BS: scottish independence

Subject: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:26 PM

do people think it is a good or bad thing

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 07:56 PM

We're beginning to hear a few stories about that over on this side of the pond. This morning the news discussed that deep water submarine base. The U.S. has bases all over the place and accords with nations to do so, so with that model in mind, is this a huge issue? Or do Scots in general want to get rid of it?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:10 PM

I saw some debate in the Scottish parliament recently. Some simply doubt that the economy is strong enough to go it alone. Some feel that independence is worth any temporary problems.
I just wish them well...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:46 PM

The referendum on 18 September.

Echo Bill D.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:18 AM

That submarine base employs a lot of people, who are feeling a bit insecure at the moment. Britain has said they won't leave their nukes in a foreign country.

Can it be said that the Scots feel as strongly about this as the Irish do/did?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:48 AM

Being English I am against it, if I was Scottish and lived there, I would probably be in favour.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:14 AM

The SNP (Scottish National Party) which is leading the campaign for independence, has stated categorically that an independent Scotland will not be willing to have nuclear weapons on its soil or in its waters, and that the UK nuclear submarines will not be allowed to be based at Faslane.

I would like the Scots to have whatever the majority wish for - if that's independence from the United Kingdom, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:31 AM

True, The UK would be better off without their drain on resources.

However, I keep trying to argue that it is folly to have a referendum when not a single set of "this is what it will look like" scenarios has been put forward for voters to consider.

The whole thing seems to be a combination of ugly nationalism and giving the present UK government a bloody nose.

Instead of saying where the money and trade will be coming from, the SNP just prattle on about promises they can't make regarding subjects not in their gift to promise.

If an independent Scotland can make a better Scotland without making a worse UK, brilliant.

But nobody has explained how that might work..

If I thought the majority of people living in Scotland believed promises from politicians when asking for their vote, I'd set up a shop in Edinburgh selling snake oil and long weights.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:52 AM

It'll be a disaster for England. The CON-servatives lose 1 MP, "New" Labour loses 40.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:07 AM

Being a Northerner I never think of Scotland as a different country. All the Scots I know live in England, and all my friends living in Scotland are English. If I want to feel culturally cosmopolitan in a truly European sense, I go to Edinburgh.

Between Scottish independence and UKIP, I'm beginning to feel like stranger in the land where I was born.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:17 AM

There were times, just a few decades ago, when national independence really meant national independence. These times are gone, at least for societies that do not want or have to live like North Koreans.

This means that from every change in world affairs, there will be a group of people to profit, and another group to lose, rarely identical to all citizens of particular countries, or to all members of an ethnic or religious group. Propagandists often try to persuade people that what is good for the nation is good for the citizens.

Selfish behaviour by "independent" governments is sometimes successful, but always threatened by sanctions. This includes Swiss bankers and Russian oligarchs. International cooperation, as close as possible, should be the best bet in the long run.

There are some areas of politics where regional autonomy is advantageous, for example, which folk songs should be sung in schools.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:32 AM

the leader of the no campaign is the nephew of the duke of westminster, the duke of westminster like the queen owns huge parts of scotland,.
here is some information about the highland clearances,
was this how the duke of w got his land
The Highland Clearances (Scottish Gaelic: Fuadach nan Gàidheal, the "expulsion of the Gael") was the forced displacement during the 18th and 19th centuries of a significant number of people from traditional land tenancies in the Scottish Highlands, where they had practised small-scale agriculture. It resulted from enclosures of common lands and a change from farming to sheep raising, an agricultural revolution largely carried out by hereditary aristocratic landowners. A Highland Clearance has been defined as "an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families living in a given area such as an entire glen".[1]

The clearances are particularly notorious as a result of the brutality of many evictions at short notice (year-by-year tenants had almost no protection under Scots law), and the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system, in which reciprocal obligations between the population and their leaders were well-recognized. The cumulative effect of the Clearances devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain; the effect of the Clearances was to destroy much of the Gaelic culture.[2]

