606v2 Rugby Fans Scottish Independence Thread

[George Carlin]

First topic message reminder :

 v
Let me start this off, then. I have printed and read all literature which either side has published on this debate over the past 2 years (including the main policy papers from the SNP and from Better Together/UK Treasury and the Wee Blue Book).
 
If I had the chance, I would think hard about it, but ultimately I think that I would vote 'no'.
 
It seems to me, with my pea brain, that:
 
1. As a professional economist, Alex Salmond has had his entire political and professional life to make a waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland. Provided that there isn't something I've missed, I cannot see that he has done so. How can we still be fishing for answers to very fundemental questions so close to the actual voting date? Surely if it was the case that Scotland had a solid long term financial future, there would be a far greater volume of published consensus? If the financial case for independence cannot be clearly and verifiably made (without optimistic financial projects which strain credulity), then this is where this debate begins and ends for me. What do we tell our kids otherwise?
 
2. I entirely understand and appreciate that stepping into the unknown cannot in itself be a reason to say 'no'. You cannot have opportunity without risk. However, is anyone else disappointed with the quality of verifiable information that has been made available to us throughout this entire debate? Whilst I don't expect all answers to all questions, surely it is better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established.
 
If this was a trial, the verdict would be 'not proven'.
 
What I don't believe is if Scotland votes no, the chance to do so again would be lost forever. I think that we may see another vote on this topic within a generation (20 years) if a 'no' vote does not have a clear majority amongst Scottish people. I would be happy with that.
 
Discuss. For the love of feck, please be nice.

[funnyExiledScot]

Cutting taxes to encourage growth can work effectively, but I'm not convinced by the arguement that businesses will leave rUK to move north (which is presumably where Salmond sees the growth coming from), particularly given the currency uncertainly and lack of demand in Scotland as compared to rUK.

The danger is of course that if you don't achieve a certain level of growth, with lower taxes you have lower revenue, and given the generous spending promises, establishing an oil fund, building a new military to replace Trident, establishing a new FS regulatory system, investing more in the North Sea, triple locking pensions, eliminating child poverty and food banks (something the Tories are apparently in favour of) etc etc I think Scotland can ill-afford to take too big a gamble on corporation tax. It also runs the risk of widening the gap between rich and poor, big business vs employee, something Alex Salmond feels very very angry about.

[fa0019]

Cutting taxes to encourage growth can work effectively, but I'm not convinced by the arguement that businesses will leave rUK to move north (which is presumably where Salmond sees the growth coming from), particularly given the currency uncertainly and lack of demand in Scotland as compared to rUK.

The danger is of course that if you don't achieve a certain level of growth, with lower taxes you have lower revenue, and given the generous spending promises, establishing an oil fund, building a new military to replace Trident, establishing a new FS regulatory system, investing more in the North Sea, triple locking pensions, eliminating child poverty and food banks (something the Tories are apparently in favour of) etc etc I think Scotland can ill-afford to take too big a gamble on corporation tax. It also runs the risk of widening the gap between rich and poor, big business vs employee, something Alex Salmond feels very very angry about.

The problem is you'll get into a dogfight with Ireland. Who can set the lowest rates....

Ireland is very similar to Scotland. Similar population, English speaking, well educated, 1hr flight from London etc... and their rates are already lower than the UK's. All the firms that left England or set up in Ireland to cater for the UK market are already there.

Question... say a major employer such as Tesco's is looking to up sticks due to apparent high corporation tax in England. If they hadn't already gone to Ireland, why would they go to Scotland now? Given Ireland has an established economy in such matters and more settled they will certainly be seen more favourably... unless the corporation tax in Scotland is slashed again..... and thus this is where the dog fight begins and it means the tax revenues will become smaller and smaller.

It's a dog fight to the bottom and it will only attract thieves and swindlers.. the minute conditions go out of their favour they will leave... like WPP just returned to England.

One final mention. Corporation tax in UK is 20%. Salmond said 3% less whatever it is in UK so say 17%. Well in Ireland its 12.5%. So its simply not competitive enough to be realistic.

[funnyExiledScot]

It seems he's banking on finding business willing to move to Scotland from England/Wales that for whatever reason doesn't want to move to Ireland. I'm not exactly sure what that business will be, and it isn't clear how the rUK will respond (and Salmond has presumably done the sums, so if rUK drops to 10% corp tax then he'll know exactly what the books for Scotland look like at 7%).

Perhaps he'll offer tax credits in addition to a lower corp tax rate. That's a possibility and a means of linking revenue generated to tax cut, but again you're talking about constantly lowering the amount of revenue you get from business in your jurisdiction, meaning that you really need to scale up to balance the books.

Such a shame that none of this was debated in any detail last night. Instead we got nonsense from Darling about employment generating powers being devolved and splitting a CD collection on divorce, and more nonsense from Salmond about "three Plan Bs" and buses.

[fa0019]

It seems he's banking on finding business willing to move to Scotland from England/Wales that for whatever reason doesn't want to move to Ireland. I'm not exactly sure what that business will be, and it isn't clear how the rUK will respond (and Salmond has presumably done the sums, so if rUK drops to 10% corp tax then he'll know exactly what the books for Scotland look like at 7%).

Perhaps he'll offer tax credits in addition to a lower corp tax rate. That's a possibility and a means of linking revenue generated to tax cut, but again you're talking about constantly lowering the amount of revenue you get from business in your jurisdiction, meaning that you really need to scale up to balance the books.

Such a shame that none of this was debated in any detail last night. Instead we got nonsense from Darling about employment generating powers being devolved and splitting a CD collection on divorce, and more nonsense from Salmond about "three Plan Bs" and buses.

The problem arises when say England lowers corporation tax but Scotland cannot do so without hitting services. Maybe Oil was less bountiful then expected that year. That or raising taxes... or even better borrowing more.

England will never slash rates to those levels but I can't see why a firm would say no to Ireland but yes to Scotland.

[funnyExiledScot]

Well the real problem is that a drop in corporation tax does not always translate to a corresponding or even greater rise in taxable profit. If it did every country would do it.

It's yet another risk, and one that has not been explained in any detail to the electorate. Thankfully Salmond did ask some decent questions this time around, and it's a shame that Darling wasted his/allowed Salmond to shout through the entire session, but it's ludicrous that with so many key and difficult issues to discuss, topics at the debate have included division of CD collections, buses, pandas, BBC TV programs, aliens from space and whether Scotland will drive on the left of the right.

[fa0019]

Well the real problem is that a drop in corporation tax does not always translate to a corresponding or even greater rise in taxable profit. If it did every country would do it.

It's yet another risk, and one that has not been explained in any detail to the electorate. Thankfully Salmond did ask some decent questions this time around, and it's a shame that Darling wasted his/allowed Salmond to shout through the entire session, but it's ludicrous that with so many key and difficult issues to discuss, topics at the debate have included division of CD collections, buses, pandas, BBC TV programs, aliens from space and whether Scotland will drive on the left of the right.

For me the fact that Darling never mentioned why its great to be British as the biggest shame of all. There is so much that we have achieved together that we would never of achieved as individuals. Without the UK, Scotland will become as relevant as the Gabon. Its not that they are are at the same level but after the first say 20 nations your say is literally worthless, your position, your voice.... silent.

The UK for me together with America has been the greatest nation of the last 300 years.... why because they have excelled in all areas... science and progression, the rights of man, the end of slavery, the blue print of modern democracy, fighting for whats right and (almost) always being on the right side of history.  We share a common language, common beliefs and attitudes.

What makes us different is nothing to the things which makes us one.

Yet none of this, none of this has ever been mentioned by the better together shambles.

Its so bad that people go around thinking England invaded Scotland in the 17th century and thought it was a forced marriage. In fact it was the Scottish king becoming king of England and as the subsequent kings were monarchs of both thus is where the union began.

1/10th of Scotland's residents say they are English let alone the shed loads of lowlands Scots who have large English ancestry. Its the reverse in England. Salmond has made out that its the choice of either paradise or sodom & gomorrah... and the people somehow believe him, well done to him, but its total trash. The bigger the lie.. the more those who will believe it.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The more I read the eloquently put posts on here that raise genuinely serious concerns about Scotland's post independent future the more angry I get that the Yes campaign can sprout so much rubbish and people are actually buying it.

Some simply amazing stuff on here, and I confess I haven't gotten to the end of it quite yet either; but this particular quote struck me as an interesting one.  As with all those that I will go on to quote, I've removed the source, but for those that are truly interested, feel free to check back - I'd hate to have misquoted.  Are many v2ers familiar with the science (if it can be called that!) of behavioural economics?  It is a branch of economics that looks at the psychology of judgement and decision-making.  One particular bias that is identified is labelled 'confirmation bias', and this particular quote struck me as an extreme example of just that - a definition would be "The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions" (I'm happy to quote the scholarly tome if others feel that is required, incl the ISBN - alternatively, you can just take my word for it!).

