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.

[RuggerRadge2611]

I don't think some parties within the yes camp understand how stressful it is being under the shadow of potential redundancy.

I'm man enough to admit it. I'm scared. I love my job, in truth I see it as a career, I have no desire nor intention to leave my post.

I have just purchased a new house with Mrs Radge and I'm TBH just a bot stressed with all the uncertainty.

If I can't even make my sister realize the stress and fear I have, how can I expect anyone else to understand my fears and doubts.

It's easy for her and my brother in law. Independence won't make any difference to a teacher and an oil worker. However for my job working as a submarine specialist it will be a death sentence.

Sure I'll probably be able to find work offshore (there is feck all in fife anyway) but that's a move I don't want to make.

2 weeks on and 2 weeks off when currently trying for a family. I don't fancy it to be honest but my skills will not really translate to any other field of work.

A move down south is possible but I doubt the Mrs will go for that, her mother is recently widowed and to be honest I don't think I would exert any pressure on her to do so.

I'm making this personal because it IS personal.

[fa0019]

I don't think some parties within the yes camp understand how stressful it is being under the shadow of potential redundancy.

I'm man enough to admit it. I'm scared. I love my job, in truth I see it as a career, I have no desire nor intention to leave my post.

I have just purchased a new house with Mrs Radge and I'm TBH just a bot stressed with all the uncertainty.

If I can't even make my sister realize the stress and fear I have, how can I expect anyone else to understand my fears and doubts.

It's easy for her and my brother in law. Independence won't make any difference to a teacher and an oil worker. However for my job working as a submarine specialist it will be a death sentence.

Sure I'll probably be able to find work offshore (there is feck all in fife anyway) but that's a move I don't want to make.

2 weeks on and 2 weeks off when currently trying for a family. I don't fancy it to be honest but my skills will not really translate to any other field of work.

A move down south is possible but I doubt the Mrs will go for that, her mother is recently widowed and to be honest I don't think I would exert any pressure on her to do so.

I'm making this personal because it IS personal.

I feel for you Radge

Its a tricky situation to be in and not one I envy. Its rich for those to say... you must pay with your job, your livelihood but not mine.... I agree with tax cuts etc, as long as my wage packet doesn't go down etc etc. Those are the people I dislke the most. You want change, you have to put be willing to take it like everyone else.

No doubt if Yes came about and Scotland fell into a deep recession the "yes" campaigners will blame everyone else....

its because England is being unfair and not allowing us to use the bank of england etc.
Its because they're preventing us from joining the euro
Its because England robbed us of our banks
Its because we didn't negotiate a better settlement etc.

I'm sure once its all over and touch wood No is declared.

One thing I would find odd though.

Say Yes comes about. Once Rangers get promoted back to the SPL. On old firm day you'll have one group singing rule britannia and the other the fields of Anthenry. Wouldn't that be odd for the 2 major clubs to sing the songs of a foreign country... and nothing to do with Scotland (at least anymore in this potential hypothetical scenario).

[RZR]

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

I would maybe want to urge a bit of caution on the commentary about the price of oil and gas. It is very volatile. In the oil crises of 1979 it was the highest it has ever been, depending on what measure of inflation you use somewhere between $180 and $300 per barrel. There was such fear back then, that even Maggie Thatcher was trying to promote the building of a 1GW wave power station off Lewis.

In 1998 I was working in the oil and gas industry and oil prices were less than $20 per barrel. In 1979 you would have been laughed out of the building if you had predicted a 90% collapse in the oil price less than 20 years in the future (there was a lot of talk about 'peak oil' in the 70s and 80s.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that trying to look into the future and predict what is going to happen even over relatively modest timescales is difficult (1998 wasn't that long ago - oil is up fivefold since then!). So, there is a chance that oil prices could go through the roof and Scotland could be very rich from the tax take (not the capital mind, unless Alex has plans for a national oil industry...). On the other hand prices could collapse. There could be a big switch to an alternative fuel - solar, electrification of everything more renewables, America exporting cheap shale gas (looks like their ban on exporting petroleum products is about to be revoked). Companies like google and apple are looking hard and investing big in these alternative futures. They will be the companies driving the future, not the oil companies or motor companies. So. Who knows. Do I think it more likely that we will generally want to wean ourselves of fossil fuels? I do. Partially for climate change reasons, but more significantly for energy security issues. The middle east and Russia aren't looking too attractive currently as regions that we should be relying on to keep the lights on and the cars running.

So, on balance, while I think oil is a massive boost for Scotland and for an independent Scotland, it shouldn't form such a central plank of our economy. If places like the Gulf States and Norway are wanting to diversify their economies AWAY from oil, I think Scotland would be wise to not to bet the farm on oil bankrolling the wonderful socialist utopia which has been promised.