The Clearances resulted in significant emigration of Highlanders to the sea coast, the Scottish Lowlands, and further afield to North America and Australasia. In the early 21st century, more descendants of Highlanders are found in these diaspora destinations than in Scotland.[3]

The Clearances were a complex series of events occurring over a period of more than a hundred years

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:03 AM

"The cumulative effect of the Clearances devastated the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain"

The Acts of Enclosure had a similar effect in England, where an entire people were dispossessed of the common wealth that was the land. This was at least responsible for the death of a culture as ancient and valuable as any other culture on our islands. As usual, toffs and businessmen were behind it.

C'mon Scotland. Shake off the Norman Yoke that has blighted our island for a millennia.

Diggers' Song

You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now,
You noble Diggers all, stand up now,
The waste land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name
Your digging do distain and your persons all defame
Stand up now, Diggers all.

Your houses they pull down, stand up now, stand up now,
Your houses they pull down, stand up now.
Your houses they pull down to fright poor men in town,
But the gentry must come down and the poor shall wear the crown.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now, stand up now,
With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now.
Your freedom to uphold, seeing Cavaliers are bold
To kill you if they could and rights from you withhold.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

Their self-will is their law, stand up now, stand up now,
Their self-will is their law, stand up now.
Since tyranny came in they count it now no sin
To make a gaol a gin and to serve poor men therein.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The gentry are all round, stand up now, stand up now,
The gentry are all round, stand up now.
The gentry are all round, on each side they are found,
Their wisdom's so profound to cheat us of the ground.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now, stand up now,
The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now,
To arrest you they advise, such fury they devise,
But the devil in them lies, and hath blinded both their eyes.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The clergy they come in, stand up now, stand up now,
The clergy they come in, stand up now.
The clergy they come in and say it is a sin
That we should now begin our freedom for to win.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst priests, stand up now, stand up now,
'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests, stand up now.
For tyrants are they both even flat against their oath,
To grant us they are loath free meat and drink and cloth.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The club is all their law, stand up now, stand up now,
The club is all their law, stand up now.
The club is all their law to keep poor folk in awe,
Buth they no vision saw to maintain such a law.
Glory now, Diggers all.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:16 AM

'islands'

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM

The real test would not be for the wish, but in the details of what would happen afterwards?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:43 AM

After 300 years Scotland retains its distinctive culture and its own legal system. Devolution has already given them a great deal of autonomy. It even has its own banknotes, and although they are not legal tender they are accepted as if they were. Nationalists complain about being ruled by distant London, but Scottish votes have a disproportionate effect on the balance of power in the Westminster parliament.

From an English perspective I'd say they were doing pretty well within the UK and would be mad to give it up. In reality an independent Scotland will still remain heavily dependent on the rest of the UK simply because we are their much bigger neighbour, but they will have far less influence.

It's hard to guess how it will turn out, with the polls being so close. The "Yes"s certainly appear to be running a more vigorous campaign. Scots have a reputation for canny hard-headedness, especially where money is concerned, but they are also quite romantic about their country. Will head rule the heart?

If the referendum goes Salmond's way on the 18th, I'm looking forward to seeing his face on the 19th when Shetland declares independence. The same arguments apply - they have their own culture, as much if not more Scandinavian than Scottish; they are as remote from Edinburgh as it is from London; and they have half the oil. That would put the cat among the pigeons!

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:02 AM

Does having a unique culture make a successful country alone?

I suspect economic matters are an important, if not a greater, consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:30 AM

I have a unique culture and would like to become my own country. My culture is positive, my language gibberish, my money...WHAT money? I don't got no money. A positive Wassermann is probably not unique enough.

Ah, well....

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:06 PM

It comes down to the term Democratic deficiency. It makes no difference how Scotland votes, the Westminster government will be decided by the English majority so independence will redress this. The rest of the UK will have the government it elects and everybody will be happy! And it should be emphasised that this is not ethnic nationalism but civic nationalism, independent of one's nationality, the voters will be those living in Scotland at the time of the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:21 PM

Indeed Jim, plus the scandal of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil. We are sick of being a dumping ground for nuclear weapons, the Scottish people are firmly against this and we will never make Scotland a "nuke free zone" until we are in a position to determine our own future.

