinted language.

Of course it was a neutral speech - he was giving a technical overview, not a political standpoint on the issue - However, given the standpoint of 'ability to control fiscal policy' as one of the key motivators for Independence, doesn't ceding some degree of sovereignty and handing that power back to the BoE/Westminster, just to retain the pound not seem entirely counter-intuitive to you?

No. We currently have no say whatsoever on how much we can borrow or spend, basically, we can’t borrow and can only spend what pocket money is given us by Westminster. Put bluntly, what is being ceded compared with today's state of affairs? With independence, we will control all our taxes, our welfare, how our money is spent, our laws and, hopefully, have a constitution that reflects the will of the Scottish people. Yes, there will have to be some pooling of sovereignty, but if anyone is seriously suggesting the SNP's vison of Independence will give us less of a say over our own affairs than we have now then they're just plain wrong.

FWIW, comparisons with the Euro zone are completely outrageous and, whilst I thought Mark Carney did well yesterday not to be influenced or coerced by either side of the debate, his reference to the Euro zone as something comparable to the perceived sterling zone wasn't too clever.

[One Day Soon]

No. We currently have no say whatsoever on how much we can borrow or spend, basically, we can’t borrow and can only spend what pocket money is given us by Westminster.

We are in exactly the same position currently as England, Wales and Northern Ireland. How much we can borrow or spend is determined on a pooled basis by all the representatives of the nations within the UK (their MPs) and, ultimately, the Chancellor. Though truthfully he doesn't even determine it - the markets do. And that would be true for an independent Scotland too.

Put bluntly, what is being ceded compared with today's state of affairs?

Control overt inflation, interest rates, money supply and the pound. At present we have pooled decision making on these in the UK. With independence these matters would be controlled for us by a separate country (the remainder of the UK - England, Northern Ireland and Wales) and/or its major institutions - the Bank of England. That's IF they felt it was in their interest to have us in the pound. They may decide that a high tax high public expenditure independent Scotland would weaken their pound rather than strengthen it.

With independence, we will control all our taxes, our welfare, how our money is spent, our laws and, hopefully, have a constitution that reflects the will of the Scottish people.

Not entirely - see the point on markets above. We already have a Parliament that reflects and expresses the will of the Scottish people. Personally I'd prefer the best of both worlds. A lot more of what we have but not baby out with bath water.

Yes, there will have to be some pooling of sovereignty, but if anyone is seriously suggesting the SNP's vison of Independence will give us less of a say over our own affairs than we have now then they're just plain wrong.

"some pooling of sovereignty" - it doesn't get more fundamental than a different country controlling the basic fabric of your economy like your currency. We get to decide tax rates, while someone else decides the cost of our mortgages. That raises a serious question as to what is meant by independence.

FWIW, comparisons with the Euro zone are completely outrageous and, whilst I thought Mark Carney did well yesterday not to be influenced or coerced by either side of the debate, his reference to the Euro zone as something comparable to the perceived sterling zone wasn't too clever.

Why wasn't it too clever? Picking and choosing the bits of his analysis that suit your position here, no? This isn't some punter or a Better Together fellow traveller we are talking about. This is the Governor of the Bank of England.

Posted in haste AMC, so forgive any errors or anything too abrasive. Gotta run for the moment.

[Phil D. Rolls]

An independent Scotland could lead to the rules of golf being suspended in England. :confused: it could also be disrespectful to Scotland's war dead. Good to see that the No campaign is full of mature intellectuals that have given the important issues lots of thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10607633/Scottish-independence-would-dishonour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-we-all-want-currency-union-to-work-1-3290217

[Sylar]

An independent Scotland could lead to the rules of golf being suspended in England. :confused: it could also be disrespectful to Scotland's war dead. Good to see that the No campaign is full of mature intellectuals that have given the important issues lots of thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10607633/Scottish-independence-would-dishonour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-we-all-want-currency-union-to-work-1-3290217

I think you'll find pretty much everyone has condemned 'Lord' Lang and his comments and he doesn't speak on behalf of anyone but himself.

[Glory Lurker]

I think you'll find pretty much everyone has condemned 'Lord' Lang and his comments and he doesn't speak on behalf of anyone but himself.

Not Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke. She condemned the condemners.

You've got to love the House of Lords. Thank goodness a "Yes" vote gets us away from that.

[One Day Soon]

An independent Scotland could lead to the rules of golf being suspended in England. :confused: it could also be disrespectful to Scotland's war dead. Good to see that the No campaign is full of mature intellectuals that have given the important issues lots of thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10607633/Scottish-independence-would-dishonour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-we-all-want-currency-union-to-work-1-3290217


Yes FR, because relic Tory Lords are completely representative of people who want Scotland to stay in the UK and there are no similarly daft counterparts at all on the separatist side. :confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes FR, because relic Tory Lords are completely representative of people who want Scotland to stay in the UK and there are no similarly daft counterparts at all on the separatist side. :confused:

No doubt there are, and they should be highlighted when they come out with mad stuff as well.

[allmodcons]

Why wasn't it too clever? Picking and choosing the bits of his analysis that suit your position here, no? This isn't some punter or a Better Together fellow traveller we are talking about. This is the Governor of the Bank of England.

Posted in haste AMC, so forgive any errors or anything too abrasive. Gotta run for the moment.

We are in exactly the same position currently as England, Wales and Northern Ireland. How much we can borrow or spend is determined on a pooled basis by all the representatives of the nations within the UK (their MPs) and, ultimately, the Chancellor. Though truthfully he doesn't even determine it - the markets do. And that would be true for an independent Scotland too.

That's the problem. IMO the Mother of all Parliaments doesn't reflect the views of the vast majority of Scots. With regard to borrowing and spending, successive UK Governments have a proven track record handling these matters - £1.4 trillion of debt, leading to Tory austerity that hits the weakest and most vulnerable in society? Maybe, just maybe, an iScotland would take a different approach to the politics of greed that prevail at Westminister (witness Helen Liddell in the House of Lords last week - a Labour left winger?? what a ****ing joke). I'm not sure what your point is with regard to markets, it goes without saying they affect every ecomony. It's dealing with the impact they make on your country's economy that's important and, up until now, the UK Goverment doesn't appear to be doing that too well.

Control over inflation, interest rates, money supply and the pound. At present we have pooled decision making on these in the UK. With independence these matters would be controlled for us by a separate country (the remainder of the UK - England, Northern Ireland and Wales) and/or its major institutions - the Bank of England. That's IF they felt it was in their interest to have us in the pound. They may decide that a high tax high public expenditure independent Scotland would weaken their pound rather than strengthen it.

The Bank of England, is not an rUK institution. I think a quick look at the UK balance of payments will tell you that a 'sterling zone' is in the best interests of rUK.

Not entirely - see the point on markets above. We already have a Parliament that reflects and expresses the will of the Scottish people. Personally I'd prefer the best of both worlds. A lot more of what we have but not baby out with bath water.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding world markets? Does our Scottish Parliament really reflect and express the will of the Scottish people. If it does, why are the 3 Unionist Parties at Holyrood currently reviewing the powers of the Parliament?

some pooling of sovereignty" - it doesn't get more fundamental than a different country controlling the basic fabric of your economy like your currency. We get to decide tax rates, while someone else decides the cost of our mortgages. That raises a serious question as to what is meant by independence.

