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]

Exiledinborders - an excellent post and I completely agree.

The news story that interests me today is that the "Yes" campaign supporters have "trumped" the 130 businesses letter yesterday with a letter of their own (which has 200 signatures so must be better and more authoritative). I suspect we are to believe that one letter negates the other, or at the very least we are supposed to conclude that independence is neutral for business with there being businesses for and against (and more "for" apparently).

Let me just say this. All of the businesses currently writing letters (on both sides) employ a significant number of people in Scotland. They currently do so today, as part of the UK, and these businesses are able to thrive.

Please, I beg you, do not ignore the concerns of the 130 significant businesses who have stated that the business case has not been made, just because the "Yes" campaign have 200 signatures saying it has. The number of signatures does not translate into jobs, and individuals signing the "No" letter should be listened to and have their concerns addressed. One letter does not negate the other.

[RDW]

I see that a bloke from William Hill has signed the Yes letter - not a surprise given that in most Scottish Towns and cities you will see a pub, bank and Willy Hill branch all next to each other!

I see they have trumped the No campaign with 200 signatures over 130 but I've not been able to see on the news articles how many jobs that equates to - does that suggest it is less and they are trying not to emphasise that point?

This is getting very 'my dad could beat up your dad' isn't it?

I really, really, really cannot wait for this all to be over.

[funnyExiledScot]

RDW - that "Labour for Independence Group" photo is hilarious!

There is no debate to be had that the "No" campaign is the truly "cross-party" initiative, the real reason being that the SNP itself is an amalgamation of politicians from various backgrounds under one banner. That is why you have all the major UK parties on one side (Lab, Con and Lib Dem + UKIP) and only two parties of significance on the other (SNP and Green).

The banner of the SNP, with the primary purpose of nationalism, unites left, centre and right wing politicians in Scotland. One of the really interesting fallouts of a "Yes" vote will be what happens to the SNP once its primary objective is achieved. My suspicion is that it will eventually split, with defections to Labour, Conservative, Green and Lib Dem. It'll make it much easier for individuals to ignore all the promises in the White Paper as well. In effect the authors of the "land of milk and honey" manifesto will be gone, and we'll be stuck asking the Panama government for financial advice, and no closer to the ultimate dream of becoming Norway (this sentence is a joke, so no toys out of prams please).

The cohesion of the SNP during the last few years has been hugely impressive - united by independence. There's been the odd slip, the resignation of a couple of ministers over NATO and Jim Sillars shooting from the hip off message just about everytime he gets close to a microphone, but it's been a very well polished campaign, and the "Yes" spin room has run rings around Blair McDougall and co.

[funnyExiledScot]

This is an excerpt from the "Yes" letter:

"An independent Scotland will recognise entrepreneurs small and large as the real wealth and job creators of the nation's economic future.

"It will encourage a culture in which innovation, endeavour and enterprise are nurtured. It will place power in the hands of Scotland's people to channel the huge resources of our country in the interests of those who live and work here."

Well that's clear then. Case made.

[RDW]

This is an excerpt from the "Yes" letter:

"An independent Scotland will recognise entrepreneurs small and large as the real wealth and job creators of the nation's economic future.

"It will encourage a culture in which innovation, endeavour and enterprise are nurtured. It will place power in the hands of Scotland's people to channel the huge resources of our country in the interests of those who live and work here."

Well that's clear then. Case made.

I'm glad that answered all my questions...

[RDW]

Just seen this article which adds a fairly concerning twist to the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11059895/More-than-100-Scottish-business-leaders-wanted-to-sign-pro-UK-letter-but-feared-SNP-backlash.html

Democracy in action yeah?

[Jimpy]

They interviewed a chap from Lanarkshire last night on the news and his view was that hw was voting 'Yes', because he wanted a better deal for Scotland and the Scottish (more than fair enough) but that it would also force Labour (Lanarkshire being a traditional Labour heartland) to move back to the left and espouse traditional Labour values.

So his Utopia would be an SNP Governemnt with hardline socialists in opposition...

[funnyExiledScot]

Just seen this article which adds a fairly concerning twist to the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11059895/More-than-100-Scottish-business-leaders-wanted-to-sign-pro-UK-letter-but-feared-SNP-backlash.html

Democracy in action yeah?

This isn't really a new story. The SNP have long sought to bully businesses in Scotland into supporting them (or at least not opposing them), I've heard that first hand from several clients who have faced calls from the SNP spin room (and it's the SNP and not the "Yes" campaign making these calls) asking them to back down from making statements against independence.

Given the gravity of the situation, I personally think it's pathetic that anyone should accept that sort of intimidation in this day and age and they should speak out loud and proud. The voters in Scotland should be in absolutely no doubt of the impact of separation on business, and they need to hear it from as many authoritative sources as possible. I blame the SNP, but equally individuals and businesses too scared to speak out.

[funnyExiledScot]

They interviewed a chap from Lanarkshire last night on the news and his view was that hw was voting 'Yes', because he wanted a better deal for Scotland and the Scottish (more than fair enough) but that it would also force Labour (Lanarkshire being a traditional Labour heartland) to move back to the left and espouse traditional Labour values.

So his Utopia would be an SNP Governemnt with hardline socialists in opposition...

I've heard this line before. The only problem with New Labour was that it was really popular and record numbers voted for it. Nothing worse than when democracy gets in the way!

What voters should understand is that when times are tough voters look for solutions. They care far less about left and right, but solutions to fix problems. In 1979 the UK had serious problems, and the voters, in their droves, turned to Thatcher and the Conservative Party. Even Scotland, supposedly left wing through and through, backed a number of Conservative MPs. It wasn't the socialist "left wing" Labour that eradicated the Conservatives either, it was New Labour, a centre left party who stood up to the unions, removed nationalising industries from it's main objectives and refused to raise the top rate of tax. That's what killed the Tories, not Foot, Kinnock and the trade union movement.

Quite why anyone thinks that an independent Scotland will naturally always follow a left wing agenda I'll never know. If the effects of independence are negative, the oil forecasts less that the "Yes" campaign state, taxes/borrowing goes up and public services are cut, when people are feeling the pinch, they will want solutions, and will vote for the party that gives them credible solutions. Having three or four left wing parties struggling to differentiate themselves will not be the only option out there, and you'll see one or more parties moving to the centre, or even centre right, in order to be the party of change.

