Scottish Independence

[Miguel]

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.

[snooky]

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.

Just this week? :whistle:

[HarpyHibby]

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.

I think more and more people are swaying towards a yes vote as the Referendum draws closer. A 'Yes' vote next year will ensure that we are governed by governments which the majority of people in Scotland voted for, which evidently isn't the case just now with the Tories in charge.

Don't let the Tories be your sole reason for voting yes, there are many other more positive arguements for independence!

Saor Alba

[barcahibs]

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.

[Beefster]

IMHO the sooner we get the referendum over and done with, the better. I'll admit to being totally scunnered of the nonsense spouted by both sides. It's been a debate short on facts and full of pie-in-the-sky notions of the future.

[Jack]

I worked with all shades of party during almost 40 years with the Civil Service before I retired earlier this year.

The one thing that struck me about the Torys was they are totally money/profit orintated and would sell their granny to make a buck.

The financial argument must be then that Scotland makes a profit and conversely would be better off on its own. If Scotland was a drain on the UK economy they would get shot of us in the blink of an eye.

But for me its not about the money.

Why I do want independence is because I think it is utterly immoral for a country to be ruled over by another. I think it’s immoral for them to do so and for Scotland to consider itself too week kneed to take a position in the world on its own is shameful.

After 300 years it’s about time we left the foster parental home, one which we weren’t fussy to be in in the first place and make our own way. Grow up, fly the nest and act like a responsibly country.

It’s not like we don't have family; the UK; Europe; NATO; the UN et al that we can look to for guidance and make our own contribution and anyone who dares suggest that in a grown up world an independent Scotland wouldn’t be welcome in any of these is really just wetting their nappy.

[steakbake]

I'm certain to vote yes. Fundamentally, decisions should be made as close to the people by people they affect as possible. There's
nothing nationalistic to it - I see it as a simple fact. I think both campaigns have been pretty dismal, I think the debate in the media is tilted an biased. I find some of the arguments totally spurious. I suspect it will be a no vote but I think more than enough people will vote yes as to keep it on the agenda. Then lets see what 4 years of Boris in number 10 and then a jingoistic In/Out EU Referendum does to those whose pencils waivered before crossing 'No'.

Other than that, Miliband is desperately unconvincing as opposition leader that he makes Cameron look good. And who are the LibDems?

[EH6 Hibby]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

[steakbake]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

It's a valid worry, I think. However, independence doesn't heighten the risk of daft projects and public money being squandered, it just brings it slightly closer to home.

Looking at some aspects of Cross Rail, the Millennium Dome, the referendum on AV, the trident replacement, the recent controversy over the procurement process for a West Coast line provider which cost several millions, universal benefit entitlements and a couple of extremely expensive military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and it's clear that the risk of politicians grandstanding with public money is very much alive and well within the Union.

The difference here is that the politicians could be made much more accountable.

[Beefster]

Why I do want independence is because I think it is utterly immoral for a country to be ruled over by another.

This is the sort of stuff I've hated about the debate.

What country are we 'ruled over' by? Did that still apply when a disproportionate number of the Cabinet were Scots under the last Labour government?

[JeMeSouviens]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

You can apply this sort of thinking to any government. The UK government is hardly immune to cost overrun: channel tunnel, millennium dome etc. but sometimes even bigger waste doesn't make the same impact in the public consciousness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8780566/Disastrous-11.4bn-NHS-IT-programme-to-be-abandoned.html

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm certain to vote yes. Fundamentally, decisions should be made as close to the people by people they affect as possible. There's
nothing nationalistic to it - I see it as a simple fact. I think both campaigns have been pretty dismal, I think the debate in the media is tilted an biased. I find some of the arguments totally spurious. I suspect it will be a no vote but I think more than enough people will vote yes as to keep it on the agenda. Then lets see what 4 years of Boris in number 10 and then a jingoistic In/Out EU Referendum does to those whose pencils waivered before crossing 'No'.

Other than that, Miliband is desperately unconvincing as opposition leader that he makes Cameron look good. And who are the LibDems?

That pretty much sums up it for me. The UK is ridiculously over centralised and attempts to change that via devolution have just led to a lopsided mess where a parliament has legislative authority and the power to spend without the corresponding responsibility of finding the money. I'd be happy enough with devo-max and I still think that's where we might eventually end up but independence is preferable to me because we'd get control of foreign policy. There are still far too many post-imperial hangovers knocking about in London: see the gnashing of teeth over the UK's "diminished status" because they're not getting to be involved in an upcoming Syrian conflict. Have these people learned nothing?

Independence is for life, not just for Christmas. We get the power to shape our own place in the world going forward. If we don't like something or we want to do something differently, we will have the power to do it, not whine and moan about why we can't.

Try and find any small country out there that used to belong to a superstate and see if they want to rejoin.

[yeezus.]

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.

The Yes camp seem to be making out this is a referendum on the Conservative / Lib Dem coalition at Westminster - that's why Salmond challenged David Cameron to a debate - he's trying to make it a Scotland vs. England.

[yeezus.]

I think more and more people are swaying towards a yes vote as the Referendum draws closer. A 'Yes' vote next year will ensure that we are governed by governments which the majority of people in Scotland voted for, which evidently isn't the case just now with the Tories in charge.

Don't let the Tories be your sole reason for voting yes, there are many other more positive arguements for independence!

Saor Alba

I'd love to hear them. The Yes camp are always accusing Better Together of being negative but every nationalist I speak to seems to say the Conservative party are the sole reason for voting Yes.

[Frazerbob]

This is the sort of stuff I've hated about the debate.

What country are we 'ruled over' by? Did that still apply when a disproportionate number of the Cabinet were Scots under the last Labour government?

Whenever the Tories are in power, we are ruled by a government we didn't vote for. That's roughly 50% of the time. 1 Tory MP in Scotland presently so not even marginal. If you take the Scottish vote out of every election since the War, the result would have been the same. We do not have a say in our future currently and are ruled by London and the south east of England. That is the biggest argument for Independence IMO. Scottish issues should be governed by Scotland to benefit Scotland. Yes we will make mistakes but will they be as costly as the mistakes made in Westminster? I'll gladly take that chance.

Incidentally, in an independent Scotland, Labour would dominate and probably have a near monopoly on government. That's probably the biggest argument against independence.

[southfieldhibby]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

I'll give you Holyrood, but the trams were saved by the Scottish govt from the diabolical Edinburgh council.And for every Holyrood a Yes voter could give a Forth Crossing...coming in under budget and earlier than planned.

I hate the way we're portrayed as a leech on rUK, how we should be grateful to be part of this magnificent global power with all the blessed baubles that come along with such honour.We'd not have the same standing on the international stage, we'd not be taken seriously by other countries or our impact on international matters would be diminished by being cut adrift from the power house of No.10.We're stronger together, we're safe as being part of a greater whole and the umbrella of security provided The United Kingdom.


So the questions have to be:
What impression does Scotland want on the international stage?Do we want to be sat round the table with Obama and Putin as they carve everything up?
Why wouldn't other democratic countries take us seriously if we were independent?Would we be seen as backward savages not worthy of trade?
What are we safe against that we wouldn't be safe against if we were independent?Would our 'safety' increase post Yes or decrease?

I hate how The NHS is being sliced and diced, I hate how we're forced to contribute to things like HS2,crossrail,Olympics,Thames water and refurbishing the palace of Westminster, but have to fund A90 dualing,Forth crossings,Commie games and yes,trams without any funding coming from London...none of that can be fair.

I hate how the majority of Scottish citizens are against nuclear weapons but we have them on our doorstep.

and one thing I would hope, is a strong OLD labour with the values Scotland values comes out of any yes victory, along with a Scottish conservative party too.

[Treadstone]

Incidentally, in an independent Scotland, Labour would dominate and probably have a near monopoly on government. That's probably the biggest argument against independence.

:confused: Not really seeing how you've arrived at this conclusion. Can you explain why ?

[Frazerbob]

:confused: Not really seeing how you've arrived at this conclusion. Can you explain why ?

Because the SNP's job will be done and I suspect they will not be the power they are now. A lot of people vote for them because of the common goal without really caring about other policies. If that goal is achieved, then their pull will be vastly reduced. The political landscape will completely change and I suspect there will be many new parties that will spring up all over the place and current minority parties such as the SSP, Greens etc growing. This will leave Scottish Labour as the major force. All speculation and conjecture at the moment though.

[Treadstone]

All speculation and conjecture at the moment though.

Thought so.:greengrin

[Frazerbob]

Thought so.:greengrin

Good point, well made!

I can only speak for myself. I've voted SNP for the last 20 years or so. If we were to gain independence, I will be looking a bit deeper at alternatives. I suspect many others will do likewise.

[lord bunberry]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

You don't deserve a pay rise.

[Beefster]

Whenever the Tories are in power, we are ruled by a government we didn't vote for. That's roughly 50% of the time. 1 Tory MP in Scotland presently so not even marginal. If you take the Scottish vote out of every election since the War, the result would have been the same. We do not have a say in our future currently and are ruled by London and the south east of England. That is the biggest argument for Independence IMO. Scottish issues should be governed by Scotland to benefit Scotland. Yes we will make mistakes but will they be as costly as the mistakes made in Westminster? I'll gladly take that chance.

Incidentally, in an independent Scotland, Labour would dominate and probably have a near monopoly on government. That's probably the biggest argument against independence.

You're right but then that argument could be applied to any region of around 10% of the electorate. When I vote in the UK elections, I understand that we go with the majority of the UK - just the same as when I vote in the Scottish or East Lothian council elections. The actual location of the government doesn't matter to me any more than it would if I was living in Shetland in an independent Scotland.

Conversely, longer-term, an independent Scotland would probably have a far higher number of centre-right politicians too - especially if there were no ties to the Tories.

[steakbake]

Incidentally, in an independent Scotland, Labour would dominate and probably have a near monopoly on government. That's probably the biggest argument against independence.

An interesting argument. If that were the case, why are Labour part of Better Together and vehemently not in favour of Independence? How self sacrificing of them!

The devolution settlement was set up to ensure no one party ever formed a majority in Holyrood. It was designed to keep the SNP out. That has clearly worked well.

[steakbake]

Conversely, longer-term, an independent Scotland would probably have a far higher number of centre-right politicians too - especially if there were no ties to the Tories.

In the interests of balance and that an independent Scotland doesn't become some kind of socialist experiment, I hope you are right.

In the short term though many of those centre right people might be from the conservatives. That brand will take a couple of terms to be less toxic - a bit like Labour pre-Blair (and post-Brown).

[Jack]

My heart says vote yes but my head questions whether a Scottish Government can be trusted. When I think about the money wasted on the Scottish Parliament and the trams it makes me very nervous. Hundreds of millions of pounds on vanity projects meanwhile people like me haven't had a wage rise for 3 years because there's "no money" and care services are being cut everywhere. Still as long as the tourists are happy eh.

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

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

[PeeJay]

Why I do want independence is because I think it is utterly immoral for a country to be ruled over by another. I think it’s immoral for them to do so and for Scotland to consider itself too week kneed to take a position in the world on its own is shameful.


I don't get this at all: Scotland hasn't been "ruled over" by another country, so what's this immoral aspect you have introduced to the debate, and "them" - who on earth are "them"? Scotland is part of the UK - it is governed by a democratically-elected UK government - a government voted for by the Scottish (along with the rest of the UK) - just because "your" party doesn't win an election doesn't mean "you" are being oppressed.

Personally, I agree with BARCAHIBS - I think a federal setup would benefit the UK as a whole much better than the current London-centric situation.

[Jack]

I don't get this at all: Scotland hasn't been "ruled over" by another country, so what's this immoral aspect you have introduced to the debate, and "them" - who on earth are "them"? Scotland is part of the UK - it is governed by a democratically-elected UK government - a government voted for by the Scottish (along with the rest of the UK) - just because "your" party doesn't win an election doesn't mean "you" are being oppressed.

Personally, I agree with BARCAHIBS - I think a federal setup would benefit the UK as a whole much better than the current London-centric situation.

Well, firstly you have to decide in your own mind if Scotland is indeed a country in its own right, or a region of the UK – like the North East, North West, but we’re even North of North so we get to keep Scotland as a name, North of North doesn’t have much of a ring to it anyway :greengrin.

An ONS publication today listed the UK Regions as; North East, North West, Yorkshire and The Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Some people, as is their right, like Scotland to be a Region of the UK.

Legally Scotland is a Region of the UK as determined by the UK government and the capital of Scotland is London.

But Scotland has its own legal system, education system, its own NHS and is recognised as a country by the Commonwealth and FIFA among others. Historically it was a sort of country in its own right – what may or may not have been classed as a country 300 years ago isn't quite the same as now.

I like to think of Scotland as a country and as such England is also a country. Decisions on Scotland are being taken in a place where the vast majority of those making these decisions are not from Scottish seats. Even the Scottish Parliament is dictated to by Westminster by them determining the budget based on politics rather than what Scotland raises.

Incidentally, I have no party, never been a card carrying member of any party and normally tell anyone who comes to me door to bolt, unless I want to complain bitterly about how useless our councillors, MPSs and MPs are – the lot of them! :greengrin

[yeezus.]

Attending a debate in Wigtown tomorrow with Brian Taylor, I'm desperate to hear the "positive" case for independence.

[Hibbyradge]

Attending a debate in Wigtown tomorrow with Brian Taylor, I'm desperate to hear the "positive" case for independence.

For a number of reasons, possibly because I haven't clapped eyes on Salmond for a while :wink:, I'm much closer to voting for Independence than I have ever been. I'm not quite there, yet, and I'm just as likely to be pushed back again by some bigot's jingoistic anti-English rant in the run up to the election

The disgusting scenes at Ibrox and the picture of the 3 "British" soldiers displaying the Keep Ulster Protestant have only pushed me further towards the Yes camp. The prospect of ridding us of that with one little vote is highly appealing.

i also found this video very interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw_dVhy0Kqo

[Hainan Hibs]

Voting yes, I really dont see any reason not to.

[Saorsa]

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.Always been an SNP voter myself (of course this isnae about any party or any person), and I will of course be voting YES. Here's hoping you and many others considering the idea will vote YES when the time comes, I ken a few that have changed their way of thinking and will now be voting YES.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't have a major issue with the concept of independence per se, but I cannot stand the SNP and the thought of independence under them scares the life out of me.

If the referendum was held tomorrow, I'd be voting 'no' and it would take quite a bit of persuasion for me to change my mind.

[Saorsa]

I don't have a major issue with the concept of independence per se, but I cannot stand the SNP and the thought of independence under them scares the life out of me.

If the referendum was held tomorrow, I'd be voting 'no' and it would take quite a bit of persuasion for me to change my mind.This isnae about the SNP or Alex Salmond, people need tae get that out of their heids, it's no about a party or a person. The vote is for independence no a government, the SNP winnae suddenly just become the government just because people vote YES. What makes you think the SNP will even exist post referendum should the result be YES. I've always voted SNP as I see them as a means tae and end, that disane mean even if they exist efter I would vote for them, in fact I disagree with them on a number of things but that's another issue. I would imagine the traditional parties would be around in one guise or another and most people will still vote according tae their political leanings for any Scottish government.