I wasn't going to comment on this thread at all - I saw no reason why sensible debate couldn't be held on the ongoing Glasgow and Embra banter threads - but having read some of the choice comments above, I can see now why certain moderators felt that some (perhaps themselves?) wouldn't be able to stick to reasoned debate.  My views are pretty well known, and I salute Spoons for joining me in sticking his head above the parapet among what is clearly a less than friendly towards Yes crowd (comments about lies, national disgraces, etc).  I'll respond to some of the remarks made, but will probably not be back on this thread - not because I don't care about the replies but I reckon that most on here have firmly made up their minds already (which they are more than entitled to do) and anything that I might say is unlikely to sway them.

So let's start:

waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland

- can anyone in all seriousness name me a single country in the world, with the possible exception of Norway, for which such a financial case can be made?  It certainly isn't the UK as a whole, and couldn't realistically be iScotland either - yet this is just one of many instances where the two options, union and independence are not held to the same candle.  Judge them equally or don't bother.

What if today an independent Scotland were being asked to join rUK to form a new UK?  What would the arguments in favour be?
* Your main parliament will move hundreds of miles away and your MPs will be in a small minority;
* The biggest nuclear arsenal in Western Europe will be based on the River Clyde, 30 miles from your largest city;
* An austerity budget will be imposed from London, cutting jobs and threatening public services, instead of Scotland being responsible for raising and spending its own taxes;
* You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
Would that change your vote?

better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established

- I don't think I've ever heard a better argument for doing nothing; it is absolutely impossible for any government, be it in Westminster or Holyrood to state with certainty what will happen post 18th Sept in the event of a Yes vote - a whole raft of negotiations will take place to define how independence will happen, a new government would need to be formed of all the parties in Scotland, etc.  Some folks are simply looking for the kind of certainty that simply cannot be - playing on the fear of the unknown and this apparent lack of certainty is what the No campaign is all about, their self-proclaimed 'Project Fear'.

In the words of the great Nelson Mandela, "It always seems impossible until it’s done"

be wary of Scotland as they don’t pay their debt

– did you miss HM Treasury’s announcement on 13 Jan of this year?  In short, an iScotland would have no responsibility for any debt unless it chose to.  Why did Westminster state this?  Well I suspect that they were worried about the uncertainty (yes, that same uncertainty that they are happy to propogate when it works in their favour) and its effects on financial markets.  So they had to hand iScotland a very strong bargaining chip, even before the election.

Surely Scotland wouldn’t welch on its moral commitments tho?  Sir James Mirrlees, a Nobel laureate and a member of the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers (although some on here seem to think that they Yes side has no economic experts or business leaders on its side, has said "Britain inherits the debt" if it refuses a currency union.  Well, let’s see – it’s a pretty strong bargaining chip, and I would be tempted to have it up my sleeve ready for any negotiations (as much as I can understand the main Westminster parties ruling out any currency union, but in reality being prepared to go back on that when push comes to shove).

Westminster holds that Scotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too?  It raises a whole other debating issue around continuing or successor states vs new states and how international law is applied in those cases.

saying that Scotland will continue to use the pound without permission sounds like the idea of some tin pot state somewhere

– right oh, so we now know what you think of the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, etc.

if Scotland becomes independent, I don’t want to be here any more

– ok, cheerio

I found myself singing ‘Flower of Scotland’ and thinking ‘what a load of nonsense this is’

– and this from the same poster that confessed to having loved the pomp of Will and Kate’s wedding!!  Feel free to sing ‘God save our gracious queen’ with your branflakes every morning if makes you feel better

We have these things called elections every 4 years … Salmond claiming the last Scottish election gave them (SNP) a mandate for a referendum

– well, in theory it could be up to 5 years between elections, but that’s just nit-picking, what is of more concern is that you cannot see the irony in what you say – paraphrasing: “all yous others that I don’t agree with, just shut up and accept these elections; oh but btw, I’m not agreeing with these other democratic election results and their consequences over here” – too funny

Despite the significant number of industry experts, academics, business leaders and economists saying that it will be a bad idea, the SNP just put their fingers in their ears and go ‘la la la la’

– so the Yes side (to give it its proper name, you do realise its not simply the SNP?  There’s the greens, the Labour for Independence group, etc. – I better not stop there or else you’ll simply see lefty vegans!!!  There’s the Conservatives for Independence group too, rest assured ), so the Yes side doesn’t have any of these experts, academics or captains of industry?!  Really??  Have you done any research on this at all?  Would Noam Chomsky or Joseph Stiglitz be expert enough?  Or have a gander at this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-26353466

It will ruin their (the people from Helensburgh) lives if it (Trident) goes

– oh dear, another shabby piece of No propaganda that has been swallowed hook line and sinker!  As long ago as 2012, the MoD was forced to clarify that a mere 520 local jobs were directly involved in Faslane/Holy Loch (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/labour-and-tories-under-fire-for-inflating-trident-job-losses.19262922) .  Regardless, I reckon the people of Glasgow will be cheering that the possibility of a nuclear accident devastating the largest city in Scotland has been drastically reduced.  Completely unlikely, I hear you cry!  Maybe, but it’s making the local headlines: http://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk/news/thisweek/articles/2013/10/31/477019--mod-reveals-faslane-nuclear-accidents/

Where are all the ‘Scottish Navy’ vessels to fill it?

– ‘it’ presumably is the naval presence on the Clyde?  Well that’s an easy one if you thought about it for just one second – remember that assets will be shared between iScotland and rUK post independence, including military assets.  On top of that the White paper posits a proportionate increase in conventional military spending, part of which will come from savings on Trident, so its likely the Scottish Navy would be larger that it is currently.  And given Scotland’s coastline, its almost certain that the navy would be the largest component of Scottish conventional forces, as explained in an interesting paper that I forward to another esteemed poster quite some time ago, even tho what it says seems to have been broadly ignored!: http://www.scottishglobalforum.net/uploads/2/2/6/1/22614014/stn_report.pdf .  It’s a long read, but pretty interesting, and outlines what a key part of NATO Scotland would be with our positioning in the north Atlantic.  Challenge yourself, have a read with an open mind, go on, it’ll be good for you!

Cybernats.  There are a lot of them and they are a complete disgrace to the country

– if you imagine for just one second that there aren’t as many cyberunionist trolls as there are cybernats, then you are far more naïve than I originally imagined.  I’ll happily send you examples if you insist, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see either brand of sh1te posted on here.

What are the realities of Scotland banning nuclear weapons yet wanting to be part of NATO and having other countries look after them (with their nuclear weapons)?

– so how many member countries of NATO actually have nuclear weapons?  Well, the answer is 3 out of 28, but obviously Scotland would be treated differently to the other 25!! It seems to be the exception rather than the rule to be a nuclear country in NATO - only Britain, France and America possess nuclear weapons. Many members of Nato, like Canada and Norway, have made it clear they won't host nuclear weapons on their soil, and that appears to be respected by the other partners in the alliance.  Why would Scotland be treated differently?

I will effectively have to choose between being British and Scottish

– will you, why is that?  You are already both!! That won’t be changing either.

Many ordinary English people, who have the same everyday problems as those in Scotland, will be asking themselves the question, what have we done to deserve this attitude from them?”

– putting aside the many English folk living in Scotland that would appear to be keen on independence, what on earth is this “attitude” that you are talking about?  The “attitude” that one should wish to control one’s own affairs?  God forbid that such a democratic ideal represents attitude.

I share the sentiments posted above that it's uncomfortable-making stuff to people who have ever called England home

– it is?  I think those might be your own views rather than any collective ones?  I’ve lived in England for 24 years and don’t share them at all.  Another behavioural bias? – ascribing your own opinions to all others in a similar situation

You don’t need to justify the status quo – it is what it is and there are far too many variables involved for anyone to answer that accurately

– but you can’t allow the same to be said of the same sorts of uncertainty that would face an iScotland?  I found that hypocritical

Unless we realise that our world and country is genuinely what we make it, then we are not going to get anywhere

– used as an argument for No, yet could easily be applied to Yes?

I think it is massively irresponsible to vote yes purely to get rid of Westminster given the significant uncertainty

– because Westminster provides so much certainty, right?  Oh I see, it means that you know what your currency will be for certain in 3, 5 or 10 years time?  But you can’t tell me what GDP per capita will be, you can’t tell me what spending on the NHS will be, you can’t tell me what level of state provision of pensions will be, you can’t tell me what level unemployment will be at under Westminster across any of those horizons?  I love uncertainty me!!

Two of the most ruinous was in human history, in which we fought and won as a United Kingdom

– are we to ignore the French, the Americans, the Poles, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Indians and all those other former colonies of the British Empire that seemed to have contributed quite handsomely to the war effort despite no longer being part of the UK?  OK, I’m stretching it on the French, unless you count mediaeval history as relevant!  I cannot imagine a situation in which Scotland would not stand alongside rUK in a just war, and find it odd that you would consider otherwise

Unless Sir Ian Wood is wrong

– all I can do is plead with you to actually read the full content of Wood’s recent comments in conjunction with his original report: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wood-sets-out-200-billion-roadmap-for-future-of-offshore-oil-and-gas-industry-worlds-first-gas-ccs-plant-planned & http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/sir-ian-wood-predicts-25bn-barrels-of-oil-still-to-come-from-north-sea/ - there’s a lot more there than simply the headlines of the notoriously pro-union mainstream meejah!