As I've already said, the Bank of England does not belong to rUK. Yes, rUK would be the main player, but, after the political posturing is put to one side, I have no doubt both parties (rUK and iScotland) would look to find a common platform from which to progress their respective economies. You're obviously no fool, and know full well that Independence in the modern era is a lot different to what was mean't by Independence even 40 or 50 years ago. The bottom line, however, is that Scotalnd would be able to decide when, and with whom, to pool sovereignty.


With regard to Mark Carney, I thought his analysis was fairly balanced but happen to think that the economic dispartities between certain Eurozone member states make any comparsion with a 'Sterling Zone' somewhat shaky.

On a lighter note:-
1. You've still not trumped John Barrowman.
2. Did you enjoy the dance around your lounge with your son whilst watching 9 man ICT beat Hearts?
3. Are you Ian Gray? :wink:

[allmodcons]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1

http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/#more-49089

The Financial Times, never a great supporter of Scottish Independence, seems to be making a decent economic case for an iScotland today!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes FR, because relic Tory Lords are completely representative of people who want Scotland to stay in the UK and there are no similarly daft counterparts at all on the separatist side. :confused:

Should have added that Lang was a canny politician, and he knows thar he can chip away at the mad fringes of society ( the Rangers vote) and not come to any real harm as he is out of the line of fire now.

The other guy is just a chinless wonder. I wouldn't see Ian Lang as a total renegade though.

[lucky]

Good to see the SNP vote accept Labours budget amendment on the bedroom tax. Devolution working, and the Scottish parliament delivering the wish of the Scottish people. Can only hope that the social democrats in parliament link up more in the future to use the devolved powers we already have.

[green glory]

Good to see the SNP vote accept Labours budget amendment on the bedroom tax. Devolution working, and the Scottish parliament delivering the wish of the Scottish people. Can only hope that the social democrats in parliament link up more in the future to use the devolved powers we already have.

It's a shame so many Labour MP's didn't turn up or abstained in the recent Westminster vote on the bedroom tax. If they had done the decent thing it would have been abolished UK wide.

[lucky]

[QUOTE=green glory;3898879]It's a shame so many Labour MP's didn't turn up or abstained in the recent Westminster vote on the bedroom tax. If they had done the decent thing it would have been abolished UK wide.[/QUOTE
Absolute rubbish. The collation have a majority. So if every Labour mp turned up they would still have lost. The Labour MPs missing were paired as such they were allowed to be absent. But not good politics as it allows people like you to spin it.

[Glory Lurker]

[QUOTE=green glory;3898879]It's a shame so many Labour MP's didn't turn up or abstained in the recent Westminster vote on the bedroom tax. If they had done the decent thing it would have been abolished UK wide.[/QUOTE
Absolute rubbish. The collation have a majority. So if every Labour mp turned up they would still have lost. The Labour MPs missing were paired as such they were allowed to be absent. But not good politics as it allows people like you to spin it.

Just to check that I'm not just swallowing the spin - is it the case that pairing is only used for "unimportant" votes? I would have thought, regardless of the lobby arithmetic, this would have been an important matter? As I say, I might just have fallen for spin here - no doubt you'll let me know!

More generally, though, it's all very well Holyrood managing to fight a rearguard action, but personally I'd prefer that we didn't run the risk of nonsense Westminster legislation like the bedroom tax (and so much else) being foisted on us in the first place. I would have thought that would appeal to a social democrat like yourself?

[One Day Soon]

[QUOTE=lucky;3899282]

Just to check that I'm not just swallowing the spin - is it the case that pairing is only used for "unimportant" votes? I would have thought, regardless of the lobby arithmetic, this would have been an important matter? As I say, I might just have fallen for spin here - no doubt you'll let me know!

More generally, though, it's all very well Holyrood managing to fight a rearguard action, but personally I'd prefer that we didn't run the risk of nonsense Westminster legislation like the bedroom tax (and so much else) being foisted on us in the first place. I would have thought that would appeal to a social democrat like yourself?


Pairing is used in a variety of circumstances. If votes from either side are going to cancel each other out then there is often no reason why they can't be paired - paticularly if that allows those concerned to do other things. So if you have an ill MP, or someone with difficult family circumstances or some other important engagement it allows felxibility where otherwise every MP would always have to attend for all votes.

From time to time pairing just doesn't work - where there is a very contentious vote or where the parties want to demonstrate a particular point or even where relations between parties are at a bad enough point that they just want to make life difficult for the other side.

There is quite a lot of total crap talked about this sort of thing. "Labour didn't care enough to turn up and vote in numbers against X", The SNP were so unconcerned about policy Y that not all their MPs bothered to vote..." etc. The bottom line is that in almost all cases the vote is determined in advance by the government's majority of numbers and in those circumstances everything else is window dressing.

As a Social Democrat I take the view that reinstating borders at Berwick and Carlisle - and thereby condeming Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and many other parts of England and Wales to legislation they don't want - isn't a very social or democratic way of behaving.

[Peevemor]

[QUOTE=Glory Lurker;3899324]


Pairing is used in a variety of circumstances. If votes from either side are going to cancel each other out then there is often no reason why they can't be paired - paticularly if that allows those concerned to do other things. So if you have an ill MP, or someone with difficult family circumstances or some other important engagement it allows felxibility where otherwise every MP would always have to attend for all votes.

From time to time pairing just doesn't work - where there is a very contentious vote or where the parties want to demonstrate a particular point or even where relations between parties are at a bad enough point that they just want to make life difficult for the other side.

There is quite a lot of total crap talked about this sort of thing. "Labour didn't care enough to turn up and vote in numbers against X", The SNP were so unconcerned about policy Y that not all their MPs bothered to vote..." etc. The bottom line is that in almost all cases the vote is determined in advance by the government's majority of numbers and in those circumstances everything else is window dressing.

As a Social Democrat I take the view that reinstating borders at Berwick and Carlisle - and thereby condeming Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and many other parts of England and Wales to legislation they don't want - isn't a very social or democratic way of behaving.

This is the job of the party "whips". It's their job to ensure that their members are there for the votes and to deal with their opposing number to "pair" those that can't attend. Even when relations are strained between parties, the whips normally maintain a good working relationship otherwise their jobs become impossible.

[One Day Soon]

1. "That's the problem. IMO the Mother of all Parliaments doesn't reflect the views of the vast majority of Scots."

Technically the Scottish Parliament also doesn't reflect the views of the majority of Scots, most of whom voted in 2011 for parties other than the SNP. And it is elected only by Scots, just as an independent parliament would be. The SNP got about 45% of the vote and more than 50% of the seats yet virtually all policy decisions have been determined by one party. So what's the difference? A simpler and less costly answer to your objection would be electoral reform of the Westminster Parliament.

2. "successive UK Governments have a proven track record handling these matters - £1.4 trillion of debt"

Your comment on £1.4 trillion of debt is irrelevant to the point I was raising and which you did not address. The amount we can borrow and spend is determined on a pooled basis by all the representatives of the nations within the UK - not dictated by non-Scots. (the same pooled basis that John Swinney favours for a future independent Scotland participating in the pound as our currency - but more of that later).