[Glory Lurker]

I've been an inactive member of the SNP for a few years. I'm up and about now supporting the Yes campaign, though. If (when - please!) Scotland becomes independent, I am not sure who I will vote for. I look forward to that dilemma! Bottom line is that there is absolutely no rule that independence means the SNP in charge.

[Miguel]

Whenever the Tories are in power, we are ruled by a government we didn't vote for. That's roughly 50% of the time. 1 Tory MP in Scotland presently so not even marginal. If you take the Scottish vote out of every election since the War, the result would have been the same. We do not have a say in our future currently and are ruled by London and the south east of England. That is the biggest argument for Independence IMO. Scottish issues should be governed by Scotland to benefit Scotland. Yes we will make mistakes but will they be as costly as the mistakes made in Westminster? I'll gladly take that chance.

Incidentally, in an independent Scotland, Labour would dominate and probably have a near monopoly on government. That's probably the biggest argument against independence.

Well, the last point you make is, at the least, debatable.
The SNP won an absolute majority in the 2011 Scottish election. Can't remember the exact figures, but Labour way outperformed SNP at the Westminster poll the previous year. In an independent Scotland, I would expect the result to be closer to a Scottish election result. I would certainly expect the SNP to win the first post indie vote - win or lose.

[Miguel]

A quick add: don't know if it was ever party policy, but the assumption used to be that, having achieved its aim, the SNP would dissolve itself, but I don't think that will happen.
My belief is that the SNP would hold together, at least for a while, and the leadership would tack to the right to try and assure the markets.
The SNP is a coalition and it would eventually split.
I have relatives who are SNP and view Salmond as a necessary evil to achieve independence and allow space for some sort of Scandanavian social democracy.

[RyeSloan]

A quick add: don't know if it was ever party policy, but the assumption used to be that, having achieved its aim, the SNP would dissolve itself, but I don't think that will happen. My belief is that the SNP would hold together, at least for a while, and the leadership would tack to the right to try and assure the markets. The SNP is a coalition and it would eventually split. I have relatives who are SNP and view Salmond as a necessary evil to achieve independence and allow space for some sort of Scandanavian social democracy.

There would be no need to 'assure the markets' as the independence the SNP seek is in name only. Monetarily we would be yoked to the remains of the UK.

[yeezus.]

A quick add: don't know if it was ever party policy, but the assumption used to be that, having achieved its aim, the SNP would dissolve itself, but I don't think that will happen.
My belief is that the SNP would hold together, at least for a while, and the leadership would tack to the right to try and assure the markets.
The SNP is a coalition and it would eventually split.
I have relatives who are SNP and view Salmond as a necessary evil to achieve independence and allow space for some sort of Scandanavian social democracy.

I reckon the SNP would split up on issues like the EU and the monarchy.

[Purple & Green]

Always have been, and always will be a fundamental nationalist. I cringe every time I see an 'argument' that we will be £5 a week better or worse off - are we really that shallow?

Just one further point on a post independence Scotland, no party will dominate because we won't adopt the antiquitated fpp voting system. This will likely mean coalition or minority governments for the forseeable future.

[Aldo]

...

[DaveF]

This isnae about the SNP or Alex Salmond, people need tae get that out of their heids, it's no about a party or a person. The vote is for independence no a government, the SNP winnae suddenly just become the government just because people vote YES. What makes you think the SNP will even exist post referendum should the result be YES. I've always voted SNP as I see them as a means tae and end, that disane mean even if they exist efter I would vote for them, in fact I disagree with them on a number of things but that's another issue. I would imagine the traditional parties would be around in one guise or another and most people will still vote according tae their political leanings for any Scottish government.

Spot on.

I'm from a traditional Labour voting family but will be voting YES for the opportunity to steer our own course rather than have our govt chosen by whoever the South of England votes in.

This is too big a chance to miss - Vote YES.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Definitely a Yes vote from me.

It is the most natural thing in the world for countries to run their own lives and I have always found it rather strange thst people in Scotland ask people from from another country to run their life for them.

It is far more than that though as once you control the levers of power you can then shape and mould society in a way the people of that country decide.

This is once in a lifetime opportunity to build a far fairer and equitable society with Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

I have been quite impressed by the performance of the Scottish Parliament since its inception and I would be very much in favour to increase its power to that of every other normal country and Scotland would be a far better place for it.

[Hibernia Na Eir]

I'd like to know if there are any SNP folks here who intend voting no next year?

[Hibernia Na Eir]

At this moment in time I'll be voting no as for me there are still to many grey areas when it comes to a number if issues.

Currency
Member of NATO
European Union
Number of jobs lost as a result of independence (mainly defence Faslane/Rosyth/Coulport)
Import/export
I am sure there are others that haven't been answered.

I appreciate and respect others and their opinions but I really cannot see the benefits and personally believe that Salmond is pushing it so he can say it was HIM that got Scotland independence. There are too many questions unanswered for me. But Heay what do I know.

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

[BroxburnHibee]

Definitely a yes from me too - the chance to declare ourselves an independent nation is one I hope we don't miss.

Even if the 'No' vote wins I personally feel that independence is inevitable - I hope I live to see it.

[jodjam]

A yes vote makes perfect sense to me. Not sure tho if we will get another crack at this , due to the way our parliament is geared for no overall control, so i reckon we need to grab our chance.

I can understand labour not wanting us to go but for the Tories it's financial. If we were a liability , now or in near future, then Davie C would be printing scottish passports fairly sharpish.

[Aldo]

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

.

[marinello59]

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

He has answered most of them by making the case for Devo max. Salmond has his ultimate goal ready to be reached out and grabbed and he has bottled it.
Currency? Best we leave that to Westminster to keep control of. Bottled.
Head of State. Let's base that in London. The fairer and more equitable society Independence will bring will have a figurehead decided by the hereditary principle. Bottled.
Defence? An Independent Scotland will take a clear and principled stand on Nuclear weapons by kicking them off our soil. We will however apply to join Nato so that we can shelter under it's nuclear umbrella. Bottled.
I don't think the SNP will disband if we vote Yes next year, there will still be a place for them in Scottish politics. Vote No and I reckon they will be ripping themselves to pieces for years with Salmond ending up generally reviled. I just hope that no matter which way it goes that the majority of us accept the result and move on without rancour.

[Hibbyradge]

This isnae about the SNP or Alex Salmond, people need tae get that out of their heids,

Of course you're right, but many people hate Alex Salmond more than they love the idea of independence.

It's up to the Yes campaign to get that out of folks heids.

[Hibernia Na Eir]

He has answered most of them by making the case for Devo max. Salmond has his ultimate goal ready to be reached out and grabbed and he has bottled it.
Currency? Best we leave that to Westminster to keep control of. Bottled.
Head of State. Let's base that in London. The fairer and more equitable society Independence will bring will have a figurehead decided by the hereditary principle. Bottled.
Defence? An Independent Scotland will take a clear and principled stand on Nuclear weapons by kicking them off our soil. We will however apply to join Nato so that we can shelter under it's nuclear umbrella. Bottled.
I don't think the SNP will disband if we vote Yes next year, there will still be a place for them in Scottish politics. Vote No and I reckon they will be ripping themselves to pieces for years with Salmond ending up generally reviled. I just hope that no matter which way it goes that the majority of us accept the result and move on without rancour.

interesting point you made on SNP if they win yes vote next year. I'm intrigued to see how they carry on under an Indy state. I'd like to hear their take on this.

[Hainan Hibs]

The independence that the SNP win wont be set in stone. I support a republic, I would prefer a Scottish currency at some point in the future, and even though I support EU membership at this moment I could easily be swayed the other way.

I dont agree with the SNP's policies in many areas but they would not be the government forever in an independent Scotland. I would rather be going to vote in an election on issues like the above without the cringeworthy "vote us tae keep the Tories oot!" message being the only campaign message given.

For me, next year is about voting yes to the opportunity to set our own path rather than sitting in the passsenger seat of a car that is travelling in a direction I really do not like.

[Saorsa]

The independence that the SNP win wont be set in stone. I support a republic, I would prefer a Scottish currency at some point in the future, and even though I support EU membership at this moment I could easily be swayed the other way.

I dont agree with the SNP's policies in many areas but they would not be the government forever in an independent Scotland. I would rather be going to vote in an election on issues like the above without the cringeworthy "vote us tae keep the Tories oot!" message being the only campaign message given.

For me, next year is about voting yes to the opportunity to set our own path rather than sitting in the passsenger seat of a car that is travelling in a direction I really do not like.Correct, the independence issue needs tae be dealt with 1st. Like you I also favour a republic and a separation of currency/monetary control by the bank of England. If the referendum result is YES then I will vote accordingly efter that for which ever party best represents my views.

[Just Alf]

I dont agree with the SNP's policies in many areas but they would not be the government forever in an independent Scotland. I would rather be going to vote in an election on issues like the above without the cringeworthy "vote us tae keep the Tories oot!" message being the only campaign message given.

For me, next year is about voting yes to the opportunity to set our own path rather than sitting in the passsenger seat of a car that is travelling in a direction I really do not like.

Agreed, I'm sure I mentioned on an earlier thread, my folks have voted SNP for years as the want independence, I know for a fact that if achieved my mum will vote Tory or similar and I think my dad will go labour (probably)

As for me, I'll go with whoever best fits my views at the time (and apart from Indy, the SNP don't currently fit)

[marinello59]

interesting point you made on SNP if they win yes vote next year. I'm intrigued to see how they carry on under an Indy state. I'd like to hear their take on this.

First and foremost they would carry on as their attitude will be 'To the victor goes the spoils.' Where would their front line politicians go? They are now used to having their hands on the levers of power and that will be hard for them to give up. I reckon they will challenge Labour for the centre left vote by further wrapping themselves in the saltire and claiming to be the only party that has always put Scotland first.
The Tories may have less problems. The agricultural community in the SNP's North East heartlands were solidly Tory until one of their own, Hamish Watt, won a seat. Salmond won his seat from the Buchan bulldog, Albert McQuarrie. Mad Mitch of Aden fame was an Aberdeenshire MP as well. Both bonkers but well loved up there. An Independent Scotland could well result in a big Tory revival. How ironic would that be?

[Jack]

Everyone seems to think everything must happen on day one after a positive yes vote.

What's the rush?

There will obviously be a day one situation but things like currency, defence et al don't need to be 'finalized' for day one.

An independent Scotland will be a small but very powerful nation in every way. We will be in a position to court our suitors.

As a wee pretend nation we're no bad, as an independent nation the world is ours to be what every other independent nation can be, but better because we're actually very good.

We have nothing to fear but our own limited ambitions.

[Purple & Green]

Definitely a yes from me too - the chance to declare ourselves an independent nation is one I hope we don't miss.

Even if the 'No' vote wins I personally feel that independence is inevitable - I hope I live to see it.

I agree - i think there is an inevitably about independence now - much like devolution in 79. I suspect that there might be a narrow no vote now and a landslide independence vote in a generations time. The tories probably aren't as stupid now as they were then, so Devo Max is coming if we vote no.

[Hibrandenburg]

The independence that the SNP win wont be set in stone. I support a republic, I would prefer a Scottish currency at some point in the future, and even though I support EU membership at this moment I could easily be swayed the other way.

I dont agree with the SNP's policies in many areas but they would not be the government forever in an independent Scotland. I would rather be going to vote in an election on issues like the above without the cringeworthy "vote us tae keep the Tories oot!" message being the only campaign message given.

For me, next year is about voting yes to the opportunity to set our own path rather than sitting in the passsenger seat of a car that is travelling in a direction I really do not like.

This, not voting for independence because you don't like Salmond and the SNP is a bit like not buying a house because you don't like the wallpaper.

[Beefster]

This, not voting for independence because you don't like Salmond and the SNP is a bit like not buying a house because you don't like the wallpaper.

Are many folk against independence just because they don't like Salmond and the SNP?

[Saorsa]

Are many folk against independence just because they don't like Salmond and the SNP?There's one in post 32 :greengrin Seriously though I ken a few, managed tae persuade one though what the vote is about and it's no Salmond or the SNP. I will be doing my best tae make others see what the real issue is and if they still choose tae vote no then fair enough. There are some people who really need tae open there eyes though and look beyond Salmond and the SNP, if that's their only reason for voting no it's a very poor one.

[ancienthibby]

There's one in post 32 :greengrin Seriously though I ken a few, managed tae persuade one though what the vote is about and it's no Salmond or the SNP. I will be doing my best tae make others see what the real issue is and if they still choose tae vote no then fair enough. There are some people who really need tae open there eyes though and look beyond Salmond and the SNP, if that's their only reason for voting no it's a very poor one.

Well done, Dan.

Keep up the good work!

YES Scotland.

[HibeeEmma]

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.

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

I dislike the the SNP because they are too idillic. They have failed so many of their bigger pre-election campaign headlines such as dropping student debt. Now they are sacrificing a whole country based on forecasts of tourism and oil, of which neither are sustainable.
Only a few days ago SNP was caught out saying to the public that taxes wouldn't go up when at the same time he had published papers saying they WOULD.

A few people have spoken about the idea why should we be governed by a different country. If we look on it as Britain, we can fight it as one. It's about putting heads together have having more innovation and ideas. Personally I'd rather be imminent on the international stage than fighting a small cause for Scotland. As much as we hate to think of ourselves as "british", Britain have done wonders in the world, building up an image (some better than others- everyone has their view). I would rather put a £44 million programme towards strengthening healthcare in South Africa than a Scottish £3 million programme.

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Our memberships as an independent Scotland would also not remain. For example the G8, the BBC, guaranteed EU membership and being in the UK gives a greater voice to the UN and beyond.

If none of the above influences you, what about Nicola Sturgeons voice? That alone would put me in the NO/Better Together camp.

[yeezus.]

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

I dislike the the SNP because they are too idillic. They have failed so many of their bigger pre-election campaign headlines such as dropping student debt. Now they are sacrificing a whole country based on forecasts of tourism and oil, of which neither are sustainable.
Only a few days ago SNP was caught out saying to the public that taxes wouldn't go up when at the same time he had published papers saying they WOULD.

A few people have spoken about the idea why should we be governed by a different country. If we look on it as Britain, we can fight it as one. It's about putting heads together have having more innovation and ideas. Personally I'd rather be imminent on the international stage than fighting a small cause for Scotland. As much as we hate to think of ourselves as "british", Britain have done wonders in the world, building up an image (some better than others- everyone has their view). I would rather put a £44 million programme towards strengthening healthcare in South Africa than a Scottish £3 million programme.

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Our memberships as an independent Scotland would also not remain. For example the G8, the BBC, guaranteed EU membership and being in the UK gives a greater voice to the UN and beyond.

If none of the above influences you, what about Nicola Sturgeons voice? That alone would put me in the NO/Better Together camp.

The Yes are desperate to make this a referendum on the Tory/Liberal coalition at Westminster and I'm sick fed up of hearing it. Salmond and co. should be answering some of the basic questions on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU and the bizarre scenario where a foreign country (BoE) would set out interest rate!

[Jack]

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

I dislike the the SNP because they are too idillic. They have failed so many of their bigger pre-election campaign headlines such as dropping student debt. Now they are sacrificing a whole country based on forecasts of tourism and oil, of which neither are sustainable.
Only a few days ago SNP was caught out saying to the public that taxes wouldn't go up when at the same time he had published papers saying they WOULD.

