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]

Gordon Brown was elected. The PM is elected by his/her party, and the party is elected by the public (based on the number of MPs voted for in their local constituencies).

I also don't think it came as any real shock to anyone knowing anything about politics that Tony Blair didn't serve a full term.

I like the fact that we do things differently from the US, and have less onus of the individual and more emphasis on the party. It's important that when people vote they don't just choose between the two individuals, but properly scrutinise the party, its policies and importantly look at their local MP and ask whether that individual is best suited to represent and improve the constituency.

My parents are against independence, but both have voted SNP in the past on the strength of the local MP (Maggie Ewing). She was good for Moray.

Gordon Brown was a terrible PM, and never suited to the job. It was a dreadful strategic mistake by the Labour Party not to continue the legacy of New Labour and go with David Milliband and a more centre left agenda. His brother, Ed Balls and the Brownites won and in my view will ensure that Labour loses the next election. They should have elected David Milliband PM and called a general election. In my view they would have secured enough votes for a narrow majority, and would certainly have come ahead of the Conservatives and been able to form a far more credible alliance that the current rather odd coalition between two entirely different parties.

[Jimpy]

Gordon Brown was elected. The PM is elected by his/her party, and the party is elected by the public (based on the number of MPs voted for in their local constituencies).

I also don't think it came as any real shock to anyone knowing anything about politics that Tony Blair didn't serve a full term.

I like the fact that we do things differently from the US, and have less onus of the individual and more emphasis on the party. It's important that when people vote they don't just choose between the two individuals, but properly scrutinise the party, its policies and importantly look at their local MP and ask whether that individual is best suited to represent and improve the constituency.

My parents are against independence, but both have voted SNP in the past on the strength of the local MP (Maggie Ewing). She was good for Moray.

Gordon Brown was a terrible PM, and never suited to the job. It was a dreadful strategic mistake by the Labour Party not to continue the legacy of New Labour and go with David Milliband and a more centre left agenda. His brother, Ed Balls and the Brownites won and in my view will ensure that Labour loses the next election. They should have elected David Milliband PM and called a general election. In my view they would have secured enough votes for a narrow majority, and would certainly have come ahead of the Conservatives and been able to form a far more credible alliance that the current rather odd coalition between two entirely different parties.

Certainly, the Conservatives and Lib Dems are unlikely bedfellows. It was surely though, Nick Clegg's only real chance at having Governmental power, and he took it. Redefining selling out. I don't know (can't remember) what thir percentage of the vote was before entering into Coalition Government, but they were at least seen as credible opposition I think (not by me i hasten to add). I don't know what their ratings are like now, but I do remember hearing that they're lower than a snake's belly in a wheel rut. They've well and truly screwed that pooch.

David Milliband had a great deal more credibility as a potential party leader than Ed i'd say - how he got elected is a mystery and may be a good indication as to why Labour in the hole they're in. What Labour have now is a Spitting image puppet for a leader - its a good job the show isn't still running, the makers would have had a job parodying him...

[Cyril]

0-18 York
10 Went on a school trip to Edinburgh for 3 days
18-23 Aberystwyth
23-34 Cardiff
34> York

My voice shall be heard!

[funnyExiledScot]

0-18 York
10 Went on a school trip to Edinburgh for 3 days
18-23 Aberystwyth
23-34 Cardiff
34> York

My voice shall be heard!

My wife:

0-30 - England
30-33 - Edinburgh.

Her voice will be heard, or as she likes to put it, her vote cancels out Alex Salmond's vote.

[Cyril]

Scarily, I've realised I've only recently got back to having lived more time in England than Wales...

[TJ]

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.

For me to vote yes I wanted to hear the arguments and had several questions I wanted answered. I am disappointed in the answer on currency but I am sure a pragmatic solution will be found. Most other questions have been answered. and answered far better than by the No campaignwhich has been truly awful and no grass roots at all. Nor has anyone really succeeded in making a positive case for being in the union - what are the benefits to people like me? Gordon Brown at least tried. Nothing the no campaign has said really makes me want to vote No.

I am looking at this in the long term as well. I think there will be a realignment in scottish politics in the years after independence but its fairly clear Scotland will mainly be governed by coalitions of the centre left. Now to some this will be a consequence they don't want. I do. Stable social democratic government?

The oil money will cushion any uncertainties in the immediate economic future and no one sensible doubts Scotland could and would be a prosperous country. There is a lot of money to be saved. For example Scotlands share of the house of lords bar bill would pay for a primary school every year.



So - not long till the vote and I am still undecided but I am leaning towards yes.

[TJ]

0-18 York
10 Went on a school trip to Edinburgh for 3 days
18-23 Aberystwyth
23-34 Cardiff
34> York

My voice shall be heard!

My wife:

0-30 - England
30-33 - Edinburgh.

Her voice will be heard,.

And quite right too.

[funnyExiledScot]

Scarily, I've realised I've only recently got back to having lived more time in England than Wales...

That is terrible. Did you start overrating players, calling everyone world class and having inappropriate thoughts about sheep??

[doctor_grey]

FES,
I think it is unfair and perhaps inappropriate to ask about fixations with sheep. There are lifestyle choice one makes and I believe we should all be tolerant. Sheep have provided comfort, and perhaps hours of fun, for people from certain parts of the world for thousands of years..........

[EST]

Gents,

As a Scot living abroad, I have despaired at the lack of rational debate I have viewed/heard from various media outlets and friends/colleagues on social media (never the best debating platform). The debate on this thread has been the polar opposite: Informative and passionate without the vitriol and blind allegiance that members of both sides of the debate so often display; thanks for providing some welcome reading while I should be working.

There is no doubt that the Yes vote offers the opportunity for radical change: The right to self determination and sovereignty are a big carrot, while the NO campaigns negative tactics and lack of post referendum plan (assuming a NO vote) have provided the SNP with a big stick to beat them with. In saying this, if I had the opportunity to vote I would still be a NO....just.

Although I strongly believe that power needs to be devolved to all regions of the rUK, I would like to see this happen within the context of the union: A shared military, a common currency with one regulatory body, one NHS, ease and flexibility of trading and our joint history are all things I believe are of huge value and worth holding onto. The NO campaign not outlining the positives and successes of the Union has been their biggest failing, in my opinion.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Gents,

As a Scot living abroad, I have despaired at the lack of rational debate I have viewed/heard from various media outlets and friends/colleagues on social media (never the best debating platform).  The debate on this thread has been the polar opposite: Informative and passionate without the vitriol and blind allegiance that members of both sides of the debate so often display;  thanks for providing some welcome reading while I should be working.

There is no doubt that the Yes vote offers the opportunity for radical change: The right to self determination and sovereignty are a big carrot, while the NO campaigns negative tactics and lack of post referendum plan (assuming a NO vote) have provided the SNP with a big stick to beat them with.  In saying this,  if I had the opportunity to vote I would still be a NO....just.