As to the £1.4 trillion of debt itself, do you seriously imagine that simply by being independent we are somehow automatically going to be different from most other western economies or that we would have been unaffected by the global trashing of economies that has taken place over the last five years between banking crisis and economic turndown? Being Scottish doesn't mean you somehow make better spending, borrowing or taxation decisions. Equally being a UK government doesn't mean you somehow automatically make bad economic decisions. As a point of reference, the most recent figures I could find (2012) showed our percentage of debt to GDP (88%) as lower than that of Japan, Italy, Portugal, United States, Ireland, Singapore, Belgium, Iceland and France. Even Germany at 81% is not far behind the UK.

3. "Maybe, just maybe, an iScotland would take a different approach to the politics of greed that prevail at Westminister (witness Helen Liddell in the House of Lords last week - a Labour left winger?? what a ****ing joke)."

I'm not a fan of Liddell but I don't follow this bit. What did she say in the debate?

4. "The Bank of England, is not an rUK institution. I think a quick look at the UK balance of payments will tell you that a 'sterling zone' is in the best interests of rUK."

Nothing is as yet an rUK institution, but the Bank of England certainly would be.

Jim Sillars, former SNP Deputy Leader, doesn't agree with you: "The claim that sterling is as much ours as that of Westminster, an asset Scotland has the right to share, doesn’t stand examination. Foreign currency balances and gold held by the Bank of England are indeed assets to be divided (if they still have any), but a currency per se, like sterling, is a badge of sovereignty printed by a sovereign government, and that will be the badge of ‘England plus’ or what has come to be called rUK, once we depart.

.....Mark Carney, to his credit, came here and remained in technocratic mode. What he pointed out about a currency union is true – joining means “ceding” sovereignty. He did not say sovereignty was ‘pooled’, a word favoured by John Swinney, because Mr. Carney knows, and quoted the eruozone as evidence, that you don’t pool sovereignty, you transfer it, and lose it. The Greeks and Portuguese have learned that lesson in the harshest way imaginable.

....Scotland could also, of course, enter into a currency union with a future Westminster Government, but a lot more than transaction issues would be involved. To create a currency union requires a Treaty between two sovereign states. If the Westminster will not sign, there can be no currency union, and we have uncertainty. In the present debate, the SNP having tied itself to such a union, with no plan B, has passed to Osbourne control of its policy. Not clever politics. But, that’s the political corner SNP has painted itself into."

5. "Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding world markets? Does our Scottish Parliament really reflect and express the will of the Scottish people. If it does, why are the 3 Unionist Parties at Holyrood currently reviewing the powers of the Parliament?"

My point is that you are proposing massive constitutional change to little purpose as far as a good deal of factors such as interest rates etc are concerned given that international money markets effectively constrain what freedom governments actually have in reality to determine policy. My understanding is that the three parties that want Scotland to stay in the UK are currently reviewing the powers of the Scottish Parliament with a view to subtantially increasing them.

6. "As I've already said, the Bank of England does not belong to rUK. Yes, rUK would be the main player, but, after the political posturing is put to one side, I have no doubt both parties (rUK and iScotland) would look to find a common platform from which to progress their respective economies. You're obviously no fool, and know full well that Independence in the modern era is a lot different to what was mean't by Independence even 40 or 50 years ago. The bottom line, however, is that Scotalnd would be able to decide when, and with whom, to pool sovereignty."

See the Jim Sillars quotes above and below. It wouldn't be pooling sovereignty, it would be ceding it.

Until someone can explain why we would want to sign up for a deal that means we get to decide tax rates, while another country decides the cost of our mortgages this will remain a daft proposal. I don't know what you mean when you say "Independence in the modern era is a lot different to what was mean't by Independence even 40 or 50 years ago" unless that is supposed to somehow explain away or massage a proposed independence trade off that gives us the appearance of sovereignty but the reality of constitutional economic emasculation.

Jim Sillars:

"On the fundamental issue of a currency union, common sense , and past forgotten lessons, have flown out of the SNP cabinet window. For years, the SNP has complained about the Bank of England and its obsessive concern for London and south east England. John Swinney is on the record, criticising Eddie George the then Governor for saying it was not feasible to protect “particular sections or regions. The Swinney response noted the Bank’s policy “does not take into account the needs of the north of England or Scotland – as evidenced by the fact that members of the Bank of England monetary policy committee is overwhelmingly based in the south east of England.”
Staggeringly, this is the same MPC John Swinney would have us join now: A committee comprising; five from the bank and four nominated by the UK Government. Six are Oxbridge, and all nine are anchored in London. Only one of them has any past connection outside the south of England bubble. One Scot among that lot would make no difference whatsoever. Nine members would represent 55 million people, while one represented our 5 million. We would have traded independent power over our economy for the status, once again, of a powerless region. That is not a price worth paying to use a currency, which we can access anyway."


7. "With regard to Mark Carney, I thought his analysis was fairly balanced but happen to think that the economic dispartities between certain Eurozone member states make any comparsion with a 'Sterling Zone' somewhat shaky."

Not really. Once you cede power over currency in the way proposed you are then locked in the boot of Big Brother's car. And Jim Sillars has spotted that perfectly.

8. "On a lighter note:-
1. You've still not trumped John Barrowman.
2. Did you enjoy the dance around your lounge with your son whilst watching 9 man ICT beat Hearts?
3. Are you Ian Gray? :wink:"

I will grant you that trumping John Barrowan (oo err missus) is not easy. But I think Sean Connery, Eddi Reader and Elaine C Smith are a pretty unedifying bunch for a variety of reasons related variously to residency, tax contributions, pompousness and just general irrelevance. To be honest I detest the involvement of 'celebrities' in politics of any sort. I think it is shallow and helps debase political debate. It's kind of like "Oi you working class/tv addled oiks, we can't think of a way to engage you in a serious discussion about this so here's some completely unqualified talking head to reach out to you patronisingly and dumb it all down". Kenny Everett with the Tories, Tracy Ullman with Labour, Ian ****ing Hislop with the Lib/Dems. Give it a rest I say.

The wee guy was happy as Larry with the result and with how joyously his dad was shouting his head off and whooping around the room. Still smirking about that.

I'm not Ian Gray - there is more than one Hibs supporter in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK you know! I am however a thinking critic of 5hit politics and particularly the politics we are treated to in Scotland by all sides. What gets my goat most is the use of assertion in place of facts or evidence. I'm getting worse about this stuff too, I think it is a function of age.

You kindly said that I'm no fool. But look at this, I'm s******ing at you writing "economic dispartities" above. So I can be childish if not foolish.

[allmodcons]

"

I will grant you that trumping John Barrowan (oo err missus) is not easy. But I think Sean Connery, Eddi Reader and Elaine C Smith are a pretty unedifying bunch for a variety of reasons related variously to residency, tax contributions, pompousness and just general irrelevance. To be honest I detest the involvement of 'celebrities' in politics of any sort. I think it is shallow and helps debase political debate. It's kind of like "Oi you working class/tv addled oiks, we can't think of a way to engage you in a serious discussion about this so here's some completely unqualified talking head to reach out to you patronisingly and dumb it all down". Kenny Everett with the Tories, Tracy Ullman with Labour, Ian ****ing Hislop with the Lib/Dems. Give it a rest I say.

