Scottish Independence thread

[Wildeybeast]

A month today Scotland votes on independence from the rest of the UK. I thought it deserves it's own thread given there seems to be some discussion of it. Also, despite it having a massive impact on all the UK, only the Scottish are allowed to vote, so this is your chance to have your say. Have at it!

[Mr Mystery]

Big ol' 'MEH' from me.

Doesn't affect me, though I will become a Johnny Foreigner by default, which is amusing, as it just gives Das Daily Mail one more reason to dislike me :p

On balance? Don't think it's going to happen. Never mind 'better together', it's 'better the devil you know'. Scotland knows precisely how bobbins it is to be run from Westminster, and there's a lot to be said for that certainty. Things could be better with independence, they could be worse.

Just don't think we're going to find out.

Though if I could vote, I'd vote 'No' for the same reason when I'm up in Scotland next week I'll be using the new tram to get from Edinburgh Airport to the City Centre - It would annoy my brother no end, and that's always good for a laugh!

Of course, you take all the opinion polls you want - the only thing that matters on the day is who gets the most number of voters actually mobilised and in the polling stations. To be honest? Yes vote has the leg up here, as their followers tend to have a bit more conviction about what they want and why they want it. So really is up in the air!

[Psychosplodge]

See I'm largely meh as I don't really see it affecting me one way or another, but on the other hand, allowing 16/17 year olds to vote?
shouting down anyone that disagrees with the yes?
Just watching Salmond fade back into obscurity?
I'd back a No for all of those, because wanting to see a yes to see him fall on his face is a bit of a dick move to the other five million people there.

[Mr Mystery]

Salmond won't go into obscurity though.

Regardless of outcome, he'll go down as one of the most successful politicians in the modern world. Took his party from an outright joke, to a landslide election victory, and delivered his promise - referendum. The actual outcome affects him not one iota.

And remember, he is currently the only political leader actually directly democratically elected on his own party's merits :p

[Wolfshade]

Salmond won't go into obscurity though.

Regardless of outcome, he'll go down as one of the most successful politicians in the modern world. Took his party from an outright joke, to a landslide election victory, and delivered his promise - referendum. The actual outcome affects him not one iota.

And remember, he is currently the only political leader actually directly democratically elected on his own party's merits :p

Worryingly quite similiar to other continental politicains. Oh yes I went there.

[Psychosplodge]

A short angry loud man you suggest?

[Wildeybeast]

I'm a don't mind, but largely because I'm in the middle. I think it would be better for both parties if they stayed together (mostly Scotland), but I'm happy for the Scots to go it alone, just so I don't have to put up with the likes of Salmond moaning about not having any control. What I don't want is 'devo max' or Scotland clinging on our coat tails by trying to keep our currency and such like. They want to be a proper nation, then fine, but do it properly. Get your own currency, army, tax system, healthcare, public broadcaster, EU membership etc like everybody else. Don't expect just to keep all our stuff.

[CoffeeGrunt]

As a Scottish person living in England, I couldn't care less. I've identified as British for most of my life because of this.

[Darren Richardson]

Personally I don't care, I mean if they do go indepent, then they won't get my tourist money when/if I take a holiday to beautiful rural lands instead of a dirty smokey city, because chances are if you'll end up needing a passport just to enter Scotland, I'll just visit Wales instead :D (don't own one as I can't meet the criteria for countersigning the bloody thing, stupid proffesional rule :angry: )

Mind you I do have family up in Glasgow, but they never really liked me, the one time I did visit, called me an English B'stard, which I find really amusing since I'm part scot on my mothers side :rolleyes: but then children can be cruel can't they.

[Denzark]

MM - was it a landslide victory? It was a big swing but not sure it was landslide?

I am really in 2 minds about this. My Dad is quite certain - 'I don't want my country broken up'. For me though, whilst I sympathise with this, there is a party of me says: 'If you can't see how good you've got it, go and don't come back'.

Why do the Jocks have it good?