I have a career, mortgage and pension and worry what will happen to these in a Yes vote

– furry muff, you are perfectly entitled to hold that concern as any sensible person should, but I can’t see that you provided any thoughts at all on why you wouldn’t be equally concerned under a No vote.  Some thoughts for you – I actually think your career could be a least as good in an iScotland, which you and I have discussed before – see above’s link to the shape and scope of Scotland’s likely military for further thought; your mortgage might well be safer too, in a housing market that is not at the whim of a boom-bust cycle driven by the south-east of England; and your pension is almost certainly going to be more secure in a country which places higher value on social outcomes as well as financial ones

Another will SNP claim that Scotland will be 100% renewable by 2020

– once again, it’s probably better for the debate to correctly distinguish between the SNP and the independence movement, and I think you’ll find that the 100% renewable point is an aspiration, a target, rather than a promise; but its good to aim high, right?  A couple of articles that might help to clarify some thoughts for you: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/12-images-of-scotlands-renewables-revolution/ & http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/how-scotland-is-powering-the-renewables-revolution/ - or take a gander at the original World Wildlife Fund report: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/powerhouse_1.pdf.  

People who genuinely don’t have a clue and have watched Braveheart too many times

– do they ‘not have a clue’ because they don’t agree with you?  That seems more than a little partonising

If everyone in the country propery does their research and really thinks long and hard about what independence would actually mean, and it is a Yes vote, then I can just about accept that … The problem I have is a large number of people will be voting Yes for all the wrong reasons

– in all likelihood, a similar number proportionately that would maybe vote No?  Or do Yes folks have the monopoly on stupidity and lack of research?

history shows that he who shouts loudest, promises the most (regardless of the truth) and who plays on nationalistic attitudes (or even racial tension) can easily win the race despite not having majority support

– an interesting thought from one of our English posters on Salmond, curiously one who hails from a country that recently had 34% of the populace vote for UKIP in our most recent elections, as against a mere 9% in Scotland.  In fact, if anything, the proIndy movement have gone out of their way to take the emotion out of the debate

surely you have to have everything agreed with Westminster before you can set up a government to run everything

– how can that be possible?  Negotiations will take place, which I hope will represent all parties, including those that backed No, to determine the future starting point of iScotland

it allows the central bank … to support the economy, and in particular the financial services industry in recent times.  With option (b), Scotland will not have that support

– yet as we now know, the majority of financial support for “UK” banks actually came from the Federal Reserve, not the Bank of England, so perhaps that support isn’t quite as essential as one might imagine?

very significant portion of the financial services industry in Scotland will re-domicile to rUK … some have even said as much

– pretty much all sensible businesses in Scotland today that need to have plans in place to mitigate for any identified risks have come up with a contingency plan should things go badly wrong in iScotland – this is exactly as it should be and represents only responsible business planning; but the funny ones are the same old crown, those that said they would leave after 97 and devolution, but somehow are still there – yep, that’s you Standard Life and others!

When we go independent without a currency unions who owns my house?  I have a mortgage with the Halifax

– well hopefully you own your house today, and rest assured that won’t change unless you sell it or your lender takes possession of it for some odd reason.  I imagine that the Halifax and many other institutions will continue to offer mortgages in both Scotland and rUK, where their existing residential loan books currently operate

Faslane employs nearly 8,000 people

– no, it doesn’t, see above

Scottish independence is not worth one Scottish job

– but sacrificing Scottish jobs by staying in the union is acceptable?  Please, let’s have a little balance

Where is the income going to be generated from to fund the oil shortfall in 40 years time?

– the perfect excuse to post a link to one of my personal favourite articles from the IndyRef: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/ - now even allowing for some hyperbole, yep, even the No campaign occasionally massages the true facts, this is an impressive picture – as Notch noted above, Scotland, with or without oil, is a wealthy country, and without serious economic mismanagement, should continue to be so.  Even dish-face Cameron has as good as admitted that Scotland could go it on its own quite comfortably – that must have stuck in his craw

the sovereign fund i.e. like Norway?  Ever been to Norway … taxation is ridiculous … That’s how they built their fund

– hmm, nope, it was defo with oil revenues, no question about that.  Yes, tax seems relatively high, but then it funds a higher standard of living, and a far more equal distribution of income, which might be something that is important to you?  The Office of National Statistics certainly seems to care: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/27/top-lowest-earners-inequality-ons and the general thrust is confirmed by studies from the World Bank and the OECD.  

It depends how much independence matters to people.  If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot

– this was a favourite argument of Project Fear going back about 4 months, but fortunately the academic on whose study Westminster’s claims were made came forward to state that they’d misinterpreted his findings and that their figures were pretty much nonsense (“bizarrely inaccurate” was the precise phrase, I believe!) as a result: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd73c78e-fd5c-11e3-96a9-00144feab7de.html#axzz3BXZc93an


So there you have some of my thoughts, and having offended most of you, I hope you’ll find it in your hearts to forgive.  Perhaps the renowned land economist and reformer Andy Wightman captures much of what I feel (altho some stuff that I also don't agree with): http://www.andywightman.com/?p=3843 , or if you've got some time on your hands why not have a listen to social commentator Lesley Riddoch's podcasts () or even read her excellent book 'Blossom',. It doesn’t have to come to what Ghandi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win“.   It should be as Mandela said: “I like friends who have independent minds because they tend to make you see problems from all angles”.  If you are lucky enough to have the vote, be brave – you have a chance that many of us wish we had

PS Good luck with the nipper, fES, I hope that you're much too involved with loved ones old and new to bother reading any of this sh1te!

[GLove39]

I'm currently undecided. But have to say fair play ASBO, some great responses there to some rather demeaning statements

[Derbymanc]

Very good post that ASBO, I do wish I could sometimes put things a bit more elequently but hey ho.

I was always under the impression that the isle of White, Channel Islands and Gibraltar (to some extant) had permission to use the pound, I'd be happy to know otherwise if someone can point me in the direction (and to something with small words

And the other point I was trying to make is that AS sounded like a spoilt child during the debate and categorically stated that if Westminster refused a currency Union then Scotland wouldn't be held to it's moral obligation of paying it's debt. I'm not sure that's the way it should be projected when your trying to convince people this is the way it should go.

As I also stated above, other than extra powers I don't really see what difference AS is trying to make as he seems to want to go independant but keep most things the way they are.

If Scotland go independant, then good luck to them (I think you need someone other than AS though,) and if not then welcome back.

Oh and Flower of Scotland is a cracking national anthem, go into a pub/stadium/living room with a bunch of Scots singing it passionately and it gives a tingle down your spine.

[Jimpy]

Like I've said, it's quite clear that the movement to gain independance has driven a wedge between our countries, and almost certainly damaged relations to the point that it will take generations to heal the wounds, regardless of the outcome.

Well done Salmond. And those voting for his ideal will get what they deserve i'm sure.

Lots of people quoting Mandela on this article. Mandela was a terrorist, ultimately legitimised by politics.

[jimbopip]

Like I've said, it's quite clear that the movement to gain independance has driven a wedge between our countries, and almost certainly damaged relations to the point that it will take generations to heal the wounds, regardless of the outcome.

Well done Salmond. And those voting for his ideal will get what they deserve i'm sure.

Lots of people quoting Mandela on this article. Mandela was a terrorist, ultimately legitimised by politics.

Jimpy, independence is not Alex Salmond's ideal. It is not some new fangled fashion but a centuries old heartfelt desire for a significant part of the Scottish people, both at home and abroad. ASBO's user name comes from the opening of the Declaration of Arbroath which pre-dates the USA's Declaration of Independence as a Bill of Citizen's Rights. Most English people I know don't give a damn about the Independence question and are certainly not wounded by it. But then again you probably mix in rather unusual social circles: Mandela was a terrorist! I feel you see the world in very stark shades of black and white. Embrace the dialectical side, you never know you might like it. (I've just noticed on the spell check you don't even know how to spell independence : says it all really)
ASBO; great to see you back. I was concerned by your prolonged silence. You must have spent a long time in the paint mixing shed stirring the pot to come up with that answer. If was old enough to write joined up sentences then he would probably write as well as you. Keep it up comrade.

[funnyExiledScot]

ASBO - sadly we're still waiting on baby fES to join us so I have to sit at work reading through your brave attempts to justify the impossible.

You only quoted me once, sadly, so I'll respond to that point first.

Sir Ian Wood, as you point out, has written a report which sets out a perfectly plausible roadmap for extracting more revenue from the North Sea. Get it right (i.e. tax less and invest more, in short), and there could be as many as 25bn barrels left. Get it wrong, and you could have 12.5bn barrels left (half).