The wee guy was happy as Larry with the result and with how joyously his dad was shouting his head off and whooping around the room. Still smirking about that.

I'm not Ian Gray - there is more than one Hibs supporter in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK you know! I am however a thinking critic of 5hit politics and particularly the politics we are treated to in Scotland by all sides. What gets my goat most is the use of assertion in place of facts or evidence. I'm getting worse about this stuff too, I think it is a function of age.

You kindly said that I'm no fool. But look at this, I'm s******ing at you writing "economic dispartities" above. So I can be childish if not foolish.

Will try to address some of the points in your 'essay' at a later date, but have to say your pointing our my 'economic dispartities' made me s****** too. Like a 15 year old schoolboy picking up on his teacher making a wee faux pas.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off.

[heretoday]

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off.

Everyone knows where Cameron's sympathies lie - with the Union naturally enough. I don't see any point in his coming up to Scotland and debating with Salmond. Is Alex likely to change his mind? Or vice-versa?

It's more a chance for Salmond to try and score some cheap points. Let him do that against a fellow Scot, though he'll have a struggle against the articulate Mr Darling.

[One Day Soon]

Will try to address some of the points in your 'essay' at a later date, but have to say your pointing our my 'economic dispartities' made me s****** too. Like a 15 year old schoolboy picking up on his teacher making a wee faux pas.

I know, it was a bit of a slow day in the office this morning. Thought I would get into it.

[7 Hills]

Interesting report here: http://www.yesscotland.net/news/scotland-could-be-even-richer-previously-thought-say-economic-experts

[marinello59]

Interesting report here: http://www.yesscotland.net/news/scotland-could-be-even-richer-previously-thought-say-economic-experts

I love how anything that appears on yesscotland.net or similar cybernat sites is deemed interesting when actually all they are doing is preaching to the converted.

[hibs0666]

I passed some yes blokes handing out leaflets at queen street station. The rallying call was around vote yes and you'll never have a Tory government ever again.

Not surprising at all but pretty pathetic all the same.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[7 Hills]

I love how anything that appears on yesscotland.net or similar cybernat sites is deemed interesting when actually all they are doing is preaching to the converted.

Rather more interesting that the report referred to was compiled by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which is based in the City of Westminster, London, wouldn't you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Economic_and_Social_Research

And you're unlikely to see this referred to in mainstream Scottish media outlets which are, by and large, ultimately controlled by London offices.

[Hibercelona]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsTkrLMI4Yc

Salmond tearing into the "non bias" BBC presenter and calling that coward Cameron out of hiding.

I don't usually have much time for Salmond, but he got stuck right in on this occassion.

[7 Hills]

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

[Beefster]

And you're unlikely to see this referred to in mainstream Scottish media outlets which are, by and large, ultimately controlled by London offices.

Yet the London offices are reporting it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26070030

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/07/salmond-pension-plans-scotland-unaffordable-warning

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10624305/Independent-Scotland-faces-spiralling-black-hole-in-finances.html

[Hibercelona]

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off.

I must have missed the facts and figures in his speech. All I kept hearing was "We're better together", with no real explaination as to why. :confused:

[Beefster]

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

The Scotsman may not be a Cybernat source but there is no doubt about where Gordon Macintyre-Kemp's loyalties lie given that he stood for the SNP before.

The message I keep hearing is don't trust the media but you can rely on 'YesScotland' and SNP folk.

[Glory Lurker]

[QUOTE=Glory Lurker;3899324]

As a Social Democrat I take the view that reinstating borders at Berwick and Carlisle - and thereby condeming Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and many other parts of England and Wales to legislation they don't want - isn't a very social or democratic way of behaving.

This is something I just don't understand. Why put up with the rubbish if you can walk away from it? Sure, it would be a shame for folk in rUK but I don't see the need to pass up on opportunities to improve Scotland just so that I can share a pain I can easy avoid.

[marinello59]

Rather more interesting that the report referred to was compiled by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which is based in the City of Westminster, London, wouldn't you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Economic_and_Social_Research

And you're unlikely to see this referred to in mainstream Scottish media outlets which are, by and large, ultimately controlled by London offices.

The case for both sides has been well reported if you look without blinkers on. It's just a pity that both sides are making such a cr@p job of getting their messages across.

[Glory Lurker]

Let him do that against a fellow Scot, though he'll have a struggle against the articulate Mr Darling.

Salmond's opposite number is David Cameron. Perhaps if Cameron wasn't giving it all the "it's up to the Scots" while sticking his oar in at every opportunity then Salmond would be wrong to target him.

Darling's role in all this is as head honcho of Better Together. His opposite number is either Blair Jenkins or Denis Canavan (think it's Jenkins).

I wouldn't have any fears at all for Salmond versus Darling, but it's not the appropriate title bout.

[marinello59]

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-overpays-for-uk-debt-1-3185848

An opinion piece form the CEO of a group campaigning for a Yes vote? Surely that wouldn't be allowed in the mainstream media?

[lucky]

I had interesting meeting with the Electoral Commission today about donations and the "rules" of the referendum debate and campaigning. Think quiet a lot of groups/individuals are in for a shock on how strict it is. A lot of the splinter Yes groups such as Hibs for Yes or Yes Hibs, whatever they are called, could potentially be in breech of the spending rules. Especially when they have joining up to promote a Yes vote with others such as Jags for Yes as seen at the recent Thistle game. If the commission deem that these groups are working together then their cost are added together. So if every Premiership team had a similar organisation and do joint promotions at games or are seen to be working together then they will have to be a registered participant. I'll post the power point up as it's interesting how the referendum differed from a normal election.

[lucky]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/agbeh9v9ove57f9/Guidance%20presentation%202014.ppt


Hope this works

[stoneyburn hibs]

"

I will grant you that trumping John Barrowan (oo err missus) is not easy. But I think Sean Connery, Eddi Reader and Elaine C Smith are a pretty unedifying bunch for a variety of reasons related variously to residency, tax contributions, pompousness and just general irrelevance. To be honest I detest the involvement of 'celebrities' in politics of any sort. I think it is shallow and helps debase political debate. It's kind of like "Oi you working class/tv addled oiks, we can't think of a way to engage you in a serious discussion about this so here's some completely unqualified talking head to reach out to you patronisingly and dumb it all down". Kenny Everett with the Tories, Tracy Ullman with Labour, Ian ****ing Hislop with the Lib/Dems. Give it a rest I say.

The wee guy was happy as Larry with the result and with how joyously his dad was shouting his head off and whooping around the room. Still smirking about that.

I'm not Ian Gray - there is more than one Hibs supporter in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK you know! I am however a thinking critic of 5hit politics and particularly the politics we are treated to in Scotland by all sides. What gets my goat most is the use of assertion in place of facts or evidence. I'm getting worse about this stuff too, I think it is a function of age.

You kindly said that I'm no fool. But look at this, I'm s******ing at you writing "economic dispartities" above. So I can be childish if not foolish.

I will give you Sean Connery as being unedifying, the other two naw. Both are passionate regarding Independence. Both live in Scotland too, so actually have a vote

[stoneyburn hibs]

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off. It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Everyone knows where Cameron's sympathies lie - with the Union naturally enough. I don't see any point in his coming up to Scotland and debating with Salmond. Is Alex likely to change his mind? Or vice-versa?