[fa0019]

As long as

I've been in energy for well over 10 years now so I'm not talking blind. Of course prices will rise but what you don't acknowledge is that it serves no purpose for prices to rise significantly, not for buyers or sellers.

Unlike the uk most oil in the world is extracted and produced by state owned companies and they take full return of profits not just tax revenue. The equilibrium between supply and demand is very volatile and these state owned firms  simply want their capital payments... High prices and low demand does not serve their purpose.

As rzr said, oil prices today may be high but they are not as high as they were inflation adjusted.

Yes a finite resource yes but the world is weaning itself off oil ever so slowly on alternative products such as LNG, natgas, nuclear etc which will all eventually take oils place.  The reason they rose significantly during the 00s was that Arab oil was costing more than market prices and they scqueezed supply to raise the price.

If prices of oil get too high economies simply cease to function. Don't bet on crazy moves anytime soon bar great shocks such as war, sanctions etc. prices will rise with inflation of course and as reserves cost more to extract although in time technology will help to lower all of these.

In terms of Scotlands eldorado  I've seen too many massive unproven fields end up being average only to get excited about it.  given oil has been  relatively the same price for 5 years now, if it was worth exploring now it was worth exploring 5 years ago.

[Jimpy]

Alex Salmond has told Ed Miliband to ‘keep quiet’ after the Labour leader tried to expose his epic scam.

Scotland’s first minister insisted he was working a sweet little number and that Miliband was making it hard for an honest thief to earn some scratch.

Salmond said: “I’m in the middle of the greatest long-grift of my life and this guy tries to queer my action.

“I thought we had a code. You see a guy doing a thing and you back off and find your own cheese.”

Salmond’s grift involves promising everyone in Scotland a non-existent oil field and selling them a health service they already own.

He added: “Give a guy some elbow room. I’ve been working these pish-monkeys for years.”

Salmond then put his arm around Miliband’s shoulder and told him to go back to scamming English idiots with the no-cuts fandango.

[Notch]

The Daily Mash?

[Jimpy]

The Daily Mash?

A plagerisation...

[Notch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flxQCmb5oY&feature=youtu.be

[ME-109]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flxQCmb5oY&feature=youtu.be

Just about sums it all up

[ME-109]

Oh oh...latest poll puts the Yes vote ahead for the first time (in an official one)....all getting very exciting now!!!

[George Carlin]

Oh lord. The Gordon Brown Effect:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11079797/Poll-puts-Scottish-independence-campaign-ahead-for-first-time.html

[temporary21]

They should do what they want, soo long as theyve considered their opinion, im OK wither way

[GLove39]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flxQCmb5oY&feature=youtu.be

That is wonderful! Chapeau to Sky for putting that together.

[CraigS1874]

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.

Yeah I agree 100%. I saw a sign in the borders go up one morning later on in that day it had already been vandalised.

We have had a few people approach us and ask us to put no thanks signs in our fields next to main roads however we know as soon as they go up they will be vandalised and we will get more hassle than its worth.

[SecretFly]

They should do what they want, soo long as theyve considered their opinion, im OK wither way

Oh dear. Some of them will just turn up and vote on a whim of the day. Believe me, there is always a turncoat in the turnstiles on any voting day in any voting booth.

Whatda we do with 'EM folks??????!!!! Ban 'em before they vote is my decision.

[fa0019]

They should do what they want, soo long as theyve considered their opinion, im OK wither way

Oh dear.  Some of them will just turn up and vote on a whim of the day.  Believe me, there is always a turncoat in the turnstiles on any voting day in any voting booth.

Whatda we do with 'EM folks??????!!!!  Ban 'em before they vote is my decision.  

not in zimbabwe there isn't!!!

[SecretFly]

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.

Yeah I agree 100%. I saw a sign in the borders go up one morning later on in that day it had already been vandalised.

We have had a few people approach us and ask us to put no thanks signs in our fields next to main roads however we know as soon as they go up they will be vandalised and we will get more hassle than its worth.

Maybe the sign that was torn down was put up in the farmer's field without the farmer being 'approached'? Maybe he was the looney who 'smashed it to pieces'? You never know where the skulls are in all this voting duggery of late.

[SecretFly]

They should do what they want, soo long as theyve considered their opinion, im OK wither way

Oh dear.  Some of them will just turn up and vote on a whim of the day.  Believe me, there is always a turncoat in the turnstiles on any voting day in any voting booth.

Whatda we do with 'EM folks??????!!!!  Ban 'em before they vote is my decision.  

not in zimbabwe there isn't!!!

Are you sure?  Voter votes 'Yes'.  'Official' walks up to the box, opens it, takes out the paper, burns it, rewrites a new voting slip with 'No', inserts the vote into the box, walks out calmly, nobody has seen anything, he was never there, he never touched the box and never did nothing wrong, bless him.

