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.

[fa0019]

Liabilities is the national debt.

Assets things like the military, infrastructure, hospitals, council houses, a proportional share in assets such as rbs, hbos which are majority owned by uk govt. anything that is owned by the state.

[Sin é]

Scotland has been paying tax and contributing proportionally to all this infrastructure for the last 300 years! Any outstanding loans they should take on and maintain. Think of it like a divorce - Scotland is the wife who gets to hold onto the house (but isn't demanding any maintenance). Anything with loans outstanding should be taken on by the new Scottish Government.

Anything like banks (which can continue to operate in Scotland) registered outside of Scotland should be the property of the rUK.

[HammerofThunor]

There is no way the rUK would act the jilted lover if Scotland go independent. We do too much trade with them now and we will continue to do so. All this posturing from our government is just fear tactics to get people to say No. There is no doubt in my mind that if Scotland says Yes then this will disappear.

[ChequeredJersey]

I hope you don't go independent because my brother studies in Scotland (and being English, he's hilariously (by which I mean appallingly) one of the only people including people from all other EU countries who has to pay full tuition fees...) and my grandparents live there, being Scottish, and the change is personally inconvenient. I also have friends who are junior doctors who ended up in Scotland entirely not by choice due to the random nature of medical job applications at fy1 level and they would essentially be forced into a foreign country with no job availability in the uk for at least next year if Scotland go independent. I get no impression at all that Salmond has considered or cares one jot about this side of the NHS in this matter.

As it is though, it's up to the Scots to decide. I'm torn 20-50-30 between thinking it will be a massive failure, a step down but one that is worth it for ideological reasons in the eyes of the voters which is them 50-50 as to whether it stabilises or deteriorates, and a reasonable success. I'm on leave next week and heading to Scotland possibly for the last time whilst it's part of our Nation, one the greatest (with great achievements and great shames, not the best as such though the argument in that direction exists but Great which is different) nations the world has seen

[ChequeredJersey]

Liabilities is the national debt.

Assets things like the military, infrastructure, hospitals, council houses, a proportional share in assets such as rbs, hbos which are majority owned by uk govt. anything that is owned by the state.

Whilst opting out of their share of the national debt may be legal, IMO it would be grossly immoral, as it was when Iceland did similar.

[fa0019]

Scotland has been paying tax and contributing proportionally to all this infrastructure for the last 300 years! Any outstanding loans they should take on and maintain. Think of it like a divorce - Scotland is the wife who gets to hold onto the house (but isn't demanding any maintenance). Anything with loans outstanding should be taken on by the new Scottish Government.

Anything like banks (which can continue to operate in Scotland) registered outside of Scotland should be the property of the rUK.

That is loco. Yes Scotland contributed, we also contributed to the debt and the debt is 120bn rather than 50bn because we had to bail out 2 banks which are not only registered but majority controlled in Scotland.Given both assets and liabilities were generated out of the same revenue then they should be treated the same. In terms of proportional contributions... It's very doubtful. Scotland at the moment just seems to pay its way. Yet we are in a period of oil wealth which did not exist in the first 260 years of the union. It has been beneficial on so many levels historically to have been in the union... One of them is financially.

To not take the debt would be worse than Argentina. No one would lend us money, ruk would Barr is from the eu, NATO and would squeeze us dry. Think they wouldn't do it... They're Tories.

[fa0019]

Liabilities is the national debt.

Assets things like the military, infrastructure, hospitals, council houses, a proportional share in assets such as rbs, hbos which are majority owned by uk govt. anything that is owned by the state.

Whilst opting out of their share of the national debt may be legal, IMO it would be grossly immoral, as it was when Iceland did similar.

It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us.

It's like bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We will be the ultimate loser

[whocares]

question again...in the event of yes vote , would Scotland eventually become a republic or still be part of the queen's "realm " ?

[whocares]

meanwhile while searching for some answers, I came accross this rather awkward advert for the YES vote

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland

[PenfroPete]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe it’s 1916 ....

Michael Collins : - Right then Joe, Pat lets be off to the General Post Office down on O’Connell Street and issue our Proclamation

Joseph Plunkett : - Wait a minute now Big Fellah, sure you’ll be wanting to think of the currency we’ll have to use ?

Patrick Pearse: -  And have you a thought for passports and what’ll happen when our peat reserves run out  ?

Collins : - Ah sh!te and buggery lads, now you mention it, feic this independence lark

[SecretFly]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe it’s 1916 ....

Michael Collins : - Right then Joe, Pat lets be off to the General Post Office down on O’Connell Street and issue our Proclamation

Joseph Plunkett : - Wait a minute now Big Fellah, sure you’ll be wanting to think of the currency we’ll have to use ?

Patrick Pearse: -  And have you a thought for passports and what’ll happen when our peat reserves run out  ?

Collins : - Ah sh!te and buggery lads, now you mention it, feic this independence lark

Perfect sumation of the issues that Scots must face as they choose either or a nice cuppa tea.

[fa0019]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe it’s 1916 ....

Michael Collins : - Right then Joe, Pat lets be off to the General Post Office down on O’Connell Street and issue our Proclamation

Joseph Plunkett : - Wait a minute now Big Fellah, sure you’ll be wanting to think of the currency we’ll have to use ?

Patrick Pearse: -  And have you a thought for passports and what’ll happen when our peat reserves run out  ?

Collins : - Ah sh!te and buggery lads, now you mention it, feic this independence lark

A bit different given that Ireland never joined the union out of choice. Stark contrast to Scotland who actually asked to join up with England in 1707 at least those responsible for speaking for the people of Scotland where democratic or not. It certainly wasn't something the English people were enthusiastic about at the time.

[fa0019]

question again...in the event of yes vote , would Scotland eventually become a republic or still be part of the queen's "realm " ?

Yes certainly they will eventually become a republic. Like Ireland who got independence in what 1922??? They didn't formerly become a republic until 1949.

In this case its a trick to make independence sound better... oh we'll keep the queen. In 10 years time they will start to hack on about on whether they should have a monarchy etc and eventually it will be seen as part of England and will eventually be voted out... especially as a new breed of voters arise with no relationship with the UK as their nation lead ceremonially by the Queen.