Political representation and Nuclear disarmament, two very big positives promoted by the YES campaign.
The NO's have no vision for our country, just an eternity of more of the same....two lost generations of young people, an ever widening wealth gap....."Equality in the UK" don't make me laugh......

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM

Still nationalism, which is becoming irrelevant in these global times.

I could make the same argument for huge swathes of England, Wales and NI, who never voted for x party. What makes the Scottish counties so different?

You realise if he wins, King Alex I will be unbearable? Mind you, at least SNP mean well, understand compassion and equality and all that. I was rather bemused however to see Akenaton had joined a party that stands for everything he hates.

A broad church indeed. I hope for Scotland that should he win, his party knows how to lose support because their "promise the lot" attitude has a shelf life.

The rest of The UK getting the government it elects? The UK as it stands always has done, coalitions apart. You must read up on parliamentary democracy Jim before embarrassing yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:37 PM

The Union of Crowns came about in 1603 (don't confuse with the Act of Union) because the Scotish monarchy inherited the English crown.

Its time the English threw off the Scottish yoke, sent the Windsors back to Holyrood and declared independence.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:40 PM

Just read an article about the NATO chinwag in Wales today. One subject on the agenda is the strategic position of Scotland and promises made by Salmond that they will wish to remain in NATO.

That's clever when you think about it. He can forget his promises to get rid of nuclear subs and say it is a stipulation of NATO membership, so out of his hands.

Like I said.. Politician promises eh?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM

Perhaps I should have put a smiley on that last post, knowing Mudcat some prat will miss the point and take it literally.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Jim McLean
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:58 PM

Musket can't have a proper debate without silly insults ... King Alex etcetera. I'm leaving this thread as Musket is not capable of conducting a sensible, non insulting conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: bubblyrat
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:24 PM

Why not an indedpendent Cornwall ? Isle of Man ? Isle of Wight ? Lundy ? Oxfordshire ? Where will it all end ? And ,PLEASE -stop banging on about the Highland Clearances, and "Flower of Scotland " and so on, ad nauseam ; we English have been invaded by Vikings, Romans,the French et al for centuries but we don't keep MOANING on about like the Scots do about us . In fact, I FORGIVE the Vikings , the Danes,the Normans,the Romans ; it is all HISTORY and we have MOVED ON !! Why the hell can't Scotland move on ? ? ? I hope they DO gain their independence ,to be honest !

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:04 PM

bubblyrat, I am English.
Why should that stop me pointing out the injustices the Scots have suffered.Scotland is attempting to move on, that is why they are having a referendum

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:57 PM

The people at 14 Ratskinner St, Catford have had injustices Dick, but nay bugger offers them independence?

Jim McClean has lost the argument and retires ungraciously. I doubt anybody will lose sleep.

If independence has so many answers and advantages Jim, why run away? Make me look a cunt instead.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:04 PM

You are a fool Ian, Mr Salmond is a very adept politician, driven by one very important goal, the achievement of Scottish Independence.
Without control of our own affairs we are a ship without a rudder, only after a YES victory and a general election will we see the true complexion of the new Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:42 PM

I think that the assumption that if Scotland goes for independence that means the Tories will have a political boost because there won't be the Labour votes from Scotland could be a radical misjudgement. If the Scots vote for independence I can see the English political system going into meltdown, and a new political settlement coming out of it - with the Tories not doing too well in it.

The psycholigical reality of the realisation that there no longer is a country which can be called "Britain" could be quite dramatic.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:51 PM

Only because Salmond has become a little too plump and cocky, helping to bring the Scottish Parliament down to the same level of puerility as Westminster, I have been leaning towards the No camp. But McGrath raises a tempting prospect. Could it possibly be that in the shake-up that would follow a Yes vote we might ditch the monarchy and the privileged status of the Church of England?

