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.

[LordDowlais]

I understand why the Scots are so worked up over this, it's obviously massive.  I really don't understand why some of us from rUK are so wound up over it. Although the union breaking up will obvious effect me, it's nothing to do with me. I don't expect Scotland to stay in perpetual union just because they've been there for a few hundred years.

Why is it ok for the Falklands to have a vote on staying a British protectorate or independent or whatever it was, but not ok for Scotland? Is that because they voted to stay with the UK rather than Argentina?

Democracy is great, as long as you vote for my guy.

PS I always got the impression that SecretFly was about 100 but never grew up, kind of like Peter Pan.

Hammerofthunor you ask why some of us are worked up about it.

Scotland have been part of Britain for over 300 years. They have been one of our closest allies, fighting side by side with us in numerous conflicts. Scottish soldiers have proudly contributed to the history of Britain. I really want Scotland to stay part of the Union. I feel that we are stronger together. We have our differences but we can fight that out on the rugby pitch. It upsets me that many Scottish seem to not appreciate the proud history we have shared together as allies (only focussing on Bannockburn and William Wallace instead).

Scotland are having their vote - I just want them to vote a certain way.

If they vote Yes then they are turning their back on the rest of the UK and should be treated accordingly.

And this is the point the YES voters fail to understand, Scotland are all of us, they feck up, we all muck in, Wales feck up, we all muck in, and so it goes, if they want to go then fine, but they go, and that means everything, they cannot cherry pick what they would like to take with them, and the people of Scotland deserve to be told this, and the YES campaigners are not telling them how it is going to be.

[RuggerRadge2611]

Everytime I see the debate getting hot like it has done many times on social media I think on this :

"'We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." - Lincoln

We have to listen to each other now, otherwise moving on after Thursday will be impossible.

No matter what happens Yes/NO will all have to get together and forge a better Scotland for all of us.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

I understand why the Scots are so worked up over this, it's obviously massive.  I really don't understand why some of us from rUK are so wound up over it. Although the union breaking up will obvious effect me, it's nothing to do with me. I don't expect Scotland to stay in perpetual union just because they've been there for a few hundred years.

Why is it ok for the Falklands to have a vote on staying a British protectorate or independent or whatever it was, but not ok for Scotland? Is that because they voted to stay with the UK rather than Argentina?

Democracy is great, as long as you vote for my guy.

PS I always got the impression that SecretFly was about 100 but never grew up, kind of like Peter Pan.

Hammerofthunor you ask why some of us are worked up about it.

Scotland have been part of Britain for over 300 years. They have been one of our closest allies, fighting side by side with us in numerous conflicts. Scottish soldiers have proudly contributed to the history of Britain. I really want Scotland to stay part of the Union. I feel that we are stronger together. We have our differences but we can fight that out on the rugby pitch. It upsets me that many Scottish seem to not appreciate the proud history we have shared together as allies (only focussing on Bannockburn and William Wallace instead).

Scotland are having their vote - I just want them to vote a certain way.

If they vote Yes then they are turning their back on the rest of the UK and should be treated accordingly.

And this is the point the YES voters fail to understand, Scotland are all of us, they feck up, we all muck in, Wales feck up, we all muck in, and so it goes, if they want to go then fine, but they go, and that means everything, they cannot cherry pick what they would like to take with them, and the people of Scotland deserve to be told this, and the YES campaigners are not telling them how it is going to be.

I seem to recall the US mucks in as well, but it achieved independence from the UK, just not at the ballot box? Would you prefer that we resort to armed rebellion? Would that get your respect?!

[quinsforever]

QUINS - as SecretFly has stated never, never, never is long time. UK Govt have said they have ruled it out, negotiations have not started yet  

Anyway, why are people saying that after a potential YES vote there’ll be 57 million (rUK population) bitter people ?
I  won’t be and I know many Northern Irish, English & Welsh people who won’t be either  

no-one said there will be 57mm bitter people. just that there will be 57mm people who expect their politicians to look after their needs, and politically there will be little tolerance for Westminster having been seen to be soft on Scotland and given too much away in the negotiated separation. Nothing to do with bitterness, just political and electoral imperative. Add to that the racing certainty that the Tories will get in if Scottish Labour arent around, and you get an even less sympathetic Westminster to negotiate with. just saying.

[AsLongAsBut100ofUs]

Everytime I see the debate getting hot like it has done many times on social media I think on this :

"'We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." - Lincoln

We have to listen to each other now, otherwise moving on after Thursday will be impossible.

No matter what happens Yes/NO will all have to get together and forge a better Scotland for all of us.

Very well said, sir, and boy that Abe fella was smart

[fa0019]

I wouldn't say I'm neutral I don't want independence but I have come to conclusion that if that's what my people want then that's what they want.

Even under all this wave of reasons not to go for it, many still do regardless of whether it could mean the demise of the country. You can drag the horse to water but you can't make him drink. If that's the case then maybe independence is the right option... regardless of how much it costs (money wise and society wise).

What I don't like is the lies the pure lies the yes camp are putting out. They say the BBC is biased yet the NUJ have complained about the harassment their people have received (and its not just BBC members)... and can you guess where its coming from???

What they don't like is someone asking difficult questions.

Every walk of life has said that independence will cause a downturn in finances for Scotland. Academics, science, ecnomists, politics... literally its all saying the same thing.

They say its a bias due to UK involvement. Well the Scotsman sayd its voting no ont he evidence, are they biased?
The only person they can drag out is Stiglitz, AND HE IS PAID FFS by the SNP to build a case!!!! He is the most biased of them all. Krugman et al have no interest.

Yet they spin these lies and people believe them. What unionists don't like is the lack of a proper debate.

The worst was Douglas Alexander being heckled for saying he was proud his mum had worked in the NHS for 40 years... shame on those who did so. They took low paid public sector work to help the nation, take jobs the majority of the people refuse to do because they're too hard, too badly paid. He's a decent man and a top politician Scotland should feel lucky to have.