Not saying the monarchy is an asset to the better together campaign but big steps are more difficult to make. Take little steps on the other hand and its possible to achieve. The no campaign probably thought it would be too much at this time to convince floating voters.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

First of all, let me assert the firm belief that the only thing to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Your distress comes from no failure of substance. You are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which your forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, you have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at your doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because Westminster has failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. They have fled from their high seats in the temple of civilization. You may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which you apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These days will be worth all if they teach that your true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to yourselves and to your fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honour, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Your Nation asks for action, and action now. You do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people have not failed. In their need they have registered that they want direct, vigorous action.

Beautifully put, Penfro

[beshocked]

Just listened to an Irish economist (David McWillaims) saying that Ireland should be very, very worried if Scotland opts for independence. He (jokingly) said that Scotland have Ireland's economic plan in their top drawer and all they have to do is follow it.

I'd love to know why England wants to hold onto Scotland if they are such an unviable economy?

Does anyone really want a divorce if they can avoid it?

The problem I find with the Yes vote is that Salmond is not going to deliver true independence. He wants to keep the Queen and the pound - two aspects of the Union, he wants Scotland to stay in Nato and EU. There is no guarantee of that because the membership is based on the UK.

Saying something doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. I feel like there's too much uncertainty attached to Salmond's plans.

It would probably be better for Scotland if they had devo max.

Penfropete talks about the demonic Westminster - the same westminster that has shown no issue with Scotland holding a democratic referendum, the same westminster which has had two Scottish PMs in the last 15 years, the same Westminster which allows the West lothian question to exist, the same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England. The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK.

Do you know which region gets the least amount of government spending?

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Not so sure FR

Every country in the EU has a right to veto a new member. Say Scotland tries to play hardball on debt with rUK, think rUK doesn't have the power to stop them joining the EU. Can you imagines salmond being a good old boy and saying yes dave, no dave, three bags full dave?

Then there is the euro, will they take it? The people certainly wouldn't want it and so much so I think salmons would be out the door before Scotland actually leaves... How much on brown becoming first PM of Scotland???Then there is all the benefits the uk has from the EU which Scotland will want but the EU won't want to give, the rebate, VAT, CAP allowances.. Salmons will almost certainly want the same perks the uk had proportionally... That just ain't going to happen and why I think negotiations would be long.

Tories will fight dirty and if they don't get exactly what they want say goodbye to the EU, NATO the lot? The uk may be always seen as an outsider in Europe but it ain't half powerful.

NATO issue is the craziest thing. We don't want nuclear weapons in our country... But we want the warm blanket of protection which NATO provides.... Through nuclear weapons. To all those anti nuclear weapons rainbow skied brothers Grimm delusional people out there.... When was the last weapon ever used and had they not be developed would we not have had subsequent wars post WWII? Of course we would have.

fa, can I recommend some reading for you from some academics? Specifically on the NATO issue, this conclusion carried much resonance for me: "Scotland’s geostrategic position and political orientation make it an important prospective partner in international security cooperation across the Eastern Atlantic, High North and North Sea, which suggests that an advanced partnership with NATO, and eventually full membership, seems like an option that is both politically viable and more likely than any scenario that predicts seeing an independent Scotland (IS) outside these structures."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09662839.2014.903926 - for the actual article itself, and
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/.U3-DP_ldWMs#.VBK2PedZAbc - for the link that allows you to download it in case that's a problem.

One of the key fact's to remember with NATO is that 25 out of 28 existing members DO NOT have nuclear weapons nor any desire to acquire them - this does not preclude them from membership of NATO.

On the sort of foreign policy that we might expect from iScotland, this academic paper seemed pretty interesting to me too: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/6/1/22614014/valeriano_the_scottish_foreign_policy_contex_-_final.pdf

This one looks at a broad range of external institutional relationships that iScotland would have: http://www.scottishglobalforum.net/alyson-bailes-scotlands-external-relations-is-there-life-after-no.html

And lastly this one with respect to iScotland and peacekeeping globally: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/6/1/22614014/macqueen_peacekeeping_and_small_state_foreign_policy.pdf

It is absolutely clear that iScotland would have a role in NATO and other global institutions and that there are very good reasons why iScotland's participation would be warmly embraced.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Liabilities is the national debt.

Assets things like the military, infrastructure, hospitals, council houses, a proportional share in assets such as rbs, hbos which are majority owned by uk govt. anything that is owned by the state.

Whilst opting out of their share of the national debt may be legal, IMO it would be grossly immoral, as it was when Iceland did similar.

True or no, this doesn't seem to have bothered the capital markets particularly with respect to Iceland, and at the end of the day, they will be the key arbiter

[Jimpy]

First of all, let me assert the firm belief that the only thing to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Your distress comes from no failure of substance. You are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which your forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, you have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at your doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because Westminster has failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. They have fled from their high seats in the temple of civilization. You may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which you apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These days will be worth all if they teach that your true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to yourselves and to your fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honour, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Your Nation asks for action, and action now. You do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people have not failed. In their need they have registered that they want direct, vigorous action.

Beautifully put copied and pasted, Penfro

Fixed.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

question again...in the event of yes vote , would Scotland eventually become a republic or still be part of the queen's "realm " ?

The current proposal from the Yes campaign is that Scotland would retain the Queen as Head of State - she would remain as Queen of Scotland.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

meanwhile while searching for some answers, I came accross this rather awkward advert for the YES vote

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland

Nice one, whocares, altho I wouldn't be too worried about what Tatler thinks!! Nonetheless they do raise a good point - that Scotland's land distribution is one of the most unequal on the planet, and certainly one of the worst in western Europe. Whether there would be moves to fix this situation is not clear, but land reform more generally has been a topic of interest for a period considerably prior to this referendum. For more detail, this is an informed (if admittedly somewhat one-sided) view: http://www.andywightman.com/

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Liabilities is the national debt.