Turncoat vote in the bag.

[Feckless Rogue]

Would Scottish independence be a good thing or a bad thing for the rep. of Ireland? I haven't heard any politician here say a thing about it. Would a new country popping up beside us have any consequences good or bad?

[whocares]

maybe it's a silly question, but assuming Scotland does get its independence who will be entitled to a Scottish passport? people currently leaving in Scotland (including English)? Scots leaving abroad as well?

[SecretFly]

maybe it's a silly question, but assuming Scotland does get its independence who will be entitled to a Scottish passport? people currently leaving in Scotland (including English)? Scots leaving abroad as well?

Probably to the first..... and possibly to the second.  

I'm sure anyone who was living and working in Scotland (as a full UK citizen right now) will be entitled to decide if they want to become distinct Scottish citizens (Scottish passport holders) or continue exclusively as UK citizens.  If they remain as UK citizens only they'll obviously then be 'foreign' nationals continuing to live and work in Scotland.  I'm sure there are many of that category (foreign nationals) already working and living in Scotland.

PS - 'England' and 'English' are again NOT the only nationality that constitutes UK identity.  I think that very slant that your question raises has been the eternal problem for the UK as it's identified abroad and perhaps one of the big reasons why Scottish people are actually having their referendum.   To the world (and even to a great swathe of English people themselves) the UK is England - and England is the UK.  Many people across the world simply think of the UK in those terms.  It's no wonder that the others (NI, Welsh, Scottish) sometimes think of themselves as the lesser 'equals' in the UK union of 'equals'.

The idea that Westminster would 'give' more self governing power to the Scottish now if they decided to vote 'No' to Indepepence for me highlights the very rerasons why Scotland are right to seek Independence.  You don't get given your 'rights' or 'powers' by an 'equal' partner in a political union.  You can only be offered or 'given' something by someone who feels they have the 'power' to give it to you: ie, a superior 'equal' in the union of 'equals'; ie, the 'English'.  The offer now given is the very reason Scotland is right to have its referendum, it proves the need for it.

[whocares]

maybe it's a silly question, but assuming Scotland does get its independence who will be entitled to a Scottish passport? people currently leaving in Scotland (including English)? Scots leaving abroad as well?

Probably to the first..... and possibly to the second.  

I'm sure anyone who was living and working in Scotland (as a full UK citizen right now) will be entitled to decide if they want to become distinct Scottish citizens (Scottish passport holders) or continue exclusively as UK citizens.  If they remain as UK citizens only they'll obviously then be 'foreign' nationals continuing to live and work in Scotland.  I'm sure there are many of that category (foreign nationals) already working and living in Scotland.

ok. you would assume that Scotland would also enter bilateral agreements with other countries other than uk (specially if Scotland is not in the EU as it might take a while) to allow EU citizens to stay and work there (without visa or work permit that is).

[SecretFly]

sorry, that first post seems to have posted before I intended to post it or was finished!

Oh well....

[whocares]

sorry, that first post seems to have posted before I intended to post it or was finished!

Oh well....

no worries...got your point.

it took me a while but I am am now aware know that uk = england+wales+scotland+ NI (mainly thanks to rugby)... that said, most continentals do refer to the folks accross the channel as "english" indeed, it's down to lazyness but at the same there is no translation (in french) for a more unifying name such as Britton

[RuggerRadge2611]

The idea that Westminster would 'give' more self governing power to the Scottish now if they decided to vote 'No' to Indepepence for me highlights the very rerasons why Scotland are right to seek Independence.  You don't get given your 'rights' or 'powers' by an 'equal' partner in a political union.  You can only be offered or 'given' something by someone who feels they have the 'power' to give it to you: ie, a superior 'equal' in the union of 'equals'; ie, the 'English'.  The offer now given is the very reason Scotland is right to have its referendum, it proves the need for it.

Heard that argument before, it collapses under scrutiny, especially when 2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers of the UK were Scottish.

[BigGee]

I really do hope that everyone in Scotland is noticing just how strongly everyone else in the rest of the UK wants Scotland to remain in the Union. Given the amount of anti English feeling that comes from the SNP leadership, it would be in many ways understandable if they feeling was to say just let them go and get on with it. That it is not the case is actually a credit to the people of the rest of the UK and an example of the genuine affection for which Scotland is held. Do people really want to throw all of that away?

[RDW]

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

[SecretFly]

The idea that Westminster would 'give' more self governing power to the Scottish now if they decided to vote 'No' to Indepepence for me highlights the very rerasons why Scotland are right to seek Independence.  You don't get given your 'rights' or 'powers' by an 'equal' partner in a political union.  You can only be offered or 'given' something by someone who feels they have the 'power' to give it to you: ie, a superior 'equal' in the union of 'equals'; ie, the 'English'.  The offer now given is the very reason Scotland is right to have its referendum, it proves the need for it.

