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]

Pretty Sick of this whole debate now.

The Scottish people deserve better than that shambles last night, no one answered questions properly and both men seemed intent to take what was said literally and not debate the issue at all.

I have a copy of the white paper, I have read it cover to cover and just like Mr Salmond, it does a lot of shouting and quoting but very little explaining.

Money

Money is the lubricant that keeps the world spinning. We are a capitalist country and sadly no amount of debate will change this fact. Money keeps roofs over our heads, food in our bellies, entertainment on our TV’s, heat in our homes and fuel for our cars.

What my greatest concern (excluding my job which I’ll get to later) is currency. Last night Eck gave the biggest hint yet that using the pound without a currency union is the “Plan B” he had in mind all along. Let me be clear, using the pound with its interest rates, valuables to back the paper up and governing body being based in London controlled by the Englishmen is not Independence. What is the point in independence when we can’t control our own currency?

Salmond’s lack of credible alternatives is forcing the Scottish people to vote for a “Diet Coke” independence instead of the real thing. Having our currency controlled by The Bank of England isn’t the independent country I want.

I want stability, what my mortgage costs this month, I want it to cost the same when all this nonsense blows over. When we go independent without a currency union who owns my house? I can’t afford to buy it outright so like most people I have a Mortgage with the Halifax. Now will my house be owned by an English bank? Will I have to get another Mortgage from a Scottish based bank? Will the interest rate be the same? I have contracts drawn up with the bank for the payment of my Mortgage, will that contract be honoured and if so by whom? I don’t want to bank with a foreign bank.


Defence

The Trident issue is a biggy for me. I work a lot with the RN, whilst not a serving member I maintain a lot of the systems and visit the vessels in port and at sea regularly.

I spend a lot of time in Faslane and Helensburgh as a matter of course. When Salmond claims that Faslane will become the HQ of a Scottish independence force it is a conceivable idea. However Faslane employs nearly 8000 people. Those people need plumbers, cooks, barmen, shop workers etc. that make up a massive part of the economy in places like Baloch and Helensburgh.

The work I do is often sensitive in nature and tends to be “UK personnel only”, I won’t be UK anymore so that’s my job out the window, and since we deal with an American based system (TRIDENT), for those of you who are interested in what this means read this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR

For those of you who don’t care, it basically means that the day after a yes vote I’ll be joining one of those food banks I hear so much about on all of the YES Scotland twitter feeds. I’ll no longer be a UK citizen and no longer able to view sensitive information. My job would be forfeit. Independence is not worth one Scottish job, never mind the thousands set to lose out across the country.

Arguments thrown out by YES Scotland that BAE Systems will still be allowed to build the next generation of T26 Frigates on the Clyde. This simply will not happen in an independent country the Royal Navy doesn’t build its warships in foreign countries.

Voting no is a selfish reason for me. I love my job and as I said money makes the world go round. It certainly pays for Mrs Radge and my home. I was made redundant before, can’t say I liked it very much but as I said. Scottish independence is not worth one Scottish job, not mine, not some dockie down the Clyde and not some burger van lady on the road to Faslane.

The Aftermath

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aftermath

aftermath
NOUN - The consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event.

Unpleasant is an understatement of the highest order. This country has been tearing itself apart over the last 2 years. I don’t care what anyone says, this nation will bear these scars for a generation. The country is bleeding, badly from the deep wounds this debate has caused.

The wounds will heal over time but they’ll fester for a couple of decades.

Whoever wins, it’s inevitable that whenever something good happens in the UK the better together crowd will pounce on it. Much like the SNP will do of something bad happens.

“Well that wouldn’t have happened if we went independent/stayed in the union” DELETE AS APPROPRIATE

We Scots tend to be a resilient bunch shrugging off insults with bravado and humour. But some of the things being said by both sides of the debate have IMO damaged the very foundations of what makes us Scottish and British.

We should be grateful that we have been given this opportunity to make this decision in a democratic way unlike what’s going on in the Ukraine. We have been given a huge privilege and it’s our duty as a democracy not to screw this up. However the politicians have made it a bitter and divisive debate that has alienated friends from friends, brothers from sisters and husbands from wives.

Has this debate and all of the horrible things being said by both sides made our country better?

Conclusion

Notch has said he is jealous of the opportunity we have in getting to make this decision, I think you are wrong Notch. I don’t see how putting a border up between us and England will improve the lives of normal people. Salmond is using Westminster as an easy scapegoat to pin the blame on.

He constantly goes on about how finally Scotland will get a government we’ll vote for when we go independent. Excuse me Eck, you didnae get my vote!

Finally, there is something I want all voters to say at the end of this long campaign. It’s something I hope both yes and no voters can say regardless of who has won:

“I will now do what is best for Scotland.”

[funnyExiledScot]

The problem is this EWT Spoons, there has been no honesty about the Panama Plan from the "Yes" campaign, and no proper in depth analysis of the consequences of using the pound outside the currency union (the Adam Smith Institute report last week made the case but it was an academic report and not a practical one). If this was genuinely an attractive option, be in no doubt that the "Yes" campaign would have opted for it, or at least presented it as a credible alternative. The have taken huge steps to avoid naming this as their "Plan B", precisely because they are aware of the pitfalls. The only way they have sought to make this palatable is by saying they would renege on Scotland's share of the UK debt should this option materialise, and there is no academic opinion that suggests this approach would be anything other than detrimental to the credibility of Scotland as a new independent country, particularly with the money markets upon which Alex Salmond's economic plan will hinge.

Also note this. Salmond has still not actually admitted that the Panama Plan is his fallback option. You can work it out as a process of elimination, but does it not worry you that he can't just be honest about it? Ask yourself why this is, if indeed the Panama Plan is such an attractive option.

Regarding your point about prudence in financial services, no-one of any political persuation will argue against the point that the industry should be more prudent, but even prudent banks and fs institutions were hit by the global crisis, not just the reckless ones. In terms of regulating these institutions, and ensuring compliance with any new rules to ensure mistakes of the past are not repeated, this requires money (both to set-up the new regulator and to employ sufficient expertise to monitor the banks) and time. It also means that, contrary to what the Yes campaign has promised, imposing different rules in Scotland to those in force in rUK and Europe. You cannot do this without increasing regulatory burden on your FS institutions and impacting their competitiveness in the global marketing place. Then ask yourself why on earth any institution would remain domiciled in Scotland in such circumstances, when they could just move south, benefits from BoE support and passport services into Scotland as they are allowed to do under EU laws. The Panama Plan would kill the FS industry in Scotland.