Assets things like the military, infrastructure, hospitals, council houses, a proportional share in assets such as rbs, hbos which are majority owned by uk govt. anything that is owned by the state.

Whilst opting out of their share of the national debt may be legal, IMO it would be grossly immoral, as it was when Iceland did similar.

It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us.

It's like bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We will be the ultimate loser

No, I don't believe it is And just in the interests of accuracy, it's not England, it's rUK (which includes Wales and N Ireland).

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe it’s 1916 ....

Michael Collins : - Right then Joe, Pat lets be off to the General Post Office down on O’Connell Street and issue our Proclamation

Joseph Plunkett : - Wait a minute now Big Fellah, sure you’ll be wanting to think of the currency we’ll have to use ?

Patrick Pearse: -  And have you a thought for passports and what’ll happen when our peat reserves run out  ?

Collins : - Ah sh!te and buggery lads, now you mention it, feic this independence lark

A bit different given that Ireland never joined the union out of choice. Stark contrast to Scotland who actually asked to join up with England in 1707 at least those responsible for speaking for the people of Scotland where democratic or not. It certainly wasn't something the English people were enthusiastic about at the time.

I'm afraid that you'll struggle to find anyone serious on either side, fa, that would hold that those that endorsed Scotland's joining of the Union in 1707 represented anything other than their own interests - nothing to do with democracy whatsoever.

[PenfroPete]

First of all, let me assert the firm belief that the only thing to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Your distress comes from no failure of substance. You are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which your forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, you have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at your doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because Westminster has failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. They have fled from their high seats in the temple of civilization. You may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which you apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These days will be worth all if they teach that your true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to yourselves and to your fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honour, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Your Nation asks for action, and action now. You do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people have not failed. In their need they have registered that they want direct, vigorous action.

Beautifully put copied and pasted, Penfro

Fixed.

Copied, pasted and then edited Jimpy Doesn't alter the view I wanted to express

[fa0019]

The suggestion that people are voting no simply because of money, wealth etc is not right yet Oil money will go in 2050... that comes from the SNP endorsed expert. What is going to fill that gap within 30 years time. How are they going to fill a 15% gap in revenue? If not expect public services to suffer... and not only short term... forever. Think wind power will replace it?

There is a very strong correlation across the globe between health spending and life expectancy. But its ok, infant mortality rises but you're free.

Nevertheless, what you are stating is that Scottish and English are as distinct as French and German. That is not the case. Many of us especially from the south have common ancestral ties, ties of blood, language, religion, society on a whole.

We have as many ties to London as someone from Cornwall or Cumbria or Glamorgan has.

I'm not speaking for all those of Scotland, I'm speaking as a Scot (albeit expat) with a British identity. Maybe the above is dying, dying with the last bursts of life from the empire et al but to say that people are voting no only wealth is not right.

Even if it was the case that we'd be infinitely richer on our own my family would still vote no (and myself if I still had a vote) ... no because we believe in Britain.

[SecretFly]

fa0019: "It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us."


So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

IF Scotland choose Independence, it will be in England's best self interest to make the transition to Independence as easy as possible for Scotland.  It is self interest of both trade/commerce and security that England will be very pragmatic and quickly set about forming a 'new' mutually beneficial relationship with a new neighbour right up against their first land border in many centuries.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Just listened to an Irish economist (David McWillaims) saying that Ireland should be very, very worried if Scotland opts for independence. He (jokingly) said that Scotland have Ireland's economic plan in their top drawer and all they have to do is follow it.

I'd love to know why England wants to hold onto Scotland if they are such an unviable economy?

Does anyone really want a divorce if they can avoid it?

The problem I find with the Yes vote is that Salmond is not going to deliver true independence. He wants to keep the Queen and the pound - two aspects of the Union, he wants Scotland to stay in Nato and EU. There is no guarantee of that because the membership is based on the UK.

Saying something doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. I feel like there's too much uncertainty attached to Salmond's plans.

It would probably be better for Scotland if they had devo max.

Penfropete talks about the demonic Westminster - the same westminster that has shown no issue with Scotland holding a democratic referendum, the same westminster which has had two Scottish PMs in the last 15 years, the same Westminster which allows the West lothian question to exist, the same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England. The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK.

Do you know which region gets the least amount of government spending?

beshocked, we lock horns again, but not over rugby this time! Anyhew, welcome to the debate. In terms of EU membership, you might find this of interest: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/6/1/22614014/bill_paterson_questioning_the_common_sense....pdf . As to NATO stuff, there's plenty to read from my posts above.

I also wanted to comment on your point that "same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England" - that is true, but it is the same Scotland that contributed more in tax revenue per head than rUK, and even taking the net of tax revenues less spending per head, Scotland is still in credit. I can find you independent sources to corroborate that if you require

I'm afraid that I don't understand your "The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK" comment; could you elaborate?

[fa0019]

fa0019: "It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us."


So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

IF Scotland choose Independence, it will be in England's best self interest to make the transition to Independence as easy as possible for Scotland.  It is self interest or both trade, commerce and security that England will be very pragmatic and quickly set about forming a 'new' mutually beneficial relationship with a new neighbour right up against their first land border in many centuries.

Could counter that fly by saying you're suggesting the very same

You're suggesting that Scotland doesn't need to take the debt and yet that will create bitterness from people right on their doorstep.

What I'm saying is you pay what you owe and you receive what you owe. Scotland has cards, England has cards... but England has a lot more cards so to think Scotland can bully England into giving them a cherry on top rainbow skied golden goodbye is frankly laughable.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

The suggestion that people are voting no simply because of money, wealth etc is not right yet Oil money will go in 2050... that comes from the SNP endorsed expert. What is going to fill that gap within 30 years time. How are they going to fill a 15% gap in revenue? If not expect public services to suffer... and not only short term... forever. Think wind power will replace it?

There is a very strong correlation across the globe between health spending and life expectancy. But its ok, infant mortality rises but you're free.

Nevertheless, what you are stating is that Scottish and English are as distinct as French and German. That is not the case. Many of us especially from the south have common ancestral ties, ties of blood, language, religion, society on a whole.