Heard that argument before, it collapses under scrutiny, especially when 2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers of the UK were Scottish.

It doesn't collapse under my scrutiny.  

Scottish Unionists (2 of the last 3 Prime Ministers, as it were) wouldn't be a surprise to me, we have Irish ones too, remember?  But a Unionist is a Unionist and will argue the case from a Unionist perspective - whether he be English or Scottish.

Back to the point though.  The fact remains that you don't get GIVEN powers by anyone other than the people who have the POWER to give them to you.  The logic is pure.

"We'll give you some more autonomy (us in Westminster - by far the superior number of which are English) if you don't look for total autonomy."

Hmmmm........... the answer might be: "We'll just take total autonomy, thanks"

[HammerofThunor]

I really do hope that everyone in Scotland is noticing just how strongly everyone else in the rest of the UK wants Scotland to remain in the Union. Given the amount of anti English feeling that comes from the SNP leadership, it would be in many ways understandable if they feeling was to say just let them go and get on with it. That it is not the case is actually a credit to the people of the rest of the UK and an example of the genuine affection for which Scotland is held. Do people really want to throw all of that away?

Just to be clear, I don't really care that much. I think it's interesting in an academic way but I'm not really fussed by the outcome. No more so than if it was a vote for the Catalan region to gain independance. No-one I know or work with really cares that much. There certainly isn't any well of 'family' loyalty or desire to remain together. And David Cameron most certainly does not speak for me. Mostly apathy I'm afraid.

What it has done is reignite the call for a Northern England devolution of some kind (which some people are talking about).

[BigGee]

Probably did not word that very well, when I said everyone, I meant 'the majority'. I still believe that to be the case and the opinion polls back that up.

[RDW]

The opinion polls also back Westminster being hardline with a new Scottish government if we do separate. People down south do want us to stay together, but if we leave them we will have to pay for it!

No currency union, block entry to EU and Nato etc.

[Jimpy]

Lots of people saying that the visit of the three main party leaders to Scotland is too little too late and might actively encourage a 'Yes' vote. Personally, I think Cameron can't lose politically. If there is a no vote, he'll have been seen to stay out of the debate (in the main) and to have offered concessions will cost England very little. If there is a yes vote, he knows full well that the Conservatives are likely to be unchallenged in national elections for decades. Labour will be come a party of the past here. Lots of industry and jobs will be formed in England in the aftermath, it can only help the economy. Cynics might claim his visit to Scotland today is a deliberate attempt to provoke a 'tes' vote for this very reason.

[SecretFly]

The opinion polls also back Westminster being hardline with a new Scottish government if we do separate. People down south do want us to stay together, but if we leave them we will have to pay for it!
No currency union, block entry to EU and Nato etc.

In a "We like you and want you so much that we'll be bitter enemies if you ever leave us" kinda way? That's a durn friendly ultimatum. Beginning to sound like a Doctor Phil Prawblem

[BigGee]

The opinion polls also back Westminster being hardline with a new Scottish government if we do separate. People down south do want us to stay together, but if we leave them we will have to pay for it!

No currency union, block entry to EU and Nato etc.

I passionately want Scotland to stay part of the union, to the point where I am actually getting quite stressed about the result. In a rare gesture of solidarity with Cameron I will also be broken hearted if Scotland goes. If the unthinkable does happen though, I will put my British hat on and expect whatever government is in power to negotiate the best deal for the rest of UK and that will mean playing hardball. If that means no pound, no shipbuilding nor financial services so be it. There will be no room for any sentiment in these negotiations, nothing for old times sake and be under no illusions that one side will have a much stronger hand than the other!

[George Carlin]

I think that the smartest thing Dave Shinyface did for the entire campaign was to keep himself out of it.
No idea what will happen to Darling politically if there is a yes vote, or to Salmond if there's a no vote.

Toad of Toad Hall has already said that he won't resign if it's a 'no', despite the fact that every moment of his political life has been geared towards talking Scotland into independence.

What amazes me is the number of people here who are keen to tell us how much other people they know don't give a toss about the vote. Why would you come on here and post that? People are well aware that this is largely a Scottish issue but similarly most of them also realise that it's hugely emotive.

[RDW]

The opinion polls also back Westminster being hardline with a new Scottish government if we do separate. People down south do want us to stay together, but if we leave them we will have to pay for it!

No currency union, block entry to EU and Nato etc.

