Scottish Independence

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not going to pretend that I am in any way an expert on econimics or fiscal matters in general. But it seems to me that the statements being made by George Osborne and other politicians regarding the pound over the last few weeks do amount to bullying do they not? Perhaps they are making their statements based on sound political and fiscal judgement and economic reality ...... but I would be willing to put a decent amount of money down at the bookies that the ordinary man in the street aint going to see it that way.

This looks more to me like a case of dare to vote yes and see what you get.

I have voted SNP all my life and make no secret of the fact that for me that decision is as much about the heart as the head. I dont want an independent Scotland because I hate the English, or the Welsh or Irish for that matter. I firmly believe that Scotland is a very different place from the rest of the UK in its outlook on not only social matters but also its outlook on the world. But most of all I believe that a country which is prepared to set aside its sovereignty and therefore its place in the family of nations has no right to refer to itsself as a country at all.

Forget domestic politics. Since 1707 every decision of an international nature affecting Scotland, from going to war to who can and cannot have British andd therefore Scottish citizenship has been made by another country, there are 502 MPs of English constituencies and 52 of Scottish ones .... the natural correlation is that the only time Scotland's politicians have made an international political decision which was the will of the Scottish people was when the political will of the English people ( or at least English MPs ) was in agreement with it.

I dont get this, we wont have an army to speak of if we vote yes. Or we wont be a big player on the international stage. If that means our young men and women being denied the opportunity to get their head blown off in a dubious war in Iraq or an unwinnable war in Afganistan then in what way is that a bad thing? Exactly who is this army supposed to defend us against anyway ... The Russians? I can just see the rest of Europe or the USA standing back .... apart from that the only country we share a land border with is England.

The only serious need we would have in military terms would be a decent set of gunboats to fight off the Spanish fishing fleet if for the sake of their own selfish self interest Spain was to seriuously attempt to block our membership of the EU.

Burns wrote: They were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation. In september will it be They sold their souls for English gold, such a parcel of cowards in a nation.

Yup, that pretty much sums up where I am now..... I do agree wi Brewster on your last sentence though :-)

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

Wanting another country to make our political decisions for us, in the fear that we can't handle big decisions by ourselves, is cowardly in the extreme.

I don't know why any Scottish person would vote for that. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wanting another country to make our political decisions for us, in the fear that we can't handle big decisions by ourselves, is cowardly in the extreme.

I don't know why any Scottish person would vote for that. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Another country doesn't currently make our political decisions for us. Do you argue the same point about the rest of Scotland abdicating their political decisions to the central belt?

To suggest that anyone actually wants or is proposing another country making our decisions is yet another lie in a debate full of them.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

Why is it not the same as the pride an Englishman takes in being English as well as British?

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Scotland keeping the pound under independence is now dead. Refusing to take our share of UK debt is the equivalent of blowing our own financial brains out before we even start.

If Salmond won't tell us what is his Plan B on currency, it is either because he is too scared of the public response to it or because he doesn't have one. Either way it is economically very, very reckless.

The more this stuff on currency, debt and public finances is examined in detail and the more the Yes side substitute assertion for facts the more I am struck by a clear parallel. It is almost exactly like the 'we owe it to ourselves' Yammanomics culture we have seen elsewhere where any reality is always overruled by a grand assertion from the guy at the top, no matter the evidence and no matter how fanciful or unsupportable.

Next stop, #Alliscurrencybarry

I for one dont believe for one second that the pound situation is as cut and dried as the no folk are saying it is. As I understand it the yes side's statement about not taking on our share of the debt comes under the heading of, if we cant have our share of the assets why the hell should we take our share of the debt ... that sounds fair enough to me.

I have tried to avoid football analogies when talking about this subject, but as theres one here I will use one.

When Mercer tried to take over Hibs in the 90s the situation was not unlike the one Scotland has found itself in since 1707.

Like Hibs Scotland was bankrupt.
Like Hibs a bigger and richer neighbour saw a chance to get what it had always wanted.

Every Hibby and Yam out there knew that a 'merger' of the two clubs in these circumstances would mean only one thing. Yes, perhaps the merged club would be Edinburgh United, but it would play in Maroon at Tynecastle and everybody would know that in reality it was Heart of Midlothian. Perhaps that new club would be able to win the league and any Hibby who had been willing to embrace this new arrangement would be able to bask in the glory ... but it wouldnt be Hibs winning the league, thats for sure. As 90% of foreigners say England when referring to Britain, so over time everybody would just have called the new club Hearts, coz in their minds there would be no distinction between the two.