Vote Yes if you want, there are good arguments to do so, but eyes need to be wide open as to the consequences.

[RDW]

Very eloquently put Radge (especially for a prop!).

[funnyExiledScot]

One last point: to all the "Better Together" supporters we go to Murrayfield or Hampden to sing our anthems in part to express a desire for self-determination. If we refuse the chance to take control of our own state because we are to venial or timorous should we stop singing and at the start of every match listen to a recording of Boris Johnstone  reciting "Wee sleekit, cowran, timourous beastie"?

[funnyExiledScot]

Going to Radge's post, I don't see any issue with people voting out of self-interest. When it's your job on the line, your mortgage and bills that you'll struggle to pay and the "Yes" campaign is providing no credible solution for you personally, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting on that basis.

You can have all the social justice, equally and all the rest of the stuff promised by Alex Salmond in the world, but when you are personally unemployed and bankrupt I suspect it'll be of little comfort to know that you have a written constitution banning illegal wars (i.e. any war which is vetoed by Russia and China, acting in their own self interest).

There will likewise be people no doubt voting "Yes" for the same reason. The SNP have long supported renewables and I'm sure there are people who build wind farms, offshore and onshore, and are developing wind technology who will argue that without the SNP they would likewise not have jobs. The Scottish Green Party is supporting independence partially for this reason (as well as the anti-nuclear stance).

People should not be afraid to be pragmatic, and vote based on how independence will affect them. It's why I take with a pinch of salt opinions (both Yes and No) from people who will not be economically impacted by the outcome. It's easy to be romantic about independence/the union when the outcome of the vote will have no practical impact for you.

[EWT Spoons]

FES, the reason why Salmond isn't forthcoming about his plan b is because it lets his opponent know what he is willing to accept. He can't go into negotiations with Westminster in the event of a yes vote saying "this is what I want" when they already know what he will accept. It weakens his position massively. On the flip side this could be irrelevant because by not coming out and saying "this is exactly what we will accept if we don't get a CU" it weakens his position with the voting public. It's a catch 22 type situation. I see what you are saying, but I guess it depends largely on how you come at this, we each could be wrong or correct in our assumption as to why it’s not been made clear in terms of what the exact plan B is.

I agree that having the BoE as a lender of last resort is going to be appealing, which is why Salmond wants the CU and isn’t making plan B clear, but I also think that a number of banks & financial Institutions are working to avoid being in a position where they need that support again. The company I work for is going all out to try and make sure that it’s not affected as it was during the financial crisis (mostly by slashing jobs, default plan of a attack) and therefore able to operate without the need of the BoE. I have no idea if they will ever be successful in achieving this but its certainly the goal and I would imagine the goal for most other financial institutions. Sure you can’t say that another “incident” won’t happen again and affect banks, but I think it has actually made a number of these institutions more aware of the pitfalls of overstretching themselves and offered a wake up call to get their house in order. Of course it could have had totally the opposite affect and scared the bejesus out of them, I'm optimistic it’s the former.

[funnyExiledScot]

I don't actually agree with that proposition.

The rUK already knows what Salmond wants (a currency union) and the rUK also knows that Salmond has three other alternatives, none of which work as well for Scotland (in Alex Salmond's own stated opinion). The rUK frankly won't give a monkeys whether Scotland adopts the pound unilaterally, issues its own currency (pegged or otherwise) or takes on the Euro. I don't see how Salmond articulating and explaining the fallback option affects the negotiations at all. rUK have already ruled out a currency union in any event, and made it abundantly clear that Plan A is not on the table.

Also, there's a difference between banks reorganising themselves to prevent a repeat of previous failures, and not having the support of a lender of last resort. The latter impacts the credibility of the institution with customers and counterparties, and it will take a huge amount for a Scottish bank to convince customers and counterparties that it has eradicated risk sufficiently to equate to Bank of England backing. I know where I would put my life savings!

[RuggerRadge2611]

Going back to the point I made about Politicians, it seems King Eck has again challenged David Cameron to a televised debate.

I'm fairly sure why he is wanting to do this and I can see it will be an easy opportunity for some Tory Bashing.

However he might as well debate the issue of Scottish Independence with Angela Merkel or Barrack Obama. They have as much say in the referendum as David Cameron.

This cheap political point scoring is really unhelpful and I reiterate. Scotland and the Scottish people deserve better than this.

[Derbymanc]

Wasn't this originally in the off topic section?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[RDW]

Who would we bank with if we became independent? Would Rbs be a Scottish bank?

My mortgage is with Nationwide - would I therefore have a mortgage provider in a different country?

[fa0019]

He might as well said... there is a 4th, why not we drop the pound and trade in cattle? Sound stupid, well they are as logical as listing 3 other plan B's.

Reading the transcript it sounds like he did well but anyone who thinks its an actual plan has little idea about how the world works.

Sure its good for Scotland, but its not good for anyone else and given they're not in a position of power (i.e. England is 10 times the size in pop and GDP) then they're hardly going to feel like they have to conform.
All i know is this, England and the tories will fight dirty if Scotland win independence. Independence will come at a real cost and Scotland will face a huge challenge.

England will refuse a CU, its plain and simple. No negotiations on debt will matter one bit. England can make life very difficult for Scotland. They can ban them from Nato and the Euro.

Currency union is out. So say Scotland doesn't want to take the debt (even though RBS and HBOS were key builders of this debt) and England has to take the lump well they can bar them from joining the EU and that is VERY important.

Forget Alex Salmond saying they are in the EU already, everybody who is somebody says they are not and current examples of recent breakaways would suggest this to be true. England can literally block Scotland from joining, they have the voting power let alone Spain and Belgium saying they will block also.

So Scotland would be in a position where they have no currency union, RBS and HBOS have moved to England (a certainity if there is no CU), the financial services industry is in disarray because there is no lender of last resort, they refuse to take debt and therefore England bar them from the Euro.