A few people have spoken about the idea why should we be governed by a different country. If we look on it as Britain, we can fight it as one. It's about putting heads together have having more innovation and ideas. Personally I'd rather be imminent on the international stage than fighting a small cause for Scotland. As much as we hate to think of ourselves as "british", Britain have done wonders in the world, building up an image (some better than others- everyone has their view). I would rather put a £44 million programme towards strengthening healthcare in South Africa than a Scottish £3 million programme.

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Our memberships as an independent Scotland would also not remain. For example the G8, the BBC, guaranteed EU membership and being in the UK gives a greater voice to the UN and beyond.

If none of the above influences you, what about Nicola Sturgeons voice? That alone would put me in the NO/Better Together camp.

I've always found it ironic that the Scots
want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a
large proportion of English tax payers money for free
healthcare and free University.

The Scottish Government gets a block grant from the UK government that is proportionately the same as English government departments spend on the same stuff. The Scottish Government just spends it differently.

It should also be noted that the money raised in Scotland is greater than is spent in Scotland so its quite wrong to ever suggest Scotland uses any proportion of English (Welsh and NI) money raised through taxation or any other government levies.

[CropleyWasGod]

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

.

Do you have figures for this?

It is noticeable that the Better Together campaign are shying away from the economic argument. They seem to accept that, financially, Scotland is self-sustainable.

[Jack]

The Yes are desperate to make this a referendum on the Tory/Liberal coalition at Westminster and I'm sick fed up of hearing it. Salmond and co. should be answering some of the basic questions on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU and the bizarre scenario where a foreign country (BoE) would set out interest rate!

I think its naive to suggest a wealthy, stable country like Scotland wouldn't be welcome as a member of any international `club`and perhaps not so bizarre on interest rates when the EU sets international interest rates for its members and that the UK interest rates are set within parameters set by the likes of the IMF etc..

[Beefster]

I think its naive to suggest a wealthy, stable country like Scotland wouldn't be welcome as a member of any international `club`and perhaps not so bizarre on interest rates when the EU sets international interest rates for its members and that the UK interest rates are set within parameters set by the likes of the IMF etc..

"Vote for independence, except for the important stuff that will still be controlled by foreign countries or institutions like monetary policy where we'll have even less say than we do now", no?

[Jack]

"Vote for independence, except for the important stuff that will still be controlled by foreign countries or institutions like monetary policy where we'll have even less say than we do now", no?

We have a say now in that the Bank of England is The UK bank although that say is controlled by Westminster and Scotland is part of that.

If Scotland was to become independent and as part of the divorce settlement it was agreed Scotland kept the pound then as part of that agreement I suspect Scotland would have a direct input to fiscal policies affecting the pound.

As negotiations haven't even started only high level assumptions can be guessed at. At the end of the day Scotland might revert to the Groat!

No one can say anything definitive at this time, be it doom and gloom from the No campaign or all jelly and ice cream by the Yes team - and be right.

The only thing we can be sure of is that in the event of a Yes vote, the Edinburgh Agreement says the negotiations will be conducted in a grown up manner. Which would make a welcome change from some of the crap, front both sides, being flung about just now :-)

[HibeeEmma]

Do you have figures for this?

It is noticeable that the Better Together campaign are shying away from the economic argument. They seem to accept that, financially, Scotland is self-sustainable.

I fully appreciate what you are saying about figures, yet at the same time, I think it's difficult to forecast how an economy will sustain itself. For example would independence increase tourism or would visitors shy away from gaining another visa etc? We cannot predict that. Scotland would also have to take on some of the British debt and pay off while trying to spend on establishing an independent Scotland taking on millions for diplomats, passports. I suspect interest rates would increase due to new contractual payback agreements. The level of risk is unpredictable, whereas devolving certain powers allow Scotland to hold onto an extremely wealthy base (Britian).

Meanwhile, would the average working man/woman's taxes be increased for this, "better independent Scotland", or else where is this money coming from?

Im not for a minute saying I have all the answers against independence but independent Scotland is far more complex than it's laid out. For example if we kept the pound, we wouldn't be able to set interest rate And the policy would remain at Westminster. Another point, if oil was sold at a high rate, domestic demand would potentially also suffer.

If anyone can convince me why my life would be better in an independent Scotland, I'm all ears.

[Jack]

I fully appreciate what you are saying about figures, yet at the same time, I think it's difficult to forecast how an economy will sustain itself. For example would independence increase tourism or would visitors shy away from gaining another visa etc? We cannot predict that. Scotland would also have to take on some of the British debt and pay off while trying to spend on establishing an independent Scotland taking on millions for diplomats, passports. I suspect interest rates would increase due to new contractual payback agreements. The level of risk is unpredictable, whereas devolving certain powers allow Scotland to hold onto an extremely wealthy base (Britian).

Meanwhile, would the average working man/woman's taxes be increased for this, "better independent Scotland", or else where is this money coming from?

Im not for a minute saying I have all the answers against independence but independent Scotland is far more complex than it's laid out. For example if we kept the pound, we wouldn't be able to set interest rate And the policy would remain at Westminster. Another point, if oil was sold at a high rate, domestic demand would potentially also suffer.

If anyone can convince me why my life would be better in an independent Scotland, I'm all ears.

Emma. Scotland already has a 10%* stake in the passport offices, Embassies, Consulates and everything else that is currently owned by the UK Government so the cost to an independent Scotland when taking control of these will not be a new cost - its already covered. This would also be the case for all the other government departments.

And its not uncommon for countries to share Embassies so there would be no great rush to acquire buildings all over the world, 10% are Scottish anyway ;-) Its not inconceivable to think that many of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employees are Scots who could move to service a Scottish Embassy.

* Rough and ready estimate taken from the Barnett Formula for ease of conversation.

[HibeeEmma]

Emma. Scotland already has a 10%* stake in the passport offices, Embassies, Consulates and everything else that is currently owned by the UK Government so the cost to an independent Scotland when taking control of these will not be a new cost - its already covered. This would also be the case for all the other government departments.

And its not uncommon for countries to share Embassies so there would be no great rush to acquire buildings all over the world, 10% are Scottish anyway ;-) Its not inconceivable to think that many of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employees are Scots who could move to service a Scottish Embassy.

* Rough and ready estimate taken from the Barnett Formula for ease of conversation.

I don't understand this state of mind. It's as if people want to break away but will clutch onto UK aspects such as having the same office.

I would understand if Scotland's economy was streets ahead and our contributions to Westminster was holding us back but that isn't the case.

11132

[Sumner]

100% "no"

[Jack]

I don't understand this state of mind. It's as if people want to break away but will clutch onto UK aspects such as having the same office.

I would understand if Scotland's economy was streets ahead and our contributions to Westminster was holding us back but that isn't the case.

11132

Sorry. My point is that in a grown up style divorce the separation needn't be the big bang, there's nothing there and nothing to replace it scenario. There are so many international 'projects' including in defence (thinking of the UK being able to borrow French aircraft carriers over the next few years as an example) where there are already close working relationships. To think Scotland won't still be a close pal of the remaining UK is, IMO, a bit silly - in the nicest way. Some would have you think Hadrians Wall will be rebuilt and electrified!!!

No surprises about the chart either where Scottish economic policies are led by Westminster. The Scottish Government is really only responsible for 'domestic' spending as allocated by Westminster so the freedom to set policies that would affect the GDP are somewhat restricted.

[yeezus.]

I think its naive to suggest a wealthy, stable country like Scotland wouldn't be welcome as a member of any international `club`and perhaps not so bizarre on interest rates when the EU sets international interest rates for its members and that the UK interest rates are set within parameters set by the likes of the IMF etc..

Do you agree with me that the Yes campaign are trying to make this a referendum on the Conservative party?

[Glory Lurker]

Do you agree with me that the Yes campaign are trying to make this a referendum on the Conservative party?


I know you didn't ask me, but as Jack seems to be otherwise engaged, I can't resist it - sorry, Jack! :greengrin

The fact that we will be saddled with a Conservative government more that half the time whether we vote for them or not is a very relevant point to be highlighted, but there is no way you can say that this is the Yes campaign's main issue. It is just one of many good arguments for looking after our own affairs.

[Jack]

Do you agree with me that the Yes campaign are trying to make this a referendum on the Conservative party?

Personally speaking I don't think it would matter who was in power at Westminster at the moment although with it being the Tories the SNP are going to take full advantage and I'd expect nothing less. Again, personally, I don't pay much heid ;-) to the petty sniping between the sides.

The question of Scottish independence is not, IMO, about current politicians, petty party politics and other 'trivia'. Its way more important than that. Its about the future of the 'country' I live in and the future of this country for generations to come. Its the most important vote any of us have ever taken part in.

[steakbake]

If Labour were in power in Holyrood right now with the Tories in Westminster, they'd be milking it for all it is worth.

As it is, they're in opposition in both places and in an uneasy collaboration with the ConDems in the no campaign.

[Purple & Green]

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence.

And yet there's not a clamour for reunification, bizarre.

[Beefster]

We have a say now in that the Bank of England is The UK bank although that say is controlled by Westminster and Scotland is part of that.

If Scotland was to become independent and as part of the divorce settlement it was agreed Scotland kept the pound then as part of that agreement I suspect Scotland would have a direct input to fiscal policies affecting the pound.

Why do folk in favour of independence keep talking about Westminster as if it is a completely Scot-free zone? Institutions may be based in London but there are Scots all over the place and there is no bar to Scots being in positions of power. Just like there's nothing stopping someone from Shetland running things in Edinburgh.

What would be the motivations for the UK to give an independent Scotland a say in their fiscal policies? What would be the point of having a 10% say in a foreign country's fiscal policies anyway? It's not as if they're going to take the effects of decisions on us into account (which they have to do now).

[Purple & Green]

If Labour were in power in Holyrood right now with the Tories in Westminster, they'd be milking it for all it is worth.

As it is, they're in opposition in both places and in an uneasy collaboration with the ConDems in the no campaign.

Anything that unites the Tories, labour and liberal democrats screams BAD IDEA to me.

[Just Alf]

On another note, if we voted yes would we get back the £450,000,000 of Scottish taxpayers money that's going on London Crossrail? (Their figures)

[Jack]

Why do folk in favour of independence keep talking about Westminster as if it is a completely Scot-free zone? Institutions may be based in London but there are Scots all over the place and there is no bar to Scots being in positions of power. Just like there's nothing stopping someone from Shetland running things in Edinburgh.

I think the part you quoted by me and I have replicated below to save you scrolling, fully acknowledges Scots are part of the current process. It doesn't mean though the decisions made are in the best interests of Scotland.


We have a say now in that the Bank of England is The UK bank although that say is controlled by Westminster and Scotland is part of that.


What would be the motivations for the UK to give an independent Scotland a say in their fiscal policies? What would be the point of having a 10% say in a foreign country's fiscal policies anyway? It's not as if they're going to take the effects of decisions on us into account (which they have to do now).

Again and as quoted by you the motivation (reason) would be as a result of the negotiations that brought about the agreement in the first place.


If Scotland was to become independent and as part of the divorce settlement it was agreed Scotland kept the pound then as part of that agreement I suspect Scotland would have a direct input to fiscal policies affecting the pound.

[Beefster]

I think the part you quoted by me and I have replicated below to save you scrolling, fully acknowledges Scots are part of the current process. It doesn't mean though the decisions made are in the best interests of Scotland.

Again and as quoted by you the motivation (reason) would be as a result of the negotiations that brought about the agreement in the first place.

You think that decisions are not currently made in the best interests of Scotland while we're a part of the UK. Yet, we'll be better off as a foreign country with absolutely no say over fiscal policy (which is what getting a 10% seat at the Bank of England will mean)?

You seem to be saying that the UK will give us a say in their fiscal policies because we'll offer to do something that we want to anyway. The SNP have already said that they want to keep the pound. The alternative is the Euro (which would be crazy) or a new currency (which probably wouldn't be in our interests right now). It's not much of a negotiating position.

IMHO independence is one of these things that sounds magic as an abstract idea. Who could disagree with "Let's guide our own destiny"? However, the detail is either completely missing ("ach, we'll sort it out after we've decided") or falls to bits under a bit of scrutiny.

[yeezus.]

And yet there's not a clamour for reunification, bizarre.

Yep, no appetite for unification north or south of the border.

Anyway, anything that unites the SNP with nutters like Sheridan and the SSP seems like a bad idea to me :wink:

[Jack]

You think that decisions are not currently made in the best interests of Scotland while we're a part of the UK. Yet, we'll be better off as a foreign country with absolutely no say over fiscal policy (which is what getting a 10% seat at the Bank of England will mean)?

You seem to be saying that the UK will give us a say in their fiscal policies because we'll offer to do something that we want to anyway. The SNP have already said that they want to keep the pound. The alternative is the Euro (which would be crazy) or a new currency (which probably wouldn't be in our interests right now). It's not much of a negotiating position.

IMHO independence is one of these things that sounds magic as an abstract idea. Who could disagree with "Let's guide our own destiny"? However, the detail is either completely missing ("ach, we'll sort it out after we've decided") or falls to bits under a bit of scrutiny.

How negotiations around fiscal policy and how much say Scotland would have at that table is an unknown but I'd suggest having someone there whose sole objective is Scotland is better than than no specific voice among the competing UK regions and government departments.

[IndieHibby]

If I were eligible to vote I would vote 'no'.

I am Scottish and British and always have been. Lots of families in the UK are made up of mixed 'nationality' and live in different parts of the UK from where they, or their parents were born. This has always been the case and for Scotland to suddenly sever ties with the rest of the UK (but then turn to another family - the EU) strikes me as strange.

Scotland is a modern and prosperous country and has become so while being part of the UK. As HibeeEmma said above -I have yet to hear an argument from Independence supporters which has actually convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risks. I also prefer the federal model (which I think we are on the path to at present and it should be left to run it's course).

I live in England, am Married to an Irish woman, and I want our children to feel part of Britain, in addition to their Scottish and Irish heritage. This is what many people who are Scottish who live down here think, and equally, all of the English people who consider Scotland to be somewhere worth living (despite being made to feel totally unwelcome by a bone-headed minority - I am ashamed when I witness or hear about it).

If Scotland leaves the UK then the UK is dead and that would be a terrible loss to us all.

The ties that bind us are far stronger than the gripes that seperate us.

[Glory Lurker]

Scotland is a modern and prosperous country and has become so while being part of the UK. As HibeeEmma said above -I have yet to hear an argument from Independence supporters which has actually convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risks. I also prefer the federal model (which I think we are on the path to at present and it should be left to run it's course).



Okay, Scotland benefited by being in the UK while the empire was being built up, but that's literally history. Even then, though, it's not as if Scotland would have remained an 18th century country if it hadn't joined the Union! How did Denmark do it? Belgium? Norway?

Then take the recent past. We have been horribly under-served by the Union. Over the last forty years we have seen our wealth squandered big style. It is breath-taking just how wealthy a country we could have been. There's no point getting misty eyed about the distant past, or dreaming up all sorts of phantom dangers for the future. The only reliable reference point is what we have actually experienced in our life times - and we have lost out badly through being in the Union. Based on this, the risks of staying in it far outweigh the supposed benefits.