What Alex Salmond has done, of course, is use the very highest assumption of oil forecasts. He needs to do this to reassure voters that this generous promises re: public spending and tax cuts will be met, and in fact exceeded, to enable him to set up an oil fund.

What Sir Ian Wood has rightly pointed out is that his roadmap, even if implemented, will not produce immediate returns, an as such, Salmond has overestimated oil revenue over the next 5 years by up to £6 billion.

Now, as you correctly point out, we should not ignore the remainder of his report. He is widely acknowledged as a leading expert and he has taken the time to set out a credible roadmap to maximise the potential of the North Sea. Something that has not been done in the past according to him (and I'm in no position to disagree). Whether it's a "Yes" or a "No" vote, that report should take centre stage.

In the same vein, we should also not ignore the point he makes about Salmond overestimating oil revenues in the short term. For those of us living in Scotland that will directly affect public services, Scotland's debt and/or personal taxation rates. That shortfall will have to come from somewhere. Alex Salmond was asked the question on Monday by Alistair Darling re: shortfall and his answer was that money would be set aside from good years to pay for bad. I personally don't understand quite how that deals with oil revenues being overestimated by up to £6billion in the first 5 years - which good year will pay for those overestimated years, or are we to believe that Scotland will be running a huge surplus anyway, and that this money was just a nice bonus??

[fa0019]

It depends how much independence matters to people.  If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot–

this was a favourite argument of Project Fear going back about 4 months, but fortunately the academic on whose study Westminster’s claims were made came forward to state that they’d misinterpreted his findings and that their figures were pretty much nonsense (“bizarrely inaccurate” was the precise phrase, I believe!) as a result: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd73c78e-fd5c-11e3-96a9-00144feab7de.html#axzz3BXZc93an

I this you ay have mis-interpreted the meaning of this statement.  Its nothing to do with the actual cost of separating. Its the cost of independence in the long run.

Without a central bank the financial services industry will move to England. Its not a scare story its the basic fundamentals of the lending industry. Without a lender of last resort businesses will not be able to operate. Yes they could in theory but no one would lend to them without massive premiums which would be unaffordable and the worst of it all... their competitors would jump on its back. Lehmans should have survived but once others got a sniff of their troubles and they broke them to make themselves a packet. That is what others would do to any bank etc without security behind it.

We can say, ah Westminister is only pulling a hard line, they will conform, but history would suggest otherwise and their stance on the Euro proves they will not budge. Already RBS & HBOS are owned 85% & 45% respectively by the UK government even though they are the 2 major banks in Scotland. Scotland can't buy either and any separation stake will be worth only 8.5% & 4.5% anyhow. The UK government is hardly going to allow these banks to pay their corporation tax in another country.. when they own the majority stake.

That FS industry in Edinburgh is vital to the economy, as much as Oil. Take that away and you have huge problems. 1. Revenue, 2. lack of Jobs and 3. emigration of skilled citizens to foreign fields.

Have a look at Ireland. Their net migration figures come in about negative 30-40k per year and most are the young, the educated... those which countries need to sustain their future.

Tell me, you are a business and you cater for UK & Ireland. You have 3 options to place your headquarters. a ) England & Wales b) Scotland or c) Ireland. Which would you choose?

So out of the market for 68MM people in the UK & Ireland England is the biggest market with 56MM people. London is one of the top cities in the world, one of the top cities for finance and business so their is incentive to be close to it. It has a corporation tax rate of 21% which will fall to 20% shortly.

Some firms may look at Scotland and Ireland and think. Ok, English speaking nations, both well educated, high number of grads to fill complex jobs, 1hr to London, good transport links. Ireland has a corporation tax rate of only 12.5% so they would only need to pay near half as much tax per year as if they were in the UK. Quite a big incentive right?

Well the problem for Scotland is that Salmond said he will set corporation tax at 3% less than the UK i.e. soon to be 17%. Does that sound competitive to you?

How will that attract new businesses to Scotland? Ireland is almost the same distance yet their rate will be 5.5% less (a big deal in the world of finance). Does that mean they would have to cut corporation tax to close or equal to Ireland to be competitive? Of course it would and how will that impact's Salmond's figures? Its a tax on profits right so if a single business reports profits of £1bn then that 5.5% loss will mean 55MM less then set.... thats for 1 business alone. That is a massive diff.

Scotland doesn't need to compete with England, its like apples and oranges. Scotland will be competing with Ireland... and it will be a race to the bottom.

[RuggerRadge2611]

It will ruin their (the people from Helensburgh) lives if it (Trident) goes

– oh dear, another shabby piece of No propaganda that has been swallowed hook line and sinker! As long ago as 2012, the MoD was forced to clarify that a mere 520 local jobs were directly involved in Faslane/Holy Loch (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/labour-and-tories-under-fire-for-inflating-trident-job-losses.19262922) . Regardless, I reckon the people of Glasgow will be cheering that the possibility of a nuclear accident devastating the largest city in Scotland has been drastically reduced. Completely unlikely, I hear you cry! Maybe, but it’s making the local headlines: http://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk/news/thisweek/articles/2013/10/31/477019--mod-reveals-faslane-nuclear-accidents/

Faslane employs nearly 8,000 people

– no, it doesn’t, see above

Scottish independence is not worth one Scottish job

– but sacrificing Scottish jobs by staying in the union is acceptable? Please, let’s have a little balance

A good response Asbo, I commend what you have said, but you are wrong in terms of how many people Faslane Employs.

Faslane is base for 4 Trident Submarines. Each crewed by 135 men and women nowadays. Each boat has a port and starboard crew that man the ship on patrol on a rota, so that is 1080 crew members based at HMS Neptune who spend their money in Helensburgh and Baloch on their shore leave. These sailors go to these towns to be sold drink, be sold clothes, food etc.

The base requires maintenence, plumbing, joinery, administration and skilled metal workers (welders, platers, fabricators, mechanics, fitters etc). Not to mention the non nuclear armed Astute submarines are going to be based at Faslane too who again require all the basic services listed above.

In addition RNAD Coulport similarly employs hundreds of skilled people to keep the base functioning.

So to say Faslane (or Trident these 2 words seem to be interchangeable in a lot of YES Campaign circles) only employs 520 people is quite untrue. Thousands work within the base and even more work in the local towns and villages to support the base.

The mines that mark the landscape of Fife only employed about 100 people each but when they closed towns like Cowdenbeath, Balingry and Kelty have all suffered. Are you telling me the 10 year "transitional period" will be better for Helensbrugh and the west of Scotland?

I'm not even talking about the jobs that BAE systems will lose when the construction of the T26 gets cancelled on the Clyde and taken to Portsmouth. This WILL happen in an independent Scotland since the RN will not build their warships in a foreign country.

Granted Clyde booting Trident will mean they will most likely be based at Devonport at the interim and with BAE Portsmouth almost certainly getting the contract to build the T26, perhaps I'll join you on the south coast!

I'll say it again Independence is not worth one Scottish job and currently in the union unemployment is at a 5 year low, with again less people out of work in Scotland.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/unemployment-in-uk-reaches-a-five-year-low-1-3277766

Whereas going independent will be the death knell for many Scottish based jobs. Mine included. I'm sorry if that's a selfish reason for voting no but as FES points out, knowing I live in a fairer society with less food banks means jack to me if I'm joining the queue for a foodbank myself.

[fa0019]

RuggerRadge2611

Its not selfish at all when its your life and the life of your family on the line. Anyone with dependents know how important financial security is. Those who says life on benefits is worth it for independence are barking mad and don't have a true understanding of what it means to raise a family.

In this case people will lose their jobs, its undeniable and they will not be able to find similar work. Some will be able to retrain, some will be flexible enough to move into other industries which pays similiar but others won't.... the chaps in their 40s who have known nothing other.... they will be the ones who will suffer, just like the ex miners when the coal pits closed in the 80s. Many of those guys have never worked since.

[funnyExiledScot]

So let's start:

waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland

What if today an independent Scotland were being asked to join rUK to form a new UK?  What would the arguments in favour be?
* Your main parliament will move hundreds of miles away and your MPs will be in a small minority;
* The biggest nuclear arsenal in Western Europe will be based on the River Clyde, 30 miles from your largest city;
* An austerity budget will be imposed from London, cutting jobs and threatening public services, instead of Scotland being responsible for raising and spending its own taxes;
* You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
Would that change your vote?

The arguments, given the premise that we would be two independent states asking whether to join a union, would be as follows:

- why waste money on two defence forces when those resources could be pooled to greater effect?
- why have two currencies when you could have a single central bank with responsibility for setting interest rates taking into account the entire currency zone, pooling resources, and a single currency interchangeble between the two countries?
- why have two taxation systems, competing in a race to the bottom, when all that administration etc. can be shared?
- why impose transaction/import/export levies on business given we share the same small island?
- why create two central health services when you could have one, again pooling resources?
- why not have a single market for financial services, with one central bank and prudential regulator, rather than two?
- why not pool the talents of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland together to great effect so that great strides can be made in research and technology with bigger budgets and better facilities?
- why not share the resources of the UK to better protect these islands from global financial downturns and periods of global recession?