It's more a chance for Salmond to try and score some cheap points. Let him do that against a fellow Scot, though he'll have a struggle against the articulate Mr Darling.

Dave has been saying since the beginning that it is a Scottish matter and he wont get involved, his stance ended today.
Lets see that debate now please.

[marinello59]

Dave has been saying since the beginning that it is a Scottish matter and he wont get involved, his stance ended today.
Lets see that debate now please.

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

[lucky]

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

100% correct. It's just spin by the SNP. What politician who can't vote in an election is going to take part in 121 debate. Cameron is not stupid. But its time the Nats realised this debate is not about Tory Britain v. Salmond's Scotland.

[Beefster]

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

Pesky electorate.

[marinello59]

Pesky electorate.

They ruin elections.

[CropleyWasGod]

100% correct. It's just spin by the SNP. What politician who can't vote in an election is going to take part in 121 debate. Cameron is not stupid. But its time the Nats realised this debate is not about Tory Britain v. Salmond's Scotland.

Yet that same politician is urging those non-Scots who don't have a vote to try and influence those who do.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Pesky electorate.

Fair enough, point taken.

[lucky]

Yet that same politician is urging those non-Scots who don't have a vote to try and influence those who do.

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

[hibby rae]

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

True but if he can't pick and choose when to get involved in the issue. He either gets involved or says nothing and lets the No campaign handle it themselves.

[CropleyWasGod]

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

I find it quite patronising actually, on two counts:-

1. the suggestion that ex-pats know better than those who live here.

2. the assumption that ex-pats would vote No if they had a vote.

I read a Twitter page this morning (and I have no idea how representative it is) which had hundreds of comments from ex-pats telling voters to vote Yes. It's no definitive guide, of course, but Cameron's comments may have just hardened a few attitudes.

[Hibrandenburg]

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

He either should take a back seat and shut up or man up and stand toe to toe with the first minister.

[heretoday]

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

[lucky]

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmond feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

[One Day Soon]

I love how anything that appears on yesscotland.net or similar cybernat sites is deemed interesting when actually all they are doing is preaching to the converted.

Marinello, I think you may want to have another look at this because deeper analysis really does make for interesting reading as 7 Hills initially suggested - just no where near in the way he/she intended.

The NIESR report - actually it is a series of six reports - pretty much brutally damages the Yes campaign on a number of issues. The misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the conclusions of these reports by the article on the Yes site is utterly grotesque. I can understand each side of the campaign wanting to make their case and putting the best shine possible on their position but what we have here from Yes looks totally dishonest compared to what the reports actually say.

Call me sad but I have gone and read the actual reports or what is available from them and here is what they say:

Paper 1 Economic and fiscal implications for Scotland of moving to independence (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R3?etoc=) highlights hole in Scottish public finances and no oil fund

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "In terms of its fiscal balance, Scotland's independence would require taxes derived from its offshore (North Sea) activity to be sufficient to offset the extra monies (in per head terms) currently transferred from the rest of the UK (via the Barnett formula system) in order to pay for the current level of public services. Based on current projections, such North Sea related tax revenues would amount to less than the likely Barnett transfer, leading to a net loss in funding at the time of independence. Under such circumstances the question of whether or not Scotland could afford to initiate the building up of an ‘Oil Fund', is largely a redundant one."

Paper 2 Scotland: Currency Options and Public Debt (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R14?etoc=) questions capacity to sustain pound monetary union due to tight conditions of rest of UK

Conclusion:
"The amount of public debt that an independent Scotland would inherit is critical to the optimal currency choice. The lower Scotland’s initial debt and debt servicing burden, the smaller the fiscal tightening necessary to return to a sustainable debt burden, and the less painful any further spending cuts or tax rises would be to the electorate. The less painful is fiscal adjustment, the more likely are markets to believe it to be a credible adjustment mechanism. If Scotland were to find itself with high debt and interest rates, and in the throes of an already painful austerity drive, and were to face a further adverse shock, then markets might question the commitment to remaining in the monetary union. The Scottish government’s acknowledgement that the decision to remain in a monetary union inevitably depends on future governments implies that the commitments cannot be binding in all circumstances."

Paper 3 Funding pensions in Scotland: Would independence matter? (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R21?etoc=) pensions cheaper to buy, but higher taxes/service cuts to pay for them

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The liquidity premium would make pensions cheaper to buy, but taxpayers or the consumers of public services would have to pay the cost."


Paper 4 Can an ageing Scotland afford independence? (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R32?etoc)ageing costs more with independence though govt finance damage smallish

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The comparison suggests that Scotland is worse off in the case of independence. The effective labour income tax rate in the independence scenario has to increase further compared with the status quo scenario.......The difference for government finances between the status quo and independence scenarios is thus relatively small."


Paper 5 Fiscal challenges and opportunities for an independent Scotland (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R40?etoc) independence means even bigger cuts and/or tax increases than UK

Conclusion: "Our projections for Scotland’s long-term public finances are sensitive to a number of assumptions. However, our broad conclusion – that Scotland faces a tougher long-run fiscal challenge than the UK as a whole – is robust to a variety of alternative, sensible assumptions. Our modelling suggests that the UK as a whole would face a long-run fiscal gap of 0.8 per cent of GDP. Under the most optimistic scenario considered, we estimate that the fiscal gap for Scotland would be 1.9 per cent of GDP – or more than twice as large. This suggests that Scotland would be required to make more spending cuts and/or tax increases after independence (in addition to those already planned by the UK government) in order to ensure long-run fiscal sustainability.

However, the long-run fiscal pressures that our model suggests would face Scotland might point to a higher level of taxation there."


Paper 6 The political economy of small European states; and lessons for Scotland (http://ner.sagepub.com/content/227/1/R54?etoc) - neutral conclusion

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): It is not possible to pick and choose items of different models since they have an internal coherence. The Scottish White Paper on independence supports the social investment state. Scotland has some, but not all, of the prerequisites for this so that independence would require internal adaptation.


The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I must have missed the facts and figures in his speech. All I kept hearing was "We're better together", with no real explaination as to why. :confused:

I said if he had just spouted off about facts and figures it would just turn folk off.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

[allmodcons]

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

I think you'll find it's the Westminster system of government that AS dislikes. I can't recall AS saying he hates the English. Maybe you could substantiate your comments by providing some evidence?

[allmodcons]

The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or pissed off at being held responsible for you being 'semi engaged' again but, anyway, here's something else for you to read which, as it happens, is somewhat at odds with your take on the NIESR report.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide1

Both sides of the debate can, and will, pick pointers from reports that support their case. On balance, I think it is fair to say that an iScotland would have nothing to fear in an economic sense and do hope you're not being as silly to suggest we'd be some kind of economic basket case.

[stoneyburn hibs]

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

Cool, I like that idea. My initial response wasn't meant to be a dig at you personally.

[Glory Lurker]

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmons feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

[Hibrandenburg]

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

:rolleyes: Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

[green glory]

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

Sorry, but pretty much all of that isn't true.

[steakbake]

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

Around 300 years in one form or another...