Although I strongly believe that power needs to be devolved to all regions of the rUK, I would like to see this happen within the context of the union: A shared military, a common currency with one regulatory body, one NHS, ease and flexibility of trading and our joint history are all things I believe are of huge value and worth holding onto.  The NO campaign not outlining the positives and successes of the Union has been their biggest failing, in my opinion.



 

EST, furry muff, each to their own But just to clarify that we currently have two separate NHS's - both set up post war, and the advantage for the Scottish NHS is that it has been spared many of the austerity cuts visited on its cousin to the south - now whether this continues with the almost certain reduction in the Barnett formula grant, who knows?



I thought i would return to the topic of my shame over my mis-spent youth and previous outings as an egg-thrower. I got to wondering whether perhaps it could be considered a legitimate form of protest in this country, a form of non-violent action (in the sense that the egg will usually break, creating mess rather than injury) - from memory there certainly is an honourable history of recipients - Thatcher, Prescott, Milliband, etc., so is Mr Murphy joining good company?! Well it turns out that there is a whole history of food throwing as a means of non-violent protest, whether its eggs, tomatoes, or the more recently used spaghetti/noodles by the Ukranians: http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/article/history-protest-foods Who knew!! At least it seems to be one step further away from violence than the muslim show-throwing protest, of which if memory serves me correctly, numpty Bush the younger was one famous recipient! Anyhew, enjoy yer weekends, even the misguided No shower!!

[EST]

Gents,

As a Scot living abroad, I have despaired at the lack of rational debate I have viewed/heard from various media outlets and friends/colleagues on social media (never the best debating platform).  The debate on this thread has been the polar opposite: Informative and passionate without the vitriol and blind allegiance that members of both sides of the debate so often display;  thanks for providing some welcome reading while I should be working.

There is no doubt that the Yes vote offers the opportunity for radical change: The right to self determination and sovereignty are a big carrot, while the NO campaigns negative tactics and lack of post referendum plan (assuming a NO vote) have provided the SNP with a big stick to beat them with.  In saying this,  if I had the opportunity to vote I would still be a NO....just.

Although I strongly believe that power needs to be devolved to all regions of the rUK, I would like to see this happen within the context of the union: A shared military, a common currency with one regulatory body, one NHS, ease and flexibility of trading and our joint history are all things I believe are of huge value and worth holding onto.  The NO campaign not outlining the positives and successes of the Union has been their biggest failing, in my opinion.



 

EST, furry muff, each to their own   But just to clarify that we currently have two separate NHS's - both set up post war, and the advantage for the Scottish NHS is that it has been spared many of the austerity cuts visited on its cousin to the south - now whether this continues with the almost certain reduction in the Barnett formula grant, who knows?



I thought i would return to the topic of my shame over my mis-spent youth and previous outings as an egg-thrower.  I got to wondering whether perhaps it could be considered a legitimate form of protest in this country, a form of non-violent action (in the sense that the egg will usually break, creating mess rather than injury) - from memory there certainly is an honourable history of recipients - Thatcher, Prescott, Milliband, etc., so is Mr Murphy joining good company?!  Well it turns out that there is a whole history of food throwing as a means of non-violent protest, whether its eggs, tomatoes, or the more recently used spaghetti/noodles by the Ukranians: http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/article/history-protest-foods  Who knew!!  At least it seems to be one step further away from violence than the muslim show-throwing protest, of which if memory serves me correctly, numpty Bush the younger was one famous recipient!  Anyhew, enjoy yer weekends, even the misguided No shower!!

Indeed Asbo, my mistake. I was caught up in the emotion of all that the Union has done for us

Yes, enjoy your weekend lads - its a long weekend out here Canada.

[George Carlin]

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.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

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?

RDW, Have been thinking about your question some more as I smelled the paint fumes today and it brought about a moment of clarity - I actually think that fES and I probably agree that the existing situation is simply not working (we might vary on degree on this, but not by much I suspect), but that we see two different solutions as offering the bet way to resolve the problems that Scotland faces - and even then, arguably, with fES in the Devo Max camp, we aren't actually a million miles from one another - altho there is no disguising that independence is a very significant step, far more than Devo Max would have been (I actually believe that Devo Max would only be a stepping stone to eventual full independence anyhew)

[George Carlin]

I worked out yesterday that I was annoyed about the over-emphasis on the leaders of the two campaigns. Either you are voting for Mr Do The Collar And Cuffs Match? or Toad of Toad Hall.

You should be voting on ideology rather than the two punters who happened to be around at the time to try and sell them to you.

[funnyExiledScot]

Well the STV debate last night was an interesting one if you wanted to get away from Salmond vs Darling. It put Harvie (Green), Elaine Smith (actress) and the Sturge (the bad hair party) vs Davidson (also of the bad hair party), Alexander (Lab) and Dugdale (Lab) with the STV's Bernard Ponse (by a distance better than the idiot who dealt with the BBC debate) in the chair.

It was a much better debate than the two leaders' debates. The Sturge tried the "in bed with the Tories" line a couple of times but it came across poorly and the debate was otherwise of a high standard with the speakers all being as positive as possible. In fact for me it was the first time I've seen the Sturge, usually excellent, a little out of sorts. Her sniping and butting in style were very well handled by Davidson (who was actually very impressive, particularly on military issues) and particuarly by Bernard who refused to let it descend into the shouting match that we all suffered with the last Salmond/Darling debacle. Harvie is a decent man and clearly believes in what he's doing, and that came across. The weakest link was Elaine Smith purely because the others all had a better grasp of the facts and information, and she floundered on detail. Alexander is a little bit smug but again had a good grasp of the details. Dugdale fell into the same trap as the Sturge a couple of times in trying to be a bit too aggressive and score direct points, when the nature of the debate hadn't really gone down that road.

The questions from the audience were far more balanced, again with Bernard doing a great job of chairing the debate. I'd urge you to watch it if you have time.

The other interesting interjection in the debate yesterday was Olli Rehn's statement that Scotland would not be admitted into the EU without its own central bank, which if true would rule out the Panama Plan (Salmond's Plan B). This, if true, means that Scotland would either (a) need a formal currency union with rUK (Plan A), (b) have its own currency union (Plan B) or (c) join the Euro (Plan C). Worth noting that Rehn is the former Commissioner in charge of the monetary union/Euro and I've no doubt the Nats will dismiss this as scaremongering, irrelevant, contrary to the will of the Scottish people or a combination of all three, but this is a guy with vast experience in the EU and I would have thought his views would carry some weight. Anyway, there were plenty retired businessmen on their list of 200 "big hitters" in Scottish business......

[George Carlin]

Well the STV debate last night was an interesting one if you wanted to get away from Salmond vs Darling. It put Harvie (Green), Elaine Smith (actress) and the Sturge (the bad hair party) vs Davidson (also of the bad hair party), Alexander (Lab) and Dugdale (Lab) with the STV's Bernard Ponse (by a distance better than the idiot who dealt with the BBC debate) in the chair.