Unlike the general population who had no say in the matter in 1707 the Hibs fans fought tooth and nail to prevent what the saw as the loss of not only their club, but part of their identity as Hibbies.

What I dont understand is this. If folk didnt think this was a situation they could bear for their football club, why then on a much bigger scale is the same situation tolerable for their country?

[allmodcons]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hate this type of offensive pish. Claiming that Scots who think we're better within the UK are "cowards" is as ludicrous as claiming that independence supporters are anti-English bigots.

There is derogatory stuff on both sides of the argument but there is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the 'Yes' supporters' rhetoric. I expect that, in the event of a 'No' vote, there is going to be lots of wailing, nastiness and recriminations. It's going to take Scotland a good few years to move on IMHO.

You make a fair point in your first paragraph and then mess up. Where's your evidence of that there 'is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the Yes supporters'.

You want to have a look at some of the comments made/posted about Alex Salmond. IMO you've been reading all about those nasty 'cybernats' in the Daily Mail.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Another country doesn't currently make our political decisions for us. Do you argue the same point about the rest of Scotland abdicating their political decisions to the central belt?

To suggest that anyone actually wants or is proposing another country making our decisions is yet another lie in a debate full of them.

If the country you are talking about is Britain you are correct. But thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about how being part of Britain relates to Scotland's position as a country in its own right, in which case of course another country makes our decisions for us.

This does not happen in a deliberate and calculated way, nobody is saying that is the case. But how can it be denied that the decisions made by the UK parliament are in every case dictated by what the prevailing thinking is in England .... The huge disparity between the populations of the two countries and therefore the number of MPs representing English seats to those representing Scottish seats means that this must be the case.

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would we have had the poll tax or bedroom tax?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would we have been involved in Iraq or Afganistan?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would being born in Scotland now not be enough to make you a Scottish citizen?

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would it be the case, as it is now, that the best local authority housing would be in private ownership ... leaving no decent housing for those who were not in a position to buy. Leading now to the situation we have of the few old folk left who are still in council houses the have lived in for decades being forced to move out because there isnt enough 3 and 4 bedroom houses left in public ownership.

If the decision had been left to a Scottish government would there be a huge pot set aside from the oil revenues and invested for the day it runs out, like Norway has ... or would we be in the position we are now, where the money is all gone with nothing set aside for the future.

I'm not saying that an independent Scotland wouldnt have made ( or make ) mistakes .... but at least they would be our mistakes and we wouldnt have the back up pathetic position of blaming the English for everything, while all the while half the population of England glory in the, unfounded or not, impression that they subsidise Scotland to their own detriment.

[RyeSloan]

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyone else think the currency debate is probably irrelevant as the EU would make it a condition of entry that we adopt the Euro?

Aye. That thought had crossed my mind.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It may be offensive, but I cant think of anything else to call it. There have been millions of British men and women killed over the last 100 years to prevent the ideaology of other nations being foisted upon these islands. We lost thousands in Korea trying to stop communism being forced on the south by the north and its Chinese allies. Everybody agrees that WW2 was worth the sacrifice to stop a brutal facist ideaology being forced on Europe.

All over the world for centuries countries have been defined by the willingness of their people to fight and die to prevent bigger countries from taking them over ..... but for the most part they fight and die in order to maintain their place in the world as seperate nations able to run their own affairs and a large part of that willingness to fight and die is fueled by what can only be described as national pride.

From what I have seen of the debate 90% of unionists would profess pride in being Scottish as well as British ..... but for me that pride is the same as the pride a Yorkshire man or Cornishman would have in being from that region of England. You cannot to my mind say you belong to a real country when you allow the very different political and social mindset of that country to be nullified and sidelined by the will of a much larger neighbour.

The sort of cowardice I am talking about is the sort that says I'm proud to be Scottish and sing my heart out every time I go to Hampden or Murrayfield ....... but the sacrifice of paying more for a loaf of bread or not being able to be a tiny part of a nation with a place at the top table of the UN is a step too far ..... as I've said, people have given up their lives in the past to keep their place in the family of nations, as proper countries with everything that goes with that.