I've been a Labour voter in each and every election (general, local and mayoral) I've ever voted in. Even the last general election, with Gordon Brown faltering, I voted Labour. However, I am almost certain that I would have voted Conservative in 1979 and 1983, as many Labour voters did, and that was one of the most right wing governments the UK has ever had. Pretending that a "Yes" vote will lead to socialist utopia is nonsense. The far better argument is that Scotland will get the governments it votes for, whatever they may be.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

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.

Some even bigger ones and more of them in the Herald today?  Does it really matter?  Nope.

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/angus-tulloch-among-200-scottish-leaders-to-sign-yes-letter/a769095?re=30436&ea=372340&utm_source=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_medium=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM

PS The signatory list does include Neil Clapperton, the managing director of Springbank Distillery - knew that was my favourite tipple for a reason #uisgebheatha

[Jimpy]

They interviewed a chap from Lanarkshire last night on the news and his view was that hw was voting 'Yes', because he wanted a better deal for Scotland and the Scottish (more than fair enough) but that it would also force Labour (Lanarkshire being a traditional Labour heartland) to move back to the left and espouse traditional Labour values.

So his Utopia would be an SNP Governemnt with hardline socialists in opposition...

I've heard this line before. The only problem with New Labour was that it was really popular and record numbers voted for it. Nothing worse than when democracy gets in the way!

What voters should understand is that when times are tough voters look for solutions. They care far less about left and right, but solutions to fix problems. In 1979 the UK had serious problems, and the voters, in their droves, turned to Thatcher and the Conservative Party. Even Scotland, supposedly left wing through and through, backed a number of Conservative MPs. It wasn't the socialist "left wing" Labour that eradicated the Conservatives either, it was New Labour, a centre left party who stood up to the unions, removed nationalising industries from it's main objectives and refused to raise the top rate of tax. That's what killed the Tories, not Foot, Kinnock and the trade union movement.

Quite why anyone thinks that an independent Scotland will naturally always follow a left wing agenda I'll never know. If the effects of independence are negative, the oil forecasts less that the "Yes" campaign state, taxes/borrowing goes up and public services are cut, when people are feeling the pinch, they will want solutions, and will vote for the party that gives them credible solutions. Having three or four left wing parties struggling to differentiate themselves will not be the only option out there, and you'll see one or more parties moving to the centre, or even centre right, in order to be the party of change.

I've been a Labour voter in each and every election (general, local and mayoral) I've ever voted in. Even the last general election, with Gordon Brown faltering, I voted Labour. However, I am almost certain that I would have voted Conservative in 1979 and 1983, as many Labour voters did, and that was one of the most right wing governments the UK has ever had. Pretending that a "Yes" vote will lead to socialist utopia is nonsense. The far better argument is that Scotland will get the governments it votes for, whatever they may be.

Well, from my point of view, an Independant Scotland would have at least one positive effect on England. That being that Labour would struggle to ever regain power in England, since I'm pretty sure they rely on block voting from Scotland and Wales to gain a majority in England. With that gone, they'd not get a sniff. It would finally end the cyle of Labour ruining the economy with the Conservatives rebuilding it, people getting fed up with austerity and then voting for change...

[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.

Some even bigger ones and more of them in the Herald today?  Does it really matter?  Nope

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/angus-tulloch-among-200-scottish-leaders-to-sign-yes-letter/a769095?re=30436&ea=372340&utm_source=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_medium=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM

Of course it matters. If businesses employing significant numbers of people in Scotland are telling you that independence will be bad for their businesses, it is extremely important.

You have fallen directly into the "Yes" campaign trap. By sending out a letter with more signatures they were hoping for people to respond in exactly the way you have. Oh well, businesses on both sides are saying different things so let's just call it a score draw and take the conclusion that independence will be at worst neutral. The letters do not cancel themselves out. One letter sets out the specific risks, and the other says things will be fine without giving any real specifics of the benefits. They are not the same thing.

What I will say in favour of the "Yes" side is that their letter is absolutely right to point out the risks of staying in the UK and leaving Europe. That is a valid point and one that needs to be considered by those inclined to vote "No". I am in favour of staying in Europe which is why, if I'm still entitled to vote at that point, I'll be voting "No" in any proposal to leave. If we vote "Yes" and stay in/are allowed to join the EU, and rUK vote to leave, then we and rUK are in an unholy mess, with a small island with one bit in the EU and the remainder outside. Quite how on earth any sensible immigration policy can survive that situation I'll never know, let alone a whole host of other issues around common markets.

[George Carlin]

They interviewed a chap from Lanarkshire last night on the news and his view was that hw was voting 'Yes', because he wanted a better deal for Scotland and the Scottish (more than fair enough) but that it would also force Labour (Lanarkshire being a traditional Labour heartland) to move back to the left and espouse traditional Labour values.

So his Utopia would be an SNP Governemnt with hardline socialists in opposition...

I've heard this line before. The only problem with New Labour was that it was really popular and record numbers voted for it. Nothing worse than when democracy gets in the way!

What voters should understand is that when times are tough voters look for solutions. They care far less about left and right, but solutions to fix problems. In 1979 the UK had serious problems, and the voters, in their droves, turned to Thatcher and the Conservative Party. Even Scotland, supposedly left wing through and through, backed a number of Conservative MPs. It wasn't the socialist "left wing" Labour that eradicated the Conservatives either, it was New Labour, a centre left party who stood up to the unions, removed nationalising industries from it's main objectives and refused to raise the top rate of tax. That's what killed the Tories, not Foot, Kinnock and the trade union movement.

Quite why anyone thinks that an independent Scotland will naturally always follow a left wing agenda I'll never know. If the effects of independence are negative, the oil forecasts less that the "Yes" campaign state, taxes/borrowing goes up and public services are cut, when people are feeling the pinch, they will want solutions, and will vote for the party that gives them credible solutions. Having three or four left wing parties struggling to differentiate themselves will not be the only option out there, and you'll see one or more parties moving to the centre, or even centre right, in order to be the party of change.

I've been a Labour voter in each and every election (general, local and mayoral) I've ever voted in. Even the last general election, with Gordon Brown faltering, I voted Labour. However, I am almost certain that I would have voted Conservative in 1979 and 1983, as many Labour voters did, and that was one of the most right wing governments the UK has ever had. Pretending that a "Yes" vote will lead to socialist utopia is nonsense. The far better argument is that Scotland will get the governments it votes for, whatever they may be.

Well, from my point of view, an Independant Scotland would have at least one positive effect on England. That being that Labour would struggle to ever regain power in England, since I'm pretty sure they rely on block voting from Scotland and Wales to gain a majority in England. With that gone, they'd not get a sniff. It would finally end the cyle of Labour ruining the economy with the Conservatives rebuilding it, people getting fed up with austerity and then voting for change...