It was a much better debate than the two leaders' debates. The Sturge tried the "in bed with the Tories" line a couple of times but it came across poorly and the debate was otherwise of a high standard with the speakers all being as positive as possible. In fact for me it was the first time I've seen the Sturge, usually excellent, a little out of sorts. Her sniping and butting in style were very well handled by Davidson (who was actually very impressive, particularly on military issues) and particuarly by Bernard who refused to let it descend into the shouting match that we all suffered with the last Salmond/Darling debacle. Harvie is a decent man and clearly believes in what he's doing, and that came across. The weakest link was Elaine Smith purely because the others all had a better grasp of the facts and information, and she floundered on detail. Alexander is a little bit smug but again had a good grasp of the details. Dugdale fell into the same trap as the Sturge a couple of times in trying to be a bit too aggressive and score direct points, when the nature of the debate hadn't really gone down that road.

The questions from the audience were far more balanced, again with Bernard doing a great job of chairing the debate. I'd urge you to watch it if you have time.

The other interesting interjection in the debate yesterday was Olli Rehn's statement that Scotland would not be admitted into the EU without its own central bank, which if true would rule out the Panama Plan (Salmond's Plan B). This, if true, means that Scotland would either (a) need a formal currency union with rUK (Plan A), (b) have its own currency union (Plan B) or (c) join the Euro (Plan C). Worth noting that Rehn is the former Commissioner in charge of the monetary union/Euro and I've no doubt the Nats will dismiss this as scaremongering, irrelevant, contrary to the will of the Scottish people or a combination of all three, but this is a guy with vast experience in the EU and I would have thought his views would carry some weight. Anyway, there were plenty retired businessmen on their list of 200 "big hitters" in Scottish business......

Great summary, FES - will check it out on tinternet. Sounds like it was well debated and largely premised on fact and not emotive rhetoric. No wonder Salmond was nowhere near this programme.

[Jimpy]

Recent polls suggest a more even voting intent.

[funnyExiledScot]

They do, although I'm still holding out hope that there are people who will vote "No" who are not vocalising those intentions (for whatever reason), whereas I think it's fairly obvious that the "Yes" supporters are more of the heart on sleeve ilk.

Still time for a few more twists and turns I suspect.

[fa0019]

I myself have started to get a change of heart

I used to be in the NO camp with passion and 100% certainity but you know what.... you can drag a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.

Never have you seen such overwhelming evidence, cross political party support, near 100% from the world of business, economics etc for a given cause... yet support for independence grows. Its got to a point that either way I no longer care and almost want Scotland to chop the head off the golden goose.

England, Wales and NI will be fine without Scotland.

The stupidity of people is mind blowing... all this conspiracy about the "biggest oil field in the world being kept secret until 19th Sept" is a joke. Everyone knows its there

a) its not the worlds biggest oil field by far
b) The public have known about it for 40 years

and most importantly of all

c) Its not economically viable at current prices to extracting.

What some of my fish brained countrymen (and by the sounds of it there are 2.489MM of them and growing daily) don't realise is that sure they may have a big oil field available but firstly, they won't take profits from it, only tax revenue on profits.... and if it costs $200/bbl to extract when the market prices are $100/bbl no one will invest a pound/dollar/euro/dracma/rand or even barter with cattle for it.

Scotlands future will be similar to asking your ex wife for a few quid every 5 years or so.... only that a few quid this time is a few tens of billions.

I almost actually want them to vote for independence now... it would prove Nietzsche to be right in that circumstance.

[fa0019]

The situation reminds me of the time years ago when some former colleagues and I goaded a workmate to blow 50k on a new car. He never used it thereafter and he didn't even get the right model to suit his needs i.e. to show off and impress girls.

The minute he actually bought it we all jumped on his back saying we couldn't believe he actually bought it, what a waste of money etc and it proved so.

Its a city idiot mindset I guess. Some friends huh.

[funnyExiledScot]

As I said above, I'm not entirely convinced that there is significant growth in support for independence, and still think the "Yes" vote will fall short around 40-45% of votes cast.

The final debate has certainly helped their showing on the polls, but when people actually go to vote and consider the fundamentals, the fact remains that the independence prospectus, as put forward by the "Yes" campaign, is flawed in a number of respects.

They can bang endlessly on and on about "the sovereign will of the Scottish people", and it sounds great, but only the hard of thinking honestly believe that a "Yes" vote will deliver exactly what the "Yes" campaign claims it will. It'll result in a mucky period (who knows how long) of fighting with rUK and the EU, involving compromises and fallback positions that are nowhere to be seen in the White Paper. There will of course be no going back, regardless of whether we get what was purported to be the "mandate" given.

If you support the Union, want "devo plus" or "devo max", then the only sensible vote is "No". Independence is an entirely different beast.

[HammerofThunor]

Personally I think the undecideds will more likely go NO as doing nothing isn't a big issue as doing something, if that makes sense.

But I must admit, the more I hear of the NO arguments, the more I want Scotland to go (jobs coming to England, oil running out, etc). The more I hear about the YES side, the more I want you guys to stay.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

They do, although I'm still holding out hope that there are people who will vote "No" who are not vocalising those intentions (for whatever reason), whereas I think it's fairly obvious that the "Yes" supporters are more of the heart on sleeve ilk.

Still time for a few more twists and turns I suspect.

You'd have assumed that that would be the case, but ignoring the trolls on both sides, it would appear to be the No campaign that is the one seriously attempting to pull at the heart strings: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independence-better-together-campaign-posters_n_5746824.html - a shameful bit of emotional politicking if ever I saw one!

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Well the STV debate last night was an interesting one if you wanted to get away from Salmond vs Darling. It put Harvie (Green), Elaine Smith (actress) and the Sturge (the bad hair party) vs Davidson (also of the bad hair party), Alexander (Lab) and Dugdale (Lab) with the STV's Bernard Ponse (by a distance better than the idiot who dealt with the BBC debate) in the chair.

It was a much better debate than the two leaders' debates. The Sturge tried the "in bed with the Tories" line a couple of times but it came across poorly and the debate was otherwise of a high standard with the speakers all being as positive as possible. In fact for me it was the first time I've seen the Sturge, usually excellent, a little out of sorts. Her sniping and butting in style were very well handled by Davidson (who was actually very impressive, particularly on military issues) and particuarly by Bernard who refused to let it descend into the shouting match that we all suffered with the last Salmond/Darling debacle. Harvie is a decent man and clearly believes in what he's doing, and that came across. The weakest link was Elaine Smith purely because the others all had a better grasp of the facts and information, and she floundered on detail. Alexander is a little bit smug but again had a good grasp of the details. Dugdale fell into the same trap as the Sturge a couple of times in trying to be a bit too aggressive and score direct points, when the nature of the debate hadn't really gone down that road.

The questions from the audience were far more balanced, again with Bernard doing a great job of chairing the debate. I'd urge you to watch it if you have time.

The other interesting interjection in the debate yesterday was Olli Rehn's statement that Scotland would not be admitted into the EU without its own central bank, which if true would rule out the Panama Plan (Salmond's Plan B). This, if true, means that Scotland would either (a) need a formal currency union with rUK (Plan A), (b) have its own currency union (Plan B) or (c) join the Euro (Plan C). Worth noting that Rehn is the former Commissioner in charge of the monetary union/Euro and I've no doubt the Nats will dismiss this as scaremongering, irrelevant, contrary to the will of the Scottish people or a combination of all three, but this is a guy with vast experience in the EU and I would have thought his views would carry some weight. Anyway, there were plenty retired businessmen on their list of 200 "big hitters" in Scottish business......