A federal system can only work with the agreement of the whole UK. There is no tangible support for it outwith Scotland. The only party supporting it is the Lib Dems. It is never going to happen.

[superbam]

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Aye because everything was just dandy here under the Brits. But you are right, prices have indeed seen a modest increase since the 1920s.

What is the issue with attracting foreign students exactly? They have to prove they are financially solvent before getting a visa, and contribute a ****load to the economy.

[superbam]

This a great little analysis of mainstream media coverage of the independence debate


http://vimeo.com/75851059#

[Jack]

If I were eligible to vote I would vote 'no'.

I am Scottish and British and always have been. Lots of families in the UK are made up of mixed 'nationality' and live in different parts of the UK from where they, or their parents were born. This has always been the case and for Scotland to suddenly sever ties with the rest of the UK (but then turn to another family - the EU) strikes me as strange.

Scotland is a modern and prosperous country and has become so while being part of the UK. As HibeeEmma said above -I have yet to hear an argument from Independence supporters which has actually convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risks. I also prefer the federal model (which I think we are on the path to at present and it should be left to run it's course).

I live in England, am Married to an Irish woman, and I want our children to feel part of Britain, in addition to their Scottish and Irish heritage. This is what many people who are Scottish who live down here think, and equally, all of the English people who consider Scotland to be somewhere worth living (despite being made to feel totally unwelcome by a bone-headed minority - I am ashamed when I witness or hear about it).

If Scotland leaves the UK then the UK is dead and that would be a terrible loss to us all.

The ties that bind us are far stronger than the gripes that seperate us.

I would respectfully suggest you would appreciate, through Mrs Indie, that a break from the UK isn't the end of civilisation as we know it. OK the South has had its problems, its GDP the last time I looked, fairly recently, was still higher than the UK.

How a grown up relationship can work is beautifully illustrated by the South, the only bit of the world outwith the UK where a passport isn't required by either side of the UK when traveling abroad. And that wasn't the most amicable of separations to start with!

If Scotland leaves the UK it will be no more dead than when Republic bid farewell.

[Miguel]

Salmond boobed. He had a unique opportunity in that, unlike his predecessors, he knew exactly when the next General Election would be held. Imagine the scenario: The Tories win outright in May, 2015. The Referendum is held as near to Bannockburn Day the following month. There are lots of despairing left of centre voters who would think, 'sod it, I'm not putting up with five more years of those clowns.' They make the best of a bad situation and vote 'Yes'.
Not wanting to live under the Tories is a perfectly good reason to vote 'Yes'. It was 18 years of them that essentially gave us devolution after all, achieved, by the way by Labour and not the SNP.

[IndieHibby]

Okay, Scotland benefited by being in the UK while the empire was being built up, but that's literally history. Even then, though, it's not as if Scotland would have remained an 18th century country if it hadn't joined the Union! How did Denmark do it? Belgium? Norway?

Then take the recent past. We have been horribly under-served by the Union. Over the last forty years we have seen our wealth squandered big style. It is breath-taking just how wealthy a country we could have been. There's no point getting misty eyed about the distant past, or dreaming up all sorts of phantom dangers for the future. The only reliable reference point is what we have actually experienced in our life times - and we have lost out badly through being in the Union. Based on this, the risks of staying in it far outweigh the supposed benefits.

A federal system can only work with the agreement of the whole UK. There is no tangible support for it outwith Scotland. The only party supporting it is the Lib Dems. It is never going to happen.

No disrespect, but what people like myself need is facts to back up your points (in bold). Otherwise your statement is as misty-eyed as you claim mine to be.

[IndieHibby]

I would respectfully suggest you would appreciate, through Mrs Indie, that a break from the UK isn't the end of civilisation as we know it. OK the South has had its problems, its GDP the last time I looked, fairly recently, was still higher than the UK.


It's precisely through Mrs Indie that I have an appreciation of just how bad things have been in the South over the last few years. If their GDP is higher than ours, then I would rather have our lower GDP than the problems they have.

Which tells me everything I need to know about how bare stats like that tell only the part of the story one wishes to tell. 'Twas ever thus!

[IndieHibby]

How a grown up relationship can work is beautifully illustrated by the South, the only bit of the world outwith the UK where a passport isn't required by either side of the UK when traveling abroad. And that wasn't the most amicable of separations to start with!


And to compare (granted, it you didn't make the original comparison, but you ran with it) an independent Ireland with an independent Scotland is comparing apples with pears, in my opinion. The time, history, culture, varying institutions and connections between people just don't bear the same scrutiny.

All I genuinely ask for is a compelling, fact based argument for changing the fabric of our country. I have yet to hear it. And yes, I am listening :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

[QUOTE=Glory Lurker;3770206]Okay, Scotland benefited by being in the UK while the empire was being built up, but that's literally history. Even then, though, it's not as if Scotland would have remained an 18th century country if it hadn't joined the Union! How did Denmark do it? Belgium? Norway?[QUOTE]
Where did I claim that?

[superbam]

And to compare (granted, it you didn't make the original comparison, but you ran with it) an independent Ireland with an independent Scotland is comparing apples with pears, in my opinion. The time, history, culture, varying institutions and connections between people just don't bear the same scrutiny.

Indeed - and that works both ways. The fact that only a few years ago David Cameron and George Osborne were singing the praises of Ireland's economic policies (and holding them up as an example that the UK should follow) says it all. The political centre ground in Scotland is firmly to the left of where it is here.

[Glory Lurker]

IndieHibby (sorry, I don't know how to combine separate posts with "reply with quote"), as regards the first point about us being badly served by the Union, I was referring to what little we have to show for 40 years of oil wealth. It seems to be accepted that, had Scotland set up an oil fund in the '70s, like Norway did, we'd have billions set aside and no national debt (save for borrowing intentionally taken on to limit currency value). There's still plenty of the black stuff out there, though, so there is potential to go some way to righting that wrong.

Absolutely right, you didn't say anything about the empire. You'd talked about us becoming prosperous within the union. What I was trying to do was agree to an extent - had we not been in the union then we would not have had the benefit of the empire but, beyond that, I do not think you can say that being in the union is what has made us prosperous, as this would probably have happened anyway.

[Just Alf]

I don't have a major issue with the concept of independence per se, but I cannot stand the SNP and the thought of independence under them scares the life out of me.

If the referendum was held tomorrow, I'd be voting 'no' and it would take quite a bit of persuasion for me to change my mind.


Just catching up on this thread (1st while sober :D )

Some of the in-fighting between the various sections of the SNP has to be seen to be believed (pretty well hidden just now for some reason, but well reported in the past) ... They're sticking together purely on the independence label, if/when that's achieved the the SNP will fall like a house of cards.
I've also heard from a family acquaintance that Alex S is considering retiring after the next election if it's a yes vote ...... Never seen this reported or even mentioned anywhere but I did see it in that you tune video listed in this thread... Most likely just a rumour growing legs!


* you tube even ....... :-/

[allmodcons]

You think that decisions are not currently made in the best interests of Scotland while we're a part of the UK. Yet, we'll be better off as a foreign country with absolutely no say over fiscal policy (which is what getting a 10% seat at the Bank of England will mean)?

You seem to be saying that the UK will give us a say in their fiscal policies because we'll offer to do something that we want to anyway. The SNP have already said that they want to keep the pound. The alternative is the Euro (which would be crazy) or a new currency (which probably wouldn't be in our interests right now). It's not much of a negotiating position.

IMHO independence is one of these things that sounds magic as an abstract idea. Who could disagree with "Let's guide our own destiny"? However, the detail is either completely missing ("ach, we'll sort it out after we've decided") or falls to bits under a bit of scrutiny.

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

[RyeSloan]

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.

[Beefster]

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?

SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

[allmodcons]

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.


SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

This is just plain nonsense. I could see the point if you were arguing over a 10% say on Monetary Policy. Fiscal Policy is something completely different. Do you guys not know or understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?

[allmodcons]

A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.


SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.

Just in case either of you should decide to come back with the 'classic' argument that the BoE setting interest rates = Scotland having no control of its own economic policy I thought this might help 'explode the myth' you both seek to perpetuate http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economic-policy-in-an-independent-scotland/

[Beefster]

This is just plain nonsense. I could see the point if you were arguing over a 10% say on Monetary Policy. Fiscal Policy is something completely different. Do you guys not know or understand the difference between monetary and fiscal policy?

The original reference to 'fiscal policy' came from Jack in relation to the Bank of England AFAIK. I don't think anyone else was twattish enough to let it ruin what was a perfectly reasonable debate though when everyone knew the point being made.

[RyeSloan]

Just in case either of you should decide to come back with the 'classic' argument that the BoE setting interest rates = Scotland having no control of its own economic policy I thought this might help 'explode the myth' you both seek to perpetuate http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/economic-policy-in-an-independent-scotland/ Are you suggesting that the fiscal policy followed by a government is completely unrelated to the wider monetary policy of the relevant central bank?

As for the link...explodes nothing and to me reads like someone shooting themselves in the foot. Tax rates are all well and good (and sadly I've yet to see anyone suggest that they would fall dramatically in an independent Scotland...only more government spending) but surely the big daddy of economic levers is the cost of credit and the size and rate of money supply.

Also to suggest the BoE is actually independent is just daft. Who sets its remit? (A remit that strangely enough seems to have changed recently) Who employs it's top dog?

The euro zone troubles are the perfect example of how not having control of your central bank directly impacts a governments ability to implement its desired fiscal policy.

[allmodcons]

Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? BoE is responsible for setting interest rates in line with the Government's inflation targets (i.e. - Monetary Policy). Why would an Independent Scottish Government having a seat at the BoE equate to NO SAY over Scotland's fiscal policy?


A 10% say is pretty much no say is it not if 90% believe and act a different way.

The biggest problem for the yes vote is the uncertainty...no one knows what it will mean for a future Scotland nor how removing ourselves from a political union to join a monetary one is in any way 'real' independence.


SiMar's pretty much answered it already.

10% means nothing when the 90% (i.e. the UK) decide they want to do something different. The only time it actually means anything would be when we agreed with the UK and they were going to do something anyway.


The original reference to 'fiscal policy' came from Jack in relation to the Bank of England AFAIK. I don't think anyone else was twattish enough to let it ruin what was a perfectly reasonable debate though when everyone knew the point being made.

Just for your benefit, read my original question, then the response from Simar then your own response. I specifically asked - Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? You both clearly responded by stating a 10% say is pretty much no say.

[RyeSloan]

Just for your benefit, read my original question, then the response from Simar then your own response. I specifically asked - Why does a 10% seat on the BoE equate to NO SAY over fiscal policy? You both clearly responded by stating a 10% say is pretty much no say.

Round in round in circles.

The point being made was 10% of something is pointless if the 90% disagree.

I agree with your rather laboured point that the BoE would not set an independent Scotland's fiscal policy...that wasn't the original intention of my post. A point I'm pretty sure you were aware of anyway.

What I am saying though is that the two (monetary and fiscal) are far from being mutually exclusive and without the ability to influence one you lose the ability to be masters of your own destiny on the other. Ergo an independent Scotland as proposed would be far from independent.

Or are you suggesting Scotland's fiscal policy would be completely unrelated and removed from the wider monetary policy being pursued by the 'pound zone'

[Jack]

It was me that introduced this 10% figure but it seems to have taken on a wee life of its own and wasn’t meant to be what Scotland's voice would be in deciding BoE policies.

Rather it is the share of monies we currently get, and presumably would have to raise/spend/acquire through the divorce proceedings to keep/maintain the status quo – as far as government spending is concerned.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

As has been mentioned in other places there are already examples from around the world of independent countries sharing a currency, many other independent countries just piggy back on the likes of the US dollar.

How all this works is beyond me (other than I’ll bet traders make millions from it) but it does work and IMO would mean Scotland was any less independent because it kept the pound any more than it would be less independent if it adopted the Euro.

[allmodcons]

Round in round in circles.

The point being made was 10% of something is pointless if the 90% disagree.

I agree with your rather laboured point that the BoE would not set an independent Scotland's fiscal policy...that wasn't the original intention of my post. A point I'm pretty sure you were aware of anyway.

What I am saying though is that the two (monetary and fiscal) are far from being mutually exclusive and without the ability to influence one you lose the ability to be masters of your own destiny on the other. Ergo an independent Scotland as proposed would be far from independent.

Or are you suggesting Scotland's fiscal policy would be completely unrelated and removed from the wider monetary policy being pursued by the 'pound zone'


1. If 'laboured' is a couple of lines then fair enough.

2. I'm not (for one minute) suggesting that monetary & fiscal policy are mutually exclusive. What I would argue though is that Scotland within a 'sterling zone' could initiate a different set of fiscal policies to that of the RoUK Government. Yes, there would be some budgetary constraints to consider, but this is something every country has to consider when adopting and maintaining fiscal policy. IMO Monetary Policy (for decades) has been predominantly managed in the interests of the finance dominated South East, in some cases having a profoundly detrimental effect on the Scottish Economy. By its very nature, Monetary Policy can only target the economy as a whole. Fiscal policy is much more specific. An independent Scottish Government would be able to take fiscal policy decisions in Scotland's interest, something we are unable to do within the current framework.

3. No, but some of the arguments on this thread appear to be suggesting that we'd have less Independence under the settlement being proposed by the SNP Government than we have at the moment. This is just plain nonsense. Under the SNP proposals we'd have a Sovereign Independent State where governmental decisions would be taken in the interests of Scotland. FWIW, if a future Scottish Government should decide to establish it's own currency or propose withdrawal from the EU that would be a decision for the Scottish Electorate to take at that point in time. Everything does not have to be set in stone the day after the referendum. The Governance of any country is 'fluid' why would, or should, an Independent Scotland be any different.

[RyeSloan]

1. If 'laboured' is a couple of lines then fair enough. 2. I'm not (for one minute) suggesting that monetary & fiscal policy are mutually exclusive. What I would argue though is that Scotland within a 'sterling zone' could initiate a different set of fiscal policies to that of the RoUK Government. Yes, there would be some budgetary constraints to consider, but this is something every country has to consider when adopting and maintaining fiscal policy. IMO Monetary Policy (for decades) has been predominantly managed in the interests of the finance dominated South East, in some cases having a profoundly detrimental effect on the Scottish Economy. By its very nature, Monetary Policy can only target the economy as a whole. Fiscal policy is much more specific. An independent Scottish Government would be able to take fiscal policy decisions in Scotland's interest, something we are unable to do within the current framework. 3. No, but some of the arguments on this thread appear to be suggesting that we'd have less Independence under the settlement being proposed by the SNP Government than we have at the moment. This is just plain nonsense. Under the SNP proposals we'd have a Sovereign Independent State where governmental decisions would be taken in the interests of Scotland. FWIW, if a future Scottish Government should decide to establish it's own currency or propose withdrawal from the EU that would be a decision for the Scottish Electorate to take at that point in time. Everything does not have to be set in stone the day after the referendum. The Governance of any country is 'fluid' why would, or should, an Independent Scotland be any different.

Cool...believe it or not I don't particularly disagree. Although it could be argued that by removing the political union we do indeed lose influence over the monetary approach the BoE will take (as I don't believe it to be independent from the UK chancellors wishes). You also state that monetary policy has damaged Scotland before....there's not much in the independence proposed that would change that although I accept we may have bigger fiscal latitude to offset that at least in a short term way.