Jimpy - your real name wouldn't happen to be Michael Fabricant by any chance, would it?

[funnyExiledScot]

Well, from my point of view, an Independant Scotland would have at least one positive effect on England. That being that Labour would struggle to ever regain power in England, since I'm pretty sure they rely on block voting from Scotland and Wales to gain a majority in England. With that gone, they'd not get a sniff. It would finally end the cyle of Labour ruining the economy with the Conservatives rebuilding it, people getting fed up with austerity and then voting for change...

I don't agree with that either. Look at the voting numbers in the first two elections under New Labour. They wiped out the Tories in England as well as in Scotland. Scotland and Wales didn't vote in New Labour, England did as well.

In 1997 people weren't fed up with Tory austerity, the economy was is decent shape and heading very much in the right direction. People were fed up with Major, sleaze, lack of leadership, internal bickering, squabbling on Europe, total lack of regional policy on the one hand and the fact that New Labour had ditched its policy to raise taxes and nationalise everything. People were, as you say, voting for change. That will always be case.

A "Yes" vote does change the complexion at Westminster somewhat, but in the same way that Scotland isn't some left wing utopia, England isn't a right wing one either.

[Jimpy]

Well, from my point of view, an Independant Scotland would have at least one positive effect on England. That being that Labour would struggle to ever regain power in England, since I'm pretty sure they rely on block voting from Scotland and Wales to gain a majority in England. With that gone, they'd not get a sniff. It would finally end the cyle of Labour ruining the economy with the Conservatives rebuilding it, people getting fed up with austerity and then voting for change...

I don't agree with that either. Look at the voting numbers in the first two elections under New Labour. They wiped out the Tories in England as well as in Scotland. Scotland and Wales didn't vote in New Labour, England did as well.

In 1997 people weren't fed up with Tory austerity, the economy was is decent shape and heading very much in the right direction. People were fed up with Major, sleaze, lack of leadership, internal bickering, squabbling on Europe, total lack of regional policy on the one hand and the fact that New Labour had ditched its policy to raise taxes and nationalise everything. People were, as you say, voting for change. That will always be case.

A "Yes" vote does change the complexion at Westminster somewhat, but in the same way that Scotland isn't some left wing utopia, England isn't a right wing one either.

I know, Tory complacancy contributed hugely to their demise - but when Labour got in, they took one of the strongest economys in the world at the time and systematically ruined it. It wasn't until the last general election that people realised they'd been shafted (again) and voted elsewhere. And lest we not forget, a lot of the Conservative lack of success in elections was down to voter apathy as they probaly didn't seem like viable alternatives. Tony Blair, the architect of some of the most questionable foreign and home office policy in British history (Iraq, revolving door immigration, soft on crime and generous with benefits to name a few) was once re-elected with just 29% of the vote if I remember correctly. His successor, Gordon Brown was a leader, unelected by the public, who'd already overseen the demise of the economy as Chancellor (which included selling off gold reserves at ludicrous prices). The absence, pretty much, of a dedicated 'working class' - (ironically, the removal of class boundaries being orchestrated by Labour) has rendered socialism questionable at best. I mean, if there really are massive inequalties in society, are they real or perceived? The guy who lives down the street from me hasn't worked in 18 years, but still has a 50" plasma TV and a new car every other year. I wish.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

fES, some good news for you, altho I've no doubt that you'll dismiss it as Yew propaganda!:

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/

Further proof that Scotland's oil fields could produce £billions more if companies were provided with the right fiscal incentive.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

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.

Some even bigger ones and more of them in the Herald today?  Does it really matter?  Nope

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/angus-tulloch-among-200-scottish-leaders-to-sign-yes-letter/a769095?re=30436&ea=372340&utm_source=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_medium=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM

Of course it matters. If businesses employing significant numbers of people in Scotland are telling you that independence will be bad for their businesses, it is extremely important.

You have fallen directly into the "Yes" campaign trap. By sending out a letter with more signatures they were hoping for people to respond in exactly the way you have. Oh well, businesses on both sides are saying different things so let's just call it a score draw and take the conclusion that independence will be at worst neutral. The letters do not cancel themselves out. One letter sets out the specific risks, and the other says things will be fine without giving any real specifics of the benefits. They are not the same thing.

What I will say in favour of the "Yes" side is that their letter is absolutely right to point out the risks of staying in the UK and leaving Europe. That is a valid point and one that needs to be considered by those inclined to vote "No". I am in favour of staying in Europe which is why, if I'm still entitled to vote at that point, I'll be voting "No" in any proposal to leave. If we vote "Yes" and stay in/are allowed to join the EU, and rUK vote to leave, then we and rUK are in an unholy mess, with a small island with one bit in the EU and the remainder outside. Quite how on earth any sensible immigration policy can survive that situation I'll never know, let alone a whole host of other issues around common markets.

What a shame, you should be feicin petrified if there's a No vote - stealing some of their 'scare' tactics, Scotland can expect to be significantly worse off in the event that independence is rejected: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/27/punishing-scotland/ Doesn't look very pretty to me. The myth of subsidy junkie Scotland will be perpetuated and used as an excuse to reduce the amount sent from Westminster under the Barnett formula (or potentially seen it scrapped completely)

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

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??

A little more colour on the true extent of oil and gas in the North Sea: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9642-bbc-ends-sir-ian-wood-oil-challenge-blackout-following-newsnet-scotland-complaint
Shame that the meeja bias gets in the way of folks hearing both sides as per usual

[George Carlin]

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??

A little more colour on the true extent of oil and gas in the North Sea: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9642-bbc-ends-sir-ian-wood-oil-challenge-blackout-following-newsnet-scotland-complaint
Shame that the meeja bias gets in the way of folks hearing both sides as per usual

Really very sad if that's true. I have always naively assumed that the licence fee paid for independent broadcasting.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Jimpy, you might enjoy reading this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347915/Elitist_Britain_-_Final.pdf - produced in Westminster, seems to suggest that perhaps things are not quite so rosy in the garden of England?

[Jimpy]

Jimpy, you might enjoy reading this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347915/Elitist_Britain_-_Final.pdf - produced in Westminster, seems to suggest that perhaps things are not quite so rosy in the garden of England?

Old news, and hardly a surprise.

However, I don't think I ever said things were particularly rosy in the garden of England did I? In fact, things are far from perfect - but i'd rather things as they are than under another incompetent Labour Government (come on, we're talking Milliband and Co here). Unemployment is falling, the economy is recovering slowly, immigration is slowing - to name just a few. If traditional Labour voters are now going to vote SNP, it will dilute the party's ability to challenge for Government in Westminster. And that's fine by me.