Great summary, FES - will check it out on tinternet. Sounds like it was well debated and largely premised on fact and not emotive rhetoric. No wonder Salmond was nowhere near this programme.

Unforunately, the Earl of Stockbridge has let his innate biases get in the way, GC, so I wholeheartedly recommend that you do watch the programme yourself - even the (moderately right wing) FT managed a more balanced review than fES!: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebe3b64c-32ec-11e4-93c6-00144feabdc0.html


And as for Mr Olli Rehn's intervention, perhaps we can offer a little clarity on the situation - here is a verbatim email from the Head of Office of the EC to the same question (regarding the need for a central bank) several weeks ago:

Your enquiry relates to the monetary policy of the EU that is mapped out in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. Specifically I would draw your attention to Article 130 of the Treaty that concerns how the ECB should exercise its responsibilities. Article 131 further states that:

“Each Member State shall ensure that its national legislation including the statutes of its national central bank is compatible with the Treaties and the Statute of the ESCB [European System of Central Banks] and of the ESCB.”

The Statute of the ESCB and the ECB is laid down in a Protocol that is annexed to the Treaties. Article 14 of the Protocol concerns National Central Banks. Article 14.3 specifically states that:

“The national central banks are an integral part of the ESCB and shall act in accordance with the guidelines and instructions of the ECB…”

In terms of new Member States, it is Article 48 [48.3] that specifically makes reference to new Member States. It states:

“Upon one or more countries becoming Member States and their respective national central banks becoming part of the ESCB, the subscribed capital of the ECB and the limit on the amount of foreign reserve assets that may be transferred to the ECB shall be automatically increased…”

Article 50, the final protocol should also be looked at as it refers to Members States with a derogation (The Applicability of the transitional provisions).

Currently out of the 28 EU Member States today, 18 (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain) have adopted the euro, which means that they participate fully in Stage Three of EMU. The

· Irrevocable fixing of conversion rates;

· Introduction of the euro;

· Conduct of the single monetary policy by the European System of Central Banks;

· Entry into effect of the intra-EU exchange rate mechanism (ERM II);

· Entry into force of the Stability and Growth Pact;

Two – Denmark and the United Kingdom – have a special status, which means that in protocols annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) they were granted the exceptional right to choose whether or not to participate in Stage Three of EMU. They both notified the EU Council (Denmark in 1992 and the United Kingdom in 1997) that they did not intend to move to Stage Three, i.e. they did not wish to become part of the euro area for the time being. The other EU countries currently have a “derogation”. Having a derogation means that a Member State has not yet met the conditions for the adoption of the euro and it is therefore exempt from some, but not all, of the provisions which normally apply from the beginning of Stage Three of EMU. This includes all provisions which transfer responsibility for monetary policy to the Governing Council of the ECB.

Trusting that you will find this explanation to be of assistance

With best regards

Not a particularly definitive response, so once again the said gentleman was pushed a little further on whether a nation joining the EU required a central bank, and the further response was:

My immediate response ... is that your question has never been tested since all those countries acceding to the EU have had central banks.

With best regards

So, basically, its not a requirement that is laid down in any EU statute, and its biggest proponents to date have been the New Statesman's George Eaton and the Torygraph's Andrew Lilico - obviously two very authoritative figures on the topic. Another brick in the ProjectFear will cast asunder.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Personally I think the undecideds will more likely go NO as doing nothing isn't a big issue as doing something, if that makes sense.

But I must admit, the more I hear of the NO arguments, the more I want Scotland to go (jobs coming to England, oil running out, etc). The more I hear about the YES side, the more I want you guys to stay.

V good, Thunor, I like that!

The recent polling has suggested that Undecideds are splitting 2:1 in favour of Yes at the moment, but there still plenty of time for that to change in either direction, and even if it held, might still not be enough for independence. But I think you're premise that "doing nothing isn't a big issue as doing something" is probably bang on - it's a theme that George Mobiot picks up today in the Gruaniad in a piece about self-harming: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland .

I love the article in itself, with its comments on 'system justification' detailing an inbuilt human desire to defend the status quo regardless of its impacts. As he correctly points out: "The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today." And for a link to Adam Ramsay's poiece to which Monbiot refers: http://thereturnofthepublic.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/forty-two-reasons-to-support-scottish-independence/ - worth a read if you're Kindle inclined. The comments section below the article is worth a squizz too if you have the time, just for a laugh at the many numpties on both sides of the divide (I think I recognised the Earl of Stockbridge operating under a pseudonym = 'TruthisTaboo'!!!)

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The situation reminds me of the time years ago when some former colleagues and I goaded a workmate to blow 50k on a new car. He never used it thereafter and he didn't even get the right model to suit his needs i.e. to show off and impress girls.

The minute he actually bought it we all jumped on his back saying we couldn't believe he actually bought it, what a waste of money etc and it proved so.

Its a city idiot mindset I guess. Some friends huh.

Some friends indeed, fa ... that would goad him into doing it in the first place. Says a lot both ways if you ask me

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I myself have started to get a change of heart

I used to be in the NO camp with passion and 100% certainity but you know what.... you can drag a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.

Never have you seen such overwhelming evidence, cross political party support, near 100% from the world of business, economics etc for a given cause... yet support for independence grows. Its got to a point that either way I no longer care and almost want Scotland to chop the head off the golden goose.

England, Wales and NI will be fine without Scotland.

The stupidity of people is mind blowing... all this conspiracy about the "biggest oil field in the world being kept secret until 19th Sept" is a joke. Everyone knows its there

a) its not the worlds biggest oil field by far
b) The public have known about it for 40 years

and most importantly of all

c) Its not economically viable at current prices to extracting.

What some of my fish brained countrymen (and by the sounds of it there are 2.489MM of them and growing daily) don't realise is that sure they may have a big oil field available but firstly, they won't take profits from it, only tax revenue on profits.... and if it costs $200/bbl to extract when the market prices are $100/bbl no one will invest a pound/dollar/euro/dracma/rand or even barter with cattle for it.

Scotlands future will be similar to asking your ex wife for a few quid every 5 years or so.... only that a few quid this time is a few tens of billions.

I almost actually want them to vote for independence now... it would prove Nietzsche to be right in that circumstance.

Great stuff, fa, clearly Professor John Howell, Chair in Geology and Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen, is a complete feicwit and has no idea about all the stuff you know for certain For folks that prefer to do a bit of their own research, here's the original (http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/) and here's some pro-Yes commentary (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/industry-report-scotland-set-for-100-year-oil-boom-west-of-shetland/) - lots of 'could' 's in there and that seems to me to be the correct way to put it for now

[funnyExiledScot]

ASBO - the EU statute assumes that each member has a central bank. Read your own quote above again, it's right there in article 48. That every single EU member state has one tells you something.