What unites us is far greater than what divides us. There is a hugely positive case to be made for the UK, and it is a huge shame that the case hasn't been made more strongly.

[fa0019]

FES

not to mention the great things we have achieved together.

The UK combined began the industrial revolution, the modern era, took huge leaps in science and technology, brought modern democracy to the world, fought for the end of slavery and the rights of man and hand in hand defended the world when no one else took a stand. It didn't all happen because we were united but it had a huge impact and is why people hold the UK in such high regard.

Often people think the world looks down at the UK but for those of us who have live/d abroad we know how high we are held.

The worst of it all I hate the way that the Yes camp simply look at the current status and say well "hey whats in it for me". The union has existed sinc 1707 and only in the last 40 years has Scotland had a resource which makes the region financially self-sufficient (even still debatable).... what happened in the 250 years before, what will happen in the 250 years after? You roll with the punches, you take the good with the bad. Overall its been very beneficial and it will be if its future is destined to remain together... all this garbage that Scotland is some economic powerhouse akin to HK or Singapore... look around you, do you feel the wealth??? and no its not because England is simply stealing your candy either.

[funnyExiledScot]

be wary of Scotland as they don’t pay their debt

– did you miss HM Treasury’s announcement on 13 Jan of this year?  In short, an iScotland would have no responsibility for any debt unless it chose to.  Why did Westminster state this?  Well I suspect that they were worried about the uncertainty (yes, that same uncertainty that they are happy to propogate when it works in their favour) and its effects on financial markets.  So they had to hand iScotland a very strong bargaining chip, even before the election.

Surely Scotland wouldn’t welch on its moral commitments tho?  Sir James Mirrlees, a Nobel laureate and a member of the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers (although some on here seem to think that they Yes side has no economic experts or business leaders on its side, has said "Britain inherits the debt" if it refuses a currency union.  Well, let’s see – it’s a pretty strong bargaining chip, and I would be tempted to have it up my sleeve ready for any negotiations (as much as I can understand the main Westminster parties ruling out any currency union, but in reality being prepared to go back on that when push comes to shove).

Westminster holds that Scotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too?  It raises a whole other debating issue around continuing or successor states vs new states and how international law is applied in those cases.

This one really annoys me. The UK quite rightly and responsibly reassured the markets earlier in the year that no matter what Scotland decides, UK debt is good. This annoucement was hugely beneficial to the UK as a whole, including Scotland, as it had the effect of ensuring UK debt, including Scotland's share of it, did not become more expensive.

It was also stating the obvious. The counterparty to the debt, the UK (of which Scotland is currently a member), cannot assign that debt to another party (e.g. a new independent Scotland) without the permission of the lender in any case. It was really just a reassuring statement to the markets. That Alex Salmond sought to make political capital out of this and claim it as some kind of bargaining chip was pretty grubby in my view.

This whole threat not to take on any liabilities is extremely dangerous, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a currency union. A union (the name gives it away) is an agreement between two or more parties. That union is not an asset that belongs to any member of it. It is an agreement, much in the same way as a political union, and not an asset that can be divided into pieces. It certainly does not sit on a balance sheet in the same way as a debt. The "Yes" campaign know this but are clearly hoping to mislead the people of Scotland by putting the argument in such simplistic and misleading terms.

The better question is what portion of the Bank of England reserves is Scotland entitled to, in other words tangible assets that can actually be divided up. Nothing to do with a currency union. It's a simplistic and silly argument from the Nationalists, and about as credible a bargaining chip as the rUK stating that all revenues in Scotland are currently paid to HMRC in rUK and that if Scotland doesn't pay its share of UK debt, then rUK will just seize the revenues from Scotland to pay for it, by force if necessary. rUK may also argue that North Sea oil is currently a UK asset, and they would be right. Perhaps it should be split on a population basis rather than a geographic basis? That would seem a fairly strong bargaining chip as well. Exactly the sort of p*ssing contest we should be trying to avoid.

The "Yes" campaign should drop the silly and irresponsible threat to refuse to pay Scotland's share of the debt, accept that they cannot force the rUK to maintain a currency union without political union, accept that a "union" is not a divisible asset and start to actually make sensible comments about what can be divided and what cannot be divided.

[funnyExiledScot]

Are many v2ers familiar with the science (if it can be called that!) of behavioural economics?  It is a branch of economics that looks at the psychology of judgement and decision-making.  One particular bias that is identified is labelled 'confirmation bias', and this particular quote struck me as an extreme example of just that - a definition would be "The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions".

My views are pretty well known, and I salute Spoons for joining me in sticking his head above the parapet among what is clearly a less than friendly towards Yes crowd (comments about lies, national disgraces, etc).

[Jimpy]

Like I've said, it's quite clear that the movement to gain independance has driven a wedge between our countries, and almost certainly damaged relations to the point that it will take generations to heal the wounds, regardless of the outcome.

Well done Salmond. And those voting for his ideal will get what they deserve i'm sure.

Lots of people quoting Mandela on this article. Mandela was a terrorist, ultimately legitimised by politics.

Jimpy, independence is not Alex Salmond's ideal. It is not some new fangled fashion but a centuries old heartfelt desire for a significant part of the Scottish people, both at home and abroad. ASBO's user name comes from the opening of the Declaration of Arbroath which pre-dates the USA's Declaration of Independence as a Bill of Citizen's Rights. Most English people I know don't give a damn about the Independence question and are certainly not wounded by it. But then again you probably mix in rather unusual social circles: Mandela was a terrorist! I feel you see the world in very stark shades of black and white. Embrace the dialectical side, you never know you might like it. (I've just noticed on the spell check you don't even know how to spell independence : says it all really)
ASBO; great to see you back. I was concerned by your prolonged silence. You must have spent a long time in the paint mixing shed stirring the pot to come up with that answer. If was old enough to write joined up sentences then he would probably write as well as you. Keep it up comrade.

Actually, I don't. Mandela was classed as a terrorist (rightly or wrongly) by pro-apartheid organisations (and some that wren't pro Apartheid either). So get your opinions in a sock before suggesting the social circles i move in are unusual. Additionally, questioning  (or implying) my level of intelligence and linking that to a typographical error, says it all really. About you. Furthermore, most of the English people I know actually do care a lot about this subject, because it will have an effect on us as a nation. So don't generalise, and may i be so bold as to suggest that if 'most of the English people you know don't give a damn', then it's actually you that move in the odd )or is that special) circles, not me. People like your friends who are fairly obviously not bothering to engage with the politics of the moment are the reason that UKIP gets a sizeable vote in England and Salmond even gets off the starting blocks in Scotland. The nationalistic vote borne from ignorance.

Eejit.

[funnyExiledScot]

Just to cool the temperature a little on this subject of nationalism. I am a "No" voter and will vote "No" on the 18th September. I've also lived close to half my life in England.

Jimbopip is entirely right to stress that this isn't Alex Salmond on some mad personal crusade (he's no more or less egotistical and self-involved than Blair, Bush or Thatcher) - there are many people in Scotland who have always supported independence, including before the discovery of significant oil in the North Sea. The strongest and most persuasive argument for Scottish independence is that Scotland will, as an independent nation, elect its own government and have have control over its own affairs (although that does depend on the actual proposition of course, as I don't believe a currency union/EURO actually gives you this outcome). Still, in of itself, it is a good argument and many people support independence on that basis and nothing wrong with that.

Nelson Mandela has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Where I depart significantly from the "Yes" campaign is around whether or not Scotland will be more prosperous, fair, just and all the rest of the stuff being promised. For all the various arguments set out above I believe Scotland will be worse off, with fewer high end jobs, poorer public and private services, higher unemployment and I think all this stuff about Scotland being at "top tables" is frankly misleading. I do not see this as "doing down Scotland or its people", which is the very first thing Nationalists will accuse you of in saying these things, I see this as a recognition of benefits of being part of the United Kingdom which will not be replaced. I see relations between rUK and Scotland falling apart significantly (threats not to pay debts don't help), and I do not think any sort of agreement will be reached within 18 months on anything like the terms the "Yes" supporters have been led to expect by Alex Salmond.

If Scotland votes "Yes", nothing would please me more than being proved wrong. I live and work in Scotland, and moved north to raise baby fES in what I believe to be the finest city on this earth (that's not Glasgow incidentally). I believe it would be the wrong choice for this country, but if there is a "Yes" vote then I really do hope Salmond is right, and everything will be much better, fairer and more prosperous, running sufficient budget surplusses to create an oil fund to make Scotland rich for generations to come. I just don't believe it for a minute.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Are many v2ers familiar with the science (if it can be called that!) of behavioural economics?  It is a branch of economics that looks at the psychology of judgement and decision-making.  One particular bias that is identified is labelled 'confirmation bias', and this particular quote struck me as an extreme example of just that - a definition would be "The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions".