I prefer pound zone rather than sterling zone though.... :-)

[steakbake]

I found the suggestion that Ireland might be regretting it's near 100 years of independence because if the difficulties since 2008 very amusing.

In all of the various discussions they had, I'm quite sure not one of them at the time was "let's renegotiate to become part of the UK". Indeed, for many years, Ireland was hailed as an example of a flourishing economic entity by chancellors of the UK and Scottish independence enthusiasts alike!

I doubt there are any countries where the choice of your own nationhood would be trader in.

[green glory]

This seems to be passing under most people's radar. Westminster in the process of re establishing national service. The bill is already at an advanced stage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

[BroxburnHibee]

This seems to be passing under most people's radar. Westminster in the process of re establishing national service. The bill is already at an advanced stage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

Only applies to England & Wales :greengrin

Private members bill - so unlikely to make it through I would have thought

[green glory]

Only applies to England & Wales :greengrin Private members bill - so unlikely to make it through I would have thought

Yes, but a situation where it's applied in only England and Wales is only going to fuel more resentment south of the border, and is maybe an indication they expect independence to happen.

[marinello59]

Yes, but a situation where it's applied in only England and Wales is only going to fuel more resentment south of the border, and is maybe an indication they expect independence to happen.

They? It's not coming from the Government.

[IndieHibby]

I found the suggestion that Ireland might be regretting it's near 100 years of independence because if the difficulties since 2008 very amusing.

In all of the various discussions they had, I'm quite sure not one of them at the time was "let's renegotiate to become part of the UK". Indeed, for many years, Ireland was hailed as an example of a flourishing economic entity by chancellors of the UK and Scottish independence enthusiasts alike!

I doubt there are any countries where the choice of your own nationhood would be trader in.

If you are referring to my comment (not sure if you are) then I meant that I would rather have the lower GDP and higher employment on offer in the UK, rather than the higher unemployment and random, unfair and high taxes on offer in Ireland.

Nothing to do with 100 years of Independence, and everything to do with being financially directed from Brussels.

Having said that, their housing market is something to be envied (if you are a buyer, not a seller.) :wink:

[IndieHibby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10384297/Europes-debt-crisis-credibility-hangs-on-thin-Irish-thread.html

[21.05.2016]

100% NO from me

[Glory Lurker]

100% NO from me


Can I ask why?

[itslegaltender]

I am firmly in the NO/ Better Together approach

Please remember it's not Scottish independence versus eternally Tory and no longer being Scottish.

I agree that Scotland should make certain decisions about communities where national agenda does not fit. Drawing away from Britain entirely is not the answer as powers can be devolved whilst still benefitting from being part of Westminster (financially and being in a competitive political arena). I've always found it ironic that the Scots want independence so badly when it's the Scots using a large proportion of English tax payers money for free healthcare and free University.

I dislike the the SNP because they are too idillic. They have failed so many of their bigger pre-election campaign headlines such as dropping student debt. Now they are sacrificing a whole country based on forecasts of tourism and oil, of which neither are sustainable.
Only a few days ago SNP was caught out saying to the public that taxes wouldn't go up when at the same time he had published papers saying they WOULD.

A few people have spoken about the idea why should we be governed by a different country. If we look on it as Britain, we can fight it as one. It's about putting heads together have having more innovation and ideas. Personally I'd rather be imminent on the international stage than fighting a small cause for Scotland. As much as we hate to think of ourselves as "british", Britain have done wonders in the world, building up an image (some better than others- everyone has their view). I would rather put a £44 million programme towards strengthening healthcare in South Africa than a Scottish £3 million programme.

Looking at the Republic of Ireland, I don't think they have benefitted from independence. Prices have hiked up (perhaps due to the Euro, but not out of the question to cover all the proposed ideas the SNP have). Ireland have also become a hub for immigration, seen as an easy option for students and workers, as UK regulations are so tight. I fully agree with fluid immigrant but for adding skills value (and that works both ways).

Our memberships as an independent Scotland would also not remain. For example the G8, the BBC, guaranteed EU membership and being in the UK gives a greater voice to the UN and beyond.

If none of the above influences you, what about Nicola Sturgeons voice? That alone would put me in the NO/Better Together camp.

Re your point on Republic of Ireland. How many of them would now vote to part of the Union once more?

[green glory]

How do we start a poll on the subject? It would be interesting if nothing else.

:cb

[yeezus.]

How do we start a poll on the subject? It would be interesting if nothing else.

:cb

I think there was one on a previous Scottish independence thread (possibly Beefster would know for sure). I'm looking forward to the Scottish government's white paper and hope we can put a few issues to bed.

[PeeJay]

New Asterix book out today, apparently Asterix is a strong supporter of the case for Scottish Independence, seems he is also a Hibs fan! :greengrin

[Jack]

Anyone, on either side or even the undecided, care to comment on the McCrone Report?

The McCrone Report - A Thirty Year Secret (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7466-the-mccrone-report-a-thirty-year-secret-)

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyone, on either side or even the undecided, care to comment on the McCrone Report?

The McCrone Report - A Thirty Year Secret (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7466-the-mccrone-report-a-thirty-year-secret-)

Consecutive Labour and Tory governments have lied to the Scottish people long before that report was made and have been lying to us since it was made public.

What surprises me most about this is that some folks still don't believe it or are surprised by it.

[IndieHibby]

1. Lying *******s.
2. Always knew they were lying *******s anyway
3. Much of the report explains why an economically sovereign Scotland would find it hard to devalue enough to make a dent in unemployment etc.
4. Scotland is economically and socially highly networked with the rest of the UK and would therefore still be affected by policy decisions made in London, but with no mandate on those decisions.

[VickMackie]

Anyone, on either side or even the undecided, care to comment on the McCrone Report?

The McCrone Report - A Thirty Year Secret (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7466-the-mccrone-report-a-thirty-year-secret-)

Thanks for this.


This is the thing for me. I expect this same arguement to stand. Any ideas where we'd stand in international law on splitting based on population. It does go on to state that the EEC laws signed up to (have they changed) would give us the oil.

If we do vote Yes then its clear they're going to shaft Scotland and keep as much as possible.


Two possible lines of argument may be expected: either that Scotland should pay England some compensation for appropriating the most productive part of the Continental Shelf, or that the whole shelf should be regarded as the common property of the nations of the former United Kingdom with revenue distributed in accordance with some population based formula irrespective of where oil is discovered.

As regards the first of the arguments, the prospective return from oil revenue would at the very least be one of the factors taken in to account in determining the financial settlement between the two countries when they become independent. To argue the second would be directly counter to the line that the UK Government has taken with the EEC, that the resources of the Continental Shelf are as much a national asset as are those on land, like coal mines, and that there is therefore no question of the Europeanisation of North Sea oil.

Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if she had been independent all along.
There might be some argument about where the boundary between English and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along the line of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border. This could have the effect of transferring the small oilfields in the south, Auk and Argyll, to the English sector, but would not affect the main finds.




This is utterly amazing. SNP said 800m and the government had said 100m. It then goes on to say it would be anythink between 2,000 and 5,000m.


Thus, all that is wrong now with the SNP estimate is that it is far too low; there is a prospect of Government oil revenues in 1980 which could greatly exceed the present Government revenue in Scotland from all sources and could even be comparable in size to the whole of the Scottish national income in 1970.


I've not made up my mind on independance but a lot of what I've read, albeit only the first few pages, is still relevant today.

[lucky]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.

But isn't that satisfying voters demands and pretty much the whole basis of democracy?

[southfieldhibby]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.

Two things.

I'm voting YES for Scotland, not The SNP.Scotland will be around a whole lot longer than any political party

Further Devlotion (Devo Max) won't happen.Infact, the seeds of reducing devolution have already been planted.Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.

[HarpyHibby]

They hid the McCrone report last time around, what are they hiding this time?

Think it's time for another poll on here, I'll post one just now. It will be good to compare with the previous one to see if there has been a swing either way.

[HarpyHibby]

No need for any debate on this thread, there's another thread for that! It's been a while since the last poll on here and I'd be interested to see if there has been a swing either way.

[southfieldhibby]

They hid the McCrone report last time around, what are they hiding this time?




The triple-the-size oil/gas field in the west coast that they keep untapped so nuclear submarines can scurry about, unhindered?

[green glory]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.

I hope you can live with the 80,000 people, 64,000 of which are disabled who are being pushed into rent arrears and ultimately eviction because of the bedroom tax. This is being caused by the UK government, but it will be the first act of our newly independent parliament to abolish it. Well worth voting yes for I would say.

But many will vote no, because the above doesn't affect them. I actually have some very middle class in-laws who simply can't digest the unpleasant truths about the past conduct of and continuing incompetence of the Westminster government. As long as they're ok.

Over 100,000 dead in Iraq. Obsolete and dangerous nuclear weapons on the Clyde, which according to the MOD's own words, couldn't be based at Plymouth because of the risk to the 200,000 or so residents nearby. The 600,000 plus of Glasgow and the surrounding areas however are expendable. The submarines are now leaking radiation with alarming frequency too.

Military cuts in Scotland have proceeded at over 2.5 times that of the UK in the last 13 years. Soon to be 1 airfield, and no major surface vessels based in Scotland now for a very very long time. The assets are being moved. In short Independence is now expected by the MOD.

The 40 years and hundreds of billions from the north sea, from which Scotland has only benefitted piecemeal, as capital project after capital project in London and the south east is bankrolled by our natural resources.

Scotland has the highest GDP of any constituent part of the UK with the exception of London. Scotch Whisky alone in monetary terms accounts for 25% of the entire UK's food and drink exports.

We have the infrastructure, we have the money and we have the expertise. It's how we use them that's important.

[green glory]

I'm voting no but for change, we can have the best of both worlds by further devolution. What's being offered by the SNP is independence by opinion poll. They have changed their policies so much on the Queen, currency, NATO to name a few, just to try and con voters.


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8273-torylabour-run-council-sends-out-bedroom-tax-eviction-letters

[marinello59]

Two things.

I'm voting YES for Scotland, not The SNP.Scotland will be around a whole lot longer than any political party

Further Devlotion (Devo Max) won't happen.Infact, the seeds of reducing devolution have already been planted.Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.

Westminster will scale back devolution? Yet it was announced yesterday that the Welsh parliament is to be offered more powers? :confused:

[Beefster]

Further Devlotion (Devo Max) won't happen.Infact, the seeds of reducing devolution have already been planted.Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.

Evidence please?

The 'debate' leading up to the referendum is going to do far more damage to Scotland than whatever the result eventually turns out to be. Lies, lies and more untruths on both sides. Part of the reason why a large proportion of the population isn't listening any more.

[southfieldhibby]

Evidence please?

The 'debate' leading up to the referendum is going to do far more damage to Scotland than whatever the result eventually turns out to be. Lies, lies and more untruths on both sides. Part of the reason why a large proportion of the population isn't listening any more.

As I said, seeds.Call me a liar all you like and ask for evidence, but be gracious enough to retract when provided with said evidence.Unless you can disprove any of the following links?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/in-out-and-shaking-it-all-about/

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1296301.ece

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-an-all-or-nothing-independence-vote-1-3034293

[southfieldhibby]

Incidentally, the best debate, from both sides, I've seen on the whole internet is on jamboskickback, think its 95 pages long now so quite a slog, but can be picked up anywhere.

[Beefster]

As I said, seeds.Call me a liar all you like and ask for evidence, but be gracious enough to retract when provided with said evidence.Unless you can disprove any of the following links?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/in-out-and-shaking-it-all-about/

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1296301.ece

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-an-all-or-nothing-independence-vote-1-3034293

You said "Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.". No "In my opinion" or "it's possible that", you definitively stated "will".

None of the links are evidence that Westminster WILL scale back the powers of Holyrood in the event of a 'no' vote. One's some random's musing from the looks of it, one's from an eighty-one year old who retired from politics in 2005 and the other appears to be a columnist from the Scotsman.

[marinello59]

As I said, seeds.Call me a liar all you like and ask for evidence, but be gracious enough to retract when provided with said evidence.Unless you can disprove any of the following links?

http://wingsoverscotland.com/in-out-and-shaking-it-all-about/

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1296301.ece

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-kelly-an-all-or-nothing-independence-vote-1-3034293

And how does Westminster offering the devolved Welsh administration more powers fit in with your 'proof'? Or are you just ignoring that?
I am all for honest debate, simply making stuff up just turns people off.

[Hibrandenburg]

And how does Westminster offering the devolved Welsh administration more powers fit in with your 'proof'? Or are you just ignoring that?
I am all for honest debate, simply making stuff up just turns people off.

:agree: All that stuff that the government made up and forgot to report certainly kept the turnout down back at the last vote.

[Future17]

:agree: All that stuff that the Thatcher government made up and forgot to report certainly kept the turnout down back at the last vote.

:confused:

[Hibrandenburg]

:confused:

In 1979 a vote was held on devolution during the Callaghan administration. The government at the time had access to a report commissioned by the Labour government that unequivocally proved that an independent Scotland would be financially much better off than a Scotland within the Union.

If the government at that time had come clean and made the report public instead of hiding it away and actually claiming the opposite of what the report showed then the outcome of the vote would have been very different. Or put in simple terms-WE WERE CONNED!

[Beefster]

:agree: All that stuff that the Thatcher government made up and forgot to report certainly kept the turnout down back at the last vote.

If you're talking about the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979, James Callaghan was the Labour Prime Minister at the time and Labour had been in power for five years.

[Hibrandenburg]

If you're talking about the referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979, James Callaghan was the Labour Prime Minister at the time and Labour had been in power for five years.

I stand corrected, your right it was the vote to repeal that took place shortly afterwards under Thatcher.

Bit early for me but the points still stand, WE WUZ ROBBED.

[marinello59]

:agree: All that stuff that the government made up and forgot to report certainly kept the turnout down back at the last vote.

You are missing the point I was actually making but we turned up in large enough numbers in '97
As it looks like you actually meant '79 then that vote was scuppered by the ridiculous 40% rule more than anything else.

[yeezus.]

I hope you can live with the 80,000 people, 64,000 of which are disabled who are being pushed into rent arrears and ultimately eviction because of the bedroom tax. This is being caused by the UK government, but it will be the first act of our newly independent parliament to abolish it. Well worth voting yes for I would say.

But many will vote no, because the above doesn't affect them. I actually have some very middle class in-laws who simply can't digest the unpleasant truths about the past conduct of and continuing incompetence of the Westminster government. As long as they're ok.

Over 100,000 dead in Iraq. Obsolete and dangerous nuclear weapons on the Clyde, which according to the MOD's own words, couldn't be based at Plymouth because of the risk to the 200,000 or so residents nearby. The 600,000 plus of Glasgow and the surrounding areas however are expendable. The submarines are now leaking radiation with alarming frequency too.

Military cuts in Scotland have proceeded at over 2.5 times that of the UK in the last 13 years. Soon to be 1 airfield, and no major surface vessels based in Scotland now for a very very long time. The assets are being moved. In short Independence is now expected by the MOD.