Also, let us be clear. This is not the No campaign, this is Olli Rehn, and he is giving his view which I suggest should carry some weight given his experience, rather than dismissed as you have sought to do.

The Yes campaign have shown once again their complete inability to think things through properly. They bet the house on Plan A, they really have. When Salmond crumbled in the first debate on currency he was forced to admit the Panama Plan was a transitional Plan B, but clearly didn't bother to consider the central bank issue regarding the EU. Now he has caused himself more problems, as he's spent a lot of effort spinning the line that a Yes vote is the only way to guarantee EU membership!

You'd think the SNP could really have figured all this out by now, it's not like they haven't obsessed about it for decades!

[funnyExiledScot]

The "system justification" piece is patronising in my view. I reject independence because it is ill thought through and would harm both Scotland and rUK. Nothing to do with defending status quo. I wouldn't have supported devolution in 1997 or further powers now if that were the case.

What I do think is convincing some people to vote Yes is the idea that they don't like what they have now, so are simply voting for change. Any change. That the proposals in front of them unravel at the first hint of questioning doesn't seem to bother some people. They just want change. I urge people to question the proposals and whether they stand up to scrutiny. They don't. The SNP don't have the answers to your problems and will simply create a whole bunch of new ones. Engage and improve the current system, urge your MPs to push the further devolution agenda and demand a new bill to add to the Scotland Bill. That way we can have a sensible form of devolution with the best of both worlds.

[funnyExiledScot]

They do, although I'm still holding out hope that there are people who will vote "No" who are not vocalising those intentions (for whatever reason), whereas I think it's fairly obvious that the "Yes" supporters are more of the heart on sleeve ilk.

Still time for a few more twists and turns I suspect.

You'd have assumed that that would be the case, but ignoring the trolls on both sides, it would appear to be the No campaign that is the one seriously attempting to pull at the heart strings: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independence-better-together-campaign-posters_n_5746824.html - a shameful bit of emotional politicking if ever I saw one!

I agree. Even with my innate bias I cannot defend those ridiculous posters.

[funnyExiledScot]

Well the STV debate last night was an interesting one if you wanted to get away from Salmond vs Darling. It put Harvie (Green), Elaine Smith (actress) and the Sturge (the bad hair party) vs Davidson (also of the bad hair party), Alexander (Lab) and Dugdale (Lab) with the STV's Bernard Ponse (by a distance better than the idiot who dealt with the BBC debate) in the chair.

It was a much better debate than the two leaders' debates. The Sturge tried the "in bed with the Tories" line a couple of times but it came across poorly and the debate was otherwise of a high standard with the speakers all being as positive as possible. In fact for me it was the first time I've seen the Sturge, usually excellent, a little out of sorts. Her sniping and butting in style were very well handled by Davidson (who was actually very impressive, particularly on military issues) and particuarly by Bernard who refused to let it descend into the shouting match that we all suffered with the last Salmond/Darling debacle. Harvie is a decent man and clearly believes in what he's doing, and that came across. The weakest link was Elaine Smith purely because the others all had a better grasp of the facts and information, and she floundered on detail. Alexander is a little bit smug but again had a good grasp of the details. Dugdale fell into the same trap as the Sturge a couple of times in trying to be a bit too aggressive and score direct points, when the nature of the debate hadn't really gone down that road.

The questions from the audience were far more balanced, again with Bernard doing a great job of chairing the debate. I'd urge you to watch it if you have time.

The other interesting interjection in the debate yesterday was Olli Rehn's statement that Scotland would not be admitted into the EU without its own central bank, which if true would rule out the Panama Plan (Salmond's Plan B). This, if true, means that Scotland would either (a) need a formal currency union with rUK (Plan A), (b) have its own currency union (Plan B) or (c) join the Euro (Plan C). Worth noting that Rehn is the former Commissioner in charge of the monetary union/Euro and I've no doubt the Nats will dismiss this as scaremongering, irrelevant, contrary to the will of the Scottish people or a combination of all three, but this is a guy with vast experience in the EU and I would have thought his views would carry some weight. Anyway, there were plenty retired businessmen on their list of 200 "big hitters" in Scottish business......

Great summary, FES - will check it out on tinternet. Sounds like it was well debated and largely premised on fact and not emotive rhetoric. No wonder Salmond was nowhere near this programme.

Unforunately, the Earl of Stockbridge has let his innate biases get in the way, GC, so I wholeheartedly recommend that you do watch the programme yourself - even the (moderately right wing) FT managed a more balanced review than fES!: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebe3b64c-32ec-11e4-93c6-00144feabdc0.html

Don't think that FT article disagrees with anything I said....

[jimbopip]

Asbo, just for you and to lift the intellectual bar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNCFR8SqioE.
Fes are we still waiting for young Festina/Fester?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The "system justification" piece is patronising in my view. I reject independence because it is ill thought through and would harm both Scotland and rUK. Nothing to do with defending status quo. I wouldn't have supported devolution in 1997 or further powers now if that were the case.

What I do think is convincing some people to vote Yes is the idea that they don't like what they have now, so are simply voting for change. Any change. That the proposals in front of them unravel at the first hint of questioning doesn't seem to bother some people. They just want change. I urge people to question the proposals and whether they stand up to scrutiny. They don't. The SNP don't have the answers to your problems and will simply create a whole bunch of new ones. Engage and improve the current system, urge your MPs to push the further devolution agenda and demand a new bill to add to the Scotland Bill. That way we can have a sensible form of devolution with the best of both worlds.

Ain't gonna happen, my friend, no matter how much you kick and scream - all 3 main political parties heading to the right - good luck with that

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

ASBO - the EU statute assumes that each member has a central bank. Read your own quote above again, it's right there in article 48. That every single EU member state has one tells you something.

Also, let us be clear. This is not the No campaign, this is Olli Rehn, and he is giving his view which I suggest should carry some weight given his experience, rather than dismissed as you have sought to do.

The Yes campaign have shown once again their complete inability to think things through properly. They bet the house on Plan A, they really have. When Salmond crumbled in the first debate on currency he was forced to admit the Panama Plan was a transitional Plan B, but clearly didn't bother to consider the central bank issue regarding the EU. Now he has caused himself more problems, as he's spent a lot of effort spinning the line that a Yes vote is the only way to guarantee EU membership!

You'd think the SNP could really have figured all this out by now, it's not like they haven't obsessed about it for decades!

Which is why I quoted you in full the opinion of a current EU official - there is no such statute.

FYI, Olli Rehn wouldn't look out of place in Stockbridge or the Bullingdon Club: http://newint.org/columns/worldbeaters/2013/12/01/olli-rehn/

[funnyExiledScot]

The "system justification" piece is patronising in my view. I reject independence because it is ill thought through and would harm both Scotland and rUK. Nothing to do with defending status quo. I wouldn't have supported devolution in 1997 or further powers now if that were the case.