My views are pretty well known, and I salute Spoons for joining me in sticking his head above the parapet among what is clearly a less than friendly towards Yes crowd (comments about lies, national disgraces, etc).

Oh dear, you can't even get that right - I commended Spoons for his actions, not for his thoughts

[funnyExiledScot]

My mistake. I thought your support would be for arguments and ideas, and not just for opening ones month on your side of the debate!

[RuggerRadge2611]

I am a patriot.

I love Scotland and I'm proud to have been born here. Perhaps not proud to be born in Fife and more specifically Kirkcaldy but hey, them's the breaks.

I love the UK too, for all the good things it does for us and for me in terms of my job and education.

I do not doubt that there are a hundred good reasons for voting YES. I understand the passion for our country and I also understand the Union hasn't benefited everyone the way it should. Case and point an oil fund like Norway and the fact that Maggie destroyed the dockyard I now work in (Rosyth) when she gave the refit of Trident to Devonport.

However Labour led Westminster governments gave work to build the T45 on the Clyde and the work to assemble the massive Aircraft Carrier I can see out of my office window as I type this.

Finally the dreaded Tories have given BAE Clyde the contract to build the T26 Frigates a contract that will secure work for 20 years.

I'm a no voter, but I like to think I'm a no voter for the right reasons.

And no matter what way the vote goes in September, I'll do whatever I can to help my country. I just hope an iScotland will do what it can to help me.

[funnyExiledScot]

I am a patriot.

I love Scotland and I'm proud to have been born here. Perhaps not proud to be born in Fife and more specifically Kirkcaldy but hey, them's the breaks.

I think that makes your patriotism all the more special personally!!

[funnyExiledScot]

A letter signed by 130 firms was published today stating that the "business case for independence has not been made". Those firms account for roughly 50,000 jobs in Scotland according to the BBC.

There are obviously businesses supporting both sides of the debate, but this is a pretty significant intervention by some pretty heavy hitting businesses operating in Scotland (Weir Group, Baxters, Cairn Energy, Edrington, HSBC, BHP Billiton and BG Group). Regardless of businesses on the other side of the debate, I would hope that such a long list of significant businesses in Scotland raising such concerns would give "Yes" voters and undecided voters some food for thought.

[RuggerRadge2611]

I'm disapointed BAE Systems and Babcock are not amongst the signatures.

[BigGee]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. I thought I was pretty up to date with the arguments, having followed it very closely. There has however been more informed debate here than in anything I have read or seen in the media, from both sides of the border.

The people on this thread obviously represented a very small cross section of society but you do get the impression that most people have already made up their minds. You do wonder how many people are genuinely undecided.

Back in the 1980's, I can honestly say that I did not know anyone who admitted to voting Tory and yet they kept winning by very large majorities. People were voting for them despite them being uncool and unpopular but did not want to shout it from the rooftops. Even I as a labour party member pretty much realised that we were unelectable at the time and put my cross in the box without any great sense of hope or expectation.

The reputable polling agencies eventually picked up on this and had to build in a hidden Tory bias into their predictions as despite what people were telling them in their surveys, they were behaving differently at the polling station.

How many of the undecided are genuinely undecided. Are they really going to take that great leap of faith into the unknown or are they going to settle for the devil they know. There is no doubt that voting Yes is the sexy attractive option, which is why Salmon tried to get all the young kids on board, an option that interestingly may have back fired a little as they may be proving a slightly more sophisticated bunch than we gave them credit for. many of them seem to be actively weighing up the pros and cons, they are the ones who potentially have the most to lose as well as the most to gain.

It would be no great surprise if the result ends up in a 60/40 split to the No camp, which is pretty much where it all started out. If that is the case you do have to ask why have we been through this and was the damage it has undoubtedly done been worth it.

I would genuinely like to know if Alec and the SNP really think that they can win, though they are clearly never going to admit that in public. The poles would suggest not and that kind of deficit has never really been overturned. Do they just see this turmoil as part of a longer game, firstly for more devolved powers and eventually another crack at independence a little way down the line. It would be nice to feel that this could be a line in the sand and clearly that is what Cameron hoped, have the referendum and put the question to bed. Unfortunately I don't think that is what is going to happen.

Congratulations to all the contributors on here though. Apart from a few little splutters this has all been argued in the right spirit and with the correct intention. The quality of the debate has been excellent and gladly free of obvious wind up intentions, which is more than can be said of a lot of the rugby threads!

[BigGee]

I'm disapointed BAE Systems and Babcock are not amongst the signatures.

There was a senior manager from Babcock I am sure but you can see why they would have been told to keep out of it, they are practically government jobs at the end of the day.

[funnyExiledScot]

I pop to the New Club for a slice of right wing pie, a glass of sherry and some merry banter about poor people and I have to come back to this nonsense??

Please Mods, can we not please remove each of the posts south of BigGee at 12:58pm, other than the bit where Jimbopip calls me a "good man". I need that sort of confirmation bias in my life.

[George Carlin]

A letter signed by 130 firms was published today stating that the "business case for independence has not been made". Those firms account for roughly 50,000 jobs in Scotland according to the BBC.

There are obviously businesses supporting both sides of the debate, but this is a pretty significant intervention by some pretty heavy hitting businesses operating in Scotland (Weir Group, Baxters, Cairn Energy, Edrington, HSBC, BHP Billiton and BG Group). Regardless of businesses on the other side of the debate, I would hope that such a long list of significant businesses in Scotland raising such concerns would give "Yes" voters and undecided voters some food for thought.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237805123/Letter-to-the-Scotsman-Wed-27-Sep-2014

[BigGee]

Yes I probably should not have said it has been a very reasonable, civilised debate up to now. Seems to have put the kiss of death on it!

[funnyExiledScot]

Yes I probably should not have said it has been a very reasonable, civilised debate up to now. Seems to have put the kiss of death on it!

Funny how often that happens. I sent a horribly premature gloating text message to an Arsenal fan at the weekend (I'm an Everton fan and with 8 minutes left we were 2-0 up) - the game finished 2-2.

Just looked at that list of signatories to that Scotsman letter. Some big beasts in there.

[EWT Spoons]

Just looked at that list of signatories to that Scotsman letter. Some big beasts in there.

It's blocked by my work's internet filter....I'm taking that as a sign.  

[funnyExiledScot]

You must work for Jim McColl!! Apparently he's going to move back from Monaco if Scotland votes "Yes"!

My work (law firm) bans all sorts of completely harmless websites, but the only "newspaper" blocked is The Sun, for some unknown reason.....not that I've tried....obviously.

[George Carlin]

The more I read the eloquently put posts on here that raise genuinely serious concerns about Scotland's post independent future the more angry I get that the Yes campaign can sprout so much rubbish and people are actually buying it.

So let's start:

waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland

- can anyone in all seriousness name me a single country in the world, with the possible exception of Norway, for which such a financial case can be made?  It certainly isn't the UK as a whole, and couldn't realistically be iScotland either - yet this is just one of many instances where the two options, union and independence are not held to the same candle.  Judge them equally or don't bother.

What if today an independent Scotland were being asked to join rUK to form a new UK?  What would the arguments in favour be?
* Your main parliament will move hundreds of miles away and your MPs will be in a small minority;
* The biggest nuclear arsenal in Western Europe will be based on the River Clyde, 30 miles from your largest city;
* An austerity budget will be imposed from London, cutting jobs and threatening public services, instead of Scotland being responsible for raising and spending its own taxes;
* You will join a country whose health and education services are rapidly being privatised.
Would that change your vote?

better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established

- I don't think I've ever heard a better argument for doing nothing; it is absolutely impossible for any government, be it in Westminster or Holyrood to state with certainty what will happen post 18th Sept in the event of a Yes vote - a whole raft of negotiations will take place to define how independence will happen, a new government would need to be formed of all the parties in Scotland, etc.  Some folks are simply looking for the kind of certainty that simply cannot be - playing on the fear of the unknown and this apparent lack of certainty is what the No campaign is all about, their self-proclaimed 'Project Fear'.

In the words of the great Nelson Mandela, "It always seems impossible until it’s done"

Asbo:  Genuinely an excellent read.

The two points above are mine, so I'm happy to clarify what it was that I meant.

1. "waterproof financial case for an independent Scotland"

You ask which countries genuinely could make a bulletproof financial case for independence. I would say that generally speaking, the answer is:

(a) any country with notable mineral or utility wealth - e.g. if for example, Venezuela was not an independent country but wrapped in with other South American states - the fact that it has 15% of the world's oil and more than 230 years of proven reserves available, then clearly there would be a strong financial platform for that country surviving on its own;

(b) any country with a large manufacturing industry - e.g. South Korea making 58 million mt of steel per year or Germany selling 5.7 million cars per year worldwide would provide either country with a self determining and stable cashflow that is not dependent on any other nation doing any other thing to help.