GSS: The referendum has got sod all to do with the Clearances. And what makes you think Alistair Darling and the Duke of Westminster (Gerald Grosvenor) are related?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:41 PM

Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke?

Subject: BS: Scottish independence, what if its a No?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:46 PM

If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 12:35 AM

Guest, I moved you over here because there's already a current discussion on Scottish independence. Multiple threads tend to split and confuse the discussion.

You pose a good question. It seems to me that there's room for Scotland to make a gradual move toward increasing independence, without fully separating from the United Kingdom. Self-determination has done a lot of good for Scotland already, but there are also many benefits to having an increasingly limited union with the United kingdom.

If the referendum passes, when will Scotland become an independent nation? I'm planning to make my second trip to Scotland next June, on Jim and Susie Malcolm's "SkOrkney" tour (Skye & Orkney). If independence passes, it will be interesting to see what's changed in six months.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 02:12 AM

Referendum 18th September 2014.

If the result is YES then Independence Day as currently planned will be 24th March 2016.

I hope and believe that the result will be NO - a YES for Scotland would be a disaster.

GSS you really should read a bit more on the "Clearances" and Stu should read a bit more on the "Enclosures". If both followed that advice GSS would discover that the "Clearances" started in the 17th not 18th century and that they started in the borders of Scotland. He would also discover that the idyll his cut'n'paste described was in fact very different from reality especially in the Highlands, where by the time he was referring to the clan were little more than the chattels of the clan chief and it was that self same clan chief who was kicking "his" people off what he saw as being "his" land. What land HM the Queen actually owns in Scotland was bought by Prince Albert during the reign of Queen Victoria. Stu on the other hand would learn that the land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy {Who saw it as a cheap means to acquire land of their own and increase THEIR wealth}.

To correct some of the misinformation coming from Akenaton:

The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident, the SNP and other groups who do not represent a majority by any stretch of the imagination do. The "people" of Scotland have never been asked about the presence of Trident, but those whose livelihoods depend upon Trident definitely want it to stay.

I was assured by Akenaton on this forum a few years ago that this referendum would definitely take place by 2010. If that was the case then I would have thought that between 2007 and the autumn of 2009 then the SNP would have all their ducks in a row and be fully capable of answering all questions leveled at them on the matter covering every aspect of what their independent Scotland would be like and how it would be financed by the people of Scotland - yet here we are within two weeks of the vote and they cannot tell us anything apart from - It will be alright on the night and oil will pay for everything - What a pity that their sums just simply do not add up.

By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}

The SNP during the campaign leading up to the vote on the 18th September has been caught out deliberately lying to the electorate and people of Scotland on numerous occasions. If such mark Alex Salmond out as "a very adept politician" Akenaton then I pity what will happen in your independent Scotland when the fools who have stupid enough to swallow his lies, incorrect assumptions and groundless assertions finally realise that independent Scotland in the real world cannot deliver what Jowly Eck and the SNP promised them.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 03:20 AM

"Does Shetland really plan a bid for independence or was that a joke?"

I don't think they actually plan to, but it's been mooted.

If Scotland can secede from the UK taking 'their' oil, why can't Orkney and Shetland do so, taking 'theirs'?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

"If its a No, will this still allow for other moves to be more independent? Does a once only forum mean that the issue can never be raised again?"

The alternative that was favoured in Scotland was DevoMax, basically making Scotland autonomous within the UK but still sharing things like currency, defence, some economic policies etc, basically the stuff it makes sense to share as we all live on the same island. However, Cameron would't have this on the referendum paper insisting instead on a straight Yes/No choice; usual tory absolutist bullshit.


"land grab made during the enclosures was made not by the aristocracy but by the rich tenant farmers of the aristocracy"

You're starting an argument for the sake of it Tezza, a minor point with the same result. Interestingly enough a local historian thinks a golf club local to us is probably squatting on common land to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:07 AM

That was a joke, but exactly the same arguments the Scottish nationalists are using to justify independence could be used by Shetland, and indeed some other regions.