I passionately want Scotland to stay part of the union, to the point where I am actually getting quite stressed about the result. In a rare gesture of solidarity with Cameron I will also be broken hearted if Scotland goes. If the unthinkable does happen though, I will put my British hat on and expect whatever government is in power to negotiate the best deal for the rest of UK and that will mean playing hardball. If that means no pound, no shipbuilding nor financial services so be it. There will be no room for any sentiment in these negotiations, nothing for old times sake and be under no illusions that one side will have a much stronger hand than the other!

Absolutely agree with you.

Regarding the bit in bold, I'm the same - I'm usually a very relaxed person that rarely gets stressed, but the past few weeks have made me very anxious about the whole thing. Can only imagine what other people are like who are more prone to stress and anxiety. A lot has been talking about the financial uncertainty caused during the referendum, but the social anxiety of a nation has been rarely covered.

[SecretFly]

The opinion polls also back Westminster being hardline with a new Scottish government if we do separate. People down south do want us to stay together, but if we leave them we will have to pay for it!

No currency union, block entry to EU and Nato etc.

I passionately want Scotland to stay part of the union, to the point where I am actually getting quite stressed about the result. In a rare gesture of solidarity with Cameron I will also be broken hearted if Scotland goes. If the unthinkable does happen though, I will put my British hat on and expect whatever government is in power to negotiate the best deal for the rest of UK and that will mean playing hardball. If that means no pound, no shipbuilding nor financial services so be it. There will be no room for any sentiment in these negotiations, nothing for old times sake and be under no illusions that one side will have a much stronger hand than the other!

No trade is a two-way sword that all pragmatic governments realise is an own goal.  IF there is a Yes vote there will be a few months, if not years, of bitter tears and recriminations and bickering...but at the very same time plans will be going into operation to make the transition from bedfellows to neighbours go as smoothly in a business sense as possible because Scots doing business with the English and vice versa is what everyone knows will happen.  It has to happen - it will be in the interests of all.  The English will need as many allies in the increasing didactic EU as possible, I'd bet Scotland would be one of their strongest.  One vote becomes two.  Don't always look on the bleak side of an Independent Scotland, there are many advantages.

[RDW]

BP Chief exec comes out in favour of the Union - he really needs to stop this scaremongering!

Responding to Sir Ian Wood's comments earlier that voters were being "mis-led and influenced by highly inaccurate forecasts" in relation to North Sea oil, BP chief executive Bob Dudley said future prospects were "best served" by staying in the UK.

He said in a statement: "BP has been in the UK North Sea for 50 years and we hope to operate here for many years to come. However, the province is now mature and I believe Sir Ian Wood correctly assesses its future potential.

"The opportunities today are smaller and more challenging to develop than in the past. We also face the challenges of extending the productive life of existing assets and managing the future costs of decommissioning. Much of this activity requires fiscal support to be economic and future long-term investments require fiscal stability and certainty.

"As a major investor in Scotland - now and into the future - BP believes that the future prospects for the North Sea are best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom."

[BigGee]

I would wish no ill on an independent Scotland. I have invested so much time and emotional energy into it over the course of my life. Have you any idea what it is like to be a Scottish rugby fan!

Yes I also agree that things will eventually settle down but it will not be quick nor easy. Alex Salmond just seems to think he can cherry pick what he wants and that will not happen. Paradoxically the distrust of Westminster politicians seems to have pushed Yes supporters into the arms of the man who may well turn out to be the biggest snake in the grass of them all in terms of promising stuff that he can't deliver. It matters not though, U turns can come after the dotted line is signed!

Remember as well that lots of people in Scotland and especially the SNP, like to blame England for all of their problems. A very new and different mind set is going to be required as an independent country. If the economy goes bad, which just about all independent experts are predicting, certainly in the short/medium term are they really going to be able to accept this as an inevitable consequence of what has happened or are they going to continue to direct the blame southwards for not allowing them to leave with the kitchen sink and the crown jewels!

Scotland will peruse its own agenda in Europe, revolving mainly around fishing rights and agricultural subsidies, assuming it gets in. One thing you can say though is that it is never going to be a significant player. Decisions in Europe are made by the big beasts, not by the minnows. The alliances that matter are those made between Germany, France and the UK. There then are second and third tiers. Scotland due to its size and its status as a new member is going to have to work its way up from the bottom.

[SecretFly]

BP Chief exec comes out in favour of the Union - he really needs to stop this scaremongering!

Responding to Sir Ian Wood's comments earlier that voters were being "mis-led and influenced by highly inaccurate forecasts" in relation to North Sea oil, BP chief executive Bob Dudley said future prospects were "best served" by staying in the UK.

He said in a statement: "BP has been in the UK North Sea for 50 years and we hope to operate here for many years to come. However, the province is now mature and I believe Sir Ian Wood correctly assesses its future potential.

"The opportunities today are smaller and more challenging to develop than in the past. We also face the challenges of extending the productive life of existing assets and managing the future costs of decommissioning. Much of this activity requires fiscal support to be economic and future long-term investments require fiscal stability and certainty.