This isn't taking it to extreme. We know a few things.

a) CU will not happen.
b) Scotland will not be in the EU on leaving and will have to apply (well everyone bar AS believe this).
c) without CU financial services industry will migrate to England as well as numerous traditionally Scottish firms, no English firms will head north (the impact on jobs will be real.
d) Scotland says they will not take their obligated debt unless England joins in CU.
e) England have the power to block any membership to Nato or EU.
f) If Scotland default on debt then no lender will want to work with Scotland. They will be treated like Argentina is today.

You can't go into this situation and say we want to properly negotiate when you openly say... give us what we want or we won't take the debt. England have bigger cards up their sleeve and they will use them if necessary. They look after themselves, they always have. Once you're out the club, you're out and treated like everyone else.

I've never thought that scare mongering about anti-yes vote is the way forward. If any given people want independence and win a democratic vote then who are we to say no? But thinking Scotland holds the major cards is severely obtuse, almost suicidal.

[funnyExiledScot]

The "Yes" campaign see the Cameron challenge as win/win. He debates, then we can all hear about Thatcher and the Poll Tax ad neuseum, he refuses, and Salmond can accuse him of running scared. Obviously Cameron won't debate, he's made that clear, so it's just cheap and easy political points and consistent with the "Yes" campaign's recent re-turn to Tory bashing.

Preaching to the converted in my view, and will do nothing to convert undecides, but it'll keep the SNP faithful energised.

[George Carlin]

Wasn't this originally in the off topic section?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That's where I created it. I didn't move it!

[fa0019]

Who would we bank with if we became independent? Would Rbs be a Scottish bank?

My mortgage is with Nationwide - would I therefore have a mortgage provider in a different country?

yes. Problem would come when you would want to remortgage no doubt. Scotland can't afford to buy the whole bank from England.

UK government own 85% of the bank. So even if Scottish government took their share it would be worth only 8.5% say roughly. That means England still owns what +75% of the bank. Even then RBS will move its headquarters to England, its inevitable. They can't survive without a lender of last resort, no one would trust them and institutions would jump on anyone's back who wasn't just to profit from their exposed weakness.

Without a bank of scotland providing support then Scotland will have no financial services industry. Unless they join the Euro that is... but that will take years.

[EWT Spoons]

Do you honestly think that they will not discuss a CU with Salmond following a yes vote?  I personally believe all this “there will be no Currency Union” chat is purely to support their no stance.  If a yes vote goes through then I think this will be a key negotiating tool for Westminster and they will leverage it to get something they want.  Hypothetically they could use it to ensure that we continue to house trident for a prolonged period (just a possible option, not saying this is what they will want or what we would accept, especially as I have no idea how they would feel housing their nuclear capability in a foreign country).  They can’t say Plan A is on the table, because this is basically the key to their no argument, if they say “well we might give you a CU” then the polls could swing massively against them, and as I said with a negotiating tool as big as the CU I can’t see them ruling it out when it comes to making deals.

I agree from a confidence point of view having the BoE on board is clearly going to help customers trust that their money is safe (or at least £80k of it is for anyone lucky enough to have more than £80k worth of savings), which is why the CU is the option Salmond and co are pushing, however it is also worth noting that not having a LoLR does work for a number of countries.  Will that mean that a number of banks leave Scotland, possibly, will they adapt to this and live within their means, possibly.  You might be right that the former is more likely, but  I still believe a CU will be on the table when it comes to making deals, I guess it comes down to how much that is worth though.


Radge: David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, if he wants Scotland to remain part of the country he is responsible for governing, do you not think it would be prudent for him to actually talk about it?  He must have some thoughts on the matter, and he has considerably more say on the future of Scotland than Obama or Merkel, especially in the event of a no vote, for that matter even in a yes vote he has a massive say.  He's hidden behind the issue of him not having a vote in the referendum, but he's still the Prime Minister.  If the shoe was on the other foot and Salmond declined to have a debate with Cameron he would be rightly slated for it, it would bring into question the strength of his argument for independence, surely this should be the same scenario for Cameron.

[George Carlin]

Cameron will never publicly debate with Salmond unless Salmond is the PM of an independent Scotland. It diminishes Cameron and elevates Eck and as FES says, it is difficult to see what's in it for Dave and his big shiny face.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Wasn't this originally in the off topic section?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Holy Question marks Batman, did your Keyboard break or were all 161 question marks intentional?

Anyway, an interesting being made by fa0019, gun barrel diplomacy only works if you have big enough gun barrells. So far the rest of the UK's gun barrells are bigger than ours. England can take the hit on losing North Sea oil, especially since of the FS work will almost certainly migrate south in the event of a Yes Vote.

Oil is important but Edinburgh brings in a heck of a lot more money than Aberdeen. Edinburgh will cease to be the financial powerhouse it is without a currency backed up by the BoE.

[fa0019]

Dude, England have refused the Euro with passion due to the currency union issue In fact its got worse since the recession. They will not budge on that. The people wouldn't stand for it and the benefits it has on England is not huge. If a government did decide this they would be kicked out by the electorate.

If the debt refusal card is the biggest Salmond has, its a pretty poor hand in negotiations.

[funnyExiledScot]

Who would we bank with if we became independent? Would Rbs be a Scottish bank?

My mortgage is with Nationwide - would I therefore have a mortgage provider in a different country?

Yes, you would have a mortgage provider in a different country (in much the same way as people used to have savings with Icelandic institutions), although Nationwide would be free to establish branches in Scotland under EU legislation (assuming Scotland and rUK are in the EU!).

Regarding RBS I suspect they would redomicile HQ to the rUK to benefit from the Bank of England fallback and the continued use of the PRA and FCA as estblished and experienced regulators. They could still offer services in Scotland, as they can throughout Europe.

[funnyExiledScot]

Radge: David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, if he wants Scotland to remain part of the country he is responsible for governing, do you not think it would be prudent for him to actually talk about it?  He must have some thoughts on the matter, and he has considerably more say on the future of Scotland than Obama or Merkel, especially in the event of a no vote, for that matter even in a yes vote he has a massive say.  He's hidden behind the issue of him not having a vote in the referendum, but he's still the Prime Minister.  If the shoe was on the other foot and Salmond declined to have a debate with Cameron he would be rightly slated for it, it would bring into question the strength of his argument for independence, surely this should be the same scenario for Cameron.