[quinsforever]

I understand why the Scots are so worked up over this, it's obviously massive.  I really don't understand why some of us from rUK are so wound up over it. Although the union breaking up will obvious effect me, it's nothing to do with me. I don't expect Scotland to stay in perpetual union just because they've been there for a few hundred years.

Why is it ok for the Falklands to have a vote on staying a British protectorate or independent or whatever it was, but not ok for Scotland? Is that because they voted to stay with the UK rather than Argentina?

Democracy is great, as long as you vote for my guy.

PS I always got the impression that SecretFly was about 100 but never grew up, kind of like Peter Pan.

Hammerofthunor you ask why some of us are worked up about it.

Scotland have been part of Britain for over 300 years. They have been one of our closest allies, fighting side by side with us in numerous conflicts. Scottish soldiers have proudly contributed to the history of Britain. I really want Scotland to stay part of the Union. I feel that we are stronger together. We have our differences but we can fight that out on the rugby pitch. It upsets me that many Scottish seem to not appreciate the proud history we have shared together as allies (only focussing on Bannockburn and William Wallace instead).

Scotland are having their vote - I just want them to vote a certain way.

If they vote Yes then they are turning their back on the rest of the UK and should be treated accordingly.

And this is the point the YES voters fail to understand, Scotland are all of us, they feck up, we all muck in, Wales feck up, we all muck in, and so it goes, if they want to go then fine, but they go, and that means everything, they cannot cherry pick what they would like to take with them, and the people of Scotland deserve to be told this, and the YES campaigners are not telling them how it is going to be.

I seem to recall the US mucks in as well, but it achieved independence from the UK, just not at the ballot box?  Would you prefer that we resort to armed rebellion?  Would that get your respect?!

you'd first have to get through the 50% of Scots who are against independence before crossing the Wall

America's independence was a bit less opportunistic than Scotland's. They wanted representation in exchange for taxation. Scotland want the recently discovered oil even though they pay less tax, and get more representation (Scots MPs get to vote in Holyrood, and Wesminster on many issues that only affect England).

[fa0019]

QUINS - as SecretFly has stated never, never, never is long time. UK Govt have said they have ruled it out, negotiations have not started yet  

Anyway, why are people saying that after a potential YES vote there’ll be 57 million (rUK population) bitter people ?
I  won’t be and I know many Northern Irish, English & Welsh people who won’t be either  

no-one said there will be 57mm bitter people. just that there will be 57mm people who expect their politicians to look after their needs, and politically there will be little tolerance for Westminster having been seen to be soft on Scotland and given too much away in the negotiated separation. Nothing to do with bitterness, just political and electoral imperative. Add to that the racing certainty that the Tories will get in if Scottish Labour arent around, and you get an even less sympathetic Westminster to negotiate with. just saying.

I did say that.

The reason I said they would be bitter is that if the rUK govt. give Scotland monetary union then they will be bitter.

Why?

Because it gives a foreign country free rein to do what they want, to have a party and have someone else to pick up the bill.

Why has the Euro not worked? They are all meant to keep to basic budget constraints but no one does... everyone breaks it because they know they can. Go bust and someone else picks up the bill. And therefore a lot of countries went bust... Ireland, Greece etc etc.

Scotland goes bust, rUK picks up the bill pushing themselves into recession because someone else spent too much money which they didn't have.

Would you be bitter?

[LordDowlais]

I understand why the Scots are so worked up over this, it's obviously massive.  I really don't understand why some of us from rUK are so wound up over it. Although the union breaking up will obvious effect me, it's nothing to do with me. I don't expect Scotland to stay in perpetual union just because they've been there for a few hundred years.

Why is it ok for the Falklands to have a vote on staying a British protectorate or independent or whatever it was, but not ok for Scotland? Is that because they voted to stay with the UK rather than Argentina?

Democracy is great, as long as you vote for my guy.

PS I always got the impression that SecretFly was about 100 but never grew up, kind of like Peter Pan.

Hammerofthunor you ask why some of us are worked up about it.

Scotland have been part of Britain for over 300 years. They have been one of our closest allies, fighting side by side with us in numerous conflicts. Scottish soldiers have proudly contributed to the history of Britain. I really want Scotland to stay part of the Union. I feel that we are stronger together. We have our differences but we can fight that out on the rugby pitch. It upsets me that many Scottish seem to not appreciate the proud history we have shared together as allies (only focussing on Bannockburn and William Wallace instead).

Scotland are having their vote - I just want them to vote a certain way.

If they vote Yes then they are turning their back on the rest of the UK and should be treated accordingly.

And this is the point the YES voters fail to understand, Scotland are all of us, they feck up, we all muck in, Wales feck up, we all muck in, and so it goes, if they want to go then fine, but they go, and that means everything, they cannot cherry pick what they would like to take with them, and the people of Scotland deserve to be told this, and the YES campaigners are not telling them how it is going to be.

I seem to recall the US mucks in as well, but it achieved independence from the UK, just not at the ballot box?  Would you prefer that we resort to armed rebellion?  Would that get your respect?!

This is not about getting respect, it is about half the Scottish population wanting their cake and to eat it, If Scotland vote YES then fair play to them, I wish you all the best in your endeavours, I hope you flourish and thrive, but when you go, you go, you cannot expect to cherry pick what you would like to take with you, it's a big bad world out there and when your on your own that is it, you have to fight for yourself, sadly, I feel one way or the other, that Scotland will be divided and bitter, the polls are to close together and Scotland will be split in two, what ever the outcome.

[quinsforever]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

[SecretFly]

(Scots MPs get to vote in Holyrood, and Wesminster on many issues that only affect England).