"As a major investor in Scotland - now and into the future - BP believes that the future prospects for the North Sea are best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom."

In short: 'There's oil here "for many years to come" - we'll be here sitting on it - or else someone else will be - but there is still oil here "for many years to come".

[BigGee]

BP Chief exec comes out in favour of the Union - he really needs to stop this scaremongering!

Responding to Sir Ian Wood's comments earlier that voters were being "mis-led and influenced by highly inaccurate forecasts" in relation to North Sea oil, BP chief executive Bob Dudley said future prospects were "best served" by staying in the UK.

He said in a statement: "BP has been in the UK North Sea for 50 years and we hope to operate here for many years to come. However, the province is now mature and I believe Sir Ian Wood correctly assesses its future potential.

"The opportunities today are smaller and more challenging to develop than in the past. We also face the challenges of extending the productive life of existing assets and managing the future costs of decommissioning. Much of this activity requires fiscal support to be economic and future long-term investments require fiscal stability and certainty.

"As a major investor in Scotland - now and into the future - BP believes that the future prospects for the North Sea are best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom."

In short:  'There's oil here "for many years to come" - we'll be here sitting on it - or else someone else will be - but there is still oil here "for many years to come".

Don't underestimate the costs of decommissioning the north sea. They are going to be massive, possibly bigger than the costs of putting the stuff out there in the first place. Am awful lot of the profit as production tails off will be spent on that.

[fa0019]

BP Chief exec comes out in favour of the Union - he really needs to stop this scaremongering!

Responding to Sir Ian Wood's comments earlier that voters were being "mis-led and influenced by highly inaccurate forecasts" in relation to North Sea oil, BP chief executive Bob Dudley said future prospects were "best served" by staying in the UK.

He said in a statement: "BP has been in the UK North Sea for 50 years and we hope to operate here for many years to come. However, the province is now mature and I believe Sir Ian Wood correctly assesses its future potential.

"The opportunities today are smaller and more challenging to develop than in the past. We also face the challenges of extending the productive life of existing assets and managing the future costs of decommissioning. Much of this activity requires fiscal support to be economic and future long-term investments require fiscal stability and certainty.

"As a major investor in Scotland - now and into the future - BP believes that the future prospects for the North Sea are best served by maintaining the existing capacity and integrity of the United Kingdom."

In short:  'There's oil here "for many years to come" - we'll be here sitting on it - or else someone else will be - but there is still oil here "for many years to come".

Althought they then said by 2050 all the oil will have gone. Not that long when you think about it.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread. What caught my attention? Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought. One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote. Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed? Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia. Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view). The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing. Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere? Nothing.

So why these dire warnings? They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours. Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it. So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

[fa0019]

why is it favourable for corporation tax at 3% less UK (currently 20%) when Ireland is at 12%.
Ireland is the same as Scotland, same distance, same pop., same language, same education standards yet with a far greater corporation tax drop.

If a firm wants to get better tax rates they will go to Ireland not Scotland.

[Feckless Rogue]

It kind of shows how ridiculously successful this union of nations has been, compared to any other I can think of (I can't remember how Yugoslavia turned out), that after 3 centuries Scots themselves see themselves as British as much as Scottish. Because surely that would not have been a common feeling at the time of the union (which I believe was not popular).

But why is the pound English now and there is an argument over whether the Scots can use it? Why would the defence industry be moving to England? Why are all the institutions and assets of Britain suddenly English? We were told these things were British. Have the Scots had no part in making them? Surely the threats of taking them away will confirm to pro independence people what they've always thought, that they're effectively being ruled by England, not in an equal union. Why are the assets not being split if there's a divorce. Why is one side getting them all?

[BigGee]

It kind of shows how ridiculously successful this union of nations has been, compared to any other I can think of (I can't remember how Yugoslavia turned out), that after 3 centuries Scots themselves see themselves as British as much as Scottish. Because surely that would not have been a common feeling at the time of the union (which I believe was not popular).

But why is the pound English now and there is an argument over whether the Scots can use it? Why would the defence industry be moving to England? Why are all the institutions and assets of Britain suddenly English? We were told these things were British. Have the Scots had no part in making them? Surely the threats of taking them away will confirm to pro independence people what they've always thought, that they're effectively being ruled by England, not in an equal union. Why are the assets not being split if there's a divorce. Why is one side getting them all?

No one is saying these things are English, as things currently stand these assets are British, however if the country splits then the assets will be split. This will not be a mutually agreed divorce though. It is only one side that potentially wants it and that side is over 10 times smaller than the rest of the UK, so resources and liabilities will be shared pro rata, not 50/50. There are far more customers of Standard Life and RBS in England than in Scotland and these customers will be better served by having their institutions in their own countries and in their own currency. If RBS moves, it will also end up rebranding. Expect to see it change back to the National Westminster. RBS will just remain the Scottish arm of it and will be a very small part of the company.