Cameron has argued for the Union, he just won't make the political mistake of standing up on live TV to be shouted at and insulted by Alex Salmond for the way Thatcher behaved in the 1980s. Every time Cameron has entered the debate he has been accused of "dictating to the people of Scotland".

Alex Salmond has proved in both debates that he has absolutely no interest in actually debating the pros and cons of independence, and discussing practical issues. He was asked by Alistair Darling last night how he would tackle the event of his oil projections falling short, and which of the difficult decisions he would take to balance the books: (a) raise tax, (b) cut spending (and where) or (c) borrow money and increase Scotland's debt. If you can tell me the answer you're doing well. All I heard was something about Darling being "in bed with the Tories", some guff about "oil being a blessing and not a curse" and some previous estimates from the OBR a few years ago which estimated oil as being too low. No attempt was made to actually answer the question. Again, ask yourself why?

[Derbymanc]

Wasn't this originally in the off topic section?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Holy Question marks Batman, did your Keyboard break or were all 161 question marks intentional?

Anyway, an interesting being made by fa0019, gun barrel diplomacy only works if you have big enough gun barrells. So far the rest of the UK's gun barrells are bigger than ours. England can take the hit on losing North Sea oil, especially since of the FS work will almost certainly migrate south in the event of a Yes Vote.

Oil is important but Edinburgh brings in a heck of a lot more money than Aberdeen. Edinburgh will cease to be the financial powerhouse it is without a currency backed up by the BoE.

Nope just a bit dismayed that the off toppiccers were told no more politica/news threads, one pops up, disappears and then reappears in the rugby section.

I'm off to post a death penalty discussion in the tennis section now

Oh Salmond walked all over in the debates last night but as per he didn't actually say much other than 'Conservatives bad, anyone doesn't vote yes must be conservative' and 'we'll keep the pound and default on the debt cause that's how we'll get the big european countries to lend us money' ..............numpty

[funnyExiledScot]

I'm off to post a death penalty discussion in the tennis section now

I believe Judy Murray is in favour.

[RZR]

Just joined v2 after being an observer for some time.... Strange that it was a debate on Scottish independence that prompted me to comment.
I am Northern Irish living in Scotland. I've lived in Scotland for more years than I lived back home, but back home is still 'home'. That says something about the concept of national identity, but in context of the current discussion, I have something of an outsiders view.

I have a vote, but am not Scottish. So I've been following things closely, and am a bit worried that with just 3 weeks to go before a vote there are huge amounts of uncertainties. I voted SNP last time I voted, but in the past have voted green, labour and lib dem. Yet to give my vote to the nasty party.

Anyway, in terms of the debates, I think Alex Salmond won last night, but he did so with bluster and showmanship, rather than coherence and statesmanship. Significant questions still remain unanswered. My mortgage is in pounds sterling. If Scotland starts off shadowing sterling, but then opts to have it's own currency at some point in the future (this is one of the plan B's apparently), that new currency will depreciate against sterling. I think all observers agree that a new national currency will not have the strength of sterling. That is fine. But my mortgage is still in pounds sterling. How much more of my income will it take to service my debt? What will the attitude of my bank be? Will we find our loans parceled up and sold on by British banks no longer comfortable with having loans in Sterling in a country that doesn't use Sterling. Will they simply call in their debts, which I believe is possible if you read the small print of the mortgage. What would the impact of that be in terms of the Scottish housing market and wider economy?

Now I appreciate that some people may be thinking I'm being alarmist. But Scotland would be a foreign nation. Things will  have to change. You can't become a foreign country and keep things pretty much as they are. Alex Salmond seems to think that he can pick and mix the elements of the UK that he likes, or dislikes in order to garner votes. People don't like nuclear weapons - get rid of them. They do like the pound - keep that. They quite like the queen - keep her. They really like the NHS - keep it and say it is going to be better with us (my wife and brother both work for the NHS - it's problems are deep and can't be solved just by throwing increasing amounts of cash at it).

So in an independent Scotland will I be able to afford my mortgage? Maybe, maybe not. Will I still have a job? Probably not - I work in renewables, and in contrast to the sentiments expressed by others on here, my job would be gone. Renewables are expensive, clean but costly. Currently we rely on being able to sell these renewables into a larger market to be able to afford them. If the market shrunk by 90% would it be possible to sell them solely within the new Scotland. Well, yes, but only if the population accepted an overnight doubling of their electricity bills. Don't think that would play too well. The UK has, and is building more interconnectors to continental Europe. England, with its big electricity demand could get this from French nuclear reactors rather than Scottish renewables. So I have concerns about my mortgage and my job. I also wonder about the EU. All new member countries have to join the Euro. I'm not keen on that idea. It was not that long ago that this was Alex's preferred currency. Scotland was going to be in the arc of prosperity with Ireland and Iceland. We don't hear too much about that now, and everyone knows why - both of these countries effectively went bust, because they did not have a lender of last resort that could cope with the scale of debts that existed. It is a fact that many financial companies are making contingency plans to move operations to the UK in the event of an yes vote. They are Scotland's fourth largest export, and support countless well paid jobs. How would those changes affect the new Scotland's balance of payments? Loss of exports, and loss of potentially higher rate tax payers.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. I have looked at both sides of the debate, and unfortunately on the Yes side, there are just too many questions which remain unanswered - questions which are fundamental to the livelihood of myself and my family. The longer this debate has gone on, the more it looks like some sort of vanity project for Alex Salmond. Of course this is just one point of view, but nothing that has been said or written in favour of independence convinces me that I would be better off in an independent Scotland. Quite the opposite in fact.

[RuggerRadge2611]

I'm off to post a death penalty discussion in the tennis section now

I believe Judy Murray is in favour.

[EWT Spoons]

Cameron has argued for the Union, he just won't make the political mistake of standing up on live TV to be shouted at and insulted by Alex Salmond for the way Thatcher behaved in the 1980s. Every time Cameron has entered the debate he has been accused of "dictating to the people of Scotland".