That's UK rules.  It seems though, that despite all the talk of wanting that UK to remain the same, even many English people growl at, and have growled at in the past, the idea of Scots (fellow Brits) having a say in Brittopics happening at about Manchester level and below.

So it seems the Scot interference in English affairs might have been a better routine dished out by the NO camp.  Afterall, that would make the bad separatists actually feel like voting No just to annoy their English brothers.  

It's weird but it might actually have worked better.  
"We dinneah want yis Scots in the first place, yis meddling shytes!"  
"Oh it that it, like?  Yis dinneah want us??  Okay, we'll stay with ye, so "

[Sin é]

SecretFly, as I have been reading through this thread, one thing has struck me, the Irish seem to be all for Scotland to go independant, is this because you would like to see the UK being split out of some personal Irish agenda ?

Also you can go on about negotiations all you like, what is there to nagotiate ? Westminster have said there will be no sterling for Scotland, end of story, did you watch David Cameron yesterday ? He told Scotland everything they would be losing, this is NO bluff, Scotland will be ON THEIR OWN, and that is even their own currency.

Well that... in short......can't be so certain as Cameron himself doesn't even know what the remainder of the UK will look like; as an Independent Scotland would change the dynamic for all - the UK too.  

They'd have to rethink much - both in terms of the new politics of the UK with a sizeable territorial chunk missing, in security issues that will become complex with a new Nation controlling passage northwards beyond the North sea, with the need for UK businesses and peoples to continue working in and doing highly profitable business with Scotland.

You can't avoid any of those truths that not only will it be in the UKs best interests to continue in a friendly cooperative vein with a newly Independent Scotland but also in the solid Fact that Cameron himself isn't clear about the future direction of the UK if Scots say Yes.
That, I repeat Lord, will be decided in negotiations between a sovereign UK and a sovereign Scotland. They would both need to discuss and work out the relationship between them in the aftermath of a YES vote.  Cameron, no different to Salmond himself, knows little of what will transpire from those negotiations and deep governmental meetings.  

Yes, I'm Irish - and therefore I think we know more about the art of "Never, Never, Never, Never!!!" than most.  We realise bluster, we know all about propaganda, and we know when pragmatism wins the day.  We know that "Never!!!" can quickly change to "Maybe" then out of the blue we have the "Chuckle Brothers" of two bitter enemies laughing together in unity of purpose. We know that "Never!!!" is seldom worth the paper it is written on.

And finally....... "the Irish seem to be all for Scotland to go independant, is this because you would like to see the UK being split out of some personal Irish agenda ? "

You found me out!!!  My secret plan to take over the World by force..................... with the first stage in my genius evil plan jigsaw being the traumatic breakup of Ireland's biggest trading partner..... yep, that was the plan.  Cameron's pledge may have scuppered my Evil Laugh Speech I was going to make when Scotland said YES! Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Just because your Irish it does not mean you know everything about the trials and tribulations about going independent, and unless you are 100yrs old you would not have witnessed it in your country either, you really need to take the emotion out of this before you post a reply, there are so many flaws in the YES campaign that are going unanswered I could not fathom it, you are answering exactly like the YES campaign, moving answers onto questions I have not even approached, I am talking about facts, and I will repeat again, did people watch David Cameron's last speech yesterday before the vote ? The fact of the matter is Westminster has said that Scotland will NOT be getting the pound, this is a fact, now weather it is a bluff or not is something else, BUT, what are Scotland going to do now ? They will have NO currency, what are they going to do ? This is the question the Scottish public need answering, they are being sold down a river by Alex Salmon, let's not forget, he has always wanted independency, he wanted it when Tony Blair and the LABOUR government that most of Scotland voted for was in power, he wanted it when the same government and Gordon Brown, a fellow Scotsman was in charge, what was his excuses for it then, now he wants it because he say's a government that Scotland did not vote for are running things, he is a man with his own ends and he has managed to convince half the population of Scotland that he is the vision, he has not got a scooby what is going to happen if the YES vote goes through, he is not answering the questions being asked, and he has people like you convinced.

Salmond has always had a vision of an independent Scotland and somehow thats a negative in your book? Whats that proverb about 'People who have no vision, perish' or something like that.

Seems like that is what has happened to Labour in Scotland. They have no vision for Scotland.

[PenfroPete]

 Salmond has always had a vision of an independent Scotland and somehow thats a negative in your book? Whats that proverb about 'People who have no vision, perish' or something like that.

Seems like that is what has happened to Labour in Scotland. They have no vision for Scotland.

"They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish"

[fa0019]

Good article by Peter Jones.  

http://www.scotsman.com/news/peter-jones-blind-nationalism-doesn-t-add-up-1-3542672

not exactly me to a T but his assertions are akin to my own beliefs. Of course I would post a no article but remember this is a guy who Salmond has said is well respected only just recently.

[Sin é]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

[LordDowlais]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

It is sorted, Westminster have said that Scotland will not get the Sterling, why are people still going on about this ? Scotland's YES campaigners need to tell their public what they have planned, the people of Scotland deserve better than what the YES campaigners are giving them, there are holes, big massive holes, and if the YES voters are calling Westminster's bluff, they better have a very good card up their sleeve.

[quinsforever]

(Scots MPs get to vote in Holyrood, and Wesminster on many issues that only affect England).

That's UK rules.  It seems though, that despite all the talk of wanting that UK to remain the same, even many English people growl at, and have growled at in the past, the idea of Scots (fellow Brits) having a say in Brittopics happening at about Manchester level and below.

So it seems the Scot interference in English affairs might have been a better routine dished out by the NO camp.  Afterall, that would make the bad separatists actually feel like voting No just to annoy their English brothers.  