[Jimpy]

I would wish no ill on an independent Scotland. I have invested so much time and emotional energy into it over the course of my life. Have you any idea what it is like to be a Scottish rugby fan!

Yes I also agree that things will eventually settle down but it will not be quick nor easy. Alex Salmond just seems to think he can cherry pick what he wants and that will not happen. Paradoxically the distrust of Westminster politicians seems to have pushed Yes supporters into the arms of the man who may well turn out to be the biggest snake in the grass of them all in terms of promising stuff that he can't deliver. It matters not though, U turns can come after the dotted line is signed!

Remember as well that lots of people in Scotland and especially the SNP, like to blame England for all of their problems. A very new and different mind set is going to be required as an independent country. If the economy goes bad, which just about all independent experts are predicting, certainly in the short/medium term are they really going to be able to accept this as an inevitable consequence of what has happened or are they going to continue to direct the blame southwards for not allowing them to leave with the kitchen sink and the crown jewels!

Scotland will peruse its own agenda in Europe, revolving mainly around fishing rights and agricultural subsidies, assuming it gets in. One thing you can say though is that it is never going to be a significant player. Decisions in Europe are made by the big beasts, not by the minnows. The alliances that matter are those made between Germany, France and the UK. There then are second and third tiers. Scotland due to its size and its status as a new member is going to have to work its way up from the bottom.

Spain has already indicated it would veto Scotland's membership. So 'game over' there...

[RDW]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread.  What caught my attention?  Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought.  One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote.  Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed?  Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia.  Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view).  The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing.  Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere?  Nothing.

So why these dire warnings?  They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours.  Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it.  So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

Ah yes, the S word! The one word that has completely discredited the Yes campaign from the beginning, and alienated them from potential voters I think. If financial experts, heads of business and academics alike come out with something that the Yes campaign disagrees with they are scaremongering. Never mind just saying "They are entitled to their opinion, but we disagree and here's why". I can live with that. But scaremongering suggests lying, gross exaggeration or being deceitful.

That is massively disrespectful to the professionals who are coming out in public saying these things, putting their reputations on the line.

Now to to say that I am scaremongering is saying that I am lying. Or the family and friends who I have been speaking to are lying.

That really is massively disrespectful and would have expected better of you ASBO.

I am not making these things up. These things are happening. The people telling me things are the people directly involved in the contracts. They are the people who have companies lined up to move into commercial properties but are waiting to see what the outcome of the vote is. They are not large companies - and they are not in defence - but they are companies that employ people, and that are going to be directly affected by a Yes vote.

So you can call it scaremongering all you want but this is the truth, and the Yes camp can stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la la not listening' to their hearts content but if a Yes vote does come and businesses pull out of Scotland, and other businesses struggle due to lost contracts, there's going to be a lot of angry people in the country.

[Jimpy]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread.  What caught my attention?  Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought.  One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote.  Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed?  Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia.  Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view).  The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing.  Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere?  Nothing.

So why these dire warnings?  They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours.  Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it.  So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

Ah yes, the S word! The one word that has completely discredited the Yes campaign from the beginning, and alienated them from potential voters I think. If financial experts, heads of business and academics alike come out with something that the Yes campaign disagrees with they are scaremongering.  Never mind just saying "They are entitled to their opinion, but we disagree and here's why". I can live with that.  But scaremongering suggests lying, gross exaggeration or being deceitful.

That is massively disrespectful to the professionals who are coming out in public saying these things, putting their reputations on the line.

Now to to say that I am scaremongering is saying that I am lying.  Or the family and friends who I have been speaking to are lying.

That really is massively disrespectful and would have expected better of you ASBO.

I am not making these things up.  These things are happening. The people telling me things are the people directly involved in the contracts.  They are the people who have companies lined up to move into commercial properties but are waiting to see what the outcome of the vote is.  They are not large companies - and they are not in defence - but they are companies that employ people, and that are going to be directly affected by a Yes vote.

So you can call it scaremongering all you want but this is the truth, and the Yes camp can stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la la not listening' to their hearts content but if a Yes vote does come and businesses pull out of Scotland, and other businesses struggle due to lost contracts, there's going to be a lot of angry people in the country.

Well, I work for a global defence company (no names, no pack drill). I'm told that plans are already being made to award contracts to UK based companies in the event of a yes vote. And asset stripping of existing establishments in Scotland would soon follow (i'm not in a position to corroborate those claims unfortunately). Scaremongering my bum, Salmond is selling a dummy on independance. I would assume that in the event of a yes vote, he'll be slightly worried that his bluff paid off and he'll actually have to come up with a plan to run the country. I'm willing to bet he's half hoping it s abig 'NO' so that he can remain banging his drum for years to come. If he gets power, he wont last five minutes in his own pond, the sharks will be circling.