[funnyExiledScot]

A little more colour on the true extent of oil and gas in the North Sea: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9642-bbc-ends-sir-ian-wood-oil-challenge-blackout-following-newsnet-scotland-complaint
Shame that the meeja bias gets in the way of folks hearing both sides as per usual

I can't see the bit where Sir Ian Wood retracts his statement that SNP oil estimates are exaggerated? Did the BBC misquote?

That said, if the BBC is genuinely supporting one side above the other than that is of course a great shame. The BBC is there to report in an impartial manner and whilst the private media can do what it likes, the BBC is supposed to be the gold standard.

I actually felt the BBC debate the other night, in terms of the performance of the moderator and the fact that of the 13 questions asked 10 were in favour of "Yes" was biased the other way, and there have been a great many complaints against that.

See what I did there, I took one story of bias and then sought to negate it with another, as if one cancels out the other.

[funnyExiledScot]

fES, some good news for you, altho I've no doubt that you'll dismiss it as Yew propaganda!:

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/new-faroe-field-good-30-years/

Further proof that Scotland's oil fields could produce £billions more if companies were provided with the right fiscal incentive.

Yet more remarkable new oil being discovered weeks from the vote! Well then, I'll just ignore Sir Ian Wood and trust the bloke working for the oil industry with a map and a pen.

Seriously though, I don't doubt that more revenue can be generated from the North Sea than the OBR forecast, and as I've said above several times, Sir Ian Wood's report on how to maximise these revenues should be seriously considered whatever the outcome. I say this because, unlike yourself, I'm willing to look at and recognise the case on both sides. That said, implementing these proposals is a longer term project, and Sir Ian Wood was right to point out that these plans will take time to materialise, and that Alex Salmond has grossly misrepresented oil revenues over the first 5 years. Where will that shortfall come from? It's up to £6 billion.

What would be really interesting is to hear your concerns about a "Yes" vote? Presumably you have some nagging doubts, and can recognise that not everything will be better? What would you list as the "risk factors" for a "Yes" vote, and I'll do the same for a "No" vote.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

What would be really interesting is to hear your concerns about a "Yes" vote? Presumably you have some nagging doubts, and can recognise that not everything will be better? What would you list as the "risk factors" for a "Yes" vote, and I'll do the same for a "No" vote.

Very good, I like that idea, and I know that you'll be doing your homework (on your clients' time, no doubt!!) Give me an hour or two

[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.

Some even bigger ones and more of them in the Herald today?  Does it really matter?  Nope

http://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/angus-tulloch-among-200-scottish-leaders-to-sign-yes-letter/a769095?re=30436&ea=372340&utm_source=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_medium=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_WM_Daily_PM

Of course it matters. If businesses employing significant numbers of people in Scotland are telling you that independence will be bad for their businesses, it is extremely important.

You have fallen directly into the "Yes" campaign trap. By sending out a letter with more signatures they were hoping for people to respond in exactly the way you have. Oh well, businesses on both sides are saying different things so let's just call it a score draw and take the conclusion that independence will be at worst neutral. The letters do not cancel themselves out. One letter sets out the specific risks, and the other says things will be fine without giving any real specifics of the benefits. They are not the same thing.

What I will say in favour of the "Yes" side is that their letter is absolutely right to point out the risks of staying in the UK and leaving Europe. That is a valid point and one that needs to be considered by those inclined to vote "No". I am in favour of staying in Europe which is why, if I'm still entitled to vote at that point, I'll be voting "No" in any proposal to leave. If we vote "Yes" and stay in/are allowed to join the EU, and rUK vote to leave, then we and rUK are in an unholy mess, with a small island with one bit in the EU and the remainder outside. Quite how on earth any sensible immigration policy can survive that situation I'll never know, let alone a whole host of other issues around common markets.

What a shame, you should be feicin petrified if there's a No vote - stealing some of their 'scare' tactics, Scotland can expect to be significantly worse off in the event that independence is rejected: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/27/punishing-scotland/  Doesn't look very pretty to me.  The myth of subsidy junkie Scotland will be perpetuated and used as an excuse to reduce the amount sent from Westminster under the Barnett formula (or potentially seen it scrapped completely)

I'm not sure your response was really directed at my quote. Where you responding to something else?

You see I made the point that both letters should be considered on their merits, including recognising a good point made in the "Yes" letter, and you respond by posting a link to a ridiculous article quoting Piers Morgan as an authority on the Barnett formula, and equating a comment from Ruth Davidson that funding should be "reviewed" as the same as saying it should be cut.

A bit more balance would do you good Mr ASBO!

[George Carlin]

[funnyExiledScot]

What would be really interesting is to hear your concerns about a "Yes" vote? Presumably you have some nagging doubts, and can recognise that not everything will be better? What would you list as the "risk factors" for a "Yes" vote, and I'll do the same for a "No" vote.

Very good, I like that idea, and I know that you'll be doing your homework (on your clients' time, no doubt!!)  Give me an hour or two

That's a deal. For the sake of my practising certificate, I can assure you that this is "non-chargeable research" on my timesheet......

[RDW]

That's a fair point actually - I'm sure we would have seen typical politician answers at their best if Darling said to Salmond "So what do you think the problems will be if we become independent?" and Salmond said to Darling "So what are the disadvantages of staying in the UK?"

I'm sure we would have heard something along the lines of "well it will not not not not not not not be a bad thing for the economy...."

[funnyExiledScot]

My "risk factors" for a "No" vote would be as follows (in no particular order):

1. North Sea - It is pretty clear that the UK govt. has failed to maximise the potential of North Sea Oil, not just for Scotland but for the UK as well. This is an important resource and Sir Ian Wood has written a fairly damning report as to opportunities lost, but also a roadmap for how to extract more value from the North Sea, which would be to the benefit of the UK economy and Scotland. I do not believe Scotland would mis-manage the North Sea in the same way, principally because it would constitute a larger % of revenue to Scotland than the UK overall, and therefore be of more importance. There is also an argument that the UK government has deliberately downplayed the North Sea through fear of independence, and whilst I don't think there is compelling evidence for this, the fact remains that this resource is not being managed as well as it should be, and I think more revenue would be extracted by an independence Scotland than the UK.