It's weird but it might actually have worked better.  
"We dinneah want yis Scots in the first place, yis meddling shytes!"  
"Oh it that it, like?  Yis dinneah want us??  Okay, we'll stay with ye, so "

nobody minds Scots voting on Brittopics as you call them. What sticks in the craw is Scots MPs (who fund and control their own university spending entirely separate from Westminster) blackmailing parties in Westminster when the issue of university funding comes up in relation to English and Welsh Universities. It is as you say a result of the devolved powers given to Scotland causing a halfway house on certain issues. However, i am pretty certain this is going to get fixed under the "increased powers" that are being talked about. Increased powers over Scots issues, and reduced powers over issues which do not affect Scotland.

[beshocked]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

I agree it will have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. You think we are going to be happy about that? Of course not! As for negotiation - there should not be a negotiation - it should be take it or leave it.

rUK should not be bullied and cajoled by an independent Scotland.

You want to default on your debt - fine but take into account that there will be consequences for that.

[PenfroPete]

LORD - it is not sorted, the negoitations have not begun. The issue is the UK Govt hasn't said what it's standpoint on any of these negotiations is because, with justification, they are worried that it would give out the message that they are already preparing for the handover

People do release that 26 March 2016 is the date for independence if there is a YES vote don't they ? It's not 19th September 2014

[fa0019]

 Salmond has always had a vision of an independent Scotland and somehow thats a negative in your book? Whats that proverb about 'People who have no vision, perish' or something like that.

Seems like that is what has happened to Labour in Scotland. They have no vision for Scotland.

"They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish"

Sine

Salmonds vision for Scotland is whatever the cost, whatever it takes.

He wants independence. He doesn't care if its for richer for poorer. That's been his mandate for his entire career since the 70s. That is why he cannot be trusted, not just because his arguments have been panned by nearly every neutral academic, politician, economist the lot.

He sees independence as paramount whether it means a rise in poverty, a rise in child mortality, illiteracy or not.

His came before the oil boom when Scotland was cap in hand for maintenance etc to rUK. neither he nor Sturgeon have children. They don't know what it takes to raise a child, to take responsibility for others... its ok if its someone else's kid right.

Say Scotland sees a rise in infant mortality. Is it worth independence if the number of children who die increases due to independence. You can say oh, Scotland will improve care over rUK... but that's not what I'm asking... is independence worth a rise in infant mortality. Now if Scotland cannot maintain health funding how can they maintain and improve health indicators?

In essence, people will die where they may have lived. I'd like to see the reaction of any parent after losing a child after learning they may have survived  but for the cuts to health... yet its worth their sacrifice for their so called freedom.

This is not scaremongering.... its real life. We have the NHS saying that Scotland will have a funding gap of £400MM over the next 2 years, how an independent study has stated that funding in Scotland for the NHS has gone down over the last year compared to rUK where it has risen. Things like this matter, they matter to every child in Scotland.

You see, Scottish labour have ran Scotland for years. They know the score. They know whats going on. They know what will happen to their people.... and them, Murphy, Galloway, Reid, Douglas, Darling, Brown (lots of your kin in there) ... they all know its their people, their heartland people who will suffer the most. Had it not been I don't doubt for a second that Scottish labour would be up for independence or at least less in defiance to its proposal.

The SNP has never spoken for the poor, the destitute. They have replaced the gap left by the tories as their image in Scotland was destroyed during the Thatcher years.

[quinsforever]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

you know what this reminds me of? The Heineken Cup debate...certain commentators were so convinced that the PRL and RFU were going to get isolated because they had been told by the ERC that the English Clubs would come back. And then their bluff was called. And the ERC no longer exists.

that sounds an awful lot like the Sterling issue to me.

and just to put this one to bed - Scotland cannot walk away from its share of debt. Scotland will not get its independence until it is signed off by Westminster. In the event of an inability to agree on splitting the debt, it will be imposed either by a Court or an Adjudicator/Arbitrator. Salmond claiming Scotland can walk away from debt is utter nonsense. If Scotland attempts to walk away from debt there will be independence. Period.

[LordDowlais]

LORD - it is not sorted, the negoitations have not begun. The issue is the UK Govt hasn't said what it's standpoint on any of these negotiations is because, with justification, they are worried that it would give out the message that they are already preparing for the handover

People do release that 26 March 2016 is the date for independence if there is a YES vote don't they ? It's not 19th September 2014

What negotiations ? There are NO negotiations, Westminster have said that Scotland WILL NOT GET the sterling, weather this is a bluff or not I do not know, but they have not said they will negotiate with the new iScotland, that is what the YES campaigners are saying, the truth is the YES party has no idea what they are going to do going forward and the Scottish public should be told this.

[SecretFly]

I always have a major issue with the word 'Nationalism' and its usual usage by many people across the world in a largely negative sense.

To be 'Nationalist' is to be insular, aggressive, beligerent, unreasonable, untrustworthy, contemptible, destructive, warlike with a Large Inferiority complex and with a strong leaning towards 'terrorism'.

Nationalism was America looking to leave the British Empire.
Nationalism was the reasons behind the Falkland's war...on both sides.
Nationalism is what causes Gibraltarians to cling to their British ties rather than offer themselves to Spain
Nationalism is Ukrainians fighting for the dignity of Nationhood against what they perceive to be Russian Empirical Aggression.  
Obversely, Nationalism is also the true feelings of oneness and collective fear of their Western Ukrainian neighbours that possesses the genuine Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine people, who have had genuine and certifiable threats and insults thrown at them as a distinct peoples.  Their concerns are genuine and they feel Nationalistic to protect themselves from the neighbours many of them genuinely don't trust.
Nationalism is also Palestinians wanting their own state rather than to eternally play poor neighbours and controlled underdogs to their Israeli Overlords.
Nationalism is the EU and NATOs threat to Russia to back off their doorstep.  Some will say the EU is not a Nation.  Well, in geo-political terms it is and it's out to protect its own - both in peoples and territory and resources.  
That's Nationalism - identifying yourself as unique and distinct and having the readiness to fight for it and protect it.
Nationalism is also - and many in the UK will disagree - the UK itself.  Many in the UK think of themselves in terms of being British rather than being Welsh or Northern Irish.  The Northern Irishness and Welshness is for them just a regional identity but their true National identity they'd consider to be British.  That's a National identity; and espousing it and declaring it before the world is Nationalism.