[lucky]

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

Not defending Cameron. Just stating a fact. Darling is the leader of the recognised No campaign. Just like he is of the yes one. So it would make perfect sense for a tv debate between them. Cameron has no vote in the referendum. Only reason the mats want a debate with cameron is make the referendum about Scotland v the Tories. Sadly the *******ised offer on the table is not independence but a mixed up mess which leaves Scots with less control of its destiny.

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

[Beefster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

I don't think this issue will be addressed before the referendum. It's been raised ever since the original plan of joining the Euro became a very bad idea. When inconvenient issues like arise, we're just going to continue to be told that it makes no sense not to let us in or get repeated references to "Project Fear" and "Project Bully". Such is the quality of the debate.

[marinello59]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

If we vote Yes then this will be subject to negotiation with both sides having to concede ground. I'm not so sure that a Tory chancellor playing hard ball at this stage is helpful. A currency union would have benefits to the rest of the UK so to simply dismiss it now without any meaningful debate seems wrong.

[Hibercelona]

:rolleyes: Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

:agree:

I don't hate the English. I just hate Westminster and their group of cronies.

[J-C]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....

[CropleyWasGod]

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

That happens all over the world, though. Multi-nationals, including RBS, already work in Sterling, in Euros and US Dollars, and others.

[One Day Soon]

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....


That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.

[lucky]

The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

[southfieldhibby]

That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.


The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

Of course Scotland will take on its share of debt, she was making the point that both options aren't really very sensible.It's time for both sides to become sensible.

There are two main points, one on either side which are pretty vital to the other lot.BT have the power of the £, Yes has Coulport.Both are essential to the opposition, possibly coulport being more important to Westminster than the £ to Holyrood.

Why not have an agreement, currency union for 10 years followed by Scotland floating its own currency (allowing us to build up a track record of repaying loans to the market) and Faslane/Coulport stays home for the subs for the same length of time?It's time to be pragmatic, to meet half way and show the voters that both sides can be grown ups instead of dafties.

[steakbake]

I) RBS is a dysfunction and insolvent publicly funded company, already headquartered in London. If they want to "leave", we should be glad to get shot of them.

II) Osborne is playing a political game. Mark Carney has already stated that they could find a way of arranging a currency union. As for seeking a lender of last resort that isn't your own national bank, I believe both the federal reserve of the USA and the European Central Bank put their hands in their pockets when Brown bailed out the banks.

III) Yes Scotland should be a bit braver. As unionists were celebrating the collapse of the Icelandic economy, little did they realise that a few years later, having left their dysfunctional banks go to the wall, Iceland would be back and about to launch the worlds first viable virtual currency: the aurora, they've ridden out the storm and are experiencing growth beyond that of the UK.

Fact of the matter is, that politicians on all sides should admit that if people voted Yes, they'll get on with it and make it work - like the Chairman of Barclays said the other day and to a more nuanced degree by Carney of the Bank of England.

The rest is just political manoeuvring.

[lucky]

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

[southfieldhibby]

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

I'm not sure they have actually said this yet?Lots of nods and winks suggesting this, but not one firm statement of this intent?Just like not one firm intent from SNP leadership they'd refuse the debt burden if no currency union.

Which brings it back to the point were they should all stop talking ***** and come out with firm and definitive answers.

[green glory]

Not defending Cameron. Just stating a fact. Darling is the leader of the recognised No campaign. Just like he is of the yes one. So it would make perfect sense for a tv debate between them. Cameron has no vote in the referendum. Only reason the mats want a debate with cameron is make the referendum about Scotland v the Tories. Sadly the *******ised offer on the table is not independence but a mixed up mess which leaves Scots with less control of its destiny.

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

[marinello59]

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

Apart from the fact the main reason the party he leads exists is to push for Independence. And the fact that the Government he leads introduced the referendum bill. And also produced the White Paper to argue the case for Independence. And that the vast majority of people would identify him as the leader of the Yes campaign. I hope you are not going to claim that the real leader is Blair Jenkins.

[southfieldhibby]

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

course he is.Lets be sensible here.

Salmond is leader of Yes and Cameron is leader of BT...Darling and Jenkins do as they're told.

[J-C]

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

We've always had our own currency, just wish people would read more ??

The pound Scots (Modern Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language): Pund Scots, Middle Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Scots): Pund Scottis) was the unit of currency in the Kingdom of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland) before the kingdom unified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) with the Kingdom of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) in 1707. It was introduced by David I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland), in the 12th century, on the model of English and French money, divided into 20 shillings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilling), each of 12 pence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny). The Scottish currency was later debased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement) relative to sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_pound) and, by the time of James III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Scotland), the pound sterling was valued at four pounds Scots.
In addition to the pound Scots, silver coins were issued denominated in merk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merk_(coin)), worth 13 shillings 4 pence (two-thirds of a pound Scots). WhenJames VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_of_Scotland) became King James I of England in 1603, the coinage was reformed to closely match that of England, with 12 pounds Scots equal to the pound sterling. In 1707, the pound Scots was replaced by the pound sterling at a rate of 12 to 1, although the pound Scots continued to be used in Scotland as a unit of account for most of the 18th century.
Today there is no distinct Pound Scots; but Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland)'s three largest clearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)) banks (the Royal Bank of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland), the Bank of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Scotland) and theClydesdale Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydesdale_Bank)) still print paper pound notes. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Sterling) value as do Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) notes in England and Wales.

[marinello59]

course he is.Lets be sensible here.

Salmond is leader of Yes and Cameron is leader of BT...Darling and Jenkins do as they're told.

The Better Together campaign is lead and run by Scottish based politicians as it should be. I may disagree with them but that can't be denied.

[southfieldhibby]

The Better Together campaign is lead and run by Scottish based politicians as it should be. I may disagree with them but that can't be denied.

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.

[One Day Soon]

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.


That's just wrong too.

What's your evidence for this claim? A question we seem to have to ask Yes campaigners an awful lot these days.

[marinello59]

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.

So the Better Together campaign is all an English Tory plot? Wow. Do you think that the BT campaigners are incapable of thinking for themselves.

[RyeSloan]

Project fear....classy stuff from the SNP.

Despite the drum banging I don't see the problem with what the treasury paper is allegedly going to state. Currency unions can't work without a high degree of cooperation between the participants in terms of tax, budgets and cross border transfers.

The euro zone travails show very well what happens when those types of controls are not in place...sure it might not be so pronounced to start with in a Pound version as the economies are more similar than say Greece v Germany but the technical difficulties are still there.

It all smacks of a complete lack of understanding of these and other significant questions from the politicians that have set us down the road to this vote. To blithely suggest it must happen because it's in the other parties best interest without fully addressing the issues such an agreement would have on the other party could be seen as slightly rude.

I've said it before but I'll say it again....independence as a concept is a good one, the half arsed, half baked proposal being muted here is not.

[yeezus.]

I'm not sure they have actually said this yet?Lots of nods and winks suggesting this, but not one firm statement of this intent?Just like not one firm intent from SNP leadership they'd refuse the debt burden if no currency union.

Which brings it back to the point were they should all stop talking ***** and come out with firm and definitive answers.

The Welsh first minister has.

[Beefster]

I) RBS is a dysfunction and insolvent publicly funded company, already headquartered in London. If they want to "leave", we should be glad to get shot of them.

RBS HQ is in Edinburgh (St Andrews Square or Gogarburn).