2. Further powers - I am in favour of further devolution (not just for Scotland but other regions of the UK as well) and am a strong believer in local government and regional policy. I have been utterly unimpressed with the "No" campaign on this subject and am deeply sceptical that meaningful further powers will be devolved. Alex Salmond rarely convinces me, but his opening schtick about the people of Scotland being best placed to decide what's best for Scotland is a good one, and a policy that to my mind should be pursued. I would stop short of full independence - a central bank, common currency, shared military, single market, national grid and nationalised health service are benefits I would not dispose of, but the current devolved Parliament should have additional tax raising powers and further scope to pursue its own policies. I commend to you "Reform Scotland" and its writings on Devo Plus and Devo Max. I would personally want to be choosing between those options, rather than "Yes" or "No".

3. UKIP - I don't just worry about UKIP, but more specifically the effect that the UKIP movement could have of the UK government. I'm as keen on a sensible immigration policy as the next man, but their attitude to Eastern Europeans and Europe in general is completely counter-productive and their totally outdated view of what the UK is and what it stands for is becoming worryingly contagious in the UK. More worrying is that in order to get the voters, the Conservative Party is making increasingly right wing noises, and my concern is that a right wing ticket might be enough at the next general election. It isn't "austerity" that bother me, all major parties were proposing cuts at the last election for obvious reasons, but the idea that leaving the EU and shutting our borders is the way forward. It isn't a "Scottish" issue, I know large numbers of people in the rUK who equally despise UKIP and what it stands for, but a "Yes" vote would take UKIP and its policies out of the equation for Scotland, which would be a good thing.

4. Neverendum - this one perhaps sits oddly with the others, but there are some that take the view that Scottish independence is inevitable, and that the question will be asked until the answer is favourable. The SNP is the majority party at Hollyrood and should it win a majority at the next Scottish election, it is entirely plausible that the question will be asked again, and again. The referendum is a good thing, any engagement with democracy on an issue as important as self-determination has to be, and it sets a great example around the world of how to deal with the issue of nationalism. However, I do not think the uncertainty is helpful to Scotland, and whatever the result, I'd like the issue put to bed. If there is a close "No" vote, I do not think the issue will go away. Anything higher than 40% "Yes" and I think we won't be waiting long for another questions, particularly if the UK leaves Europe (see above). If we are going to become independent, and you accept that as an inevitability, then the sooner the better, particularly whilst there is still oil in the North Sea. The only outcome that puts the whole business to rest is a "Yes" vote.

5. Scotland growing up - this one is a bit more wooley, but as a nation we do like to blame Westminster for our woes and have a bit of an obsession with disliking the English. Once Scotland does become independent that's it. The good stuff will be a credit to Scotland 100%, and the bad stuff will be our fault 100%. No-one else to blame. This might actually do the nation and the national psyche some good in the long run. No more Tories to blame, no need to mention Thatcher every 10 minutes and no need to claim that Westminster is dictating to us and telling us what to do. If we vote "No", particularly after the last campaign, my worry is that the 40-odd% of the country disappointed by the result will not accept it, but rather harbour a continuing grudge and leap on any misstep by Westminster, particularly in relation to points 1-3 above. Rather than moving on from the issue - we'll just be stuck with it, and Salmond, Sturgeon, Jenkins et al will not go away but rather continue to stir things up. Similar to point 4.

These to me are the negative aspects of a "No" vote, and the "risk factors" if you like for a "No" prospectus.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

So, to the task set by our beloved representative of Stockbridgeshire:

What would be really interesting is to hear your concerns about a "Yes" vote? Presumably you have some nagging doubts, and can recognise that not everything will be better? What would you list as the "risk factors" for a "Yes" vote?

I thought I’d tackle this in two parts: (i) worries about things current in the IndyRef debate itself; & (ii) worries for a post-referendum iScotland.

IndyRef concerns:  I have quite a few, as should anyone – in fact I’m not sure that I’d believe anyone that says they have none, unless of course they are a politician on one side or the other, in which case ‘lying’ is virtually part of the job description!

Currency – this is something that I’ve thought about long and hard and done a fair bit of reading about, and the conclusion that I came to is that the Yes campaign should have plumped for the Scotland has its own currency option in the first place.  Not only would this have removed a major brick-bat of the No campaign, but it actually seems to me to be the best alternative – in the early years, one would imagine that a Scottish poond would pretty much shadow rUK £, but given possible divergence in the two economies in the medium to long term it would float more freely.

Reading: http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dp415.pdf

Debt – although iScotland could be classed as a ‘new’ state meaning that legally it should not be burdened with any pre-existing debt (cf. various international treaties and conventions), and although disavowing the debt could be seen as a legitimate negotiating tactic (in my eyes anyway) in light of Westminster’s stated (but probably not real when push comes to shove) insistence that there can be no currency union (when even the governor of the Bank of England is on record as saying that it could be made to work, and quite obviously would in the short-term at least be in the interests of business throughout the UK), I don’t feel entirely comfortable with this position from a moral perspective.  The good news is that even with a sensible share of the debt, Scotland’s economy would still be in a better position than that of rUK.

Reading: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/on-debt-and-destiny-scotland-is-a-rich-country/ &
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

Lender of last resort – Any which way you look at it, Financial Services is a sizeable component of Scotland’s wealth, GDP or exports, with figures like 9-15% being accepted by both sides.  Given the position on currency adopted by the Yes campaign, they have been able to dodge this question, which personally I would have preferred to see them tackle head on.  There are a number of options available (outlined in the NIESR report below), some of which are clearly complex and potentially costly, but I think the effort of tackling them would be well worth it in the long run for the Financial Services industry today, and would take away another of the No campaign’s favourite - “we’re all doomed, but especially the financial sector” – lines.

Reading: http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dp434v2.pdf

Timeframe – like fES, I share his concern that the proposed 18-month negotiating window is a much too aggressive timeframe in which to complete negotiations properly, while I accept that there will also be pressure, particularly from the capital markets which dislike uncertainty, to complete matters as quickly as possible.  Personally, I’d have been tempted to avoid mentioning any specific period aspirations and made far more play of the need to do things properly and to get them right.

Detail  - I think it is understandable that there is a lack of detail in many areas for what will happen post independence as in many areas that uncertainty is simply unavoidable as it would involve negotiations between the two sides.  But I also think that there are certain areas where more clarity could have been given – the military options paper above is a perfect example, which could easily have been adopted by Holyrood, and might easily have swayed some doubters (if only Radge would actually take the time to read it!  ).


concerns for post-referendum iScotland in the event of a Yes vote:  likewise, I have quite a few of these too, again as should anyone on the Yes side (it goes without saying that No voters would have them in abundance!).  It is perhaps no coincidence that these capture less specific issues and cover broader themes.