Alex Salmond has proved in both debates that he has absolutely no interest in actually debating the pros and cons of independence, and discussing practical issues. He was asked by Alistair Darling last night how he would tackle the event of his oil projections falling short, and which of the difficult decisions he would take to balance the books: (a) raise tax, (b) cut spending (and where) or (c) borrow money and increase Scotland's debt. If you can tell me the answer you're doing well. All I heard was something about Darling being "in bed with the Tories", some guff about "oil being a blessing and not a curse" and some previous estimates from the OBR a few years ago which estimated oil as being too low. No attempt was made to actually answer the question. Again, ask yourself why?

He did answer it, but I can understand you missing it, as it was a very heated (shouty) exchange where a lot of chat kind of got glossed over as neither party really cared about the answer and just wanted to try and make the other look bad.

He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that basically he would expect revenue to go up and down (incidentally the reason it went down this year was due to investments in future North Sea oil exploration), and that they would need to use money raised through previous years to support lean years, like they do in other countries that have oil.  Now I know this is going on the assumption that they start with a boom year (or two), but this was the answer given.  I’m not saying this is the best answer in the world, but it’s a decent starting point.

Anyway I’m clearly in a minority here and I have increasingly shifted from my original stance of not trying to persuade folk to my way of seeing things.  I’m just glad there are a lot of folk on here who care passionately about the referendum and it hasn’t gone the route of petty insults, as I’ve seen on the other thread about this.  I’m going to duck out of this chat now as it has taken up a lot of my day and I really need to get back to work.

Cheers for the debate folks, it’s been enjoyable

[funnyExiledScot]

RZR - that is comfortably the most coherent and well argued first post on 606v2!

[Derbymanc]

Alas I'm sure she doesn't post here as she likes freedom of speech too
 
Good post that RZR I hadn't even thought of things like that for Scotlands current population and wonder if there's many more that have thought about things like that?
 
From the outside looking in, it does look like a lot of posturing from A.S and it does make you wonder what the point of Independance is if all you want to do is carry on the way it is.
 
Maybe it's some extremely clever ploy to threaten independance but really just hoping for some extra powers from Westminster?

[funnyExiledScot]

He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that basically he would expect revenue to go up and down (incidentally the reason it went down this year was due to investments in future North Sea oil exploration), and that they would need to use money raised through previous years to support lean years, like they do in other countries that have oil.  Now I know this is going on the assumption that they start with a boom year (or two), but this was the answer given.  I’m not saying this is the best answer in the world, but it’s a decent starting point.

Anyway I’m clearly in a minority here and I have increasingly shifted from my original stance of not trying to persuade folk to my way of seeing things.  I’m just glad there are a lot of folk on here who care passionately about the referendum and it hasn’t gone the route of petty insults, as I’ve seen on the other thread about this.  I’m going to duck out of this chat now as it has taken up a lot of my day and I really need to get back to work.

Cheers for the debate folks, it’s been enjoyable

I did hear that bit under all the shouting (that moderator really was useless), but if you've promised so much in the way of spending, it becomes increasingly likely that you'll have more lean years than good years (it's not just money in that's relevant, but money out as well), and unless Sir Ian Wood is wrong, at some point Salmond is going to have to raise money from elsewhere to cover the shortfall. You can only spend the money once. Salmond clearly doesn't want to be talking about tax rises, borrowing money (and the related cost) or spending cuts - I completely understand why - but that's what governing is about. Tough choice. There are no tough choices anywhere in the White Paper, just lots of spending promises.

I've enjoyed debating with you as well. Nice to have a sensible reasoned discussion, even if we don't agree.

[Jimpy]

Do you honestly think that they will not discuss a CU with Salmond following a yes vote?  I personally believe all this “there will be no Currency Union” chat is purely to support their no stance.  If a yes vote goes through then I think this will be a key negotiating tool for Westminster and they will leverage it to get something they want.  Hypothetically they could use it to ensure that we continue to house trident for a prolonged period (just a possible option, not saying this is what they will want or what we would accept, especially as I have no idea how they would feel housing their nuclear capability in a foreign country).  They can’t say Plan A is on the table, because this is basically the key to their no argument, if they say “well we might give you a CU” then the polls could swing massively against them, and as I said with a negotiating tool as big as the CU I can’t see them ruling it out when it comes to making deals.

I agree from a confidence point of view having the BoE on board is clearly going to help customers trust that their money is safe (or at least £80k of it is for anyone lucky enough to have more than £80k worth of savings), which is why the CU is the option Salmond and co are pushing, however it is also worth noting that not having a LoLR does work for a number of countries.  Will that mean that a number of banks leave Scotland, possibly, will they adapt to this and live within their means, possibly.  You might be right that the former is more likely, but  I still believe a CU will be on the table when it comes to making deals, I guess it comes down to how much that is worth though.


Radge: David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, if he wants Scotland to remain part of the country he is responsible for governing, do you not think it would be prudent for him to actually talk about it?  He must have some thoughts on the matter, and he has considerably more say on the future of Scotland than Obama or Merkel, especially in the event of a no vote, for that matter even in a yes vote he has a massive say.  He's hidden behind the issue of him not having a vote in the referendum, but he's still the Prime Minister.  If the shoe was on the other foot and Salmond declined to have a debate with Cameron he would be rightly slated for it, it would bring into question the strength of his argument for independence, surely this should be the same scenario for Cameron.

Toad Face Salmond has already promised a 'nuclear free' Scotland. Which extends to (I believe) evicting Trident from Faslane. And the 8000 jobs that go with it no doubt (although he wont be telling anyone who'll listen). Being very close to some decision makers in the Armed Forces, i can also tell you that Scotland would no longer be part of the British Armed forces, and Scottish Regiments/Units would be ruthlessly stripped of equipment, such as armour and aircraft (inclusing that) stationed in Scotland. Serving Scottish members of the British Armed Forces would be invited to leave or serve out their term (there's the draw down solution fixed in one swoop). no recruitment of Scottish personnel would be done under the revised structure.

Do you have any idea how much defence spending brings to Scotland, or how much its citizens rely on the BRITISH Armed Forces?

A. Lot.

[George Carlin]

RZR - that is comfortably the most coherent and well argued first post on 606v2!

Agreed. You'll never fit in here with things like eloquence and all that, you know, *logic* stuff.

We prefer moral victories, thoroughly soaked through with jingoism and blind prejudice on the rugby boards.