What I do think is convincing some people to vote Yes is the idea that they don't like what they have now, so are simply voting for change. Any change. That the proposals in front of them unravel at the first hint of questioning doesn't seem to bother some people. They just want change. I urge people to question the proposals and whether they stand up to scrutiny. They don't. The SNP don't have the answers to your problems and will simply create a whole bunch of new ones. Engage and improve the current system, urge your MPs to push the further devolution agenda and demand a new bill to add to the Scotland Bill. That way we can have a sensible form of devolution with the best of both worlds.

 Ain't gonna happen, my friend, no matter how much you kick and scream - all 3 main political parties heading to the right - good luck with that

Odd the that all 3 parties have put forward proposals then. Don't let the facts disturb you.

[funnyExiledScot]

Articles 48 and 131, the ones you've quoted above, both assume a central bank. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

[HammerofThunor]

Articles 48 and 131, the ones you've quoted above, both assume a central bank. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

I hope that was meant in jest. Trustworthy Lawyer is an oxymoron isn't it?

[RuggerRadge2611]

There are 2 things that are starting to annoy me.

1) The millitant nature of parts of the Yes Scotland movement.

2) This supposed Mandate from the Scottish people.

I'll explain why.

I went through to HMNB Clyde at Faslane yesterday as my job often requires. En route we saw the tradditional  smattering of No Thanks and Yes signs.

We counted them as we passed, sad I know but important.

25 or so No Thanks signs, 60-70% of them were vandalized, either spray painted over, the No cut our or simply destroyed. Most disturbingly one of them looked like it had been shot at.

We also passed 18 or so Yes signs none were vandalized.

The most important sign we passed was a frame with a bed sheet tied over it saying something along the lines of :

"This used to be a no thanks sign but Yes Scotland tresspassed on my property to destroy it. I won't be intimidated. No Thanks"

I ask the question again. What have we become as a nation? This debate is rapidly turning toxic. Heckeling is acceptable, chucking eggs at someone isn't and I'm sorry trying to intimidate others and stifle free speech is just downright sinister.

My sister won't barely talk to me because she knows I'm voting no. The damage this has done to our country is far greater than any good that may or may not come from it.

As for the decison itself I'm fed up of Alex calling the decision a mandate of the Scottish people. It's not, it's the support of a majority of Scottish people (they are quite different things). Equally a No Vote will not represent the will of the entire Scottish people half the country is going to be brutally disapointed in a few weeks.

Maybe Kent Brockman was right.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The eye will only see what you let it: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alan-wyllie/egggate-jim-murphy-_b_5744818.html - damn those sinister cybernats

[Jimpy]

And yet when i suggested that the issue was driving a wedge between the two countries and causing damamge that would take decades to repair (if at all) I was told that most people weren't that bothered and that they had seen no evidence for it.

Although the debate has been sensible and well tempered in the main, it can't hide the fact that regardless of the outcome, irrepairable damage has been done, with even families at odds over the whole issue.

Just what Salmond wants I suspect as if he loses on the 18th, he can take the ill feeling and channel it into renewed campaigning. If he wins, well he'll be taking Scotland down the toilet, I really believe it.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

And yet when i suggested that the issue was driving a wedge between the two countries and causing damamge that would take decades to repair (if at all) I was told that most people weren't that bothered and that they had seen no evidence for it.

Although the debate has been sensible and well tempered in the main, it can't hide the fact that regardless of the outcome, irrepairable damage has been done, with even families at odds over the whole issue.

Just what Salmond wants I suspect as if he loses on the 18th, he can take the ill feeling and channel it into renewed campaigning. If he wins, well he'll be taking Scotland down the toilet, I really believe it.

Jimpy, wasn't your point that there was irreparable damage being done between rUK and Scotland, whereas I think Radge's concern is the effect that the campaign and the debate will have within Scotland? Separate points I think

[George Carlin]

My sister won't barely talk to me because she knows I'm voting no. The damage this has done to our country is far greater than any good that may or may not come from it.

Are you sure that's why Radge? That time she caught you trying on her underwear whilst singing Ariana Grande into a hairbrush probably still lingers in her memory.

But seriously, I completely agree with you. No side can claim that they are blameless when it comes to militant support but I would never have thought that juvenille name calling would have made its way into the national press.

This will probably get me into trouble but I do believe this is absolutely symptomatic of the campaign run by Salmond. Darling's squad have unfortunately lowered themselves at times to respond, but the strategy absolutely eminates from the SNP leader.  The fact that the detail of his plans have been publicly second-guessed by a whole raft of people with experience and expertise on the relevant subject matter shows that he plainly expected the campaign to be winnable by simply sloganeering, personal and unrelated character attacks (what effing relevance is it now to this debate if Darling as an individual ever supported Thatcherite policies?) and chest beating.

Surely he can offer more than merely trying to ridicule academics, politicians and businessmen who have a different opinion to his? Sadly, it seems not and the SNP press department might as well re-name themselves the 'Character Assassination Team', issuing perfunctory statements that never amount to anything more than either (a) 'what's it got to do with you?' (b) 'you're not Scottish, so you just don't 'get it'', or (c) 'well, that's YOUR opinion'.

If the leader of the party endorses that thinking, it doesn't take a huge leap in ideology for supporters to believe that it follows naturally for them to vandalise the signs and homes of people who don't agree with them. Don't get me wrong, only a microscopic proportion of people would ever do this, but I haven't heard any stories about 'no thanks' people stealing anyone's car wheels.

Salmond isn't concerned about substantive policy. He just wants to get his 'yes' vote and then get into the meetings with all the relevant stakeholders to start doing deals. I do also believe that he's generally underestimated most Scots I know who want detailed policy discussions now rather than after the final bridges have been incinerated.

It's the most emotive of issues, but surely we don't need to show the world that we're unable to stop behaving like 10 year olds who stick their fingers in their ears and start singing loudly when confronted with something that they don't want to hear.

[fa0019]

I myself have started to get a change of heart

I used to be in the NO camp with passion and 100% certainity but you know what.... you can drag a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.

Never have you seen such overwhelming evidence, cross political party support, near 100% from the world of business, economics etc for a given cause... yet support for independence grows. Its got to a point that either way I no longer care and almost want Scotland to chop the head off the golden goose.

England, Wales and NI will be fine without Scotland.

The stupidity of people is mind blowing... all this conspiracy about the "biggest oil field in the world being kept secret until 19th Sept" is a joke. Everyone knows its there

a) its not the worlds biggest oil field by far
b) The public have known about it for 40 years

and most importantly of all

c) Its not economically viable at current prices to extracting.

What some of my fish brained countrymen (and by the sounds of it there are 2.489MM of them and growing daily) don't realise is that sure they may have a big oil field available but firstly, they won't take profits from it, only tax revenue on profits.... and if it costs $200/bbl to extract when the market prices are $100/bbl no one will invest a pound/dollar/euro/dracma/rand or even barter with cattle for it.

Scotlands future will be similar to asking your ex wife for a few quid every 5 years or so.... only that a few quid this time is a few tens of billions.

I almost actually want them to vote for independence now... it would prove Nietzsche to be right in that circumstance.