We have as many ties to London as someone from Cornwall or Cumbria or Glamorgan has.

I'm not speaking for all those of Scotland, I'm speaking as a Scot (albeit expat) with a British identity. Maybe the above is dying, dying with the last bursts of life from the empire et al but to say that people are voting no only wealth is not right.

Even if it was the case that we'd be infinitely richer on our own my family would still vote no (and myself if I still had a vote) ... no because we believe in Britain.

fa, I posted on this yesterday - a video of a presentation from an eminent academic at Univ of Edinburgh - did you not bother to watch it? It's only 12 minutes of your life and a good investment imho. Its conclusion is that Scotland's reliance on oil in terms of energy production is massively overstated currently, and that alternative energies are in fact vastly more important (its wind, wave, tidal, carbon, etc.). So, pls pls pls have a watch - you might learn something if you are willing

[beshocked]

You expect to cut ties with the UK and expect the rest of the UK to simply take it on the chin? You expect us to take it with good grace?

This vote affects the rest of the UK significantly despite not having a say. Do Scottish voters giving a damn about that? No. Why would you?

You're welcome to your vote but don't expect the same relationship with the rUK as you're basically sticking two fingers up and baring your bottoms at your neighbours.

secretfly why? rUK has been treating Scotland with an awful lot more respect than the other way round. Why should the rUK continue to bow down to Scotland if they go it alone?

Cameron and the other Westminster politicians have at least shown concern for the Union, Salmond and his ilk only have contempt for them and the rUK.

[Sin é]

Just listened to an Irish economist (David McWillaims) saying that Ireland should be very, very worried if Scotland opts for independence. He (jokingly) said that Scotland have Ireland's economic plan in their top drawer and all they have to do is follow it.

I'd love to know why England wants to hold onto Scotland if they are such an unviable economy?

Does anyone really want a divorce if they can avoid it?

The problem I find with the Yes vote is that Salmond is not going to deliver true independence. He wants to keep the Queen and the pound - two aspects of the Union, he wants Scotland to stay in Nato and EU. There is no guarantee of that because the membership is based on the UK.

Saying something doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. I feel like there's too much uncertainty attached to Salmond's plans.

It would probably be better for Scotland if they had devo max.

Penfropete talks about the demonic Westminster - the same westminster that has shown no issue with Scotland holding a democratic referendum, the same westminster which has had two Scottish PMs in the last 15 years, the same Westminster which allows the West lothian question to exist, the same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England. The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK.

Do you know which region gets the least amount of government spending?

Lots of countries hitch their wagon to other country's currencies - Ireland for one (even though England was very, very hostile to us leaving the Union. I've heard mention of Hungary or Bulgaria hitching itself to the US Dollar having previously hitched itself to the Deutchmark.

Irish (with Scottish grandparents) Economist's view on the economics:

Now to the economics. The Jesuit-educated, Canadian/Irish, Bank of England boss Mark Carney claimed yesterday that a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be at odds with sovereignty. This is simply scaremongering. After all, an independent Ireland had a perfectly functioning currency union with the UK from 1922 to 1979. It lasted 57 years and was only broken when we decided to hitch our wagon to Germany.

As for the EU – a friend of mine in the EU told me they have the new Treaties in a drawer marked Scotland. All this about the Spanish veto is scaremongering, too.

Should Ireland be worried economically? Do you remember when Ireland simply painted over red British post boxes in a lovely emerald green and claimed a new post service? The Scottish can do the same. They have an economic blueprint for direct foreign investment, and it just means taking the IDA’s brochure and putting the St Andrew’s Cross on it and heading off to the United States to look for business.

They will give the same tax breaks, with a workforce that is a fraction of the price.

That’s the truth.

In one move, “the only English-speaking, corporate-tax-friendly country in the EU, with good schools and golf for senior management blah, blah” unique sales pitch goes out the window. Worse still, when the Scottish become Scottish and not British they might even become as well-liked around the world as us! They are good at marketing, national brand management and re-writing imperial history if they have to.

An independent Scotland will play the Irish card all over the world in terms of investment. With sterling as its currency, it will probably be more flexible than us in the Euro – and when England leaves the EU then Edinburgh as an investment location for all those fleeing American banks could look a much more attractive alternative to Dublin.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2014/09/11/independent-scotland-will-play-the-irish-card-and-steal-our-investment-strategy

Worth thinking about?

[beshocked]

Just listened to an Irish economist (David McWillaims) saying that Ireland should be very, very worried if Scotland opts for independence. He (jokingly) said that Scotland have Ireland's economic plan in their top drawer and all they have to do is follow it.

I'd love to know why England wants to hold onto Scotland if they are such an unviable economy?

Does anyone really want a divorce if they can avoid it?

The problem I find with the Yes vote is that Salmond is not going to deliver true independence. He wants to keep the Queen and the pound - two aspects of the Union, he wants Scotland to stay in Nato and EU. There is no guarantee of that because the membership is based on the UK.

Saying something doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. I feel like there's too much uncertainty attached to Salmond's plans.

It would probably be better for Scotland if they had devo max.

Penfropete talks about the demonic Westminster - the same westminster that has shown no issue with Scotland holding a democratic referendum, the same westminster which has had two Scottish PMs in the last 15 years, the same Westminster which allows the West lothian question to exist, the same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England. The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK.

Do you know which region gets the least amount of government spending?

beshocked, we lock horns again, but not over rugby this time!  Anyhew, welcome to the debate.  In terms of EU membership, you might find this of interest: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/2/2/6/1/22614014/bill_paterson_questioning_the_common_sense....pdf .  As to NATO stuff, there's plenty to read from my posts above.

I also wanted to comment on your point that "same westminster which gives a higher spending per head than England" - that is true, but it is the same Scotland that contributed more in tax revenue per head than rUK, and even taking the net of tax revenues less spending per head, Scotland is still in credit.  I can find you independent sources to corroborate that if you require

I'm afraid that I don't understand your "The same wesminster which allows Scottish children to have free tuition fees in comparison to the rUK" comment; could you elaborate?  