Er, sorry. "Off Topic" boards.

[fa0019]

It depends how much independence matters to people. If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial or unable to grasp the fundamental consequences of independence.

I went home for the commonwealth games and speaking to people it was amazing how much trash/lies they believed.

Current consensus from nearly every source is that Oil in the world will run out in about 2050... only 36 years time. Yet my taxi drivers, former colleagues, friends and family would swear they were sitting on 200 years worth of oil as that is what the campaign had told them.

They were informed that the West of Scotland was a gold mine, a new paradise of oil just waiting to be tapped and only Trident had stopped its exploration. Its funny how North Sea oil began their searches in the mid 60s whilst nuclear subs only really took hold a few years later.

Had their been vast quantities of oil in the west of Scotland I doubt it wouldn't have been discovered/utilised... is the UK government really going to forget to explore that just because the clyde was seen as an ideal base? Come one, they could have used dozens of other places especially if "El Dorado" was sighted off Skye.

Whats going to happen when the Oil runs out no doubt before 2050? Who is going to plug that funding gap, the sovereign fund i.e. like Norway? Ever been to Norway.... taxation is ridiculous, something like £8 a pint (and everything else was with a similar price premium to the UK) and that was years ago. That's how they built their fund.

[fa0019]

Do you honestly think that they will not discuss a CU with Salmond following a yes vote?  I personally believe all this “there will be no Currency Union” chat is purely to support their no stance.  If a yes vote goes through then I think this will be a key negotiating tool for Westminster and they will leverage it to get something they want.  Hypothetically they could use it to ensure that we continue to house trident for a prolonged period (just a possible option, not saying this is what they will want or what we would accept, especially as I have no idea how they would feel housing their nuclear capability in a foreign country).  They can’t say Plan A is on the table, because this is basically the key to their no argument, if they say “well we might give you a CU” then the polls could swing massively against them, and as I said with a negotiating tool as big as the CU I can’t see them ruling it out when it comes to making deals.

I agree from a confidence point of view having the BoE on board is clearly going to help customers trust that their money is safe (or at least £80k of it is for anyone lucky enough to have more than £80k worth of savings), which is why the CU is the option Salmond and co are pushing, however it is also worth noting that not having a LoLR does work for a number of countries.  Will that mean that a number of banks leave Scotland, possibly, will they adapt to this and live within their means, possibly.  You might be right that the former is more likely, but  I still believe a CU will be on the table when it comes to making deals, I guess it comes down to how much that is worth though.


Radge: David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, if he wants Scotland to remain part of the country he is responsible for governing, do you not think it would be prudent for him to actually talk about it?  He must have some thoughts on the matter, and he has considerably more say on the future of Scotland than Obama or Merkel, especially in the event of a no vote, for that matter even in a yes vote he has a massive say.  He's hidden behind the issue of him not having a vote in the referendum, but he's still the Prime Minister.  If the shoe was on the other foot and Salmond declined to have a debate with Cameron he would be rightly slated for it, it would bring into question the strength of his argument for independence, surely this should be the same scenario for Cameron.

Toad Face Salmond has already promised a 'nuclear free' Scotland. Which extends to (I believe) evicting Trident from Faslane. And the 8000 jobs that go with it no doubt (although he wont be telling anyone who'll listen). Being very close to some decision makers in the Armed Forces, i can also tell you that Scotland would no longer be part of the British Armed forces, and Scottish Regiments/Units would be ruthlessly stripped of equipment, such as armour and aircraft (inclusing that) stationed in Scotland. Serving Scottish members of the British Armed Forces would be invited to leave or serve out their term (there's the draw down solution fixed in one swoop). no recruitment of Scottish personnel would be done under the revised structure.

Do you have any idea how much defence spending brings to Scotland, or how much its citizens rely on the BRITISH Armed Forces?

A. Lot.

I read those people will be re-employed in Scotland's defence force under Salmonds plans.

Job centre 2018 - So Mr McInnes, I see you have 15 years experience as a nuclear missle engineer on submarines. Lets see where we can re-distribute your skills elsewhere.... ok so we don't quite have a match for your skills but the cafeteria in Holyrood has some openings? Interested in the post? It comes with a complimentary tunnock's tea cake each shift???

[funnyExiledScot]

I think the oil fund is a bit of red herring.

I personally don't see how we can afford to set one up given the comments by Sir Ian Wood that the SNP have significantly over-estimated oil revenues, given the vast promises on public spending and covering the costs of replacing Trident with a new Scottish military and plugging the hole left by the Scottish FS industry.

The only real issue here is a political one, with Salmond making the point that the Tories in the 1980s should have set up an oil fund (like Norway) and that we would be benefitting from it now (or rather it would have prevented the current round of public spending cuts being used to reduce the deficit).

[George Carlin]

It depends how much independence matters to people. If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial or unable to grasp the fundamental consequences of independence.

I went home for the commonwealth games and speaking to people it was amazing how much trash/lies they believed.

Current consensus from nearly every source is that Oil in the world will run out in about 2050... only 36 years time. Yet my taxi drivers, former colleagues, friends and family would swear they were sitting on 200 years worth of oil as that is what the campaign had told them.

They were informed that the West of Scotland was a gold mine, a new paradise of oil just waiting to be tapped and only Trident had stopped its exploration. Its funny how North Sea oil began their searches in the mid 60s whilst nuclear subs only really took hold a few years later.

Had their been vast quantities of oil in the west of Scotland I doubt it wouldn't have been discovered/utilised... is the UK government really going to forget to explore that just because the clyde was seen as an ideal base? Come one, they could have used dozens of other places especially if "El Dorado" was sighted off Skye.

Whats going to happen when the Oil runs out no doubt before 2050? Who is going to plug that funding gap, the sovereign fund i.e. like Norway? Ever been to Norway.... taxation is ridiculous, something like £8 a pint (and everything else was with a similar price premium to the UK) and that was years ago. That's how they built their fund.

Well put. I live in a country with only 100 years of verifiable hydrocarbon reserve and they're nervous about that, which is the reason why they've spent the past 20 years diversifying their investment income sources and spending their surplus on things like solar and energy/water security.

Scotland has an aging population who will increasingly drain a national health service. Where is the income going to be generated from to fund the oil shortfall in 40 years time? If they do vote yes, I really don't want to see the sausages being made within my lifetime.