The 40 years and hundreds of billions from the north sea, from which Scotland has only benefitted piecemeal, as capital project after capital project in London and the south east is bankrolled by our natural resources.

Scotland has the highest GDP of any constituent part of the UK with the exception of London. Scotch Whisky alone in monetary terms accounts for 25% of the entire UK's food and drink exports.

We have the infrastructure, we have the money and we have the expertise. It's how we use them that's important.

Like it or not, the "Bedroom tax" isn't a tax at all, it's a reduction in benefits to those with a spare room.

[VickMackie]

Like it or not, the "Bedroom tax" isn't a tax at all, it's a reduction in benefits to those with a spare room.

Is there sufficient housing capacity to move all of those with a spare room?

[Peevemor]

Is there sufficient housing capacity to move all of those with a spare room?

Nowhere near it.

[thefifer1959]

Labour, tory's lib-dems. not much to pick from any one of those lot heading the Scottish parliament just means we still getting controlled from England, before they can pass any legislation it has to be sent down south to their masters to get approval. why do you think that no one from the parties in question said to the SNP well done on gaining the majority in Scotland, they all found out that they couldn't dictate what we can do or cannot do. so my vote next year is a big resounding YES.

also the money That Scotland sends down south is a lot more than the 32bil we get back.



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.

[Beefster]

Is there sufficient housing capacity to move all of those with a spare room?


Nowhere near it.

What about the houses that the families desperate for an extra room would vacate?

[Hibrandenburg]

What about the houses that the families desperate for an extra room would vacate?

Forced house swapping, now there's an idea.

[marinello59]

What about the houses that the families desperate for an extra room would vacate?

They are handed over to English politicians to use as holiday homes. FACT.

[Beefster]

Forced house swapping, now there's an idea.

I don't think anyone's being forced to do anything. Good job at trying to make it sound almost Nazi-esque though.

Either way, we should definitely leave folk homeless and families all having to sleep in one bedroom so that no-one gets their nose put out of joint or loses their unneeded spare room.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't think anyone's being forced to do anything. Good job at trying to make it sound almost Nazi-esque though.

Either way, we should definitely leave folk homeless and families all having to sleep in one bedroom so that no-one gets their nose put out of joint or loses their unneeded spare room.

The general undertones of your post would suggest you're against investing in new housing. I would have thought that's better than forcing folks to swap their homes. New more energy efficient homes would make more sense but maybe the investment to do so will get lost on the way from Westminster, after all we're only a small proportion of the electorate.

[yeezus.]

Is there sufficient housing capacity to move all of those with a spare room?

No. Still doesn't make it a tax though.

[Beefster]

The general undertones of your post would suggest you're against investing in new housing. I would have thought that's better than forcing folks to swap their homes. New more energy efficient homes would make more sense but maybe the investment to do so will get lost on the way from Westminster, after all we're only a small proportion of the electorate.

I'm pro whatever it takes to make social housing meet the needs of the folk that choose/have to use it. If that means encouraging folk to give up houses that are too big for their requirements so be it.

I don't know about where you live but where I live in East Lothian, there are a fair number of new social houses/flats being built. It still won't be enough though whilst folk are sitting in bigger houses that they need.

[Just Alf]

I'm pro whatever it takes to make social housing meet the needs of the folk that choose/have to use it. If that means encouraging folk to give up houses that are too big for their requirements so be it.

I don't know about where you live but where I live in East Lothian, there are a fair number of new social houses/flats being built. It still won't be enough though whilst folk are sitting in bigger houses that they need.

My neighbour has a 2 bedroom house, they had 2 kids, who shared until they moved out she's all on her own now but the family regularly have someone there to look after her and save her needing to move into a home but Anne's being pestered re that "spare" room!

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm pro whatever it takes to make social housing meet the needs of the folk that choose/have to use it. If that means encouraging folk to give up houses that are too big for their r'equirements so be it.

I don't know about where you live but where I live in East Lothian, there are a fair number of new social houses/flats being built. It still won't be enough though whilst folk are sitting in bigger houses that they need.

Pro what ever it takes includes forcing people out of their homes for having a room too many to solve the housing problem, really? That's not Nazi-esque that's Stalinist.

[VickMackie]

What about the houses that the families desperate for an extra room would vacate?

Why not have a list that people are on who are willing to swap and don't charge them whilst on the list waiting for a swap?

[Beefster]

Pro what ever it takes includes forcing people out of their homes for having a room too many to solve the housing problem, really? That's not Nazi-esque that's Stalinist.

Aye, I'm a Stalinist. Busted.

I think it's the lack of perspective that I love most about some folk on here.

[yeezus.]

Why not have a list that people are on who are willing to swap and don't charge them whilst on the list waiting for a swap?

I don't agree with the measure by the way, I just don't think it should be labelled a tax.

[Hibrandenburg]

Aye, I'm a Stalinist. Busted.

I think it's the lack of perspective that I love most about some folk on here.

:agree: Absolutely mind boggling isn't it?

[green glory]

I don't think anyone's being forced to do anything. Good job at trying to make it sound almost Nazi-esque though. Either way, we should definitely leave folk homeless and families all having to sleep in one bedroom so that no-one gets their nose put out of joint or loses their unneeded spare room.

Your argument is actually perfectly sound, and in principle I'm in total agreement.

Unfortunately the reality is there aren't the single bedroom properties available to move the affected people to. Even if there were it would mean moving tens of thousands of mainly disabled and elderly out of their homes, with the attendant risks their health and well being.

[RyeSloan]

Your argument is actually perfectly sound, and in principle I'm in total agreement. Unfortunately the reality is there aren't the single bedroom properties available to move the affected people to. Even if there were it would mean moving tens of thousands of mainly disabled and elderly out of their homes, with the attendant risks their health and well being.

Another consequence of longer lived populace.

The concept of one or two people living in a two or three bedroom house for another 20 years just because they have done for 20 years prior brining up a family but at the same time denying other young families that choice is a strange one.

I don't particularly agree with the approach the policy has taken (carrots tend to be better than sticks) but as this is rented housing the landlords surely need to have some way of actively managing their stock to best meet demand?

[Just Alf]

I read in the news that BAE are suggesting there might be large job cuts at a number of dockyards. I thought this MOD work was heralded as one of the key losses if went down the independence route?

[Smiggy 7-0]

I read in the news that BAE are suggesting there might be large job cuts at a number of dockyards. I thought this MOD work was heralded as one of the key losses if went down the independence route?
Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.

[southfieldhibby]

You said "Westminster will scale back the powers of Holyrood post NO vote, they'll ensure we never have the opportunity at independence again.". No "In my opinion" or "it's possible that", you definitively stated "will".

None of the links are evidence that Westminster WILL scale back the powers of Holyrood in the event of a 'no' vote. One's some random's musing from the looks of it, one's from an eighty-one year old who retired from politics in 2005 and the other appears to be a columnist from the Scotsman.

Apologies, your pedantry wins.I did mean 'in my opinion'.

[steakbake]

Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.

Well, it RUK doesn't have facilities now that Portsmouth has been closed.

A very political decision which I think, will stoke resentment in the rest of the UK.

Govan/Rosyth are protected species - could you imagine if they had closed and how much that would have handed to Yes Scotland?

[VickMackie]

I don't agree with the measure by the way, I just don't think it should be labelled a tax.

If you have a forced payment you need to make to the government and no options to downsize then I would class that as a tax. If this was a fully thoughtout scheme where the aim was to make better use of the housing capacity then there would be no need to charge people unless they were unwilling to move.

[jodjam]

Snp lad at pmqs Westminster just played a blinder. Simply stated he was stunned that Cameron / milliband had been arguing about everything apart from 1800 job losses.(it was Angus Robertson )

It's a fair point as I expected it to be main focal point.

[RyeSloan]

If you have a forced payment you need to make to the government and no options to downsize then I would class that as a tax. If this was a fully thoughtout scheme where the aim was to make better use of the housing capacity then there would be no need to charge people unless they were unwilling to move.

No expert in this but my understanding is that it's not a forced payment..hence why it's not a tax.

It's a reduction in benefit to reflect the fact that the government no longer wishes to subsidise people's rental for properties they have deemed to large for that persons use.

Effectively they are saying the state will pay your accommodation costs for the minimum you require, if you wish to remain in a larger (and hence more expensive) property then you will be expected to make up that rental difference.

As with all benefits this may sound sensible at the macro level but the devil is in the detail and will impact individuals to a different degree.

[500miles]

Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.

They seem happy enought to have all the support ships, oil tankers etc. contracted out to Korea. The majority of jobs in Portsmouth are ship maintenance and repairs, which will remain.

The truth is, Govan is losing almost as many jobs as Portsmouth, with about a 45/55% split, after Portsmouth was recommeded for closure by BAE two years ago!

This is a commercial decision, which it is in the governments interest to dress up as pro-Scottish politics.

[southfieldhibby]

Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.

MoD award contracts for ships to either BAE or Babcocks in general, I think.The same BAE who've just emptied 1800 people today.A promise to reopen Portsmouth if Scotland votes YES is crass in the extreme, but politiking at its finest.

I can understand why and agree that an independent Scotland shouldn't build warships for The UK as they would be subject to official secrets etc.The same immediate curtailment of ship building for the MoD should be applied to any vessels subject to the same secrecy in Scottish waters,yes?

And our good pals over the North Sea seem to have a thriving ship building economy without the ever benevolent MOD
http://www.shipbuildingnorway.com/volume-17/ships-delivered-in-2012-2/

[yeezus.]

If you have a forced payment you need to make to the government and no options to downsize then I would class that as a tax. If this was a fully thoughtout scheme where the aim was to make better use of the housing capacity then there would be no need to charge people unless they were unwilling to move.

Here's the definition of a tax: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue levied by government on personal income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, service and transactions".

Giving someone less in housing benefit is therefore not a tax.

[southfieldhibby]

Here's another thought on BAE/MOD.

The MoD will only offer contracts for naval vessels to UK shipyards.BAE are their preferred partner.BAE have invested time/money into people/infrastructure on the Clyde/Rosyth.Indy Scotland will need to invest in Navy, offers the same deal to BAE to keep/upgrade/expand workforce in Scotland on basis they're #1 supplier.

Scotland gets new ships/asset/more tax payers.BAE gets another partner.Portsmouth reopens courtesy of Scottish indy.

You're welcome Portsmouth :greengrin

[Beefster]

Well, it RUK doesn't have facilities now that Portsmouth has been closed.

A very political decision which I think, will stoke resentment in the rest of the UK.

Govan/Rosyth are protected species - could you imagine if they had closed and how much that would have handed to Yes Scotland?


They seem happy enought to have all the support ships, oil tankers etc. contracted out to Korea. The majority of jobs in Portsmouth are ship maintenance and repairs, which will remain.

The truth is, Govan is losing almost as many jobs as Portsmouth, with about a 45/55% split, after Portsmouth was recommeded for closure by BAE two years ago!

This is a commercial decision, which it is in the governments interest to dress up as pro-Scottish politics.

Damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

[VickMackie]

Here's the definition of a tax: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue levied by government on personal income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, service and transactions".

Giving someone less in housing benefit is therefore not a tax.

Technically not a tax but the only option if you can't afford it is to be made homeless. Definition of *****.

[yeezus.]

Technically not a tax but the only option if you can't afford it is to be made homeless. Definition of *****.

Let's call it an unpopular welfare reform :aok:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pro what ever it takes includes forcing people out of their homes for having a room too many to solve the housing problem, really? That's not Nazi-esque that's Stalinist.

Where did people get the idea that their rented home is their's for life. Even more, where did they get the idea that they should have extra space in their houses subsidised?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Does anyone honestly think that the MOD for the rest of the UK will award any contracts to an independant Scotland when it has facilities to do this work in it's own country....NEVER and rightly so.

These jobs will always be a political football, moved around to suit the vagaries of whoever is in power at Westminster. I think it's time our jobs stopped being a political football.

If the MOD can get work done in Malta, why not Scotland as a Commonwealth partner? Surely they are bound to get the best deal for the English taxpayer?

Classic British government - divide and rule.

[green glory]

11288

[green glory]

Where did people get the idea that their rented home is their's for life. Even more, where did they get the idea that they should have extra space in their houses subsidised?

So what's your solution for where to put all these disabled and elderly people who are so selfishly taking up too much space. Bearing in mind there aren't enough single bedroom properties to move them to?

[Phil D. Rolls]

So what's your solution for where to put all these disabled and elderly people who are so selfishly taking up too much space. Bearing in mind there aren't enough single bedroom properties to move them to?

Allocate housing according to people's current needs, not their needs 15 years ago. It's what town councils used to do. Is it fair for teenage kids of the opposite sex to be sharing bedrooms?

[Jack]

In an effort to get an agreement on this bedroom malarkey can I suggest the way this reform has been considered and implemented has been an absolute shocker?

Maybe if there was already an expectation for people in social housing to move around to better suit their own needs and that of society this current furore wouldn't have happened.

For such a thing to happen however the changes would have needed to be brought in gradually to give people time to get their heads round it and all the anomalies ironed out. Probably longer than a single term in office which is why politicians canny deal with it either humanely or effectively.

I don't really see what this has to do with independence though as its just a typical clash between political parties and I'd expect similar to happen in the future, independence or not.

[yeezus.]

In an effort to get an agreement on this bedroom malarkey can I suggest the way this reform has been considered and implemented has been an absolute shocker?

Maybe if there was already an expectation for people in social housing to move around to better suit their own needs and that of society this current furore wouldn't have happened.

For such a thing to happen however the changes would have needed to be brought in gradually to give people time to get their heads round it and all the anomalies ironed out. Probably longer than a single term in office which is why politicians canny deal with it either humanely or effectively.

I don't really see what this has to do with independence though as its just a typical clash between political parties and I'd expect similar to happen in the future, independence or not.

I agree that the measure is wrong but I'm sure it was mentioned on a Yes campaign leaflet that came through my door - blaming another apparent injustice against Scots by the big bad politicians in London.

[RyeSloan]

In an effort to get an agreement on this bedroom malarkey can I suggest the way this reform has been considered and implemented has been an absolute shocker? Maybe if there was already an expectation for people in social housing to move around to better suit their own needs and that of society this current furore wouldn't have happened. For such a thing to happen however the changes would have needed to be brought in gradually to give people time to get their heads round it and all the anomalies ironed out. Probably longer than a single term in office which is why politicians canny deal with it either humanely or effectively. I don't really see what this has to do with independence though as its just a typical clash between political parties and I'd expect similar to happen in the future, independence or not.

Not entirely sure what it's got to do with independence barring the fact it's a Westminster policy...there is of course nothing to say such a policy, or another equally controversial, would not be applied by a fully independent Scottish parliament.

As for the policy itself I agree...the principal if using public sector rented accommodation as effectively as possible is surely a sound one, the approach taken here which is effectively a stick with no carrot and for a lot of people no option but to get beaten by that stick even if they wanted to move (which they can't as the housing stock is not there to facilitate all the required movements) is surely a flawed one.

It is a classic case though that shows just how difficult benefit reform is. Once a benefit is provided it's extremely difficult to reform it without a significant number of people being impacted. Those impacted will therefore fight hard to retain that benefit. In the meantime government spending continues to substantially outstrip receipts and the national debt continues to grow.