Westminster has allowed Scotland to be in a position where they can give Scottish children free tuition fees due to devolution -the West lothian question. The Union has not prevented Scotland from having this benefit that the rest of the UK does not get.

My point about the higher spending is that it's not as if Westminster ignores Scotland contrary to popular opinion - on the contrary those who should be most aggrieved with Westminster should be the East and South East of England where the least amount of spending takes place. You could argue that there is less spending because it's wealthier but nonetheless it gets far less focus than the likes of Scotland and London.

I am sure one could find stats that both prove your point and go against it in terms of how much Scotland spends and how much revenue it generates.

As for Nato, sure you can make a case but I said it's not guaranteed.

Is the current Union really so bad? If you want more control then a move towards more devolution would make more sense.

[SecretFly]

fa0019: "It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us."


So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

IF Scotland choose Independence, it will be in England's best self interest to make the transition to Independence as easy as possible for Scotland.  It is self interest or both trade, commerce and security that England will be very pragmatic and quickly set about forming a 'new' mutually beneficial relationship with a new neighbour right up against their first land border in many centuries.

Could counter that fly by saying you're suggesting the very same

You're suggesting that Scotland doesn't need to take the debt and yet that will create bitterness from people right on their doorstep.

What I'm saying is you pay what you owe and you receive what you owe. Scotland has cards, England has cards... but England has a lot more cards so to think Scotland can bully England into giving them a cherry on top rainbow skied golden goodbye is frankly laughable.

I'm saying nothing that could be construed as anything like that, fa0019.  Find the comments where I allude to the notion that Scotland should get everything it wants IF they choose Independence?  

I'm perhaps putting words in your mouth because you constructed a sentence that mentioned what England could do to Scotland - therefore you allowed me to imply extensions to your reasoning - I asked would that nightmare scenario for Scotland be in England's best interests?  I believe it wouldn't and therefore England will seek out its best interests in the eventuality of any YES vote.  That self-interest might run counter to what you and others seem now to think is the the cards England hold over Scotland.  England will only benefit in trade and security by having a strong, robust friend as a neighbour - kicking Scotland with some of the 'cards' the English supposedly hold will NOT be in the best interests of England.

What I've simply being saying is that I personally feel that Scotland can and should stand on its own two feet politically speaking - in totality.  Bearing in mind though that even the totality of Independence always requires relationships built on trade, trust and mutual security of close neighbours - and friends.  I believe an Independent Scotland would be good not only for Scotland but also freshen up the relationships all over these islands - I don't forsee all gloom.  Issues, and problems, and negotiations, and treaties, and everyone not getting everything they want - yes - but not the doomsday scenario many of you seem to fear.

[SecretFly]

secretfly why? rUK has been treating Scotland with an awful lot more respect than the other way round. Why should the rUK continue to bow down to Scotland if they go it alone?Cameron and the other Westminster politicians have at least shown concern for the Union, Salmond and his ilk only have contempt for them and the rUK.

I said - and I'll repeat slowly - England's Self Intertest.  I do not mention Bowing down - I say IF Scotland vote for Independence, it will then be in England's Self Interest (meaning beneficial to the parts of the UK that remain together) to ensure that trade and security issues do no undergo seismic changes - such seismic changes would not be good for Scotland (the alleged target of such changes) OR the rest of the UK itself.  

Businesses - English businesses - will still want to do business in Scotland, they'll still want to do highly profitable business in Scotland, they'll want Scottish infrastructure contracts; English workers who already work there will want the security of sustaining those careers etc, etc.  The Independence of Scotland should not bring about a mini-Cold-War between the rest of the UK and Scotland.  I am arguing that such a war would be counter productive for BOTH sides.

[fa0019]

The suggestion that people are voting no simply because of money, wealth etc is not right yet Oil money will go in 2050... that comes from the SNP endorsed expert. What is going to fill that gap within 30 years time. How are they going to fill a 15% gap in revenue? If not expect public services to suffer... and not only short term... forever. Think wind power will replace it?

There is a very strong correlation across the globe between health spending and life expectancy. But its ok, infant mortality rises but you're free.

Nevertheless, what you are stating is that Scottish and English are as distinct as French and German. That is not the case. Many of us especially from the south have common ancestral ties, ties of blood, language, religion, society on a whole.

We have as many ties to London as someone from Cornwall or Cumbria or Glamorgan has.

I'm not speaking for all those of Scotland, I'm speaking as a Scot (albeit expat) with a British identity. Maybe the above is dying, dying with the last bursts of life from the empire et al but to say that people are voting no only wealth is not right.

Even if it was the case that we'd be infinitely richer on our own my family would still vote no (and myself if I still had a vote) ... no because we believe in Britain.

fa, I posted on this yesterday - a video of a presentation from an eminent academic at Univ of Edinburgh - did you not bother to watch it?  It's only 12 minutes of your life and a good investment imho.  Its conclusion is that Scotland's reliance on oil in terms of energy production is massively overstated currently, and that alternative energies are in fact vastly more important (its wind, wave, tidal, carbon, etc.).  So, pls pls pls have a watch - you might learn something if you are willing

As long As

I myself work in energy and did so also in the UK years back so I do know the industry well.

Firstly if you want me to analyse the video sure, I'll give it a stab. Firstly he states their is about 25bn bbls of oil left... well the SNP endorses the Wood report which states 15bn. He says that all the major oil firms disagree with the Wood report findings on estimates and value yet it was only recently fully supported by BP and Shell.

Then he states that renewable energy can replace Oil. Well a little tricky. You see Oil can be piped or shipped all over the world. Renewable energy is electricity only and cannot be stored and transported bar grid systems and minor interconnectors.

There is an interconnector between France and England and the Netherlands and England but that's it. Scotland on the other hand can realistically only sell to England. They may be able to create a interconnector to other nations but the cost would be obscene and given most of those nations it could sell to i.e. Norway, Denmark, Netherlands etc generate electricity at a far cheaper rate, there is ZERO incentive for any buyers to take it.

So Scotland has all this electricity but can't sell it... what happens. Sell to the English?