If people want to be British then fine, that is for them to decide ..... but the price to pay for that is to admit that the Scotland they express such pride in is not a real country and no amount of Burns reciting, saltire waving, haggis eating, kilt wearing lip service will make it one.

Oh dear. Not proper Scots if they believe that the best future our country can have is top remain as part of the UK then? Sad stuff. I'll be voting Yes but your post is just downright nasty towards around about 50% of the Scottish electorate.
Don't you think that our greatest asset is our people whom you have just trashed in large numbers? You are also wrong about Scotland not being a proper country if we remain as part of the Union. 200 years and counting has done next to nothing to diminish our national identity.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

You make a good point and it certainly seems a paradox on the face of it. But as a nationalist I see no contradiction with being a nationalist on one hand and a Europhile ( which I am ) on the other. All countries have these decisions to make regarding membership of the EU or NATO for example, but the fact is that they make these decisions on their own terms taking into account what is best for them.

Many countries are members of currency unions .. try telling a Frenchman that France's identity as a country is diluted because its in the Euro. The Queen is head of state in Canada, New Zealand and Australia ...... its just window dressing and means nothing in real terms to how these countries are percieved or perform on the national stage. I am a lifelong republican ... but if the people of Scotland want the English royal family to provide a decoration as head of state I wouldnt bat an eyelid ... so long as we didnt have to pay for the privilege

I alluded to the fact before that I think Scotland's world outlook is different to Britain's as a whole. Yes we have our bigots and racists like everybody else ,,, but I think in general our national make up is to be more open to folk who are different. I am willing to bet that if a referendum were held tomorrow Britain and of course therefore Scotland would leave the EU. If you want a paradox the very folk who are in the vanguard of the no campaign for Scottish independence would be the ones leading the leave the EU campaign ... so much for better together.

On the EU note ...... If as seems likely a UK vote on leaving Europe was to lead to us ( the UK ) quitting Europe, in my opinion it would lead to utter disaster in the long run. If Scotland being denied membership of a Pound zone is really being used as a punishment for seperating from the UK by the bitter element of the no campaign ( opinions are divided on that depending on your point of view ) it will be as nothing to the ****storm the UK will have to face from the bitter element on the other side of the English channel if we pull out of the EU and as they would see it, leave them in the lurch.

[NAE NOOKIE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Oh dear. Not proper Scots if they believe that the best future our country can have is top remain as part of the UK then? Sad stuff. I'll be voting Yes but your post is just downright nasty towards around about 50% of the Scottish electorate.
Don't you think that our greatest asset is our people whom you have just trashed in large numbers? You are also wrong about Scotland not being a proper country if we remain as part of the Union. 200 years and counting has done next to nothing to diminish our national identity.

Our national identity isnt in doubt as far as product Scotland is concerned. That in my opinion doesnt give us the right to pretend we are a proper country in a political or social sense. Perhaps Scotland future in economic terms ( which seems to be the whole of this debate ) will be better as part of the UK. That particular question could only be answered for sure if we did become independent.

But, if that is all that matters to people ..... That calling yourself Scots and having pretensions to nationhood in the real meaning of the word I.E. being responsible for your own decisions for good or bad begins and ends with the contents of your wallet, then perhaps having another countries decisions, attitudes and social outlook foisted upon us is whats best for us after all.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Kaiser Sauzee:

Sorry ... for some reason I cant quote your post.

Read what I said in context. Scotland is a country in geographical and historical terms and as part of the union is a country in that context. Perhaps I dont express myself very well at times. My point is that in terms of what it means in reality to be a country, or at least my understanding of it, is that your politicians run it according to the social and political will of its people and this reflects our attitudes, no matter how insignificant, onto the national stage.

There is plenty of evidence over the last few decades that what the people of Scotland think and want to see happen regarding many national and international issues is not what we end up getting because what we want is at odds with the much larger England and especially middle England. Therefore we allow our national identity in social and political terms to be over ridden by a much larger partner in this unequal marriage. We moan, bitch and whine about it, but when the opportunity arises to do something about it we run scared.

Thats why my opinion is what it is on this issue ...... In all good conscience what people with any pretensions to be a nation in the proper sense of the term allows that to happen. In terms of being a proper nation its the equivalent of being 30 years old and still living with your mum.