Nationalism is not blind and it's not a dirty topic or a depraved ideal - it's what each and everyone of us has as central to our sense of belonging and sense of identity.
Nationalism

[fa0019]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

Not jumping on your back Sine honest

But what you are saying is not true.

No business will leave the rUK for Scotland regardless of the 3% CT pledge. You see why would a firm go to Scotland for a 3% cut when it could go to Ireland for a 8% cut?

What is the difference between holding your business in Scotland compared to Ireland?

Same language, same distance to London, same education rates but 8% is a lot better than 3%. The reality is, those who would go have already gone to Ireland... and at least they are protected by the Euro.

Scotland on the other hand are protected by no one.

And 40% of Scottish trade is dependent on rUK. The other way around its minimal. rUK could easily place trade tariffs on an independent Scotland if they default on debt etc. rUK could bankrupt Scotland if they try and play hardball, they could do so with ease.[/quote]

[SecretFly]

Increased powers over Scots issues, and reduced powers over issues which do not affect Scotland.

Some would say that's a nice definition of Independence.

[quinsforever]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

[Sin é]

if Scotland gets monetary union i will eat my house. There is no way that the rUK, which recently gave 38% of its votes (of those who voted) to UKIP in the European election, will be able to convince its citizens that it is a good idea to get into a monetary union with another sovereign state, when both big political parties are committed to holding a referendum on EU membership! that just wont fly.

even for half the oil, i still would not want a monetary union with another sovereign state. as you say fa, it creates massive moral hazard. Ireland 2.0.

UKIP may have no option as they will need to stabilise the sterling. You think all the negatives will be for the Scottish economy? It will also have a major negative effect on the rUK economy. The sooner the currency situation is sorted, the better for both countries.

And a major negotiating point would be how much debt iScotland took on from rUK.

You think that business is going to flow out of Scotland to London? There could also be an inflow of business into Scotland because they can now manage their own corporation tax.

you know what this reminds me of? The Heineken Cup debate...certain commentators were so convinced that the PRL and RFU were going to get isolated because they had been told by the ERC that the English Clubs would come back. And then their bluff was called. And the ERC no longer exists.

that sounds an awful lot like the Sterling issue to me.

and just to put this one to bed - Scotland cannot walk away from its share of debt. Scotland will not get its independence until it is signed off by Westminster. In the event of an inability to agree on splitting the debt, it will be imposed either by a Court or an Adjudicator/Arbitrator. Salmond claiming Scotland can walk away from debt is utter nonsense. If Scotland attempts to walk away from debt there will be independence. Period.

It is rather like the Heineken Cup debate - except in this case the PRL/LNR (iScotland) are making a complete hash of the new competition. They were not prepared to take over the running of the competition and have had to resort to the ERC who are still running the competition while some geriatric frenchman who is meant to be in charge is rattling around on his own in ERPC Towers in the backend of Switzerland.

However, the Unions (rUK) will probably get behind the new cup and it will be all fine in about 5 years time after a lot of financial pain for the PRL/LNR.

PS - why cannot Scotland walk away from any debt - rUK will need to sit down and negotiate what it is - its not like the rUK can just move all the roads, railways, Balmoral down to Sussex!

[quinsforever]

on Corporation Tax

France, Germany and the big countries in the Euro HATE Irelands low corporation tax. Hence why they almost failed to bail out Ireland recently as it was demanded that they bring CT up to a European level.

There is no chance that Scotland will gain access to the EU if it is attempting to replicate the Celtic Tiger model of Ireland with 12% corporate tax. Zero chance. Scotland needs unanimous approval to get into the EU, and unanimous approval to get into NATO.

[fa0019]

I always have a major issue with the word 'Nationalism' and its usual usage by many people across the world in a largely negative sense.

To be 'Nationalist' is to be insular, aggressive, beligerent, unreasonable, untrustworthy, contemptible, destructive, warlike with a Large Inferiority complex and with a strong leaning towards 'terrorism'.

Nationalism was America looking to leave the British Empire.
Nationalism was the reasons behind the Falkland's war...on both sides.
Nationalism is what causes Gibraltarians to cling to their British ties rather than offer themselves to Spain
Nationalism is Ukrainians fighting for the dignity of Nationhood against what they perceive to be Russian Empirical Aggression.  
Obversely, Nationalism is also the true feelings of oneness and collective fear of their Western Ukrainian neighbours that possesses the genuine Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine people, who have had genuine and certifiable threats and insults thrown at them as a distinct peoples.  Their concerns are genuine and they feel Nationalistic to protect themselves from the neighbours many of them genuinely don't trust.
Nationalism is also Palestinians wanting their own state rather than to eternally play poor neighbours and controlled underdogs to their Israeli Overlords.
Nationalism is the EU and NATOs threat to Russia to back off their doorstep.  Some will say the EU is not a Nation.  Well, in geo-political terms it is and it's out to protect its own - both in peoples and territory and resources.  
That's Nationalism - identifying yourself as unique and distinct and having the readiness to fight for it and protect it.
Nationalism is also - and many in the UK will disagree - the UK itself.  Many in the UK think of themselves in terms of being British rather than being Welsh or Northern Irish.  The Northern Irishness and Welshness is for them just a regional identity but their true National identity they'd consider to be British.  That's a National identity; and espousing it and declaring it before the world is Nationalism.