Well firstly energy independence is one thing which most governments are quite opinionated on... i.e. any strong nation should not be too reliant for energy consumption from foreign fields. So that's probably out in the long run, short term maybe but long run rUK will want to supply their own electricity for security purposes. They can't have Scotland or anyone saying "sorry double prices or grid off".

Then there is cost.

Wind energy currently is estimated to cost about 0.19 Eur/Mwh to generate... this is contrary to about 0.09 Eur/Mwh for Gas and about 0.07 Eur/Mwh. Additionally it cannot be relied on. You see it only works part of the time. If the wind is too high, it doesn't work, if the wind is too low, it doesn't work.

This means that for a country which demands a constant supply of electricity.... it needs others sources which are capable of taking up the capacity if Wind fails... if not you have blackouts. So they will need to have other methods of generating electricity and you can't have a gas plant in reverse to take supply. It needs to be instantaneously available meaning Wind can only ever supply a portion of the grid capacity.

England can get very cheap electricity via their European interconnector and much cheaper than Scotland currently is able to provide it (already with UK subsidies on renewable energy). If so it won't matter how much generation Scotland can make, it its more expensive it won't be bought.

The guy is obviously in the pro camp rather than taking an objective view point. Maybe he's respected I don't know but capacity in electricity is only valuable if you can generate to a market which has no cheaper alternative of gaining electricity. Currently the UK could supply electricity to France if they wanted... but given there is a massive spread of price against it, no electricity flows that way.

[beshocked]

secretfly why? rUK has been treating Scotland with an awful lot more respect than the other way round. Why should the rUK continue to bow down to Scotland if they go it alone?Cameron and the other Westminster politicians have at least shown concern for the Union, Salmond and his ilk only have contempt for them and the rUK.

I said - and I'll repeat slowly - England's Self Intertest.  I do not mention Bowing down - I say IF Scotland vote for Independence, it will then be in England's Self Interest (meaning beneficial to the parts of the UK that remain together) to ensure that trade and security issues do no undergo seismic changes - such seismic changes would not be good for Scotland (the alleged target of such changes) OR the rest of the UK itself.  

Businesses - English businesses - will still want to do business in Scotland, they'll still want to do highly profitable business in Scotland, they'll want Scottish infrastructure contracts; English workers who already work there will want the security of sustaining those careers etc, etc.  The Independence of Scotland should not bring about a mini-Cold-War between the rest of the UK and Scotland.  I am arguing that such a war would be counter productive for BOTH sides.

It's like someone divorcing you - taking the house and kids then asking if you'll share the car with them - that's a little awkward. Yes you are right perhaps it is in the best interests in the rUK but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

If there was a war - rUK could just invade and bring Scotland forceably back into the Union. Though admittedly that's more up Putin's street.

[fa0019]

fa0019: "It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us."


So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

IF Scotland choose Independence, it will be in England's best self interest to make the transition to Independence as easy as possible for Scotland.  It is self interest or both trade, commerce and security that England will be very pragmatic and quickly set about forming a 'new' mutually beneficial relationship with a new neighbour right up against their first land border in many centuries.

Could counter that fly by saying you're suggesting the very same

You're suggesting that Scotland doesn't need to take the debt and yet that will create bitterness from people right on their doorstep.

What I'm saying is you pay what you owe and you receive what you owe. Scotland has cards, England has cards... but England has a lot more cards so to think Scotland can bully England into giving them a cherry on top rainbow skied golden goodbye is frankly laughable.

I'm saying nothing that could be construed as anything like that, fa0019.  Find the comments where I allude to the notion that Scotland should get everything it wants IF they choose Independence?  

I'm perhaps putting words in your mouth because you constructed a sentence that mentioned what England could do to Scotland - therefore you allowed me to imply extensions to your reasoning - I asked would that nightmare scenario for Scotland be in England's best interests?  I believe it wouldn't and therefore England will seek out its best interests in the eventuality of any YES vote.  That self-interest might run counter to what you and others seem now to think is the the cards England hold over Scotland.  England will only benefit in trade and security by having a strong, robust friend as a neighbour - kicking Scotland with some of the 'cards' the English supposedly hold will NOT be in the best interests of England.

What I've simply being saying is that I personally feel that Scotland can and should stand on its own two feet politically speaking - in totality.  Bearing in mind though that even the totality of Independence always requires relationships built on trade, trust and mutual security of close neighbours - and friends.  I believe an Independent Scotland would be good not only for Scotland but also freshen up the relationships all over these islands - I don't forsee all gloom.  Issues, and problems, and negotiations, and treaties, and everyone not getting everything they want - yes - but not the doomsday scenario many of you seem to fear.

This scenario would be in place if Salmond stuck to his guns and dropped the debt for not currency union... and the UK stuck to their guns saying no currency union. If Scotland drop the debt their will be a political hash which won't be repaired and don't think that the UK will just say, ok drop the the debt if you may.

The scenario was about the debt and a) if Scotland was liable and b) what would happen if they refused it.

Its clear that they have an obligation to it and that if they refuse it both the markets would frown upon Scotland but also England isn't without options themselves.

No doubt it may be insinuated in any negotiations and would be a reason WHY Scotland accepts the debt afterall under a Yes vote.

[SecretFly]

secretfly why? rUK has been treating Scotland with an awful lot more respect than the other way round. Why should the rUK continue to bow down to Scotland if they go it alone?Cameron and the other Westminster politicians have at least shown concern for the Union, Salmond and his ilk only have contempt for them and the rUK.

I said - and I'll repeat slowly - England's Self Intertest.  I do not mention Bowing down - I say IF Scotland vote for Independence, it will then be in England's Self Interest (meaning beneficial to the parts of the UK that remain together) to ensure that trade and security issues do no undergo seismic changes - such seismic changes would not be good for Scotland (the alleged target of such changes) OR the rest of the UK itself.  

Businesses - English businesses - will still want to do business in Scotland, they'll still want to do highly profitable business in Scotland, they'll want Scottish infrastructure contracts; English workers who already work there will want the security of sustaining those careers etc, etc.  The Independence of Scotland should not bring about a mini-Cold-War between the rest of the UK and Scotland.  I am arguing that such a war would be counter productive for BOTH sides.