Sorry I made you bowk yer lunch mate. I suppose thats why they call stuff like this the unpalatable truth.

PS
I see you have deleted your post, which is probably why I couldnt quote it. FWIW I didnt find it offensive or anything. Though I;m sure that isnt why you have deleted it

[southfieldhibby]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...remongering-eu

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our national identity isnt in doubt as far as product Scotland is concerned. That in my opinion doesnt give us the right to pretend we are a proper country in a political or social sense. Perhaps Scotland future in economic terms ( which seems to be the whole of this debate ) will be better as part of the UK. That particular question could only be answered for sure if we did become independent.

But, if that is all that matters to people ..... That calling yourself Scots and having pretensions to nationhood in the real meaning of the word I.E. being responsible for your own decisions for good or bad begins and ends with the contents of your wallet, then perhaps having another countries decisions, attitudes and social outlook foisted upon us is whats best for us after all.

Firstly you ignored my question. Do you think our people our greatest asset and if so why on earth would you trash nearly 50% of them as cowards and lesser patriots than yourself merely because they disagree with you. Don't you think that's rather a narrow minded, even bigoted, view to take?
Your assertion that Scotland's future in economic terms is the whole debate is quite simply stunning. It's only part of the debate for both sides yet you seem to have disadain for it only if it is applied to the No campaign. I will be voting Yes as I think the long term future for us all will be brighter. However I have many friends that think differently. I wouldn't call any of them cowards and I wouldn't call them any less patriotic. We will all have to get along after this vote no matter what the outcome is.
Your snidey closing remarks won't win anybody over to your way of thinking, if anything they will drive them the other way.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Salmond is spinning what has been said yet again. The rUK parties of have said no to a currency union not no to a share of the assets. But as usual the man is incapable of telling us the truth. As voters we deserve better from both sides but FFS Salmond is treating us like fools. This is not about Scotland being bullied its about other political parties saying they will not be AGREEING to a currency union.

I actually thought Salmond got the tone of his response about right yesterday. (And I am far from his biggest fan.) As you say, we deserve better from both sides. I have Wee Eck ahead on points with this one though.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You make a fair point in your first paragraph and then mess up. Where's your evidence of that there 'is definitely a nastier streak running through some of the Yes supporters'.

You want to have a look at some of the comments made/posted about Alex Salmond. IMO you've been reading all about those nasty 'cybernats' in the Daily Mail.

You're absolutely right. There was a missing 'IMHO' in the bit about the nastiness.

My point was more about the general sweeping statements about not being real Scots, not being as patriotic as nationalists, being 'cowards' and how we're all fearties who think we need England to look after us. There has been plenty of evidence of it on this thread alone but I don't recall reading similar derogatory comments aimed at all nationalists coming from folk in favour of the status quo.

PS I don't read the Daily Mail or their website. Mrs Beefster is frequently on their website though to see who's dating who and who has put on two pounds.

[Bristolhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fair points being made about Scotland as a country but do those same people believe that a Scotland within a currency union with rUK, a military one within NATO, a crown union with the existing monarchy and a continuation of the political one with the EU would make us any more of a nation than we are now?

I honestly don't get it. If we want to be independent then we should be looking to strike out and be independent...the proposal to date feels more like a corporate re-branding than any serious attempt to stand alone as an independent nation free to trade, on our terms, with whoever we wish and with our own (oil backed) currency.

The challenges to reach that would be steep but at least it could be a price worth paying.

Independent like Germany, Italy and Belgium. All in a Currency Union, all in the EU and all in NATO.

Scotland would be no different (except She will be in a different currency union). A real country rather than a region.

J

[NOLA]

interesting point, all scottish teams going forward would have to rely on purely scottish government funding, could we afford to upkeep, train and send teams such as the womens and men curling teams to a winter olympics? along with other sportsmen/women? do we as a nation face losing rising stars in olympic sports to a better funded and finacially better of market overseas, the way i see it our funds as a nation are going to be tied up with our historically poor health and our need to continue our education, i feel sport will suffer. i'm voting no to independence and to be truthful noone i know feels its the right way forward, we are better off together, we are still scots and still considered as scots when abroad, why the need for change.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

interesting point, all scottish teams going forward would have to rely on purely scottish government funding, could we afford to upkeep, train and send teams such as the womens and men curling teams to a winter olympics? along with other sportsmen/women? do we as a nation face losing rising stars in olympic sports to a better funded and finacially better of market overseas, the way i see it our funds as a nation are going to be tied up with our historically poor health and our need to continue our education, i feel sport will suffer. i'm voting no to independence and to be truthful noone i know feels its the right way forward, we are better off together, we are still scots and still considered as scots when abroad, why the need for change.