Given that they are a major employer in Scotland, I'm fairly sure that 'we' (and the thousands that they employ in Scotland) wouldn't be glad to get shot of them.

[Glory Lurker]

The Welsh first minister has.

It may well come to pass that Osbrone, Alexander and Balls will tomorrow/on Friday say "no nae never". That will be legitimate news. However, what the Welsh FM has to say is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever, and I do have to wonder why he's being rolled out again to come out with this line. Why is he being given any attention? Did the Welsh devolution settlement give Cardiff a veto on UK economic policy???? Will the Office of the Mayor of London rule it out, too? What about Hull City Council?

[lucky]

We've always had our own currency, just wish people would read more ??

The pound Scots (Modern Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language): Pund Scots, Middle Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Scots): Pund Scottis) was the unit of currency in the Kingdom of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland) before the kingdom unified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) with the Kingdom of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England) in 1707. It was introduced by David I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland), in the 12th century, on the model of English and French money, divided into 20 shillings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilling), each of 12 pence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny). The Scottish currency was later debased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debasement) relative to sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_pound) and, by the time of James III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Scotland), the pound sterling was valued at four pounds Scots.
In addition to the pound Scots, silver coins were issued denominated in merk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merk_(coin)), worth 13 shillings 4 pence (two-thirds of a pound Scots). WhenJames VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_of_Scotland) became King James I of England in 1603, the coinage was reformed to closely match that of England, with 12 pounds Scots equal to the pound sterling. In 1707, the pound Scots was replaced by the pound sterling at a rate of 12 to 1, although the pound Scots continued to be used in Scotland as a unit of account for most of the 18th century.
Today there is no distinct Pound Scots; but Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland)'s three largest clearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)) banks (the Royal Bank of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland), the Bank of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Scotland) and theClydesdale Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydesdale_Bank)) still print paper pound notes. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Sterling) value as do Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) notes in England and Wales.

But scots notes are not widely accepted through out England or the rest of the world. If Scotland want independence we must have our own currency. The euro has been a disaster for most countries. Currency unions don't work but it's worse when you try to use a currency of another country without agreement

[yeezus.]

It may well come to pass that Osbrone, Alexander and Balls will tomorrow/on Friday say "no nae never". That will be legitimate news. However, what the Welsh FM has to say is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever, and I do have to wonder why he's being rolled out again to come out with this line. Why is he being given any attention? Did the Welsh devolution settlement give Cardiff a veto on UK economic policy???? Will the Office of the Mayor of London rule it out, too? What about Hull City Council?

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just replying to a previous post.

I guess he is being given attention cause the BBC are a bunch of London-based unionist mouthpieces. :wink:

[Glory Lurker]

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just replying to a previous post.

I guess he is being given attention cause the BBC are a bunch of London-based unionist mouthpieces. :wink:

Ah, now you're talking. There is hope for you yet, young Skywalker! :greengrin:aok:

[J-C]

But scots notes are not widely accepted through out England or the rest of the world. If Scotland want independence we must have our own currency. The euro has been a disaster for most countries. Currency unions don't work but it's worse when you try to use a currency of another country without agreement
Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

[Sylar]

Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

Technically they are not exactly the same as BoE notes. I'm sure they are not 'legal tender'.

A technicality for sure but there is a Mia conception that they are the same when actually they are not.

[Scouse Hibee]

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

A massive problem in my experience (Liverpool, Chester, North Wales), so much so that I don't even bother with the hassle anymore and just use an ATM in Liverpool rather than take Scottish notes with me.

[J-C]

Technically they are not exactly the same as BoE notes. I'm sure they are not 'legal tender'.

A technicality for sure but there is a Mia conception that they are the same when actually they are not.

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again.


I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are.
These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Sterling) value as do Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) notes in England and Wales.

Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above.

So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

[CropleyWasGod]

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again.


I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are.
These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Sterling) value as do Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) notes in England and Wales.

Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above.

So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

From the BofE website.

The phrase ‘legal tender’ is a widely used expression and is a
common misnomer. The only banknotes to have legal tender
status in England and Wales are those issued by the Bank of
England. There are no banknotes issued by commercial
banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland that have legal
tender status. However, legal tender status has only a very
narrow meaning in relation to the settlement of a debt. The
term ‘legal tender’ simply means that if a debtor pays in legal
tender the exact amount they owe under the terms of a
contract, and the contract does not specify another means of
payment, the debtor has a good defence in law if he or she is
subsequently sued for non-payment of the debt. In ordinary
day-to-day transactions, the term ‘legal tender’ has very
little practical application, as whether or not an instrument
(be it a banknote or local currency voucher) is used as a
means of payment is subject only to the mutual agreement
of the parties to the transaction.
(1

From the Royal Mint website:-

Coins are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amounts:

£5 (Crown) - for any amount
£2 - for any amount
£1 - for any amount
50p - for any amount not exceeding £10
25p (Crown) - for any amount not exceeding £10
20p - for any amount not exceeding £10
10p - for any amount not exceeding £5
5p - for any amount not exceeding £5
2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p
1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p

[Hibercelona]

Other independent countries share currencies without any issues. :rolleyes:

They would be shooting themselves in the foot by forcing us out of the currency union anyway.

[JimBHibees]

II) Osborne is playing a political game. Mark Carney has already stated that they could find a way of arranging a currency union. As for seeking a lender of last resort that isn't your own national bank, I believe both the federal reserve of the USA and the European Central Bank put their hands in their pockets when Brown bailed out the banks.

III) Yes Scotland should be a bit braver. As unionists were celebrating the collapse of the Icelandic economy, little did they realise that a few years later, having left their dysfunctional banks go to the wall, Iceland would be back and about to launch the worlds first viable virtual currency: the aurora, they've ridden out the storm and are experiencing growth beyond that of the UK.

Fact of the matter is, that politicians on all sides should admit that if people voted Yes, they'll get on with it and make it work - like the Chairman of Barclays said the other day and to a more nuanced degree by Carney of the Bank of England.

The rest is just political manoeuvring.

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

[marinello59]

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

[lucky]

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

[JimBHibees]

Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

I was talking about bbc scotland news.

[Beefster]

Other independent countries share currencies without any issues. :rolleyes:

They would be shooting themselves in the foot by forcing us out of the currency union anyway.

In what way?


Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

Indeed. I heard about it on a UK-wide radio station, watch an article about it on UK-wide TV news and read about it in UK-wide newspapers.

[JimBHibees]

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

Is it a fact though? Carney has said it could be accommodated. Sounds more like a political game and if it is a decision taken are you happy your party thinks this is acceptable?

Sounds like selected facts. What about the independent reports which were suppressed in the 70's which clearly indicated how well off Scotland as an independent country would be. The fact these were suppressed with the full knowledge of a Scottish Labour Secretary. Is this acceptable?

[Just Alf]

In what way?
.

I think the basic premise is that Scotland's GDP (I think it is?) is a bit better than rUK so is actually a strengthening force on the currency.

The other element is that Scotland is the rUK's 2nd biggest "export" market after the EU and not having a currency union will add additional transactional costs

Something like that......

[HNA2]

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

My husband woukd disagree that our notes are widely accepted in England. We spend many a sunday trying to get rid of our clydesdale bank notes as he really struggles to find anywhere that will take them wiyhout a fight

[Bristolhibby]

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

But its not a fact though is it? Its merely a set out position as a prerequisate to negotiations.