Jim McLean complains about the Westminster parliament being dominated by English MPs. That may be true, but Scottish votes have on many occasions altered the balance of power - an article in today's Times points out that if Scotland had been independent the Tories would have held power uninterrupted between 1964 and 1997. The Midlothian Question is real. That doesn't take account of the number of Scots who have held high office. From an English perspective I could feel aggrieved that Scotland has a influence disproportionate to its size, but that is how democracy works.

I'm sure there are communities in Scotland which feel remote from decision-making in the Scottish parliament and feel it is dominated by Central Belt interests. That's inevitable in any political organisation, from the UN and EU down to parish councils.

If the Scots decide to go it alone I wish them well and hope it is a success. I have my doubts that it will be, but time will tell. And Scots may prize independence above other factors and regard that as a success regardless of the economic outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 04:57 AM

Stu, bit of thread drift, but I have just been re-reading "Change in the village" by George Bourne, which deals with the effect of the enclosures on the English people.

A riveting book with many lessons for the future.

Thanks for your input to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:29 AM

Complexion?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:33 AM

"The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it. That might not be the case in the immediate vicinity of Faslane, since there are worries it could cost them jobs and trade - though even that is by no means certain.

And the promise that a vote for independence means getting rid of Trident is a significant element in the YES campaign. It's seen as a definite vote winner.

As for Shetland and the Orkneys, I'd think it likely that a constitutional arrangement similat to that of the Faroes with Denmark would be likely in an independeny Scotland.

If I was a Scot I think I'd be very sceptical about all the talk about how a No vote would be followed by increased devolution. The same kind of stuff was promised when they had the first referendum in 1979, and it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 05:44 AM

First off, a declaration of my own position: I am Scottish, living in Scotland. I have a vote, and have a settled intention to vote Yes for independence.

It's a mistake to equate the support for independence to unqualified adherence to the Scottish National Party (SNP) or for Alex Salmond. I have had several conversations with "Yes" supporters who declare a dislike for Salmond, but they all know that Scottish Parliament elections will take place in 2016, and they can then vote according to their political preferences. This is often summed up as: "Voting No because you hate the SNP is like not buying your dream house because you don't like the wallpaper". Support for independence is increasingly cross-party, and across the political spectrum. The most recent figures suggest something like 30% of Scottish labour supporters intend to vote Yes, against the expressed position of the Scottish Labour Party.

Jim McLean wasn't complaining about the Westminster Parliament being dominated by English MPs. It's obvious that in any country, geographically, some areas or regions will have differing political persuasions from others. So national assemblies reflect that variety. However, Scots for the most part don't see themselves as belonging to a "region", but a separate nation, a distinct country-within-a-country. So the democratic deficit Jim mentions is not just normal regional swings-and-roundabouts, it's something that people see a chance to end.

The arguments against independence focus a lot on finance, the economy and security. The underlying theme is - there are so many reasons that this could be difficult, unpleasant, uncomfortable - why would we put ourselves through this? It's easy to conclude that Yes supporters foresee a socialist utopia that Brian McNeill warns against: "We'll all live on the oil/ and the whisky by and by/ Free heavy beer! Pie suppers in the sky!". But actually we don't believe that. It will be massively challenging, of course, but is anyone really telling us that we're too poor, too small, or too stupid to run our own country?

The hugely positive aspect of the referendum process has been the way that it has energised political conversation across the whole of the country, in a way that I can't recall. For the most part, away from the televised shouting matches that have been passed off as "debate" between our political representatives, the discourse has been respectful and civilised, and this has allowed undecided voters to be persuaded to a choice, has permitted supporters of "No" to change to "undecided" and then to "Yes" - and there have probably been some who have made the journey the other way.

Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on - continued austerity, privatisation and destruction of the NHS, demonisation of the disadvantaged and those on benefits, xenophobia, withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP, more Middle East adventurism, Cameron/Osborne, and the looming possibility of Boris Johnson as PM, a national Labour party which is virtually indistinguishable in policy from the Con/Dem coalition government.

A vote for "Yes"is a vote for hope and possibility, for my children and grandchildren. It is a vote for change, making our own choices, for a different future.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:00 AM

The facts remain the same Mr. Douglas for whoever wins any election in Scotland in 2016 - the problems and the sums still remain the same and they still simply do not add up.

By the 24th March 2016 newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Debt - Just watch what interest rates you will have to pay on the money Swinney says that independent Scotland will have to borrow to finance the start up and survive the first five years.

Should Scotland renege on shouldering their share of the National Dept - Then there will be no sharing of any assets, all UK Government owned land in Scotland will still remain the property of the UK. Should the Scots simply seize that land then watch any potential foreign investor back away from a regime that has clearly demonstrated that it does not respect the rights of ownership or take responsibility for its debts.

"Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on"

Fastest recovering economy in the western world?

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:11 AM

""The "people" of Scotland do not want to get rid of Trident" - actually the evidence from polls is that more of them would like to get rid of it than would wish to continue having it." - MGOH

NOT according to this poll from May 2013:

"More than half of people in Scotland want to see Trident replaced – a new poll has claimed.

The surprising research from Lord Ashcroft, which contradicts claims made by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament from earlier this year, showed that 51 per cent of Scots wanted the UK's nuclear deterrent replaced when it comes to the end of its useful life.

A total of 43 per cent of those 1,236 people polled thought nuclear weapons should continue to be based in Scotland with 39 per cent against it – although 68 per cent of people who said they were pro-Scottish independence said were against keeping UK nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: GUEST,DaveRo
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:13 AM

Good post by Scabby.

As an Englishman living in England I hope they vote No because I fear the effect on the Rump UK of the loss of a counterweight to London and the Tory south and the reduction in whatever influence we still have in Europe and the world.

But let the Scots decide - I don't expect my fears to sway them. If they vote for independence I hope there's a clear majority and I wish them well. I'm sure after the smoke has cleared the two contries will work out a compromise on the currency, the oil, the nuclear bases etc.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Stu
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:29 AM

Thanks for heads up on the book Ake, I'll track it down (my wife's a bookseller!).

Kicking trident out would be a real benefit of independence and I hope that if the vote is yes it might cause a rethink south of the border and increase opposition to hanging on to an expensive and essentially useless nuclear 'deterrent'.

I agree with McGrath regarding increased devolution after a no vote. I would seriously question the veracity of anything the main party leaders say; we've all learnt the hard way they do what they want in power even without a mandate and contrary to their manifestos.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:33 AM

NATO summit yesterday included the commitment to retaining a presence in Scotland.

Obama said that included a nuclear deterrent.

Interesting times. Salmond is setting out an SNP agenda in the promises he makes. He states quite clearly that independence means losing Fasslane yet Scotland could vote Yes on that basis but then vote in a Labour government that wishes to remain in NATO.

All this bollocks about the referendum not being party political is about as clever as saying you can force foreign countries to play to your tune.

Negotiate the pound? Sure. Kept the subs, share oil revenue and let us control defence and you can. (That's what negotiation means as a possible example.)

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 06:41 AM

Teribus says:
" newly independent Scotland will find itself:
- Out of the EU
- Out of NATO
- With a "borrowed" currency over which it has absolutely no control
- Facing a flight of capital that will be mind boggling as will be the loss of jobs
- Facing a potential loss of its best customer {The UK}
- With no access to UK Government contracts to build warships for the Royal Navy {Type 26 Frigate - vital work orders for the Clyde}"

OK, so one idea at a time:
Out of the EU: To state this as a fact is an outright lie. The UK government has not, and has said that it would not, seek the view of the EU on whether an independent Scotland would remain an EU member. Why haven't they? If they seriously thought the answer would be detrimental to independence, they would alomost certainly have asked, surely? The reality is that many significant, informed authorites have expressed their views that there are no sensible reasons for Scotland's over 5 million citizens, who are already EU members, to be required to leave and then have to wait for readmission.   The reality is that there is more danger to Scotland's membership of the EU from Westminster policy than from becoming independent.