Nationalism is not blind and it's not a dirty topic or a depraved ideal - it's what each and everyone of us has as central to our sense of belonging and sense of identity.
Nationalism

I don't think you can say it was nationalism for the 13 colonies to leave the british empire. They were 85% brits at the time. They wanted representation not taxation.  George Washington was a loyal brit who tried to join the British Army. They were so anti the UK that the first flag of the USA had a union jack on it. They were Brits who were unhappy with being squeezed by forced UK trade, taxation and no right of say for the own affairs. That is why they broke away, not because a inherent sense of individual nationalism outside that of the empire.

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

[SecretFly]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves. So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote. That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations. That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island. It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

[LordDowlais]

All that secretfly keeps on about is national identity and pride and the what not, he needs to take his emotion out of the debate for a few minutes and realise that whilst it is all nice and rosy inside to have a feeling of national identity, that feeling will not feed your family, and pay your bills.

[beshocked]

I always have a major issue with the word 'Nationalism' and its usual usage by many people across the world in a largely negative sense.

To be 'Nationalist' is to be insular, aggressive, beligerent, unreasonable, untrustworthy, contemptible, destructive, warlike with a Large Inferiority complex and with a strong leaning towards 'terrorism'.

Nationalism was America looking to leave the British Empire.
Nationalism was the reasons behind the Falkland's war...on both sides.
Nationalism is what causes Gibraltarians to cling to their British ties rather than offer themselves to Spain
Nationalism is Ukrainians fighting for the dignity of Nationhood against what they perceive to be Russian Empirical Aggression.  
Obversely, Nationalism is also the true feelings of oneness and collective fear of their Western Ukrainian neighbours that possesses the genuine Russian Speaking Eastern Ukraine people, who have had genuine and certifiable threats and insults thrown at them as a distinct peoples.  Their concerns are genuine and they feel Nationalistic to protect themselves from the neighbours many of them genuinely don't trust.
Nationalism is also Palestinians wanting their own state rather than to eternally play poor neighbours and controlled underdogs to their Israeli Overlords.
Nationalism is the EU and NATOs threat to Russia to back off their doorstep.  Some will say the EU is not a Nation.  Well, in geo-political terms it is and it's out to protect its own - both in peoples and territory and resources.  
That's Nationalism - identifying yourself as unique and distinct and having the readiness to fight for it and protect it.
Nationalism is also - and many in the UK will disagree - the UK itself.  Many in the UK think of themselves in terms of being British rather than being Welsh or Northern Irish.  The Northern Irishness and Welshness is for them just a regional identity but their true National identity they'd consider to be British.  That's a National identity; and espousing it and declaring it before the world is Nationalism.

Nationalism is not blind and it's not a dirty topic or a depraved ideal - it's what each and everyone of us has as central to our sense of belonging and sense of identity.
Nationalism

War and nationalism generally go hand in hand. That's not healthy. Nationalism stokes divisions. I would say that it is destructive.

Instead of preaching and focussing on what unites you, you focus upon what divides you.

The problems all around the world are to do with divisions and a lack of trust whether it be religious,culturally,politically etc.

We are at war with terrorists and extreme Muslims because we believe that their way of life is wrong.

I feel that in this uncertain and unstable world - the UK must stand together.

You might hate Westminster but they are democratic plus the politicians can be changed.

[quinsforever]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves.  So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.  
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote.  That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations.  That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island.  It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

what, you mean like breaking up a 300 year old Union in an opportunistic grab for oil after you have shafted rUK with two massive bankrupt banks, 2 Prime Minister and 2 Chancellors in the last 10 years and blaming everything on a Tory-Westminster-elite?

you're right. i reckon that is likely to lead to some ill feeling.

most of the 57mm rUK'ers will not be affected by negotiating robustly with Scotland. in bargaining theory, he who has the most to lose always gets the worst outcome.

just like the Heineken Cup's future was determined by those who could afford to do without it. And those who couldnt do without it had their bluff called.

[fa0019]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves.  So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.  
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote.  That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations.  That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island.  It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

Scotland needs rUK more than rUK needs Scotland.

Scotland places 40% of trade directly to the rUK. The other way around its tiny. Take electricity provision for instance. Say Scotland wants to be a renewables power like the often speak of.... who is going to take the electricity? No point generating it if you have no market.

Nordic - nope, they have far cheaper electricity than Scotland can even dream of producing.
England - perhaps but energy independence is quite a strong opinion by most brits.
Continenetal Europe - not a chance, far cheaper and no way to get electricity to the continent without England anyhow.

The answer if there is a trade war then Scotland would be on life support, rUK would barely catch a cold.

WE NEED THEM MORE THAN THEY NEED US. WE HAVE FEW REAL CHIPS COME NEGOTIATION.

[Sin é]

on Corporation Tax

France, Germany and the big countries in the Euro HATE Irelands low corporation tax. Hence why they almost failed to bail out Ireland recently as it was demanded that they bring CT up to a European level.

There is no chance that Scotland will gain access to the EU if it is attempting to replicate the Celtic Tiger model of Ireland with 12% corporate tax. Zero chance. Scotland needs unanimous approval to get into the EU, and unanimous approval to get into NATO.

The EU can hate it all they like, but the fact is there is no tax harmonisation in the EU. For instance, UK has a corporate tax rate of 23% which is less than Belgium's Corporate tax rate of 34%.

There are a couple of countries in the EU who have corporate tax rates of 15% which is hardly miles away from Ireland 12.5% - I doubt if these countries will go for tax harmonisation in the EU.

Why does Scotland want to be in Nato? If I was them I'd get rid of all those nuclear subs travelling up and down the west coast of Scotland and start looking for oil there.