Scotland could in effect refuse to take on her share of the debt. And forget all the wishy washy statement about debt markets. The debt is backed up by the Bank of England and Sterling. The Scottish Pound wont have any debt. It will have a massive amount of assets to back it up.

Also, the rUK would struggle with said debt if roughly 10% of its ability to service that debt dissapeared overnight. The run on Sterling would be massive as the market would look to dump currency that was perceved as "risky".

Dont believe that the UK parties are looking out for the interests of Scotland and Scotlands people. The status quo suits them. If everybody wants more of the same, then crack on vote no. But dont for a second believe that we could not look after ourselves, be prosperous and a valid contributer to a Sterling Currency Union.

The Negotiations before Independence will take two years. There will be give and take, we wont know what the outcome will be until this has happened.

J

[Beefster]

Is it a fact though?

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

[JimBHibees]

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

More like cynical political positioning.

[Beefster]

More like cynical political positioning.

The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.

Most important national issue in most of our lifetimes. The worst national debate in most of our lifetimes.

[Bristolhibby]

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

You must know, what politicians say and what they actually do, is always the most pragmatic option open to them.

Posturing IMHO. They are just setting out their stall.

Im more interested in the vote for democratic reasons. Scotland can chose who it wants to represent the people 100% of the time. Surely these elected representatives will have whats good for Scotland at heart, not whats good for the rest of the UK?

J

[Hibercelona]

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

So saying something makes it a fact now does it?

Pulling us out of the currency union would be highly damaging on the rest of the UK. Trading costs would likely sky rocket if we were forced into a currency alternative.

That's not a price that the UK can afford to pay.

We hold the most valuable trading assets in the UK. They "wont" force us out of the currency union regardless of what happens. It's not a route they can afford to take.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

I'm looking at it in terms of a separation/divorce.

When couples separate, they tend to make the decision first, and then negotiate the practicalities. One party might say "if you leave me, I'll have the kids/the dog/the house", but only as a tool to try and make the other party stay. They can't actually stipulate those terms, no matter how much they might want them, and the actual agreement comes about through negotiation.

If you apply that thinking to the whole independence/separation debate......

[Geo_1875]

I'm looking at it in terms of a separation/divorce.

When couples separate, they tend to make the decision first, and then negotiate the practicalities. One party might say "if you leave me, I'll have the kids/the dog/the house", but only as a tool to try and make the other party stay. They can't actually stipulate those terms, no matter how much they might want them, and the actual agreement comes about through negotiation.

If you apply that thinking to the whole independence/separation debate......

That's how I look at it. As for the currency, I can't see how the UK political parties can say there won't be a union. They are simply stating their current position but if they get a good deal out of any negotiations they wouldn't be doing what they are elected to do if they refused.

[Hibrandenburg]

[QUOTE=Beefster;3905878]The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.
[Quote]

Quite rightly too. Unionists have form when it comes to being economical with the truth to the Scottish electorate. It's a risky tactic if they get caught out again then most will see through the bull****.

[Hibercelona]

That's how I look at it. As for the currency, I can't see how the UK political parties can say there won't be a union. They are simply stating their current position but if they get a good deal out of any negotiations they wouldn't be doing what they are elected to do if they refused.

Exactly. Logic has to be applied here. It would be completely illogical for them to force us out.

All I keep hearing from Westminister is that if we leave the UK, they'll force us out of the currency union, which will have a negative impact on trading.

Which is why it's not in their best interests to force us out, even if we do go independent.

They would be going against the best interests of the UK, by forcing us out.

It's nothing more than blatant scaremongering.

[marinello59]

I was talking about bbc scotland news.

Where it was widely discussed at the time of his speech and has been referred to when relevant since. :confused:

[RyeSloan]

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again. I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Sterling) value as do Bank of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England) notes in England and Wales. Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above. So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

Keep yer hair on.

So are Scottish bank notes considered legal tender or not? I see nothing in your reply that suggests they are or anything that would make my posting seem so incredibly ignorant...in fact subsequent postings has shown that Scottish notes are not considered legal tender so not quite sure what yer wee hissy fit was about.

Dunno how discussing the technical details of what a certain description of Scottish notes means would lead you to believe that it would drive people to want a separate parliament but whatever floats yet boat I suppose.

[JimBHibees]

The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.

Most important national issue in most of our lifetimes. The worst national debate in most of our lifetimes.

Completely agree the debate is poor however you are not saying that the media are impartial are you. Very one sided and pro-union.

[JimBHibees]

Where it was widely discussed at the time of his speech and has been referred to when relevant since. :confused:

I am talking about the little segment on the BBC breakfast BBC Scotland bit where without fail every morning there is a slanted anti Independence story line. I think the day before they mentioned Carney's speech when obviously he didnt say what they wanted, no coverage was given of it. Like it or not however that segment will be alot of peoples only news of the day and to me it is very biased. I think they had a story once about Scottish Whiskey being dependent on English farmers.

[marinello59]

I am talking about the little segment on the BBC breakfast BBC Scotland bit where without fail every morning there is a slanted anti Independence story line. I think the day before they mentioned Carney's speech when obviously he didnt say what they wanted, no coverage was given of it. Like it or not however that segment will be alot of peoples only news of the day and to me it is very biased. I think they had a story once about Scottish Whiskey being dependent on English farmers.

Oh dear, I think you are only seeing (or not seeing) what you want to when it comes to press coverage.

[lucky]

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

[CropleyWasGod]

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

An alternative view, from a reasonably well-informed source.

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-releases/comment-an-independent-scotland-would-be-better-off-using-the-pound-without

[JimBHibees]

Oh dear, I think you are only seeing (or not seeing) what you want to when it comes to press coverage.

Not at all, think it is one sided to a large degree. Admittedly I only really see little bits here and there usually BBC in the morning. Do you genuinely think that the press are balanced and fair? Some of the press would never write anything positive about the possibility of an Independent Scotland.

[JimBHibees]

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

No nuclear weapons as well. I thought you were beginning to sound like the Proclaimers , Letter from America or the song from Only fools and Horses, No income tax, no vat etc :greengrin

[PeeJay]

Keep yer hair on.

So are Scottish bank notes considered legal tender or not? I see nothing in your reply that suggests they are or anything that would make my posting seem so incredibly ignorant...in fact subsequent postings has shown that Scottish notes are not considered legal tender so not quite sure what yer wee hissy fit was about.

Dunno how discussing the technical details of what a certain description of Scottish notes means would lead you to believe that it would drive people to want a separate parliament but whatever floats yet boat I suppose.

The answer seems to be "no" and here's the BoE's definition to prove it ...

"Are Scottish & Northern Ireland notes "legal tender"?"
In short ‘No’ these notes are not "legal tender"; furthermore, Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt.
In ordinary everyday transactions, the term "legal tender" in its purest sense need not govern a note's acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland note as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland notes can be used in England and Wales. Holders of genuine Scottish and Northern Ireland notes are provided with a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. This is because the issuing banks must back their note issue using a combination of Bank of England notes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. More information on these arrangements can be found at
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/
scottish_northernireland.aspx (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/scottish_northernireland.aspx)