Radicalism  - in the event of Yes, Scotland really does have an opportunity to imagine itself completely afresh (of course, there is a legacy that cannot be ignored and must serve as a starting point).  A continuation of the old way of doing things and of looking at things would represent a massive lost opportunity for me, with issues like electoral reform and sustainability of resources firmly at the top of my own agenda.

Reading: http://allofusfirst.bigcartel.com/product/common-weal-book - a highly recommended read for anyone with a genuine interest in how society could be improved

Togetherness  ok, one side will have won, but it is essential in my mind that all sides should have a proper voice in the re-design debate; nobody should feel disenfranchised and want to follow RDW (particularly not if he’s off to a place that has that pillock Abbott as its ruling PM).  There will be a huge need to rely on expert voices from whichever side they come, as the task in hand is non-trivial and will take everyone to get right.

Economic progress  - I’d like to see us move away from old definitions and embrace the effect that economic progress has on real folk’s everyday lives and on welfare in general.  Make of it what you will, but I firmly believe that iScotland will be better off if everyone’s lot is improved together, rather than simply the lot of a small elite and hope that they drag everyone along with them.

Reading: http://www.democracyjournal.org/31/capitalism-redefined.php?page=all & http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00438277.pdf

Energy – I’m not talking about the black stuff that seems to get everyone so het up (and I don’t mean the MFLs either!), but I mean the amount of positive engagement (amongst admittedly some cr@p) and interest that has been aroused by the referendum debate.  I have seen folks that would not have shown any interest in politics or economic debate at all come alive in the last wee while, and grabbing that energy and harnessing it, ditching the negativity and capturing the positivity would be essential for iScotland to recapture its vibrance.

Democracy – part of that re-awakened energy must lead to a greater sense of involvement for all, along side greater responsibility for getting involved.  I’m not talking about burdening the country with additional layers of bureaucracy, but instead about offering new ways in which ordinary folks can engage with and feel closer to the organisation and decision-making of their country.

Reading: http://www.sosayscotland.org/

Jealousy – sadly, I for one, will not be able to enjoy the opportunity that an iScotland offers, so I’ll be wracked with jealousy and mightily green with envy for some time to come (well at least until the children have grown up and I can return north of the border!).


fES, I have no idea if this is what you were looking for, but it’s been an enjoyable journey for me anyway and has pleasantly whiled away the last few hours and years of thought!

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

My "risk factors" for a "No" vote would be as follows (in no particular order):

1. North Sea - It is pretty clear that the UK govt. has failed to maximise the potential of North Sea Oil, not just for Scotland but for the UK as well. This is an important resource and Sir Ian Wood has written a fairly damning report as to opportunities lost, but also a roadmap for how to extract more value from the North Sea, which would be to the benefit of the UK economy and Scotland. I do not believe Scotland would mis-manage the North Sea in the same way, principally because it would constitute a larger % of revenue to Scotland than the UK overall, and therefore be of more importance. There is also an argument that the UK government has deliberately downplayed the North Sea through fear of independence, and whilst I don't think there is compelling evidence for this, the fact remains that this resource is not being managed as well as it should be, and I think more revenue would be extracted by an independence Scotland than the UK.

2. Further powers - I am in favour of further devolution (not just for Scotland but other regions of the UK as well) and am a strong believer in local government and regional policy. I have been utterly unimpressed with the "No" campaign on this subject and am deeply sceptical that meaningful further powers will be devolved. Alex Salmond rarely convinces me, but his opening schtick about the people of Scotland being best placed to decide what's best for Scotland is a good one, and a policy that to my mind should be pursued. I would stop short of full independence - a central bank, common currency, shared military, single market, national grid and nationalised health service are benefits I would not dispose of, but the current devolved Parliament should have additional tax raising powers and further scope to pursue its own policies. I commend to you "Reform Scotland" and its writings on Devo Plus and Devo Max. I would personally want to be choosing between those options, rather than "Yes" or "No".

3. UKIP - I don't just worry about UKIP, but more specifically the effect that the UKIP movement could have of the UK government. I'm as keen on a sensible immigration policy as the next man, but their attitude to Eastern Europeans and Europe in general is completely counter-productive and their totally outdated view of what the UK is and what it stands for is becoming worryingly contagious in the UK. More worrying is that in order to get the voters, the Conservative Party is making increasingly right wing noises, and my concern is that a right wing ticket might be enough at the next general election. It isn't "austerity" that bother me, all major parties were proposing cuts at the last election for obvious reasons, but the idea that leaving the EU and shutting our borders is the way forward. It isn't a "Scottish" issue, I know large numbers of people in the rUK who equally despise UKIP and what it stands for, but a "Yes" vote would take UKIP and its policies out of the equation for Scotland, which would be a good thing.

4. Neverendum - this one perhaps sits oddly with the others, but there are some that take the view that Scottish independence is inevitable, and that the question will be asked until the answer is favourable. The SNP is the majority party at Hollyrood and should it win a majority at the next Scottish election, it is entirely plausible that the question will be asked again, and again. The referendum is a good thing, any engagement with democracy on an issue as important as self-determination has to be, and it sets a great example around the world of how to deal with the issue of nationalism. However, I do not think the uncertainty is helpful to Scotland, and whatever the result, I'd like the issue put to bed. If there is a close "No" vote, I do not think the issue will go away. Anything higher than 40% "Yes" and I think we won't be waiting long for another questions, particularly if the UK leaves Europe (see above). If we are going to become independent, and you accept that as an inevitability, then the sooner the better, particularly whilst there is still oil in the North Sea. The only outcome that puts the whole business to rest is a "Yes" vote.

5. Scotland growing up - this one is a bit more wooley, but as a nation we do like to blame Westminster for our woes and have a bit of an obsession with disliking the English. Once Scotland does become independent that's it. The good stuff will be a credit to Scotland 100%, and the bad stuff will be our fault 100%. No-one else to blame. This might actually do the nation and the national psyche some good in the long run. No more Tories to blame, no need to mention Thatcher every 10 minutes and no need to claim that Westminster is dictating to us and telling us what to do. If we vote "No", particularly after the last campaign, my worry is that the 40-odd% of the country disappointed by the result will not accept it, but rather harbour a continuing grudge and leap on any misstep by Westminster, particularly in relation to points 1-3 above. Rather than moving on from the issue - we'll just be stuck with it, and Salmond, Sturgeon, Jenkins et al will not go away but rather continue to stir things up. Similar to point 4.