[RDW]

Like a moth to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bar, or an Edinburgh resident to a Leith hooker, I simply couldn't help myself coming back on this thread.  What caught my attention?  Well, none other than this from RDW:

An update on some of the worrying business related concerns I have been hearing about first hand over the last few weeks from friends and family.  I can't name companies for obvious reasons.

Work on a long term multi-million pound contract has been delayed until after the referendum, as it will no longer go ahead in a Yes vote.  As a large team has been mobilised to do this work, which was meant to have started, the company is losing out on a lot of money due to the delay.

A multi-million pound contract has recently been finalised and is waiting to start, but there is a clause in the contract that if there is a Yes vote it will be terminated.  This will seriously affect the company in question.

Agents for a commercial leasing company have shown interest in large commercial units in Scotland for their head offices.  However they have said that if there is a Yes vote they will choose the North of England instead, again losing the company millions in potential earnings.

No doubt this is all just scaremongering and it will all be fine in a Yes vote, but this feckin referendum is already damaging Scotland. Imagine what will happen if there is Yes vote. These are first hand accounts from people directly involved in businesses. This is the reality. Given these are just stories from my own friends and family, imagine the picture across the rest of the country.

The sad thing is they cannot speak out because A) they are being pressurised not to and B) they need to stay positive for their shareholders / public image.

I'm absolutely sick of it.

Ladies and gentlefolk, this is fear-mongering of the worst kind - perpetrated maliciously and passed on without further thought.  One industry aside (Defence, and even then I'm not sure that this will happen even for it), nothing much is going to change for businesses on 19th Sept in the event of a Yes vote.  Let's look at this logically - consider why a particular contract was awarded in the first place - there are a load of possible reasons:
(1) price
(2) skilled workforce
(3) language
(4) part of the EU
(5) favourable tax domicile
(6) safe legal jurisdiction
I'm sure that there are others, but these will suffice for now.

So what will have changed?  Well it's unlikely the price will have altered, and the skilled workforce (RDW aside) won't be packing its bags for Australia.  Oddly, Scots will still mostly speak English (or jibberish) as their first language, and Scotland will remain part of the EU (ignore Baroso's drivel warnings, there plenty of 'experts' that have discredited his biased view).  The white paper hints that Scotland will in time become an even more favourable tax domicile, and the legal code won't be changing.  Even with a clause that terminates a contract in the event of a Yes vote, what exactly will have changed to see it awarded elsewhere?  Nothing.

So why these dire warnings?  They are put about by No-voting business folks and are designed to scare their workforces into voting now - then to hide behind anonymity, them claim that they are being pressured not to public with these scuttlebut rumours.  Playing on ordinary folks fears like this is simply malicious, I can think of no more fitting word for it.  So when you hear this kind of stuff, pls think it through

Ah yes, the S word! The one word that has completely discredited the Yes campaign from the beginning, and alienated them from potential voters I think. If financial experts, heads of business and academics alike come out with something that the Yes campaign disagrees with they are scaremongering.  Never mind just saying "They are entitled to their opinion, but we disagree and here's why". I can live with that.  But scaremongering suggests lying, gross exaggeration or being deceitful.

That is massively disrespectful to the professionals who are coming out in public saying these things, putting their reputations on the line.

Now to to say that I am scaremongering is saying that I am lying.  Or the family and friends who I have been speaking to are lying.

That really is massively disrespectful and would have expected better of you ASBO.

I am not making these things up.  These things are happening. The people telling me things are the people directly involved in the contracts.  They are the people who have companies lined up to move into commercial properties but are waiting to see what the outcome of the vote is.  They are not large companies - and they are not in defence - but they are companies that employ people, and that are going to be directly affected by a Yes vote.

So you can call it scaremongering all you want but this is the truth, and the Yes camp can stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la la not listening' to their hearts content but if a Yes vote does come and businesses pull out of Scotland, and other businesses struggle due to lost contracts, there's going to be a lot of angry people in the country.

Well, I work for a global defence company (no names, no pack drill). Plans are already being made to award contracts to UK based companies in the event of a yes vote. And asset stripping of existing establishments in Scotland would soon follow. Scaremongering my bum, Salmond is selling a dummy on independance. I would assume that in the event of a yes vote, he'll be slightly worried that his bluff paid off and he'll actually have to come up with a plan to run the country. I'm willing to bet he's half hoping it s abig 'NO' so that he can remain banging his drum for years to come. If he gets power, he wont last five minutes in his own pond, the sharks will be circling.

Scaremonger!!!!!!

[Sponsored content]