It's like someone divorcing you - taking the house and kids then asking if you'll share the car with them - that's a little awkward. Yes you are right perhaps it is in the best interests in the rUK but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

If there was a war - rUK could just invade and bring Scotland forceably back into the Union. Though admittedly that's more up Putin's street.

Well one pro-Unionist is on friendly speaking terms with Putin so that's not altogether as fantastical as it seems.  All George Galloway has to do is hint to his friend that there are Russian Speaking peoples in Scotland and Putin will be in there like lightening.  Now there's a Bear on the doorstep England don't want! - Putin and his cat named Galloway, both speaking broken Gaelic, and demanding rights for Russian Speaking English people in England!

[PenfroPete]

Then there is cost.

Wind energy currently is estimated to cost about 0.19 Eur/Mwh to generate... this is contrary to about 0.09 Eur/Mwh for Gas and about 0.07 Eur/Mwh. Additionally it cannot be relied on. You see it only works part of the time. If the wind is too high, it doesn't work, if the wind is too low, it doesn't work.

Ah but you've not mentioned HYDRO generation - it's SCOTLAND there's always plenty of water tumbling down, so reliable    (In fairness same applies for Wales ) Seriously though, what is the issue with Hydro and why is it not mentioned more ? In both a UK and Scottish renewable discussion  

[Jimpy]

fa0019: "It's also legal for England to veto Scotland from the EU and NATO.  England could ride the storm of being saddled with an extra 10bn of unexpected debt. Can Scotland survive with no defence security, no EU, cutting your ties with your majority trade partner in England and the majority of the FS community fleeing it's land as well as the international community in unison refusing to lend to us."


So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?IF Scotland choose Independence, it will be in England's best self interest to make the transition to Independence as easy as possible for Scotland.  It is self interest of both trade/commerce and security that England will be very pragmatic and quickly set about forming a 'new' mutually beneficial relationship with a new neighbour right up against their first land border in many centuries.

So what's new?

[SecretFly]

So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

So what's new?

I presume that's a fancy sting?  Shame about the EU bit.... other than that, perfect allusion.

[Jimpy]

So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

So what's new?

I presume that's a fancy sting?  Shame about the EU bit.... other than that, perfect allusion.

Edited.... Now it makes more sense.

[fa0019]

Then there is cost.

Wind energy currently is estimated to cost about 0.19 Eur/Mwh to generate... this is contrary to about 0.09 Eur/Mwh for Gas and about 0.07 Eur/Mwh. Additionally it cannot be relied on. You see it only works part of the time. If the wind is too high, it doesn't work, if the wind is too low, it doesn't work.

Ah but you've not mentioned HYDRO generation - it's SCOTLAND there's always plenty of water tumbling down, so reliable    (In fairness same applies for Wales ) Seriously though, what is the issue with Hydro and why is it not mentioned more ? In both a UK and Scottish renewable discussion  

Hydro is already quite saturated in the country from my own understanding although I understand it is cheap to generate but doesn't constitute more than about 20% of Scotlands electricity generation.That's why Tidal and Wind are seen as possibles as they are seen with capacity to enlarge. Only issue is that with Wind its 0.19 Eur/kwh not mwh my mistake but tidal is far more expensive even then wind.

[SecretFly]

So the supposition of all that is that England would be quite happy with a non-EU/NATO third world country full of poor and angry, bitter people right on their doorstep?

So what's new?

I presume that's a fancy sting?  Shame about the EU bit.... other than that, perfect allusion.

Edited.... Now it makes more sense.

That's better.  Be careful with those analogies, you have to make sure they work perfectly or they lose their symbolic power

[beshocked]

I find it amusing when Scottish people say that they hate Westminster.

Westminster have been dancing to Salmond's tune, bending over backwards to make the referendum as easy as possible - you want the vote in 2014? Sure. You want Sean Connery to have a vote? Sure. You want to give votes to 16 year olds? Sure. Westminster has not harmed this process.

Now we hear that the Uk government is willing to give even more concessions to Scotland. I personally don't like it that the politicians are meekly surrendering to Scotland. It's not what I want, I am far from being the only person in rUK to feel that way.

If Scotland want to stay in the Union that's fine by me. If Scotland want to be "independent" that's fine also but it does not mean that the rUK needs to give special concessions to Scotland. This referendum affects all of the UK yet only Scotland gets a vote.

[SecretFly]

I find it amusing when Scottish people say that they hate Westminster.

Westminster have been dancing to Salmond's tune, bending over backwards to make the referendum as easy as possible - you want the vote in 2014? Sure. You want Sean Connery to have a vote? Sure. You want to give votes to 16 year olds? Sure. Westminster has not harmed this process.

Now we hear that the Uk government is willing to give even more concessions to Scotland. I personally don't like it that the politicians are meekly surrendering to Scotland. It's not what I want, I am far from being the only person in rUK to feel that way.

If Scotland want to stay in the Union that's fine by me. If Scotland want to be "independent" that's fine also but it does not mean that the rUK needs to give special concessions to Scotland. This referendum affects all of the UK yet only Scotland gets a vote.

The UK proposed referendum on IN/OUT EU membership affects everyone in the EU yet only the UK will vote on it.  Now, if Germany and France and Italy and all the others demanded in on the vote....there would be quite a lot of laughter in Westminster.  "The guys in Europe want to vote too so that they can tell us we love them and that we want to not only allow them their current powers but that we want to end the monarchy and pledge total allegiance to Merkel"

You seem to be of the opinion that Scottish people can be forced to want something if enough people outside Scotland get to vote?

[whocares]

I find it amusing when Scottish people say that they hate Westminster.

Westminster have been dancing to Salmond's tune, bending over backwards to make the referendum as easy as possible - you want the vote in 2014? Sure. You want Sean Connery to have a vote? Sure. You want to give votes to 16 year olds? Sure. Westminster has not harmed this process.