Clearly, neither is where we are. The UK as a whole is a service industry now and so that means we need businesses to service who want to settle here, trade here and employ people from here.

Now don't get me wrong. I am absolutely not saying that (i) Scotland should only be independent if it can be proven beyond doubt that we will always have a massive safety net or (ii) the buffer of NS oil is not a hugely welcome and enviable means for getting us off on the correct foot financially. My thing is that Salmond seems to be suggesting we will never need to offset diminishing oil revenue or that when we do, it will not be a substantive problem. For a long time, they central plank of SNP propaganda was that we would all be very wealthy per head if the country was independent. They were happy to trumpet this until asked to be more specific about 'how wealthy' and 'for how long'.

Nobody can realistically expect any politician to tell them what the correct method for making up a national GDP shortfall in 30 years time will be, but it should at least be acknowledged (and not ignored) that there may be a problem. I would respect the 'yes' campaign much more if they had, rather than pretending it will all be jam later.

2. "better to err on the side of caution until such time as policy can be firmly established".

I am really (really) not advocating that to sit on our hands has to be better by default. There is an opportunity cost to everything and as various people have said, it is a wonderful chance to change lives that we may not see for another generation.

However, to suggest that nobody can be really sure about anything, so we don't need the comfort of really having well established and detailed policy positions really cannot be correct. I realise that there is the small matter of running a country in parallel with this process, but fundementally, the SNP has had fully 2 years to have formulated detailed positions and made preparatory investigations with the relevant stakeholders whose interests the SNP knew it would be publicly commenting on.

There is absolutely no way that the SNP should have announced a currency union as a near certainty without a 'behind the counter' agreement in principle with the Treasury that they would not be adverse to this. It looked completely amateurish to state that we would automatically gain EU membership and have Prodi say the very next week that this was conjecture and not guaranteed. There a dozen examples of this. Salmond should have underpinned every single position with solid legal advice which should be made publicly available and be confident that he would not be contradicted by the very people he wanted to do business with.

The bottom line for me is that it is not a lack of patriotism or reluctance to be somehow bold or forward thinking to say that I really wanted (if not in reality) at least the sense that behind the scenes the policies had been well considered and a long time in gestation. There are simply too many holes in the yes manifesto and I don't mean 'holes' by way of guarantees of factual circumstances. As you say, nobody can provide this and all stakeholders would reshuffle and reposition themselves when faced with a new country at the table.

I mean holes in detailed policy and holes in chosen and verifiable alternatives to what exists now that have been thought through and well presented. I couldn't give a poop how many 'Plan Bs' Eck has got for what currency we are going to use. I want to know which he is planning to use as a preference and why he thinks that this will work.

Like FES though - if we do vote yes, a part of me will be delighted and I would be fairly sure that sink or swim, a self determining nation without training wheels is a step forward. It has to be.

[Jimpy]

I don't think its realistic that an independant Scotland would seamlessly make the transition to independance. There could potentially be years of instability with the currency, industry and defence. Has it been laid out what this transitionary period would be? What would the Scottish public consider acceptable?

[funnyExiledScot]

The transition period suggested by the "Yes" camp is 18 months. It has been widely criticised on a number of fronts as unrealistic.

I may have been wrong but I thought that Salmond tried a subtle change of position in the debate. It was hard to hear anything with the crowd, Darling and Salmond shouting at each other, but I thought he said that 18 months was now the negotiating period, not the period by the end of which independence would be achieved (i.e. currency sorted, agreement on the allocation of divisible assets and liabilities, Scottish regulators, tax system and civil service up and running, NATO membership dealt with, Trident moved etc.). I may have misheard, and I think it may have been in the context of Trident, where there's general acknowledgement that it may take more time.

[RZR]

The transition period suggested by the "Yes" camp is 18 months. It has been widely criticised on a number of fronts as unrealistic.

I think the 18 month time period is so that the date coincides with the date of the act of union in 1707. To me this is another example of the triumph of style over substance as far as Alex Salmond is concerned. I'm a project manager by trade, and have never worked on a project with a timescale of 18 months or less, and the stuff I work on is completely and totally inconsequential when compared with setting up a new country from scratch.

It genuinely alarms me that a timescale like this can be set, and discussed as realistic. It is almost as alarming as the fact that during the first debate, AS had no plan B for currency that he will willing to discuss. By the second debate, less than 3 weeks later, he has come up with 3 no less. So Alex, let me get this straight, in the two years you have been planning for this formally, let alone the countless years you have been dreaming of it in private, you didn't develop a plan for what currency you would use in the event of the 95% of people in the rest of the UK not being too happy with underwriting your debts, yet when it turns out that this is something the voters want to hear about, you come up with three in the space of 20 days. And you have a nice soundbite to go with it - like buses coming along in threes. And even though there are no details mentioned, we, the voters are somehow supposed to be placated and reassured by the fact that, in between single handedly saving a shipyard and visiting half the country, you've found the time to come up with three alternatives for what currency we're going to use.

Maybe I'm just being fussy, but I'd have been more reassured had things been thought out with a little more rigour rather earlier in the process, rather than coming up with something in a few idle hours coming back in the bus from Dunfermline one damp Tuesday evening.

[RZR]

Regarding my third post above, I realise now that I have said all this already. How tedious.

[funnyExiledScot]

On the currency issue Salmond point you to the Fiscal Commission Working Group Report (2013 I think) which sets out the various currency options. It's on the basis of this report that he has his "3 Plan Bs for the price of 1", and on the basis of this report that he's continually peddled the line that there are good reasons both south and north of the border to go for his Plan A.

His real problem came earlier in the year when all the major UK political parties ruled out Plan A. The "Yes" campaign had two options at that point (i) accuse the UK political parties of bluffing, and that Scotland will get its Plan A all along and therefore there is no need for a fallback option, or (ii) accept what all the major UK political parties are saying and form a credible back-up Plan B, one which Scotland can implement without depending on other sovereign nations for support.

They chose (i), and then followed that up by linking the currency union with Scotland's share of the debt, and pretending that the currency union is the only asset on the table and therefore Scotland's share of the UK debt is entirely equivalent and that they go hand in hand. Thus you'll have heard Swinney last night insisting that no currency union means no debt.

If we vote "Yes", I think a number of voters in Scotland are going to be sorely disappointed at the outcome of the negotiations with rUK. As I said above, I really hope that is not the case, and (for once) will take zero pleasure in saying I told you so.

[Notch]

Regarding some of the things I've seen written on here about citizenship in the event of a Yes vote, particularly the assumption that people will lose their UK citizenship. And I apologise if this is a digression, I appreciate that the discussion is currently on currency...

I don't see any reason anyone would lose citizenship of the UK. There are still people alive today, born and bred in the south of Ireland, who are fully entitled to UK citizenship because they were born before Ireland became independent. They were born in Ireland when it was in the UK, they have UK citizenship. People born in Ireland after it became independent do not.

It's one of those head scratching things whenever I see people mention this like suddenly people will become non-UK nationals overnight. I think the only reason this hasn't been cleared up is to plant further uncertainty in the heads of the electorate. Tbh, I expect all Scottish citizens to have dual nationality of Scotland and the UK available to then in the event of a yes vote if they wish.

The government is obviously not an impartial actor in this and wishes to occlude the debate as much as possible by refusing to outline its policies in the event of a yes vote, but the besides the precedent I cite above after Irish Independence, much more recently the UK government has also committed itself to supporting the rights of everyone in Northern Ireland to be eligible for dual UK-Irish citizenship even if Northern Ireland votes to leave the UK and join Ireland. A hypothetical vote for a United Ireland will not adversely affect anyone in Northern Irelands right to UK citizenship so you'd have to ask some serious questions if the government didn't extend the same rights to the Scots after a YES vote.

[BigGee]

I don't think anyone who has a UK passport will have it taken away from them, it does not happen currently to anyone British who goes off to live in another country. As no-one currently has a Scottish Passport, other than one of the joke ones you can buy at tourists shops, anyone who wants one will have to apply, they would then have the choice as to whether to keep their UK one or not. They could have either or both and as long as both countries stay in the EU, would not make any real difference to their rights either.

The problem would more be for the next generation as it is not clear how the rules would affect them. As well, people like myself, born in Scotland to Scottish parents but lived most of my life in England. As I understand, I could apply for a Scottish passport as well as my UK one should I wish. Apart from the expense of this, that is not something I really wish to do. I don't really want two passports as I am very happy with the one I have got which covers all that I feel about my identity.

The issue is that identity is about far more than a passport. Plenty people take a passport of convenience, we have had endless discussions about the rights and wrongs of this in the rugby context on this forum. I can only speak for myself, but I would struggle with sharing my identity in that way, especially as it seems that an independent Scotland would effectively be rejecting England, the country where my family and I live and in many cases with some prejudice.