[funnyExiledScot]

I thought I heard last night that Salmond was going to build a fleet of surface warships to protect his oil (not sure who from, but those pesky Shetland fisherman can get a little bit grabby). It sounded to me that preparations for the new military headquarters were going to neatly employ all the people currently working on Trident, within 10 or so years.

It was actually a rather significant moment in the debate. The first and last time the moderator/BBC managed to find someone in the audience supporting the "No" side of the debate!

[funnyExiledScot]

Scotland has an aging population who will increasingly drain a national health service. Where is the income going to be generated from to fund the oil shortfall in 40 years time? If they do vote yes, I really don't want to see the sausages being made within my lifetime.

Are you suggesting making sausages out of our elderly population?? Greggs would support it no doubt, and it wouldn't be the worst idea from the Separatists, but I think a rather large portion of the electorate would object.

[Jimpy]

It depends how much independence matters to people. If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial or unable to grasp the fundamental consequences of independence.

I went home for the commonwealth games and speaking to people it was amazing how much trash/lies they believed.

Current consensus from nearly every source is that Oil in the world will run out in about 2050... only 36 years time. Yet my taxi drivers, former colleagues, friends and family would swear they were sitting on 200 years worth of oil as that is what the campaign had told them.

They were informed that the West of Scotland was a gold mine, a new paradise of oil just waiting to be tapped and only Trident had stopped its exploration. Its funny how North Sea oil began their searches in the mid 60s whilst nuclear subs only really took hold a few years later.

Had their been vast quantities of oil in the west of Scotland I doubt it wouldn't have been discovered/utilised... is the UK government really going to forget to explore that just because the clyde was seen as an ideal base? Come one, they could have used dozens of other places especially if "El Dorado" was sighted off Skye.

Whats going to happen when the Oil runs out no doubt before 2050? Who is going to plug that funding gap, the sovereign fund i.e. like Norway? Ever been to Norway.... taxation is ridiculous, something like £8 a pint (and everything else was with a similar price premium to the UK) and that was years ago. That's how they built their fund.

Well put. I live in a country with only 100 years of verifiable hydrocarbon reserve and they're nervous about that, which is the reason why they've spent the past 20 years diversifying their investment income sources and spending their surplus on things like solar and energy/water security.

Scotland has an aging population who will increasingly drain a national health service. Where is the income going to be generated from to fund the oil shortfall in 40 years time? If they do vote yes, I really don't want to see the sausages being made within my lifetime.

You're joking aren't you, the average life expectancy in the most populated areas of Scotland is at third world levels, the NHS spends all its (disproportionally high) Scottish funds on citizens before their 50 ish th Birthdays.

Mind you, I suppose it evens out.

[fa0019]

I think the oil fund is a bit of red herring.

I personally don't see how we can afford to set one up given the comments by Sir Ian Wood that the SNP have significantly over-estimated oil revenues, given the vast promises on public spending and covering the costs of replacing Trident with a new Scottish military and plugging the hole left by the Scottish FS industry.

The only real issue here is a political one, with Salmond making the point that the Tories in the 1980s should have set up an oil fund (like Norway) and that we would be benefitting from it now (or rather it would have prevented the current round of public spending cuts being used to reduce the deficit).

An oil fund only works if you have surplus money to put into it regularly. It works in Norway only because of the massive taxation placed on goods and services. Want to spend £8 every time you buy a pint. If so great but Norway has had theirs for 50 years... once the oil has gone your entire wealth will be subject to the financial services industry which has its ups and downs and it will be interesting to see how quickly Norway joins the EU once the oil runs out.

I'm thinking within one recession they will come cap in hand.

[George Carlin]

It depends how much independence matters to people. If they want it at all costs then why not, but it will cost a lot. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial or unable to grasp the fundamental consequences of independence.

I went home for the commonwealth games and speaking to people it was amazing how much trash/lies they believed.

Current consensus from nearly every source is that Oil in the world will run out in about 2050... only 36 years time. Yet my taxi drivers, former colleagues, friends and family would swear they were sitting on 200 years worth of oil as that is what the campaign had told them.

They were informed that the West of Scotland was a gold mine, a new paradise of oil just waiting to be tapped and only Trident had stopped its exploration. Its funny how North Sea oil began their searches in the mid 60s whilst nuclear subs only really took hold a few years later.

Had their been vast quantities of oil in the west of Scotland I doubt it wouldn't have been discovered/utilised... is the UK government really going to forget to explore that just because the clyde was seen as an ideal base? Come one, they could have used dozens of other places especially if "El Dorado" was sighted off Skye.

Whats going to happen when the Oil runs out no doubt before 2050? Who is going to plug that funding gap, the sovereign fund i.e. like Norway? Ever been to Norway.... taxation is ridiculous, something like £8 a pint (and everything else was with a similar price premium to the UK) and that was years ago. That's how they built their fund.

Well put. I live in a country with only 100 years of verifiable hydrocarbon reserve and they're nervous about that, which is the reason why they've spent the past 20 years diversifying their investment income sources and spending their surplus on things like solar and energy/water security.

Scotland has an aging population who will increasingly drain a national health service. Where is the income going to be generated from to fund the oil shortfall in 40 years time? If they do vote yes, I really don't want to see the sausages being made within my lifetime.

You're joking aren't you, the average life expectancy in the most populated areas of Scotland is at third world levels, the NHS spends all its (disproportionally high) Scottish funds on citizens before their 50 ish th Birthdays.

Mind you, I suppose it evens out.

Now I'm thinking about whether it costs more to repeatedly dry out a Govan crack addict until his premature death at 41 than it takes to continually replace the hips, valves and Viagra prescriptions of clean living hippes from Eastbourne until their 125th birthdays.

[funnyExiledScot]

The best way of setting up an oil fund is on day one, before you become dependent on the revenues to fund public services. I do think that there's a legitimate question as to why such a long term fund wasn't set up in the first place. Once you have a fund like that, you can invest it and use only the profit, rather than touching the underlying capital. Shetland did something like that at the point at which the UK government asked to set up oil equipment of their shores, and it's been a huge benefit to the Islands.