[quinsforever]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves.  So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.  
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote.  That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations.  That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island.  It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

what, you mean like breaking up a 300 year old Union in an opportunistic grab for oil after you have shafted rUK with two massive bankrupt banks, 2 Prime Minister and 2 Chancellors in the last 10 years and blaming everything on a Tory-Westminster-elite?

you're right. i reckon that is likely to lead to some ill feeling.

most of the 57mm rUK'ers will not be affected by negotiating robustly with Scotland. in bargaining theory, he who has the most to lose always gets the worst outcome.

just like the Heineken Cup's future was determined by those who could afford to do without it. And those who couldnt do without it had their bluff called.

and anyway, about 50% of Scots hate England with a passion that could never ever be matched in the other direction

[quinsforever]

on Corporation Tax

France, Germany and the big countries in the Euro HATE Irelands low corporation tax. Hence why they almost failed to bail out Ireland recently as it was demanded that they bring CT up to a European level.

There is no chance that Scotland will gain access to the EU if it is attempting to replicate the Celtic Tiger model of Ireland with 12% corporate tax. Zero chance. Scotland needs unanimous approval to get into the EU, and unanimous approval to get into NATO.

The EU can hate it all they like, but the fact is there is no tax harmonisation in the EU. For instance, UK has a corporate tax rate of 23% which is less than Belgium's Corporate tax rate of 34%.

There are a couple of countries in the EU who have corporate tax rates of 15% which is hardly miles away from Ireland 12.5% - I doubt if these countries will go for tax harmonisation in the EU.

Why does Scotland want to be in Nato? If I was them I'd get rid of all those nuclear subs travelling up and down the west coast of Scotland and start looking for oil there.

dunno. but they obviously do. it's their current position

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29047833

[fa0019]

on Corporation Tax

France, Germany and the big countries in the Euro HATE Irelands low corporation tax. Hence why they almost failed to bail out Ireland recently as it was demanded that they bring CT up to a European level.

There is no chance that Scotland will gain access to the EU if it is attempting to replicate the Celtic Tiger model of Ireland with 12% corporate tax. Zero chance. Scotland needs unanimous approval to get into the EU, and unanimous approval to get into NATO.

The EU can hate it all they like, but the fact is there is no tax harmonisation in the EU. For instance, UK has a corporate tax rate of 23% which is less than Belgium's Corporate tax rate of 34%.

There are a couple of countries in the EU who have corporate tax rates of 15% which is hardly miles away from Ireland 12.5% - I doubt if these countries will go for tax harmonisation in the EU.

Why does Scotland want to be in Nato? If I was them I'd get rid of all those nuclear subs travelling up and down the west coast of Scotland and start looking for oil there.

Oil discovered in the North seas predated trident and the Clyde used as nuclear base.

Had it been there in vast sums, it would have been utilised. There is no nirvana off the coast of Skye. The UK govt. would hardly put off a 1trn bonanza for the sake a military base in the Clyde. They would have put in in Plymouth or wherever

If there are deposits there it isn't being looked at because its too difficult to extract i.e. it costs more to get out what you get paid for.

[Sin é]

[quote="fa0019"]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves.  So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.  
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote.  That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations.  That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island.  It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

Scotland needs rUK more than rUK needs Scotland.

Scotland places 40% of trade directly to the rUK. The other way around its tiny. Take electricity provision for instance. Say Scotland wants to be a renewables power like the often speak of.... who is going to take the electricity? No point generating it if you have no market.

Nordic - nope, they have far cheaper electricity than Scotland can even dream of producing.
England - perhaps but energy independence is quite a strong opinion by most brits.
Continenetal Europe - not a chance, far cheaper and no way to get electricity to the continent without England anyhow.

The answer if there is a trade war then Scotland would be on life support, rUK would barely catch a cold.

WE NEED THEM MORE THAN THEY NEED US. WE HAVE FEW REAL CHIPS COME NEGOTIATION.[/quote

That works, but tell me where is England going to get its power supply from? Build a few more nuclear plants (how long those that take?), or import more oil from the Middle East?

Another point - are the rUK going to abandon all their citizens in Scotland? It will probably be a close vote. The rUK is not self sufficient in food by the way. I'd imagine Scotland is.

[quinsforever]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

[Sin é]

on Corporation Tax

France, Germany and the big countries in the Euro HATE Irelands low corporation tax. Hence why they almost failed to bail out Ireland recently as it was demanded that they bring CT up to a European level.

There is no chance that Scotland will gain access to the EU if it is attempting to replicate the Celtic Tiger model of Ireland with 12% corporate tax. Zero chance. Scotland needs unanimous approval to get into the EU, and unanimous approval to get into NATO.

The EU can hate it all they like, but the fact is there is no tax harmonisation in the EU. For instance, UK has a corporate tax rate of 23% which is less than Belgium's Corporate tax rate of 34%.

There are a couple of countries in the EU who have corporate tax rates of 15% which is hardly miles away from Ireland 12.5% - I doubt if these countries will go for tax harmonisation in the EU.

Why does Scotland want to be in Nato? If I was them I'd get rid of all those nuclear subs travelling up and down the west coast of Scotland and start looking for oil there.

Oil discovered in the North seas predated trident and the Clyde used as nuclear base.

Had it been there in vast sums, it would have been utilised. There is no nirvana off the coast of Skye. The UK govt. would hardly put off a 1trn bonanza for the sake a military base in the Clyde. They would have put in in Plymouth or wherever

If there are deposits there it isn't being looked at because its too difficult to extract i.e. it costs more to get out what you get paid for.

Typical Westminister - they wouldn't put a nuclear base close to the heart of their empire. Let the Scots deal with any attacks on them.

I think Haseltine back in the 80s agreed that there would be no oil exporation on the west coast of scotland back in the 80s because of this.

Lucky he did that for the Scots now.

[beshocked]

sin e yes ungrateful Westminster! Largest single employment site in Scotland....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510636/Nuclear-weapons-should-move-to-US-if-Scotland-independent

Completely ignore the jobs in jeopardy...

[SecretFly]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything. Why should I expect anything? Nationalism is Nationalism. I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

[fa0019]

on splitting debt...