I see recently that the rate of growth in spending is finally starting to drop under the rate of growth of tax receipts but there is such a long way to go it seems almost impossible that in the current environment any government of any colour actually has the ability or political will to sort out this mess.

[Glory Lurker]

I agree that the measure is wrong but I'm sure it was mentioned on a Yes campaign leaflet that came through my door - blaming another apparent injustice against Scots by the big bad politicians in London.


Bringing this back on topic, presumably then you are happy that the government in London is only overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish electorate most of the time, and not all of it?

[yeezus.]

Bringing this back on topic, presumably then you are happy that the government in London is only overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish electorate most of the time, and not all of it?

No I'm not happy about that, but it's not like we overwhelmingly endorse the SNP, Labour are by far the biggest party in Scotland when it comes to UK elections.

[Glory Lurker]

No I'm not happy about that, but it's not like we overwhelmingly endorse the SNP, Labour are by far the biggest party in Scotland when it comes to UK elections.


But that's exactly my point. We never vote Tory (and barely vote LibDem (and what vote they had up to 2010 seems to have evaporated)), but more often than not, that's who we get at Westminster. A "no" vote guarantees that continues.

[marinello59]

But that's exactly my point. We never vote Tory (and barely vote LibDem (and what vote they had up to 2010 seems to have evaporated)), but more often than not, that's who we get at Westminster. A "no" vote guarantees that continues.

Scotland voted Tory until the mid sixties when Labour became the majority party. How many years of Blair and co did we get again? The SNP's North East heartlands were rock solid Tory until the rise of the SNP and there is a fair chance they will be again if we vote for independence and the SNP become redundant. The Tory 'brand' will also be much less toxic when they are a completely Scottish party.
Voting yes simply because you don't like the Tories is as illogical as voting no because you don't like Salmond

[yeezus.]

But that's exactly my point. We never vote Tory (and barely vote LibDem (and what vote they had up to 2010 seems to have evaporated)), but more often than not, that's who we get at Westminster. A "no" vote guarantees that continues.

Very good point. I'm struggling to see any positivity from Better Together to be honest!

[Glory Lurker]

Scotland voted Tory until the mid sixties when Labour became the majority party. How many years of Blair and co did we get again? The SNP's North East heartlands were rock solid Tory until the rise of the SNP and there is a fair chance they will be again if we vote for independence and the SNP become redundant. The Tory 'brand' will also be much less toxic when they are a completely Scottish party.
Voting yes simply because you don't like the Tories is as illogical as voting no because you don't like Salmond


I'm not saying vote yes to avoid ever having a right-wing government. I'm saying vote yes so that Scotland gets what it votes for.

[yeezus.]

I'm not saying vote yes to avoid ever having a right-wing government. I'm saying vote yes so that Scotland gets what it votes for.

Do you think the Scottish parliament works well within the UK? What annoys me is Scottish Labour are yet to come up with a grand alternative to independence.

[marinello59]

I'm not saying vote yes to avoid ever having a right-wing government. I'm saying vote yes so that Scotland gets what it votes for.

Like the 13 years of New Labour?

[Glory Lurker]

Do you think the Scottish parliament works well within the UK? What annoys me is Scottish Labour are yet to come up with a grand alternative to independence.

I'm probably too biased to answer that question impartially! I campaigned for it and was over the moon when we got it, but I have always seen it as a stepping stone to independence, a way of proving to ourselves that we can actually hold the levers of power.

[Glory Lurker]

Like the 13 years of New Labour?

No arguing with that. Just under half the time, we get who we vote for. I personally don't think that's good enough, however.

[yeezus.]

I'm probably too biased to answer that question impartially! I campaigned for it and was over the moon when we got it, but I have always seen it as a stepping stone to independence, a way of proving to ourselves that we can actually hold the levers of power.

Fair enough. However I guess a lot of people in the "no" camp would say we know Scotland can manage on it's own but we would rather not see England, Wales and NI foreign countries? I'm not impartial either. I'm a member of a party as well!

[marinello59]

No arguing with that. Just under half the time, we get who we vote for. I personally don't think that's good enough, however.

When we have an independent Scotland ruled by a Labour party voted in by the central belt do you think the mainly Lib-Dem voting Scottish Islands should push for Independence so they get the Government they voted for too? :devil:

[Glory Lurker]

When we have an independent Scotland ruled by a Labour party voted in by the central belt do you think the mainly Lib-Dem voting Scottish Islands should push for Independence so they get the Government they voted for too? :devil:


Nice try! They're not a signatory to any union with the rest of Scotland, so I don't see a parallel at all here. As it happens, though, I do support devolution as a concept, and Shetland in particular would seem a good candidate for additional powers. That would be up to them.

[marinello59]

Nice try! They're not a signatory to any union with the rest of Scotland, so I don't see a parallel at all here. As it happens, though, I do support devolution as a concept, and Shetland in particular would seem a good candidate for additional powers. That would be up to them.
The Northern Isles will probably vote No to independence. Maybe they could simply remain as part of the UK whilst the rest of Scotland goes it alone. :greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

Fair enough. However I guess a lot of people in the "no" camp would say we know Scotland can manage on it's own but we would rather not see England, Wales and NI foreign countries? I'm not impartial either. I'm a member of a party as well!

I don't get this big "foreign" thing. It does seem to be a pre-occupation with the no campaign, and a bizzare one at that given that a lot of the talking heads for your side are Labour people who are supposed to be inclusive folk. What's wrong with foreigners? All we'd be doing would be doing things our way as a political unit. I genuinely do not see any social barriers.

[Glory Lurker]

The Northern Isles will probably vote No to independence. Maybe they could simply remain as part of the UK whilst the rest of Scotland goes it alone. :greengrin


First, not sure what you're basing your prediction on. Second, you could apply that argument to any constituency, town, street, house or bedroom that voted one way or the other. Third, you are talking about partition:eek:. Fourth, I am taking all this too seriously! :greengrin Fifth, I'm off to have a beer.

Thanks for the joust!

[Beefster]

No arguing with that. Just under half the time, we get who we vote for. I personally don't think that's good enough, however.

The same applies to any particular area of five million or so within the UK. It's a UK election and the UK gets what it votes for.

What happens in an independent Scotland when Shetland votes for a Lib Dem MSP and never get a Lib Dem government? Presumably, they should vote for independence from Scotland so that they can get what they vote for?

Incidentally, East Lothian gets exactly what it votes for in the UK General Election - a Labour MP.

[steakbake]

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath voted for a Labour MP and ended up with one of the most part time representatives there's been - even recently denying to an audience that he's a politician before someone reminded him he's a member of parliament.

He's on full time expenses though.

PS: not having a go at Labour with that, just can't stand Gordon Brown.

[yeezus.]

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath voted for a Labour MP and ended up with one of the most part time representatives there's been - even recently denying to an audience that he's a politician before someone reminded him he's a member of parliament.

He's on full time expenses though.

PS: not having a go at Labour with that, just can't stand Gordon Brown.

I expected Brown to have a bigger part in the pro-union campaign to be honest, not herd much since his speech in Edinburgh.

[steakbake]

I expected Brown to have a bigger part in the pro-union campaign to be honest, not herd much since his speech in Edinburgh.

I'm sure he'll contribute in some way, but I reckon Brown is a lot more toxic than some folk in the Scottish political firmament are willing to agree that he is.

[Beefster]

I expected Brown to have a bigger part in the pro-union campaign to be honest, not herd much since his speech in Edinburgh.

Brown's like political arsenic. He's better well away from the campaign.

[Glory Lurker]

The same applies to any particular area of five million or so within the UK. It's a UK election and the UK gets what it votes for.

What happens in an independent Scotland when Shetland votes for a Lib Dem MSP and never get a Lib Dem government? Presumably, they should vote for independence from Scotland so that they can get what they vote for?

Incidentally, East Lothian gets exactly what it votes for in the UK General Election - a Labour MP.


Scotland cannot be compared to any other particular area of five million people. Scotland is a constituent part of the UK, a political unit. It entered as a functioning state and can leave as one. Among lots of other reasons, I think it should leave to ensure that - as a political unit - it gets the government it actually elects.
I'm a bit lost with your Shetland example (although I know why you've chosen it - happy to get in to that barney if you want :greengrin:cb). Their Lib Dem MSP has featured in half of the Holyrood governments so far. Until the coalition at Westminster, their Lib Dem/ LibSDP/ Liberal MP has been no closer to power than possibly standing beside the PM in a lobby toilet (although presumably not Mrs T).

[marinello59]

First, not sure what you're basing your prediction on. Second, you could apply that argument to any constituency, town, street, house or bedroom that voted one way or the other. Third, you are talking about partition:eek:. Fourth, I am taking all this too seriously! :greengrin Fifth, I'm off to have a beer.

Thanks for the joust!

My prediction would be based on the fact that both Orkney and Shetland gave a massive No in the 1979 referendum. I don't think their views will have changed all that much. I am fairly sure that consider themselves more Shetlander / Orcadian than Scots. Maybe somebody from up there could let us know the score on that one.
Wasn't there an opt out for the Northern Isles in the 1978 Scotland act allowing them to continue being governed from Westminster in the event of a devolved Parliament? (I might have imagined that. :greengrin)

[yeezus.]

Brown's like political arsenic. He's better well away from the campaign.

I thought he wasn't so unpopular with Scots...?

[steakbake]

I thought he wasn't so unpopular with Scots...?

Are you joking? The man is a national embarrassment. Unless you ask him and his cronies who think he saved the world.

Why would Brown be popular? He was one of the most dismal Chancellors we had and probably the worst prime minister.

The Chinese on the other hand, love him as the guy who sold the UK gold reserves for a knock down price.

[green glory]

Are you joking? The man is a national embarrassment. Unless you ask him and his cronies who think he saved the world. Why would Brown be popular? He was one of the most dismal Chancellors we had and probably the worst prime minister. The Chinese on the other hand, love him as the guy who sold the UK gold reserves for a knock down price.

He also described himself recently as a former politician in China. Something I'm sure his constituents probably aren't to chuffed about.

[southfieldhibby]

So whats the story?Billions extra or leaded weight round our neck?Who should be listen to?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10442393/UK-economy-could-be-boosted-by-200-billion-over-20-years-according-to-oil-review.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10359533/Opec-head-blow-to-Salmond-Scotland-should-stay-in-UK.html

[green glory]

So whats the story?Billions extra or leaded weight round our neck?Who should be listen to? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10442393/UK-economy-could-be-boosted-by-200-billion-over-20-years-according-to-oil-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10359533/Opec-head-blow-to-Salmond-Scotland-should-stay-in-UK.html

Ask the Norwegians. The mill stone of oil wealth has condemned them to the highest standard of living in the world.

[frazeHFC]

:hilarious


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpmG jiokfQ2A&app=desktop

[Sylar]

Any initial thoughts on the White Paper then?

I'm not in any camp per se but there are a lot of good things contained within the document. However, as a Scottish academic, this is still a major stumbling block:


Negotiating with the Westminster government a fair funding formula for the Scottish government to contribute to the funding of university research councils

That's a £3bn uncertainty right there which directly impacts every single academic currently working at a Scottish University.

The Westminster government don't need to accommodate any such requests and I was really hoping the SNP would have outlined a plan B should negotiations not yield an answer or a productive outcome.

As I said, there are a lot of positives outlined in the case but this, for me personally, is the deal-breaker.

[lucky]

Extremely light on detail, EU membership, £, no tax increases, passport if youve live 10 years in Scotland, pensions safeguarded all to be taken as happening because Alex Salmond says so. I doubt today's SNP manifesto will sway many people to vote yes

[Just Alf]

Any initial thoughts on the White Paper then?

I'm not in any camp per se but there are a lot of good things contained within the document. However, as a Scottish academic, this is still a major stumbling block:



That's a £3bn uncertainty right there which directly impacts every single academic currently working at a Scottish University.

The Westminster government don't need to accommodate any such requests and I was really hoping the SNP would have outlined a plan B should negotiations not yield an answer or a productive outcome.

As I said, there are a lot of positives outlined in the case but this, for me personally, is the deal-breaker.

There you go... it's things like this that are the reason why I'm only "leaning" towards a Yes at the moment.

I've been banging on about Trident, London Crossrail, even the BBC previously ... all things that we put money into and get less value back, you're post shows that there are a lot of swings and roundabouts involved in all this :confused:

[Just Alf]

Extremely light on detail, EU membership, £, no tax increases, passport if youve live 10 years in Scotland, pensions safeguarded all to be taken as happening because Alex Salmond says so. I doubt today's SNP manifesto will sway many people to vote yes


The biggie for me is the £ question.

on one hand are we really saying that the Rest of UK business really want one of their most important "export" markets to move onto another currency with all the additional cost and complexity that would entail?

on the the other hand how can we say we will use the £ "full stop" "end of" "fact" etc?? (and i know the argument that Scotland owns 8-9% of the B of E but that's not enough of an argument)

[Phil D. Rolls]

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.

[speedy_gonzales]

I was really hoping the SNP would have outlined a plan B
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!

[RyeSloan]

There you go... it's things like this that are the reason why I'm only "leaning" towards a Yes at the moment. I've been banging on about Trident, London Crossrail, even the BBC previously ... all things that we put money into and get less value back, you're post shows that there are a lot of swings and roundabouts involved in all this :confused:

What makes you think we pay for London cross rail? Does a city of 3 million more residents than the whole of Scotland not generate enough economic output to pay for such things?

As for the BBC...sure BBC Scotland does not receive all of the license fee raised in Scotland but the last time I checked I had access to most of BBC's national output whenever I wanted So not sure what your argument is here.

And as for Trident. Well you either believe in nuclear deterrents or you don't but at least you can't complain about any economic benefit from maintaining the base of being felt in Scotland!

[Glory Lurker]

Judging by the time of posts, we've got some very fast readers in the .net fraternity! Must be just be that us simple "yes" people can't read as well as our unionist betters:wink:

If I could pick on certain points that I think I know the answer to:-

"Plan B"s. Who ever goes in to a negotiation saying what their plan B is?

Currency - it will be the pound (yes, full stop). Anyone can use whatever currency they like. The important thing is the currency union. Despite all the huffing and puffing, Westminster is not saying no to this, and would be mad to do so. It would run the risk of sterling ceasing to be an oil currency, plus dismember the very common market they are supposedly so keen to preserve. It wouldn't be "pre-negotiating" to say "we will not allow a currency union", it would be clarity. If it is the case that this is a non-starter, why aren't they saying it?

EU Membership - a given. Scotland is already EU territory, with over 5 million EU citizens. Assuming that we do need to get our own new membership, we are uniquely well-placed. We hold most of the EU's oil reserves, a massive share of its fisheries, and a large proportion of its renewables potential. The EU commission will not push Schengen on us as it would cause barriers within what is presently a free-trading area.

Trident - see ya. It's a negotiating tool, though. I can wait a couple years or so post-independence for it to go. At a slight tangent, SiMar talks about economic benefits of Trident. When the cost of the scheme is worked out against the purported economic benefits, does this genuinely work out in our favour? I don't know, my problem with Trident is in principle, but it would be interesting to know if this assertion really had a basis.

[Just Alf]

What makes you think we pay for London cross rail? Does a city of 3 million more residents than the whole of Scotland not generate enough economic output to pay for such things?