Now we hear that the Uk government is willing to give even more concessions to Scotland. I personally don't like it that the politicians are meekly surrendering to Scotland. It's not what I want, I am far from being the only person in rUK to feel that way.

If Scotland want to stay in the Union that's fine by me. If Scotland want to be "independent" that's fine also but it does not mean that the rUK needs to give special concessions to Scotland. This referendum affects all of the UK yet only Scotland gets a vote.

The UK proposed referendum on IN/OUT EU membership affects everyone in the EU yet only the UK will vote on it.  Now, if Germany and France and Italy and all the others demanded in on the vote....there would be quite a lot of laughter in Westminster.  "The guys in Europe want to vote too so that they can tell us we love them and that we want to not only allow them their current powers but that we want to end the monarchy and pledge total allegiance to Merkel"

You seem to be of the opinion that Scottish people can be forced to want something if enough people outside Scotland get to vote?

to be fair to beshocked this is how it would work in countries where there is real constitution (i.e. a written one) : for instance if Catalonia wants to get out from Spain by referendum, not only it might be deemed anti-constitutional (the constitution is also there to defend the unity of the country) but all spanish citizens would be able to vote...in theory at least.

[SecretFly]

I find it amusing when Scottish people say that they hate Westminster.

Westminster have been dancing to Salmond's tune, bending over backwards to make the referendum as easy as possible - you want the vote in 2014? Sure. You want Sean Connery to have a vote? Sure. You want to give votes to 16 year olds? Sure. Westminster has not harmed this process.

Now we hear that the Uk government is willing to give even more concessions to Scotland. I personally don't like it that the politicians are meekly surrendering to Scotland. It's not what I want, I am far from being the only person in rUK to feel that way.

If Scotland want to stay in the Union that's fine by me. If Scotland want to be "independent" that's fine also but it does not mean that the rUK needs to give special concessions to Scotland. This referendum affects all of the UK yet only Scotland gets a vote.

The UK proposed referendum on IN/OUT EU membership affects everyone in the EU yet only the UK will vote on it.  Now, if Germany and France and Italy and all the others demanded in on the vote....there would be quite a lot of laughter in Westminster.  "The guys in Europe want to vote too so that they can tell us we love them and that we want to not only allow them their current powers but that we want to end the monarchy and pledge total allegiance to Merkel"

You seem to be of the opinion that Scottish people can be forced to want something if enough people outside Scotland get to vote?

to be fair to beshocked this is how it would work in countries where there is real constitution (i.e. a written one) : for instance if Catalonia wants to get out from Spain by referendum, not only it might be deemed anti-constitutional (the constitution is also there to defend the unity of the country) but all spanish citizens would be able to vote...in theory at least.

Imposition of such theories are how wars begin and - indeed - how nations sometimes initially formed in the first place - that is to say, against the wishes of the peoples forming them.

Catalonia is only known as Catalonia because it deems itself 'different' and 'unique'.  The same with Scotland.  Some use the argument that if you simply GIVE Independence to some, well then why not say anyone who calls for independence can get it.

Well two things - you don't GIVE Independence - people generally take it - either peacefully or through war.  The other thing is that the theory never works in practice because people think of themselves as being what they are.  Maine citizens don't want Independence from the USA because they probably regard themselves as American.  BUT - if Texans were ever to get serious about wanting Independence then that would become an issue.  And regardless of the rest of America not wanting to discuss the idea, if Texans began to seriously talk about Independence then such a thing would have to be discussed and dealt with.  These Independence issues become issues when enough people think of themselves as being distinct.  You can't wish away those thoughts if they happen nor can you say everyone will be wanting Independence now if the truth is not so in reality.

[whocares]

SF, in most european countries, people from one part feel different from folks from another part of that country. there is though a common interest and also common cultural background which usually means that unity is stronger than the desire of independence. Catalunia is just a spanish region which enjoys some autonomy, they sure are different from their so called lazy neighbours of Andalucia but they all speak spanish are equally part of Spain. So just because they also have their own language and are richer they deserve to be independent , more than another region ? Is the balkanisation of europe the way forward?
am disgressing and this has little to do with Scotland.

[fa0019]

Fly

Just out of interest, what is your opinion or Crimea or London say to fact.

For instance, Crimea part of Ukraine is  majority Russian and they want to join Russia. Although it is only majority Russian because relatively recently, back in soviet days the Russians kicked out the indigenous tatars and also due to the Russian navy being based there.

Yes they have a majority but historically its part of the Ukraine.

Same with London. Easily would be wealthier on their own... could argue they have a distinct identity too given it is now >50% foreign born. Should they not have a right to their own independence if they have developed their own identity contrary to that of the rest of England?

The reason I say this is that from my own views and experience, Scottish people, those who have derived from Scotland both by birth and ancestry... generally reject independence. Those born abroad or those with significant cultural ties from outside Scotland are more inclined to back independence. Not saying that only Scottish people born and bred, with a kilt and a caber should get a vote but its an interesting point none the less.

In South Africa there would be a huge case for independence of the western Cape to SA also. Africans have historically only lived in the western cape from the 1970s onwards. The first time white people cam across African people in the cape was around the fish river near port Elizabeth. The indigenous people of the western cape not longer fully exist and have merged with cape coloureds (the mixed race people of European, Malay and bushman extraction).  The people of the western cape have a distinct identity to the rest of SA (itself no more than 100 years old) socially, demographically, linguistically, politically etc. Surprisingly though there is very little calls for it even though again they would be far wealthier and politically empowered.

[beshocked]

secretfly where do you draw the line? According to your logic anyone can declare independence if they shout loud enough.

My point is that the rest of the UK has accepted Scotland's decision to having a vote. Rest of the UK has actually acted very graciously.

This is a break up of an over 300 year old partnership. It would be the equivalent of say Venice saying they don't want to be part of Italy anymore or Brittany in France.

Westminster are not holding Scotland at gunpoint, they are not threatening them, on the contrary they are on their knees in supplication.


The UK is different to the ever changing EU - the EU has become so different to what the UK originally signed up for that it's not really the same.

[Sponsored content]