These to me are the negative aspects of a "No" vote, and the "risk factors" if you like for a "No" prospectus.

Wow, we actually have much in common, my friend, although I knew that all along!!

[funnyExiledScot]

I have only one emoticon to use:

[HammerofThunor]

A pretty minor point (but relevant to the forum), I think the BBC have the UK TV rights for the 6 nations until 2018. How does that work? Would they still cover Scotland (would license still be paid?) or would they lose Scotland (but they paid for it)?

[TJ]

I am afraid I have not read the whole thread but my thoughts.

I am english born and bred but Scotland is my home. I am one of the people of Scotland

I believe in a progressive government. redistribution of wealth. Comprehensive state owned and run public services. Equality of opportunity. No nuclear power or weapons, sensible foreign policy that accepts our role as a small county on the edge of europe.

A fairer greener society

How am I most likely to get this? Given the recent position of the labour party not from a UK government. Voting yes is my only chance of getting this. It will be with a heavy heart I do this and I am not certain yet.

[RDW]

I find FES and ASBOs debate fascinating.

Both are clearly well read, intelligent individuals who know the issues in great detail and have done their research.  However both have taken that research and ended up at polar ends of the argument.

I wonder why that is? (Serious question!)

Given Aslongasbut100's username, it is clear he has a passion for Scottish history and the deceleration of Arbroath in particular. To come on a rugby forum and choose that as a username shows a keen nationalist.  Also, the fact that he lives in England perhaps increases his longing for home, intensifying his national pride. However he also has a firm belief that a Yes vote is overwhelmingly a good thing, so it's not all about Scottish pride.

Not knowing FunnyExiledScot' backround so well (other than he was an exile at one point), it's harder to say why he's firmly No.

I suppose this shows in a nutshell the real complications of the debate - you have two people who know all this issues well, and yet the interoperate the information completely differently.

Does this mean it simply comes down to your own beliefs and opinions, and the 'facts' that each side of the argument sends out don't matter so much?

[HammerofThunor]

Does this mean it simply comes down to your own beliefs and opinions, and the 'facts' that each side of the argument sends out don't matter so much?

They generally do. Confirmation bias as As was talking about. You talk down things that don't fit your view and emphasise things that do. Very similar to rugby discussions to be honest. A bad game is just a one off (even if there are loads of examples) or another example of their poor quality.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Postal vote away,

ASBO and FES are a credit to either side of the debate. Should have had them on the Telly instead of Darling and Salmond.

We might actually have gotten some answers instead of cheap point scoring.

Bravo chaps.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Oh and for the record, I have never been embarrassed to be from Kirkcaldy until yesterday.

A man who pulled survivors from the Clutha Pub was pelted by eggs and abused on the street by a flash mob of fanatical Yes Campaigners.

[funnyExiledScot]

To be fair to the "Yes" campaign they were pretty quick to denounce that behaviour.

In my view it's actually damaging to their cause with undecided voters, and they were right to denounce it.

[RuggerRadge2611]

They were, but it doesn't stop me being ashamed to be from Kirkcaldy.

[TJ]

RDW - its perfectly possible to have a strong view either way with this being a well thought out and sensible view. It depends on your priorities. for me it looks like the opportunities outweigh the risks but for others of different political view the balance could come out differently.

It is a balance of risks and opportunities for sure. For people like me tho in the end it will be a pragmatic decision - not one based on ideology as I am neither ideologically wedded to the union or independence. I want what will make my life better and to have the sort of social democratc government I prefer. this might well be best in an independent scotland.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

To be fair to the "Yes" campaign they were pretty quick to denounce that behaviour.

In my view it's actually damaging to their cause with undecided voters, and they were right to denounce it.

I'm not condoning for a second this particular numpty's behaviour (in fact, I condemn it as completely unproductive and rather pathetic), but I confess that as a student (at the White Line Painting College) I threw eggs at Mrs Thatcher - not proud of it, even if the old witch deserved it at the time for treating Scotland as her guinea pig

[funnyExiledScot]

Given Aslongasbut100's username, it is clear he has a passion for Scottish history and the deceleration of Arbroath in particular. To come on a rugby forum and choose that as a username shows a keen nationalist.  Also, the fact that he lives in England perhaps increases his longing for home, intensifying his national pride. However he also has a firm belief that a Yes vote is overwhelmingly a good thing, so it's not all about Scottish pride.

Not knowing FunnyExiledScot' backround so well (other than he was an exile at one point), it's harder to say why he's firmly No.

Born: Inverness
0-7: Morayshire
7-13: London
13-18: Edinburgh
18-19: Morayshire/USA
19-30: England (various places)
30-33: Edinburgh

I think my background probably does lend a certain perspective to my views on this debate. Whilst I hate to give any credence to ASBO's "confirmation bias" theory, I am certainly starting out in favour of the UK and needing to be convinced of the case for separation, whilst others are certainly starting from the basis that separation is a good thing, and needing to be convinced of the case for the continuing union.

[funnyExiledScot]

To be fair to the "Yes" campaign they were pretty quick to denounce that behaviour.

In my view it's actually damaging to their cause with undecided voters, and they were right to denounce it.

I'm not condoning for a second this particular numpty's behaviour (in fact, I condemn it as completely unproductive and rather pathetic), but I confess that as a student (at the White Line Painting College) I threw eggs at Mrs Thatcher - not proud of it, even if the old witch deserved it at the time for treating Scotland as her guinea pig

Was Thatcher not supportive of the Road Painters' Union??

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

A pretty minor point (but relevant to the forum), I think the BBC have the UK TV rights for the 6 nations until 2018. How does that work? Would they still cover Scotland (would license still be paid?) or would they lose Scotland (but they paid for it)?

Thunor, an interesting question to which I think I might have the answer:

The scare story that an independent Scotland would lose access to BBC broadcasts (and thereby shows like Strictly Come Dancing, Match Of The Day, EastEnders, Doctor Who and, we dunno, Homes Under The Hammer or something), is an old favourite of Project Fear - and simply not true.

The BBC is a commercial organisation which would actively seek to sell the rights to its output to Scotland, but until recently the cost of that has been uncertain. However, thanks to the published 2012 accounts (page 92) of Irish national broadcaster RTE, we can see how much RTE paid for “Acquired programmes – overseas”: 25,179,000 Euros, or c£20.7 million at current exchange rates (we should probs reasonably assume it’s not all for the BBC, and that RTE has presumably bought in programming from some other countries too).