Great stuff, fa, clearly Professor John Howell, Chair in Geology and Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen, is a complete feicwit and has no idea about all the stuff you know for certain  For folks that prefer to do a bit of their own research, here's the original (http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/) and here's some pro-Yes commentary (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/industry-report-scotland-set-for-100-year-oil-boom-west-of-shetland/) - lots of 'could' 's in there and that seems to me to be the correct way to put it for now

Thanks for the link, sort of proves my point no? The article points to issues surrounding difficulties due to lack of technological advancements... i.e. we currently do not have the necessary technology to extract the oil at current stable market prices.

Lets say you are sitting on a gold mine? Are you rich? Perhaps. What if I told you that it cost $3000 per oz to  extract compared to current prices of just under $1300 per oz. Still rich?

I used to work in the industry so know it well... you often heard of these potential city of gold type fields yet they nearly always came in around middling to dissappointing, its not been proven reserves, its unproven and that is a big difference.  5 years ago would anyone have forseen Scottish independence (with a Scottish PM  and a labour govt. thats doubtful?)  So why wouldn't they have looked into it then especially given the price of oil was relatively similar to today? Same reasons they aren't lookng at it today, Its all about return of capital invested and at the moment its not enough for firms to see this as a priority.

The price of oil isn't going significantly up anytime soon. Any new project costing over $100/bbl will be on the shelf for a few years even decades more.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

My sister won't barely talk to me because she knows I'm voting no. The damage this has done to our country is far greater than any good that may or may not come from it.

Are you sure that's why Radge? That time she caught you trying on her underwear whilst singing Ariana Grande into a hairbrush probably still lingers in her memory.

But seriously, I completely agree with you. No side can claim that they are blameless when it comes to militant support but I would never have thought that juvenille name calling would have made its way into the national press.

This will probably get me into trouble but I do believe this is absolutely symptomatic of the campaign run by Salmond. Darling's squad have unfortunately lowered themselves at times to respond, but the strategy absolutely eminates from the SNP leader.  The fact that the detail of his plans have been publicly second-guessed by a whole raft of people with experience and expertise on the relevant subject matter shows that he plainly expected the campaign to be winnable by simply sloganeering, personal and unrelated character attacks (what effing relevance is it now to this debate if Darling as an individual ever supported Thatcherite policies?) and chest beating.

Surely he can offer more than merely trying to ridicule academics, politicians and businessmen who have a different opinion to his? Sadly, it seems not and the SNP press department might as well re-name themselves the 'Character Assassination Team', issuing perfunctory statements that never amount to anything more than either (a) 'what's it got to do with you?' (b) 'you're not Scottish, so you just don't 'get it'', or (c) 'well, that's YOUR opinion'.

If the leader of the party endorses that thinking, it doesn't take a huge leap in ideology for supporters to believe that it follows naturally for them to vandalise the signs and homes of people who don't agree with them. Don't get me wrong, only a microscopic proportion of people would ever do this, but I haven't heard any stories about 'no thanks' people stealing anyone's car wheels.

Salmond isn't concerned about substantive policy. He just wants to get his 'yes' vote and then get into the meetings with all the relevant stakeholders to start doing deals. I do also believe that he's generally underestimated most Scots I know who want detailed policy discussions now rather than after the final bridges have been incinerated.

It's the most emotive of issues, but surely we don't need to show the world that we're unable to stop behaving like 10 year olds who stick their fingers in their ears and start singing loudly when confronted with something that they don't want to hear.

I'm no particular Salmond fan, but to blame him alone is myopic in the extreme, GC. In fact, the fellow, whether you like him or not, has gone out of his way to attempt to keep the debate at the correct level: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-salmond-pans-intimidation-1-3526440 - even the heavily pro-unionist Hootsmon is capable of reporting that! I suggest that you consider more closely the effects of a campaign that has been based on Fear, on exploiting people's dislike of uncertainty, and on telling folks all the bad things that will happen to them if they vote for independence. Do you have any examples of these 'perfunctory statements' from your so-called 'Character Assassination Team'? Is commenting that on academic's/business leader's opinion is simply that and no more valid than another contradictory view from an independence-supporting academic/business leader really so heinous?! Time for some perspective

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I myself have started to get a change of heart

I used to be in the NO camp with passion and 100% certainity but you know what.... you can drag a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.

Never have you seen such overwhelming evidence, cross political party support, near 100% from the world of business, economics etc for a given cause... yet support for independence grows. Its got to a point that either way I no longer care and almost want Scotland to chop the head off the golden goose.

England, Wales and NI will be fine without Scotland.

The stupidity of people is mind blowing... all this conspiracy about the "biggest oil field in the world being kept secret until 19th Sept" is a joke. Everyone knows its there

a) its not the worlds biggest oil field by far
b) The public have known about it for 40 years

and most importantly of all

c) Its not economically viable at current prices to extracting.

What some of my fish brained countrymen (and by the sounds of it there are 2.489MM of them and growing daily) don't realise is that sure they may have a big oil field available but firstly, they won't take profits from it, only tax revenue on profits.... and if it costs $200/bbl to extract when the market prices are $100/bbl no one will invest a pound/dollar/euro/dracma/rand or even barter with cattle for it.

Scotlands future will be similar to asking your ex wife for a few quid every 5 years or so.... only that a few quid this time is a few tens of billions.

I almost actually want them to vote for independence now... it would prove Nietzsche to be right in that circumstance.

Great stuff, fa, clearly Professor John Howell, Chair in Geology and Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen, is a complete feicwit and has no idea about all the stuff you know for certain  For folks that prefer to do a bit of their own research, here's the original (http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1039/scottish-west-coast-untapped-oil-and-gas-reserves-worth-trillions/) and here's some pro-Yes commentary (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/industry-report-scotland-set-for-100-year-oil-boom-west-of-shetland/) - lots of 'could' 's in there and that seems to me to be the correct way to put it for now

Thanks for the link, sort of proves my point no? The article points to issues surrounding difficulties due to lack of technological advancements... i.e. we currently do not have the necessary technology to extract the oil at current stable market prices.

Lets say you are sitting on a gold mine? Are you rich? Perhaps. What if I told you that it cost $3000 per oz to  extract compared to current prices of just under $1300 per oz. Still rich?

I used to work in the industry so know it well... you often heard of these potential city of gold type fields yet they nearly always came in around middling to dissappointing, its not been proven reserves, its unproven and that is a big difference.  5 years ago would anyone have forseen Scottish independence (with a Scottish PM  and a labour govt. thats doubtful?)  So why wouldn't they have looked into it then especially given the price of oil was relatively similar to today? Same reasons they aren't lookng at it today, Its all about return of capital invested and at the moment its not enough for firms to see this as a priority.

The price of oil isn't going significantly up anytime soon. Any new project costing over $100/bbl will be on the shelf for a few years even decades more.

Over the medium term, the prices of oil& NG are only going in one direction, fa, and to deny that is ridiculous - they are a finite resource that will eventually run out and that are in high demand. Equally taxation on exploration is astronomically high - any reduction in that also has a clear bearing on whether it is cost effective to extract certain resources. Lastly, as the technology improves, that will only have one effect too. Sorry you can't see that

[George Carlin]

My sister won't barely talk to me because she knows I'm voting no. The damage this has done to our country is far greater than any good that may or may not come from it.