"There’s no legal rule that says the UK as a continuator state would be obliged to hold on to all of its public debt: the transfer of liabilities would be up for negotiation along with everything else.

This is the view set out in the Vienna Conventions on Succession of States, which the SNP has often referred to in the past.

The convention that relates to property and debt says: “When part of the territory of a state is transferred by that state to another state, the passing of the state debt of the predecessor state to the successor state is to be settled by agreement between them.

“In the absence of such an agreement, the state debt of the predecessor state shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion…”

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

In the absence of such an agreement.....................

There would be meetings and agreements in the eventuality of a YES vote - if only to tidy up the split for the UK's best interests themselves.  So there would definitely be meetings and agreements on the processes and timeframe of any split.  
Now if you still say that the UK would play extreme hard ball and leave as much muck and scars of the division with the Scots as possible, I can't image how such feelings of mutual contempt and seething hatred that would emerge and fester would ever be in the UKs OWN best interest.

I keep coming back to this.....the self interest of the UK itself in the event of a YES vote.  That self interest will kick in big time and it wouldn't and couldn't include a metaphorical thumping for Scotland in negotiations.  That would just lead to generations of real and dangerous bitterness between two States that share an island.  It would simply be counterproductive for the UK itself to have such a plan.

Scotland needs rUK more than rUK needs Scotland.

Scotland places 40% of trade directly to the rUK. The other way around its tiny. Take electricity provision for instance. Say Scotland wants to be a renewables power like the often speak of.... who is going to take the electricity? No point generating it if you have no market.

Nordic - nope, they have far cheaper electricity than Scotland can even dream of producing.
England - perhaps but energy independence is quite a strong opinion by most brits.
Continenetal Europe - not a chance, far cheaper and no way to get electricity to the continent without England anyhow.

The answer if there is a trade war then Scotland would be on life support, rUK would barely catch a cold.

WE NEED THEM MORE THAN THEY NEED US. WE HAVE FEW REAL CHIPS COME NEGOTIATION.[/quote

That works, but tell me where is England going to get its power supply from? Build a few more nuclear plants (how long those that take?), or import more oil from the Middle East?

Another point - are the rUK going to abandon all their citizens in Scotland? It will probably be a close vote. The rUK is not self sufficient in food by the way. I'd imagine Scotland is.

This is the thing though... I don't think rUK is looking to smash us. But they won't be expecting us to expect any better treatment than any other foreign nation be it France, Germany, Ireland, Niger, Jamaica, Botswana the lot.

We can't say, hey for good old times right?

rUK will want a breakup of the union's assets and liabilities and for Scotland to set up their own currency which I hope the rUK govt will help create.

Is Scotland going to bankrupt their food business so that rUK has 10% less beef to sell? Come on. In a trade war the smaller nation always loses. repeat always loses.

If rUK needs more food they will source it from wherever.... their are many sellers in the global market... their are few buyers.

[SecretFly]

scotland isnt even self-sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make whisky!

England isn't self sufficient in the ingredients it needs to make money

Plastic that is...which comes from oil. Oops! Sorry Salmond.... sensitive topic.

This boobie-for-tatting game could absolutley last a lifetime.

[beshocked]

Secretfly you keep banging on about nationalism.... That's what Putin is evoking now when he invaded Crimea and is causing havoc in Eastern Ukraine. It's what Hitler used too.

Nationalism is a dangerous and destructive force in general in my opinion. As I said before - nationalism and divisions generally go hand in hand.

[fa0019]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything.  Why should I expect anything?  Nationalism is Nationalism.  I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

There are some that would say that we came to the Falklands rescue because Maggie wanted to win an election... you could also say that her failure to protect her people would have meant electoral disaster. When your brother is hurt, you pick them up. Its a natural human reaction.

If you saw a woman being assaulted in the street would you not come to her aid? Of course you would. Maybe you know her, maybe you hate her... but would you let some chap slap her around... again, of course you wouldn't especially if she's family.

[Sin é]

sin e yes ungrateful Westminster! Largest single employment site in Scotland....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510636/Nuclear-weapons-should-move-to-US-if-Scotland-independent

Completely ignore the jobs in jeopardy...

And you think all of those people are locals?

I see it says it would cost 3 billion to relocate elsewhere in the rUK.

[SecretFly]

you mean like breaking up a 300 year old Union in an opportunistic grab for oil

Some would say the entire Middle East Prawblem from the very beginning was because of opportunistic grabs for oil from the then Empires of the World in places they didn't belong.

boobie for tat is an easy game in terms of humanity's long, long history record

[Sin é]

As for the Falklands... what do you expect, Britain reacted as any country would had one of their possessions, a collection of their people been invaded. Any country would have reacted the same.. the USA, France, Japan, China, Belgium the lot. Some may have not but not because they didn't want to, because they couldn't. The fact is whether or not Argentina (not even a country in 1830) had rights over the land or not, the people who had lived in the islands for more than 150 years did not want it from a democratic standpoint... their was no breaking up of the island to build their case like the Irish partition etc.

I don't expect anything.  Why should I expect anything?  Nationalism is Nationalism.  I'm simply saying there are those who want to use it as exclusively the preserve of 'separatists' and 'seditionists' and there are those who see Nationalism as a definition of Nationhood everywhere.

There are some that would say that we came to the Falklands rescue because Maggie wanted to win an election... you could also say that her failure to protect her people would have meant electoral disaster. When your brother is hurt, you pick them up. Its a natural human reaction.

If you saw a woman being assaulted in the street would you not come to her aid? Of course you would. Maybe you know her, maybe you hate her... but would you let some chap slap her around... again, of course you wouldn't especially if she's family.

Would you get away out of that - while Maggie's pr was about saving her people, the real British interest was the UK staking a claim to any natural resources there.  

We had a few tussles with Maggie & Co over a few rocks in the sea as well that had nothing got to do with 'saving her people'.

[Sponsored content]