Yes. If we wanted to.

[CropleyWasGod]

We manage to send teams to the Commonwealth Games with our "own" resources.
As with other UK assets, our share of such funding streams as the Lottery would contribute to an Olympic team.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We manage to send teams to the Commonwealth Games with our "own" resources.
As with other UK assets, our share of such funding streams as the Lottery would contribute to an Olympic team.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

I would have thought we would probably have our own.

When you say you'd prefer not to have one...do you mean because of the amount (less well-off) people pay into it? The flip side of that is the contribution it makes to otherwise unfundable good causes.

Probably a thread hijack :-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would have thought we would probably have our own.

When you say you'd prefer not to have one...do you mean because of the amount (less well-off) people pay into it? The flip side of that is the contribution it makes to otherwise unfundable good causes.

Probably a thread hijack :-)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

I'm in the camp that believes that those in poverty (or just don't have that much money) fund a disproportionate amount of the lottery income. I'm all for 'good causes' being funded but there must be fairer ways to do it than encouraging folk, lots of whom can't really afford it, to spend money gambling at ridiculous odds.

At the moment, you've got folk in poverty [voluntarily] funding opera companies, art galleries and middle-class athletes.

PS 'Hijack' apology.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm in the camp that believes that those in poverty (or just don't have that much money) fund a disproportionate amount of the lottery income. I'm all for 'good causes' being funded but there must be fairer ways to do it than encouraging folk, lots of whom can't really afford it, to spend money gambling at ridiculous odds.

At the moment, you've got folk in poverty [voluntarily] funding opera companies, art galleries and middle-class athletes.

PS 'Hijack' apology.

I'm with you on that. I also have other issues about the Lottery environment, but that's probably for another thread :)

Back on track..... would a Scottish-based Lottery, with its (as you say) disproportionate contribution from lower-income families and (generally) a lower-income based population, give a greater chance of winning?

[allmodcons]

Here's a 'nice' clip for anyone who supports an iScotland. Another balanced BBC piece!

My favourite bit is the name of the banks line. Question is can you 'stomach' the whole clip?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCEw8nSGgmQ

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not important compared to just about anything else but has there been confirmation that an independent Scotland will still be part of the UK National Lottery? Given the poverty in Scotland, I'd hope that it would be one of the things that we wouldn't have if we became independent.

Pages 535 and 536 of Scotland's Future state:

"Will the National Lottery continue to operate in an independent Scotland?

Yes, that is the current Scottish Government's intention. People will still be able to play National Lottery games, and the infrastructure enabling them to do so will remain in place. Scotland will continue to receive a fair share of ticket sales to support good causes. Following independence, all decisions about the allocation of Scotland's share of funds will be taken in Scotland, ensuring that the money raised from lottery ticket sales is used to respond to the needs of Scotland's local communities."

There are a number of other questions on a similar theme; the key points being:

- Camelot holds the licence to operate the lottery until 2023 and there are no plans to change this arrangement.
- There are no plans to establish a distinct Scottish lottery.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pages 535 and 536 of Scotland's Future state:

"Will the National Lottery continue to operate in an independent Scotland?

Yes, that is the current Scottish Government's intention. People will still be able to play National Lottery games, and the infrastructure enabling them to do so will remain in place. Scotland will continue to receive a fair share of ticket sales to support good causes. Following independence, all decisions about the allocation of Scotland's share of funds will be taken in Scotland, ensuring that the money raised from lottery ticket sales is used to respond to the needs of Scotland's local communities."

There are a number of other questions on a similar theme; the key points being:

- Camelot holds the licence to operate the lottery until 2023 and there are no plans to change this arrangement.
- There are no plans to establish a distinct Scottish lottery.

Thanks. I suppose more people would want it kept than would want rid so fair enough.