The question remains though how Salmond expects to set one up and contribute to it whilst simultaneously providing the vast array of public spending he has promised. Particularly difficult if those spending promises are based on oil projections which don't materialise.

I think an oil fund is a good idea and I support it in principle, in much the same was as I would support any country running a budget surplus and saving some money at the end of each year (who wouldn't??), but I don't believe an independent Scotland will be able to continue the spending as promised and run a sufficient surplus on top of that in order to set one up.

[funnyExiledScot]

Now I'm thinking about whether it costs more to repeatedly dry out a Govan crack addict until his premature death at 41 than it takes to continually replace the hips, valves and Viagra prescriptions of clean living hippes from Eastbourne until their 125th birthdays.

[RDW]

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

These issues have been completely ignored, or to put it more accurately, we are told it will all be fine and that there are absolutely no problems whatsoever in becoming independent!

[fa0019]

The best way of setting up an oil fund is on day one, before you become dependent on the revenues to fund public services. I do think that there's a legitimate question as to why such a long term fund wasn't set up in the first place. Once you have a fund like that, you can invest it and use only the profit, rather than touching the underlying capital. Shetland did something like that at the point at which the UK government asked to set up oil equipment of their shores, and it's been a huge benefit to the Islands.

The question remains though how Salmond expects to set one up and contribute to it whilst simultaneously providing the vast array of public spending he has promised. Particularly difficult if those spending promises are based on oil projections which don't materialise.

I think an oil fund is a good idea and I support it in principle, in much the same was as I would support any country running a budget surplus and saving some money at the end of each year (who wouldn't??), but I don't believe an independent Scotland will be able to continue the spending as promised and run a sufficient surplus on top of that in order to set one up.

I think people forget how poor the UK was post war.

We rationed 10 years after the war ended, we paid off our wartime debt in the late 80s and were seen as the sick man of Europe with high nationalisation, the most powerful unions in the world crippling the economy at will and ancient infrastructure with obligations to spend billions on defence due to the cold war. Countries like Norway never had such challenges.

[funnyExiledScot]

I don't forget any of those things, and fully appreciate the difficulties faced at the relevant time. It would have been a tough sell to set aside a portion of the revenue to create an oil fund, a tough sell indeed. The opportunity cost would have been public services and, as you say, Norway was and is a different economy.

[fa0019]

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

These issues have been completely ignored, or to put it more accurately, we are told it will all be fine and that there are absolutely no problems whatsoever in becoming independent!

The biggest losers in all of this will be the Scottish people. England, it doesn't really impact them. The Oil is almost gone and within 30 years the benefit will become a burden... but they have been in it since 1707 so you can't say they were only after the so called "good times".

I think a number of things will happen on independence.

Scotland will be forced to take up either their own currency or peg to the £.
The financial services industry will drain to England.
Many firms such as R&D, science, defence firms will go to England too.

Have a look at Ireland and the emigration of the young. This is what will happen to Scotland under independence. No doubt the Irish expats love their country and why wouldn't they but many leave because the jobs just aren't there. The biggest problem is that the people who go are the very people they need the most... the highly skilled, the educated.

Education in scotland is very good, but its worthless without employers... and no replacing Investec with a job collecting goods in a warehouse for Amazon might seem like 1 lost 1 created stat but in no way shape or form is a replacement.

You can set corporation tax at -10% if you like but you still won't see RBS, HSBC, Investec, Goldmans etc upsticks and head to Edinburgh... you'll get zero tax paying Starbucks, Amazon, Burger King, Walmart and KFC.... and politicians will be so dependent on them employing masses in basic jobs and keeping them off welfare that they won't dare ask for any higher corporation tax contributions... as Ireland, England etc will be happy to take the jobs if you raise too much of a fuss.

[RDW]

So if the SNP are promising lower taxes for big businesses, where is the money going to come from to offset this?

Let me guess - it is a 3 letter word starting with O and ending with L?

[funnyExiledScot]

Owl?

[RZR]

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

These issues have been completely ignored, or to put it more accurately, we are told it will all be fine and that there are absolutely no problems whatsoever in becoming independent!

I think this is the biggest concern I have. There is a lack of a sensible response to many of the valid questions being raised about what a post independent Scottish future might look like. I can understand that the No campaign is accused of just being negative and only wanting to scare people. The reason people are scared is because they haven't got answers to perfectly sensible questions. Given the magnitude of the decision that people have to vote on, it should only be done after carefully weighing up the issues on both sides. That is well near impossible as politicians just accuse each other of lying / being alarmist / being a front for the tories (probably just about the worst insult that could be given a politician in Scotland.) Meanwhile the electorate can be swayed by who supposedly 'won' the debate as reported by a media which is only interested in soundbites.

To talk of having everything sorted out within 18 months of a vote so that Alex can ensure the date of independence coincides with some historically important date or other (apologies to passionate Scots) to me demonstrates just how much this whole thing is being driven by style over substance. It's the sort of thing you might expect from some of our more vacuous pop stars, or perhaps a child excited about having an important event coincide with their birthday. This is the future of a country, 5 million people directly, and 60 odd million people indirectly. The population of Scotland and the UK deserves much better. To have had 2 full years to think about something as basic as the currency, have no credible answer on the 5th of August, and then come up with 3 potential options (none of which you will discuss in even the sketchiest terms) by the 25th of August genuinely alarms me.

There will be issues which have received no thought, and issues which will have serious unintended consequences which haven't been appreciated, but rather than admitting that it is a huge task, Alex says it can all be done with a bit of negotiation in 18 months. Some people take longer to plan a wedding. I'm a project manager - almost every project I have worked on has had a longer timescale than this.

[fa0019]

they said a 3% rate less than the UK rate of corporation tax.

i.e. whatever westminister proposes we will mark 3% less. This is to attract those big firms over to invest in Scotland, employ the masses and pay huge levels of tax... just like Ireland does now. Salmond welcomes that giant to replace RBS... drumroll.... pizza hut.

In Ireland the net migration from Apr 2012 - Apr 2013 was -33,000. The year before it was -34,000. Fortunately they still have quite a high total fertility rate something around 2.00 compared to 1.60 children per woman in Scotland.

Its like looking into a crystal ball.

[RDW]

Owl?

Was waiting on some smart arse to say that!

[Sponsored content]