But it does give us a solid number that we can put on the cost of a Scottish broadcasting service that still retains all of Scots’ favourite shows – because the RTE deal gives Irish viewers the entirety of BBC 1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4, not just individual programmes. Ireland’s population of 4.6m (Republic alone) is very close to Scotland’s, so we have to assume Scotland would pay a roughly similar sum. Which leaves us with this:

SCOTTISH LICENCE FEE INCOME: £300m
BUDGET OF BBC SCOTLAND IN 2016/17: £86m
COST OF BUYING BBC CHANNELS: £21m

MONEY REMAINING: £193m

In other words, an independent Scotland, if it charged the same licence fee as now, would be able to spend 3x as much on the SBC as the BBC will be doing on BBC Scotland if we vote No, and still have an extra £20m sitting in the coffers.

It could afford to pump transformational amounts of money into Scottish sport and culture in exchange for TV rights, while at the same time making them available to all rather than only satellite/cable subscribers. It could reverse BBC Scotland’s budget and staff cuts. It could create and fund a Scottish film studio, revitalising the Scottish movie industry, or even cut the licence fee, or divert the money elsewhere, or some combination of all?

Anyhew, not too much to worry about there - our rugby on Alba should be quite safe! And presumably SBC would buy the rights to the 6Ns from the BBC to boot.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

To be fair to the "Yes" campaign they were pretty quick to denounce that behaviour.

In my view it's actually damaging to their cause with undecided voters, and they were right to denounce it.

I'm not condoning for a second this particular numpty's behaviour (in fact, I condemn it as completely unproductive and rather pathetic), but I confess that as a student (at the White Line Painting College) I threw eggs at Mrs Thatcher - not proud of it, even if the old witch deserved it at the time for treating Scotland as her guinea pig

Was Thatcher not supportive of the Road Painters' Union??

Nah, she wasnae a fan - we curdled her tea once

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Given Aslongasbut100's username, it is clear he has a passion for Scottish history and the deceleration of Arbroath in particular. To come on a rugby forum and choose that as a username shows a keen nationalist.  Also, the fact that he lives in England perhaps increases his longing for home, intensifying his national pride. However he also has a firm belief that a Yes vote is overwhelmingly a good thing, so it's not all about Scottish pride.

Not knowing FunnyExiledScot' backround so well (other than he was an exile at one point), it's harder to say why he's firmly No.

Born: Inverness
0-7: Morayshire
7-13: London
13-18: Edinburgh
18-19: Morayshire/USA
19-30: England (various places)
30-33: Edinburgh

I think my background probably does lend a certain perspective to my views on this debate. Whilst I hate to give any credence to ASBO's "confirmation bias" theory, I am certainly starting out in favour of the UK and needing to be convinced of the case for separation, whilst others are certainly starting from the basis that separation is a good thing, and needing to be convinced of the case for the continuing union.

I don't know how much background has to do with it - my folks were both from the western isles, but oddly their politics were somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn. But in the interests of completeness:

Born: Glasgow
0-18: Loch Lomond side/Stirlingshire
19-22: Line painting academy in Edinburgh
23-101: London, with the following interruptions
25: San Francisco
29: Boston
36 onwards: partly Devon
43: Amsterdam
46 onwards: mostly Devon

[funnyExiledScot]

ASBO - I agree that the whole BBC thing is a non-issue, and has no impact on my voting allegiance, but your post above does miss out one rather important point.

If, as you say, Scotland will effectively be paying significantly less to the BBC for the same thing, then does it not therefore follow that the BBC will receive less money? If that is the case then are there not three options for the BBC: (i) charge licence fee payers more (not going to happen I suspect), (ii) charge third countries more for BBC channels (e.g. Ireland and iScotland), thus skewing your numbers, or (iii) spend less, reduce the service and the quality of the BBC offering??

My hunch is that third countries paying for BBC services will end up paying more and making up the shortfall. I can't see rUK willing to shoulder the extra cost, nor can I see the BBC making further significant cuts.

Still, as I said, what happens to the BBC is rather low on my list of priorities in this referendum. If you are right though, and there's a bunch more money to improve Scottish TV, then all the better. I'd be in favour of a channel dedicated to movies starring Sean Connery, a rugby channel showing only Scottish Calcutta Cup victories on loop and a "Gabby Logan" channel, with 24 hour still frame shots of her looking awesome.

[funnyExiledScot]

Given Aslongasbut100's username, it is clear he has a passion for Scottish history and the deceleration of Arbroath in particular. To come on a rugby forum and choose that as a username shows a keen nationalist.  Also, the fact that he lives in England perhaps increases his longing for home, intensifying his national pride. However he also has a firm belief that a Yes vote is overwhelmingly a good thing, so it's not all about Scottish pride.

Not knowing FunnyExiledScot' backround so well (other than he was an exile at one point), it's harder to say why he's firmly No.

Born: Inverness
0-7: Morayshire
7-13: London
13-18: Edinburgh
18-19: Morayshire/USA
19-30: England (various places)
30-33: Edinburgh

I think my background probably does lend a certain perspective to my views on this debate. Whilst I hate to give any credence to ASBO's "confirmation bias" theory, I am certainly starting out in favour of the UK and needing to be convinced of the case for separation, whilst others are certainly starting from the basis that separation is a good thing, and needing to be convinced of the case for the continuing union.

I don't know how much background has to do with it - my folks were both from the western isles, but oddly their politics were somewhere to the right of Genghis Kahn.  But in the interests of completeness:

Born: Glasgow
0-18: Loch Lomond side/Stirlingshire
19-22: Line painting academy in Edinburgh
23-101: London, with the following interruptions
25: San Francisco
29: Boston
36 onwards: partly Devon
43: Amsterdam
46 onwards: mostly Devon

I should also add that I spent 6 months in Beijing in my 20s. Now there's a country that knows how to deal properly with independence movements!!

[Jimpy]

To be fair to the "Yes" campaign they were pretty quick to denounce that behaviour.

In my view it's actually damaging to their cause with undecided voters, and they were right to denounce it.

I'm not condoning for a second this particular numpty's behaviour (in fact, I condemn it as completely unproductive and rather pathetic), but I confess that as a student (at the White Line Painting College) I threw eggs at Mrs Thatcher - not proud of it, even if the old witch deserved it at the time for treating Scotland as her guinea pig

Was Thatcher not supportive of the Road Painters' Union??

Nah, she wasnae a fan - we curdled her tea once

To be fair, Scotland got its revenge in the form of Gordon Brown, both as Chancellor of the Exchequor and as an unelected Prime Minister.

[Sponsored content]