Are you sure that's why Radge? That time she caught you trying on her underwear whilst singing Ariana Grande into a hairbrush probably still lingers in her memory.

But seriously, I completely agree with you. No side can claim that they are blameless when it comes to militant support but I would never have thought that juvenille name calling would have made its way into the national press.

This will probably get me into trouble but I do believe this is absolutely symptomatic of the campaign run by Salmond. Darling's squad have unfortunately lowered themselves at times to respond, but the strategy absolutely eminates from the SNP leader.  The fact that the detail of his plans have been publicly second-guessed by a whole raft of people with experience and expertise on the relevant subject matter shows that he plainly expected the campaign to be winnable by simply sloganeering, personal and unrelated character attacks (what effing relevance is it now to this debate if Darling as an individual ever supported Thatcherite policies?) and chest beating.

Surely he can offer more than merely trying to ridicule academics, politicians and businessmen who have a different opinion to his? Sadly, it seems not and the SNP press department might as well re-name themselves the 'Character Assassination Team', issuing perfunctory statements that never amount to anything more than either (a) 'what's it got to do with you?' (b) 'you're not Scottish, so you just don't 'get it'', or (c) 'well, that's YOUR opinion'.

If the leader of the party endorses that thinking, it doesn't take a huge leap in ideology for supporters to believe that it follows naturally for them to vandalise the signs and homes of people who don't agree with them. Don't get me wrong, only a microscopic proportion of people would ever do this, but I haven't heard any stories about 'no thanks' people stealing anyone's car wheels.

Salmond isn't concerned about substantive policy. He just wants to get his 'yes' vote and then get into the meetings with all the relevant stakeholders to start doing deals. I do also believe that he's generally underestimated most Scots I know who want detailed policy discussions now rather than after the final bridges have been incinerated.

It's the most emotive of issues, but surely we don't need to show the world that we're unable to stop behaving like 10 year olds who stick their fingers in their ears and start singing loudly when confronted with something that they don't want to hear.

I'm no particular Salmond fan, but to blame him alone is myopic in the extreme, GC.  In fact, the fellow, whether you like him or not, has gone out of his way to attempt to keep the debate at the correct level: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-salmond-pans-intimidation-1-3526440 - even the heavily pro-unionist Hootsmon is capable of reporting that!  I suggest that you consider more closely the effects of a campaign that has been based on Fear, on exploiting people's dislike of uncertainty, and on telling folks all the bad things that will happen to them if they vote for independence.  Do you have any examples of these 'perfunctory statements' from your so-called 'Character Assassination Team'?  Is commenting that on academic's/business leader's opinion is simply that and no more valid than another contradictory view from an independence-supporting academic/business leader really so heinous?!  Time for some perspective

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not just blaming Salmond. I have already said that the debate has been too focussed on these two individuals. However, can you really say that the 'yes' campaign has focussed on the issues when rebutting various statements from people whom they must have known would not agree with their position? Salmond has been the formal mouthpiece of a consistently negative campaign - one which has clearly received the backing of his party - and it is an absolutely valid comment to say that it hasn't always been the way in which I would have wanted to see the discussions carried out with the international media watching.

Similarly, if there really has been a concerted mainstream media campaign to prevent the exposure of contrary views to that of the No campaign, then that is absolutely shameful and I've said that several times too.

Yes, I can provide lots of examples of poor formal responses to industry figures, so obviously (when I'm not at work with client deadline) I'll need to dig some of those out, because it's important.

[fa0019]

My sister won't barely talk to me because she knows I'm voting no. The damage this has done to our country is far greater than any good that may or may not come from it.

Are you sure that's why Radge? That time she caught you trying on her underwear whilst singing Ariana Grande into a hairbrush probably still lingers in her memory.

But seriously, I completely agree with you. No side can claim that they are blameless when it comes to militant support but I would never have thought that juvenille name calling would have made its way into the national press.

This will probably get me into trouble but I do believe this is absolutely symptomatic of the campaign run by Salmond. Darling's squad have unfortunately lowered themselves at times to respond, but the strategy absolutely eminates from the SNP leader.  The fact that the detail of his plans have been publicly second-guessed by a whole raft of people with experience and expertise on the relevant subject matter shows that he plainly expected the campaign to be winnable by simply sloganeering, personal and unrelated character attacks (what effing relevance is it now to this debate if Darling as an individual ever supported Thatcherite policies?) and chest beating.

Surely he can offer more than merely trying to ridicule academics, politicians and businessmen who have a different opinion to his? Sadly, it seems not and the SNP press department might as well re-name themselves the 'Character Assassination Team', issuing perfunctory statements that never amount to anything more than either (a) 'what's it got to do with you?' (b) 'you're not Scottish, so you just don't 'get it'', or (c) 'well, that's YOUR opinion'.

If the leader of the party endorses that thinking, it doesn't take a huge leap in ideology for supporters to believe that it follows naturally for them to vandalise the signs and homes of people who don't agree with them. Don't get me wrong, only a microscopic proportion of people would ever do this, but I haven't heard any stories about 'no thanks' people stealing anyone's car wheels.

Salmond isn't concerned about substantive policy. He just wants to get his 'yes' vote and then get into the meetings with all the relevant stakeholders to start doing deals. I do also believe that he's generally underestimated most Scots I know who want detailed policy discussions now rather than after the final bridges have been incinerated.

It's the most emotive of issues, but surely we don't need to show the world that we're unable to stop behaving like 10 year olds who stick their fingers in their ears and start singing loudly when confronted with something that they don't want to hear.

George

This is why I've literally changed my stance from being totally against independence to almost wanting it to happen just to see them see the storm it creates internally.  The behaavious of some of my countrymen has been appalling and it simply tells one brutal truth... that those persons know that they cannot win a rational argument on the basis of economics, well-being and costs to society.

I don't wish the chaos it will cause on anyone but those persons who are purposely using underhand tactics should remember... you reap what you sow.

[RuggerRadge2611]

I despair that No Thanks signs are getting vandalized.

One was smashed to pieces. Bits and pieces of it strewn all over a farmers field, another as I said looked like it had been shot at.

I'm not saying No Thanks are blameless, I have seen Yes Stickers with No stickers on top of them on lamp posts all over Dunfermline.

But going onto someones Property to destroy a political sign is just animalistic. It's a minority but as I said I didn't see one destroyed Yes sign.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Mods, I suspect that Nigel the passionate highlander may well have hacked into some posters' accounts - can you pls urgently check?  For the sake of clarity, just because I've painted white lines for north of 80 years doesn't make me a feicin expert on transport policy - perhaps others might care to consider this simile.  But in all seriousness, the quality of debate on here has unfortunately descended lower than I'm willing to spend my time on, so I'm out of this thread - by all means keep talking to yourselves, you'll have frothed yourselves up into a unionist frenzy in no time

[Sponsored content]