As for the BBC...sure BBC Scotland does not receive all of the license fee raised in Scotland but the last time I checked I had access to most of BBC's national output whenever I wanted So not sure what your argument is here.

And as for Trident. Well you either believe in nuclear deterrents or you don't but at least you can't complain about any economic benefit from maintaining the base of being felt in Scotland!

Cross rail - the finances of this are split. Very roughly, "london" tax payers are paying around 50%, railtrack (or similar, on phone so can't look it up are 20-25% and Westminster Central government are picking up the rest, from memory "our" share of that is around £44-45 million

BBC's last accounts stated they take in just shy of £199 million in licence fees from Scotland and spend just over £180 million in our programming. There's probably more complexity to it if we factor in what the bbc spends to other tv companies to then air here?

On Trident, I used to be for but now I think it's time expired, if we must spend all the money then I'd rather it was on ships, soldiers etc that are more useful day to day (Philippines etc)... I was told (not read it myself so won't hang my hat on the argument!) the Scottish tax payer contributes £3 billion(really???) towards it.... Whatever the truth I can't imagine we benefit by the amount paid in. (Open to discussion on that tho :-) )

[Sylar]

Judging by the time of posts, we've got some very fast readers in the .net fraternity! Must be just be that us simple "yes" people can't read as well as our unionist betters:wink:

If I could pick on certain points that I think I know the answer to:-

"Plan B"s. Who ever goes in to a negotiation saying what their plan B is?

Currency - it will be the pound (yes, full stop). Anyone can use whatever currency they like. The important thing is the currency union. Despite all the huffing and puffing, Westminster is not saying no to this, and would be mad to do so. It would run the risk of sterling ceasing to be an oil currency, plus dismember the very common market they are supposedly so keen to preserve. It wouldn't be "pre-negotiating" to say "we will not allow a currency union", it would be clarity. If it is the case that this is a non-starter, why aren't they saying it?

EU Membership - a given. Scotland is already EU territory, with over 5 million EU citizens. Assuming that we do need to get our own new membership, we are uniquely well-placed. We hold most of the EU's oil reserves, a massive share of its fisheries, and a large proportion of its renewables potential. The EU commission will not push Schengen on us as it would cause barriers within what is presently a free-trading area.

Trident - see ya. It's a negotiating tool, though. I can wait a couple years or so post-independence for it to go. At a slight tangent, SiMar talks about economic benefits of Trident. When the cost of the scheme is worked out against the purported economic benefits, does this genuinely work out in our favour? I don't know, my problem with Trident is in principle, but it would be interesting to know if this assertion really had a basis.

Whilst I hear what you're saying, there's far too much at stake to otherwise expect an entire work sector to vote without a semblance of plan B. The loss of that money destroys the Further Education sector in Scotland and 'we'll see what we can do' is not a valid security position.

I'm still reading it and as I said, there's a lot of good stuff for the case of independence but a lot of it is also very woolly and vague.

[PatHead]

I said on the other thread (PM) that I was undecided. I wish the UK Parliament would go over the benefits of staying in the Union rather than just being negative all the time. At least the Yes camp are coming out with some propaganda.

[monktonharp]

IMHO the sooner we get the referendum over and done with, the better. I'll admit to being totally scunnered of the nonsense spouted by both sides. It's been a debate short on facts and full of pie-in-the-sky notions of the future.take a look at the recently published white paper re-Scottish independence then. Salmond's writing, is good. the vote "yes" is not about voting for him, btw. It is all about voting for the kind of society we deserve in this small country.modern Scottish parties will be formed/come back to the fore, and have social values, fairness at the helm, not who can get a quick buck at the demise of others round them. there will be no bedroom tax, that is for sure , whichever new party took the lead. vote with your heart, and be proud to vote with your head too. it's time to rid this country of the notion that we are part of the world powers that the UK once was.

[heretoday]

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

What's that all about? :confused:

[steakbake]

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

What's that all about? :confused:

I suppose if people want to have a referendum on becoming a republic, it can wait till after we've decided on the independence question?

Most countries in the commonwealth have gone down that route - independence, then deciding whether to remain in the commonwealth. Australia still frequently debate it and I think Jamaica recently has seen a rise in republican sentiment.

[Fergus52]

Judging by the time of posts, we've got some very fast readers in the .net fraternity! Must be just be that us simple "yes" people can't read as well as our unionist betters:wink:

If I could pick on certain points that I think I know the answer to:-

"Plan B"s. Who ever goes in to a negotiation saying what their plan B is?

Currency - it will be the pound (yes, full stop). Anyone can use whatever currency they like. The important thing is the currency union. Despite all the huffing and puffing, Westminster is not saying no to this, and would be mad to do so. It would run the risk of sterling ceasing to be an oil currency, plus dismember the very common market they are supposedly so keen to preserve. It wouldn't be "pre-negotiating" to say "we will not allow a currency union", it would be clarity. If it is the case that this is a non-starter, why aren't they saying it?

EU Membership - a given. Scotland is already EU territory, with over 5 million EU citizens. Assuming that we do need to get our own new membership, we are uniquely well-placed. We hold most of the EU's oil reserves, a massive share of its fisheries, and a large proportion of its renewables potential. The EU commission will not push Schengen on us as it would cause barriers within what is presently a free-trading area.

Trident - see ya. It's a negotiating tool, though. I can wait a couple years or so post-independence for it to go. At a slight tangent, SiMar talks about economic benefits of Trident. When the cost of the scheme is worked out against the purported economic benefits, does this genuinely work out in our favour? I don't know, my problem with Trident is in principle, but it would be interesting to know if this assertion really had a basis.

:agree:. If there is a yes vote, no way will westminster block a currency union - they need us.

[Fergus52]

I said on the other thread (PM) that I was undecided. I wish the UK Parliament would go over the benefits of staying in the Union rather than just being negative all the time. At least the Yes camp are coming out with some propaganda.

Quite a hard thing for them to do.

[MyJo]

I said on the other thread (PM) that I was undecided. I wish the UK Parliament would go over the benefits of staying in the Union rather than just being negative all the time. At least the Yes camp are coming out with some propaganda.

:agree: The arguments against seem to be limited to:

- Its better for everyone to stay as the united kingdom.

Ok then tell us why its better for everyone? or more specifically tell us scots why we are better off staying in the UK because thats what we are basing our decision on or is it that the united kingdom is better for England/Wales & NI and we are supposed to sacrifice our independence and ability to self-govern to benefit everyone else apart from us.

- We wont get membership of the EU.

Why not? Yes, the SNP have been vague on the process and ability to gain EU membership post-independence but the better together campaign has presented nothing other than the assertion of pro-union politicians that it wont happen. Where is the evidence or reasoning behind this stance?

- We wont get to keep the pound.

Ok, get the prime minister to come out and confirm that there will be no possibility of a currency union should scotland become independent. Given that good ol' Dave is pro-union he'd be more than happy to dispel this myth that a common currency would be used or indeed in the best interests of both sides post-independence.

Ironically after many months of complaints from the better together side about the lack of information or clarity on how independence would work the publishing of this white paper has shown up exactly how little they are actually putting into justifying thier stance of no independence beyond sniping at everything said by the SNP

[yeezus.]

:agree: The arguments against seem to be limited to:

- Its better for everyone to stay as the united kingdom.

Ok then tell us why its better for everyone? or more specifically tell us scots why we are better off staying in the UK because thats what we are basing our decision on or is it that the united kingdom is better for England/Wales & NI and we are supposed to sacrifice our independence and ability to self-govern to benefit everyone else apart from us.

- We wont get membership of the EU.

Why not? Yes, the SNP have been vague on the process and ability to gain EU membership post-independence but the better together campaign has presented nothing other than the assertion of pro-union politicians that it wont happen. Where is the evidence or reasoning behind this stance?

- We wont get to keep the pound.

Ok, get the prime minister to come out and confirm that there will be no possibility of a currency union should scotland become independent. Given that good ol' Dave is pro-union he'd be more than happy to dispel this myth that a common currency would be used or indeed in the best interests of both sides post-independence.

Ironically after many months of complaints from the better together side about the lack of information or clarity on how independence would work the publishing of this white paper has shown up exactly how little they are actually putting into justifying thier stance of no independence beyond sniping at everything said by the SNP

An independent Scotland would be considered a new country and therefore have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, that doesn't mean we "wouldn't get membership" at all - it just means that there would be long negotiations. That being said, the rules are laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and it will come down to law, not talks.

[Hibrandenburg]

An independent Scotland would be considered a new country and therefore have to re-apply for membership of the European Union, that doesn't mean we "wouldn't get membership" at all - it just means that there would be long negotiations. That being said, the rules are laid down in the Lisbon Treaty and it will come down to law, not talks.

Great, that'll make us even more like Norway.

[Peevemor]

For those that are as yet undecided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5EBDa42ck

[Beefster]

For those that are as yet undecided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5EBDa42ck

I keep hearing that folk shouldn't make up their mind on the basis of hating Salmond but then keep seeing links to stuff like this. What next? 'Jeremy Kyle does independence'?

[tcm1875]

I keep hearing that folk shouldn't make up their mind on the basis of hating Salmond but then keep seeing links to stuff like this. What next? 'Jeremy Kyle does independence'?

You keep seeing? Really!! All two links. It was hard to tell the difference between that video and the Rangers one. All were obnoxious, ignorant and uninformed.......

[ballengeich]

My criticism of the SNP's white paper is that it has too much detailed planning. It will turn the referendum into a vote for or against the SNP's policy platform. This allows the unionist parties to focus on criticising details and pointing out possible snags in implementation of these policies, without being expected to put forward any constructive alternative vision.

That's not what the whole thing's about. The referendum isn't about whether you approve of the SNP's policies or even about what sort of society you'd like to see in Scotland in the future. It's about who should be making the decisions about the type of Scotland we want in the coming decades.

In the union Scots are a decreasing minority. Power lies with the south of England, in particular the City of London, and if they want something the opinions of Scots will be overridden. There will be difficulties in independence, but we have to decide whether to confront and work through these or continue as a peripheral and largely disregarded province of an outstandingly centralised state.

[Alex Trager]

Just posted this on the white paper thread so thought I'd do the same here


I've sat back and read this thread for a few days now, taking in what people are saying and what not. I was very much a man that stood for the no vote before I had a look at what it all actually meant. I have simple views that are easy to follow and for me they are the sole reason that I will vote yes. I have trust In our political parties- can't believe I just said that- to sort out the intricacies that follow of we go independent.
For all those undecided here are my reasons for voting yes.


In 14 of the last 18 elections the Scottish vote has counted for nothing. That is my first reason. I'm thinking why would I want to continue this? Is this a fair system to be part of?

Then I learn that we send £500B roughly per year to Westminster. Fair doos. Then it comes back up £450B, I start to think wait the now? That's not quite right.

Anyway I continue to plod along, and learn that on average and to take the last year on record 2011/12 we paid 10700 in tax per head whereas others in the uk 9000. Now I'm really wondering what on earth is going on here.

Then I find out Scotland has run on average net fiscal profit of 0.2% since 1980. Not a lot huh? No. But I hear that the uk has run itself at a 3% deficit. And now I'm really thinking why am I paying for these people to continue to waste money on things I don't even think we should be involved in. Now I want independence


I also had a yes campaigner at my door last night who I had a great discussion with. To refer to my first reason, it came to my attention in one of the leaflets he have me, with regards to the cuts the government are making 11 out of 57 Scottish mps votes in favour of them. Fair enough, so I assume we didn't take part in te cuts?

Wrong: 324 out 592 in Westminster votes yes for them. And guess what we're now undergoing cuts.


I have lots more reasons if anyone wants to know let me know. Anyway these are my fundamental reasons. Good to hear your points of view on them

[Alex Trager]

Oh and I must add I am a sociology student and in a lecture I was subject to some figures, about eight weeks ago, and this is when I changed my mind. They were all about inequality and poverty btw.

[yeezus.]

Just posted this on the white paper thread so thought I'd do the same here


I've sat back and read this thread for a few days now, taking in what people are saying and what not. I was very much a man that stood for the no vote before I had a look at what it all actually meant. I have simple views that are easy to follow and for me they are the sole reason that I will vote yes. I have trust In our political parties- can't believe I just said that- to sort out the intricacies that follow of we go independent.
For all those undecided here are my reasons for voting yes.


In 14 of the last 18 elections the Scottish vote has counted for nothing. That is my first reason. I'm thinking why would I want to continue this? Is this a fair system to be part of?

Then I learn that we send £500B roughly per year to Westminster. Fair doos. Then it comes back up £450B, I start to think wait the now? That's not quite right.

Anyway I continue to plod along, and learn that on average and to take the last year on record 2011/12 we paid 10700 in tax per head whereas others in the uk 9000. Now I'm really wondering what on earth is going on here.

Then I find out Scotland has run on average net fiscal profit of 0.2% since 1980. Not a lot huh? No. But I hear that the uk has run itself at a 3% deficit. And now I'm really thinking why am I paying for these people to continue to waste money on things I don't even think we should be involved in. Now I want independence


I also had a yes campaigner at my door last night who I had a great discussion with. To refer to my first reason, it came to my attention in one of the leaflets he have me, with regards to the cuts the government are making 11 out of 57 Scottish mps votes in favour of them. Fair enough, so I assume we didn't take part in te cuts?

Wrong: 324 out 592 in Westminster votes yes for them. And guess what we're now undergoing cuts.


I have lots more reasons if anyone wants to know let me know. Anyway these are my fundamental reasons. Good to hear your points of view on them

According to the IFS, if an independent Scotland were to balance the books over the next 50 odd years, public spending cuts or tax rises are inevitable.

[Alex Trager]

According to the IFS, if an independent Scotland were to balance the books over the next 50 odd years, public spending cuts or tax rises are inevitable.

Whilst I appreciate your point I feel you are completely missing my point, In fact I know you are missing my point

[Northernhibee]

Voting no as the propsals put forward aren't affordable at all and would bankrupt the country. Nearly every question asked on important issues has remained unanswered and Salmond still adds pie in the sky ideas to his wish list for an independent Scotland.

Salmond is a very dangerous and deluded man.

[yeezus.]

Whilst I appreciate your point I feel you are completely missing my point, In fact I know you are missing my point

Fair enough, my apologies, I was trying to address your point on cuts.

[green glory]

Voting no as the propsals put forward aren't affordable at all and would bankrupt the country. Nearly every question asked on important issues has remained unanswered and Salmond still adds pie in the sky ideas to his wish list for an independent Scotland. Salmond is a very dangerous and deluded man.

I take it you've read the white paper in its entirety to come to that conclusion?

[Northernhibee]

I take it you've read the white paper in its entirety to come to that conclusion?

The Beano would quite frankly be a more worthwhile read than that load of propaganda - the fact is that we can't pay for all these things Salmond is promising.

[Alex Trager]

Fair enough, my apologies, I was trying to address your point on cuts.

No problem man, as I said I was trying to highlight the fact our vote counts for almost nothing

[yeezus.]

The Beano would quite frankly be a more worthwhile read than that load of propaganda - the fact is that we can't pay for all these things Salmond is promising.

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!?

[carnoustiehibee]

Happy Independence Day Albania