As I said before, independence would effectively force me to make a choice and it is not a choice that I want to make. On that basis some of the people that I struggle the most with are the Sean Connery's and Alan Cummings of this world, who are the great supporters of independence from the other side of the world. They live in a fantasy world and have they really the intention of moving back, I don't think so. Yes it is very easy for them to buy and maintain a house there for appearances sake and to allow them a vote. Myself and plenty of others living in England don't get that option.

[HammerofThunor]

On the point of this driving a wedge between England and Scotland...can't say I've seen any sign of it. No-one really cares round here. It happens or it doesn't happen.

Also, on the point of minute detail of the economy following independence (no idea what I'm talking about here) but I grew up in Stoke with thriving coal mining and pottery industries, both gone now. Now live in Hull with was a thriving port, also largely gone now. Hull trying to become a big centre for renewables now. Stuff changes job sources come and go. Trident is where it is now but can move even if Scotland stays in the UK.

But enough of my ramble. Unfortunately whatever happens a lot of people will be disappointed.

[Notch]

I guess in politics either a lot of people are disappointed or everyone is disappointed, all the time.

I don't think Scotland will tear itself apart. The way this debate is being conducted is fairly exemplary- I don't mean the stage managed screeching matches between politicians, I mean in wider society. It's a divisive issue but there's a distinct absence of violence, coercion or intimidation. That might sound irrelevant but throughout history the re-drawing of borders has been a very bloody business. To being able to engage with such an important yet divisive issue as a mature democracy bodes well for Scotlands future whatever the referendum brings.

[funnyExiledScot]

Did you see the guy who turned up to Gordon Brown's speech today and just started screaming at him? I hope the Yes campaign expressly condemn that man and his behaviour. It's pathetic.

[funnyExiledScot]

I have to be honest, the citizenship thing doesn't bother me. I'm sure us Scots will get a passport of some sort, not a biggie.

[ME-109]

The debate on the advantages/disadvantages, economic issues etc has been extremely well thought out (mostly) and seem to be very mature. The problem with nationalism and something like independence though is that the majority of people dont think along these lines. Independence for Scotland will happen (or not) because its what people want.

[Exiledinborders]

On the currency issue Salmond point you to the Fiscal Commission Working Group Report (2013 I think) which sets out the various currency options. It's on the basis of this report that he has his "3 Plan Bs for the price of 1", and on the basis of this report that he's continually peddled the line that there are good reasons both south and north of the border to go for his Plan A.

His real problem came earlier in the year when all the major UK political parties ruled out Plan A. The "Yes" campaign had two options at that point (i) accuse the UK political parties of bluffing, and that Scotland will get its Plan A all along and therefore there is no need for a fallback option, or (ii) accept what all the major UK political parties are saying and form a credible back-up Plan B, one which Scotland can implement without depending on other sovereign nations for support.

They chose (i), and then followed that up by linking the currency union with Scotland's share of the debt, and pretending that the currency union is the only asset on the table and therefore Scotland's share of the UK debt is entirely equivalent and that they go hand in hand. Thus you'll have heard Swinney last night insisting that no currency union means no debt.

If we vote "Yes", I think a number of voters in Scotland are going to be sorely disappointed at the outcome of the negotiations with rUK. As I said above, I really hope that is not the case, and (for once) will take zero pleasure in saying I told you so.

I agree.

Scottish cards:
- the debt
- Trident

RUK cards
- the assets of UK state
- veto on Scottish EU membership

On the currency union both sides are wrong. Yes say union is good for both countries and No say it is good for neither. In reality it would be beneficial for Scotland but not UK.

Scotland Benefits:
- lower trading costs with much the largest trading partner
- resources of much larger country to assist in a crisis (bank bail-outs etc)
- Bank of England available as bank of last resort and for QE in a crisis

Scotland disadvantages
--------------------------
- having to give up sovereignty over currency and fiscal policy
- interest rates set for whole area not just Scotland

rUK Benefits
--------------
- lower trading costs with minor trading partner (of what trade there is much is oil so dollar denominated anyway)

rUK disadvantages
---------------------
- having to give up sovereignty over currency and fiscal policy
- interest rates set for whole area not just rUK

If rUK wanted to reduce trading costs by joining a currency union it would make more sense to join Euro or even use US Dollar than join a currency union with Scotland.

Alex Salmond claims to know more about currency matters than UK politicians. It is worth looking at some of the things SNP said in the past:

I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency.

I think there is a strong argument for the euro.

I think the argument for having strong fiscal powers, powers over revenue, powers to expand the economy within a monetary context, within a European Euro context, will prove to be a very strong one for the people of Scotland.

It is inevitable we will have to join. It is in our best interest to do so. If we are independent and tied to sterling, we will pay the price in higher interest rates while being exposed to a currency that has a history of suffering from wild fluctuations. Let us today take a clear decision to take an independent Scotland into the euro.

We are a Nordic, European country, currently part of a debt-laden subprime toxic assent currency [stirling] we don't want to be part of and which is not serving our interests well.

These people got it wrong on currency union then and they are doing it again.

[RDW]

Gave myself a few days off from this thread - was all getting a bit much!

Just thought I'd give a response to ASBO (whether he reads it or not) because he wrote a very eloquent, well thought out read.  It doesn't change my opinion, but if more people on the Yes side were like ASBO I would have a lot more respect for the campaign.  I would also like to say that this is clearly a very emotive issue, and some of my posts have been fairly, well, emotive and not my greatest work.  For that I apologise to ASBO and Spoons who have shown a lot of balls throwing themselves into a very No orientated thread.

Anyway, my response to some of your responses:

if Scotland becomes independent, I don’t want to be here any more

– ok, cheerio

That is a fairly belittling response to what I think could be a real issue post independence.  I'm not the only one that I know that shares this viewpoint, and I'm sure this viewpoint isn't only held by me and people I know.

Taking aside the fact that I don't want to be here during my country being broken in two, my company have recently won a 5 year contract to do a shed load of work that will no longer be required post independence (no prizes for guessing where this work is). As part of this we have had to basically double our team, into over 100 people. This work (rightly or wrongly) is basically meant to sustain us in the long term.  If independence happens and this contract is terminated, that will be over 100 people looking for a new job. Being a chartered (hopefully in the next few months) Civil Engineer  I am very much in demand around the world.  Therefore it is an easy choice to leave the country and go somewhere else.

Also, let's just assume a lot of large businesses will re-focus towards the south, removing a number of professional jobs from Scotland.  Where will these people go? Yeah they will follow the jobs. Obviously the counter argument is that businesses won't do this, but it is a risk I don't want to sit around and wait for.

I found myself singing ‘Flower of Scotland’ and thinking ‘what a load of nonsense this is’

– and this from the same poster that confessed to having loved the pomp of Will and Kate’s wedding!!  Feel free to sing ‘God save our gracious queen’ with your branflakes every morning if makes you feel better OK

Quite.  I am passionately Scottish, but also British. FoS is a great anthem with great history in the sport, one that I've belted out on many an occasion.  However when the words are about fighting the English and rising up as a nation again, and you are a staunch No voter, you can't help but think the words are a bit ridiculous.  If we vote No would it be right to sing this anthem again?

A bit off topic, but another pet hate of mine is people looking at these historical battles and thinking it was Scotland V England.  I wonder how they would react if they found out that 4 out of the 16 infantry battalions for the Hannovarians were Scottish during the battle of Culloden?

Cybernats.  There are a lot of them and they are a complete disgrace to the country

– if you imagine for just one second that there aren’t as many cyberunionist trolls as there are cybernats, then you are far more naïve than I originally imagined.  I’ll happily send you examples if you insist, but I certainly wouldn’t want to see either brand of sh1te posted on here.

Yes I do suppose there are bad people on both side, and I do not need you to point them all out to me, but the significant quantity of instances I have seen on social media and in the news have been Cybernats. Abusing celebrities that support No, saying that those that vote No are 'Traitors' who will be lined up against the wall and shot post independence - that kind of thing.

Anyway it is not worth arguing further, but unless social media is very biased, I have seen a lot more Yes idiots than No.

People who genuinely don’t have a clue and have watched Braveheart too many times

– do they ‘not have a clue’ because they don’t agree with you?  That seems more than a little partonising

No, people who genuinely don't have a clue and when asked why they are voting Yes give a ridiculous response. 'I just dinnae like the English' being my favourite response I've seen.

Despite the significant number of industry experts, academics, business leaders and economists saying that it will be a bad idea, the SNP just put their fingers in their ears and go ‘la la la la’

– so the Yes side (to give it its proper name, you do realise its not simply the SNP?  There’s the greens, the Labour for Independence group,

Ah yes, the 'Labour for Independence Group' who are regularly outed for having members who are actually SNP Councillors and campaigners?



So that's just a few of my responses.

As I said earlier, even if there was more certainty about the financial side of things and that the practicalities - and cost - of becoming independent were a lot clearer, I still would vote No.  The entire concept of being independent just does not appeal to me in the slightest.

[Sponsored content]