Out of NATO: Seriously? Why on earth would the rUK want to share a landmass with a country that was not a member of the European defence club? Would it not be in the clear interests of rUK, and by extension NATO, to have Scotland as a member? Iceland has no army, 3 coastguard ships for a navy, Greenland has no military force of its own. Scaremongering.

Borrowed Currency: whatever currency arrangements are made, we're pretty sure we'll have a currency. (Yawn)

Flight capital: The bigger capital flight risk is from the preparations that some multinational banks are *already* making to withdraw from London to Ireland in the event of an EU withdrawal. If Scotland becomes independent, AND remains in the EU, maybe the capital will fly North and not to Ireland after all. Also, we're bored hearing these threats about flight of capital and loss of jobs - exactly the same threats were made before each of the referendum votes in 1979 and in 1997.

Best Customer Loss: Well, if England as a market takes a massive "huff", that may well be a concern, but I'm guessing that cross-border trade between England and Scotland will still be a better bet, and less expensive than cross-channel. We'll see.

NO Access to UK Government contracts for shipbuilding:
In 1972, there were around 34,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. Now there are around 6,000. How has the Union protected that industry? The current defence contracts are guaranteed. The independence White Paper proposes a "modest" fleet of 20 to 25 surface vessels to supply work to Clyde yards for a long time, and that's not even considering the benefit to the industry as a whole from diversifying into non-naval vessels.


Nothing is certain with independence, but many things are possible.

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Musket
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 07:39 AM

What is certain is that Salmond is offering a party manifesto and calling it reasons for independence.

Worse still for those duped by his duplicity, he keeps talking of negotiating with Westminster post referendum.

That and that alone makes not a single promise worth the lie that uttered it.

Scotland can use whatever currency it wishes. I live in The UK but have dollar and Euro accounts to reflect the source of my incomes. No problem. But what good is a government that has no control over its interest rates?

Scabby Douglas says it would remain in NATO. But Salmond says the subs will go, to which NATO reaffirmed yesterday that the subs stay.

Again. Why are so many people hanging on the words of an opportunist fool and risking a predicament that nobody, I repeat nobody has set out the advantages for yet?

He had the cheek to say he would have a mandate for negotiating sterling union. Yes, why don't we have a referendum in The UK to tell Germany what to do? Unless the people of The UK are asked via a referendum, no Westminster government can negotiate currency union. That was brought in regarding the Euro, but applies equally.

Don't get me wrong. If independence is better and UK citizens don't suffer without being asked, go for it. I haven't seen a case made yet though. All I see are unfunded promises by a political party, and what the flying fuck that has to do with nationhood is beyond me...

Subject: RE: BS: scottish independence
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 05 Sep 14 - 08:00 AM

Musket: There's two strands to my thought on the NATO position. The first is that NATO will do what NATO thinks makes sense for it. If we think that NATO will behave irrationally, then we should be very, very scared that the UK belongs to it. So if we assume that it won't behave irrationally, then what reason would it have for excluding Scotland?

Out of 28 states currently in NATO, only 3 have nuclear weapons. 5 other nations currently host nuclear weapons. But since geographically, stationing the rUK's nuclear arsenal in England would be as militarily effective (or ineffective), why should Scotland be told that it "must" host these weapons? Would any English constituency happily accept that burden?

The second thought is that of course NATO could choose to "exclude" Scotland, but in reality, how much of a threat is that? As I said above, anything that's a real military threat to Scotland would be as much of a danger for England and other North Atlantic neighbours, so how could England, and its NATO allies, ignore such a threat? Scotland would not be looking for a free defence solution. It's been stated that Scotland would look for membership of NATO, and contribute its share to the defence of the North Atlantic community of nations.

So what makes the most sense?