The Midlothian question - why do Scottish politicians in Westminster get to vote on England/Wales affecting business?
The Barnett formula - more taxpayers money is spent per head of population in Scotland than anywhere else.
Westminster panders in fear to them - devolution, devo max, devo plus plus deluxe, whatever.

Why would England be better of without Scotland?
No Midlothian question.
No Barnett formula.
The makeup of the Westminster government would be unlikely to be a Labour majority for a long time seeing as a large mount of their seats are from Scotland.

I've got to say, Salmond is a master politician, for sure. But the outcome is key. It has all been designed to put him in this position whereby independence is a chance. He has cleverly said he will keep the Queen so the old dears in Ayr who have tartan doilies and a' that will be on his side. He has gotten 16 year olds in on the vote because they will buy into the Braveheart guff.

But if the majority of people in Scotland DONT want independence, what is the point of SNP? And if the argument is that SNP is a party to screw the best possible deal out of Westminster, why should the English tolerate that?

I think they should consider themselves lucky not to have seen a vote UK wide.

[Darren Richardson]

I'm a don't mind, but largely because I'm in the middle. I think it would be better for both parties if they stayed together (mostly Scotland), but I'm happy for the Scots to go it alone, just so I don't have to put up with the likes of Salmond moaning about not having any control. What I don't want is 'devo max' or Scotland clinging on our coat tails by trying to keep our currency and such like. They want to be a proper nation, then fine, but do it properly. Get your own currency, army, tax system, healthcare, public broadcaster, EU membership etc like everybody else. Don't expect just to keep all our stuff.

Amen to that Wildy!

[Mr Mystery]

MM - was it a landslide victory? It was a big swing but not sure it was landslide?

I am really in 2 minds about this. My Dad is quite certain - 'I don't want my country broken up'. For me though, whilst I sympathise with this, there is a party of me says: 'If you can't see how good you've got it, go and don't come back'.

Why do the Jocks have it good?

The Midlothian question - why do Scottish politicians in Westminster get to vote on England/Wales affecting business?
The Barnett formula - more taxpayers money is spent per head of population in Scotland than anywhere else.
Westminster panders in fear to them - devolution, devo max, devo plus plus deluxe, whatever.

Why would England be better of without Scotland?
No Midlothian question.
No Barnett formula.
The makeup of the Westminster government would be unlikely to be a Labour majority for a long time seeing as a large mount of their seats are from Scotland.

I've got to say, Salmond is a master politician, for sure. But the outcome is key. It has all been designed to put him in this position whereby independence is a chance. He has cleverly said he will keep the Queen so the old dears in Ayr who have tartan doilies and a' that will be on his side. He has gotten 16 year olds in on the vote because they will buy into the Braveheart guff.

But if the majority of people in Scotland DONT want independence, what is the point of SNP? And if the argument is that SNP is a party to screw the best possible deal out of Westminster, why should the English tolerate that?

I think they should consider themselves lucky not to have seen a vote UK wide.

Aha! SNP in the event of a 'No' vote (most likely, but not guaranteed outcome) still have a roll - ensuring that someone is dedicated to fighting as selfishly for Scotland as the Tories do for London.

And stuff Woflie was saying about 'our stuff'.....sadly that's precisely the sort of attitude the Yes vote like to feed off - they'll label it uncaring English arrogance blah blah blah. Spod on the Interweb is one thing, but when it's spewing out the mouth of actual politicians, that's another. And that includes Boris Johnson!

[Darren Richardson]

I think they should consider themselves lucky not to have seen a vote UK wide.

I agree, if they had, most of us English WOULD vote yes to Scotish Indepence, after all why should Scots get NHS treatments free which English NHS patients have to pay for....

[eldargal]

I'm against but also not really fussed. I mean I think it is nothing short of insane and it will be a disaster for Scotland vote Yes but it is there decision so whatever. I don't for a moment think it will happen though. Depending on the polls the No vote has 47-50% ignoring undecided voters while the Yes vote have usually 37% and sometimes they hit around 41% in some polls (which is without fail reported as a 'surge' while the subsequent drop back to 37% is never reported, by certain media outlets...). On the day when making such an important decision most undecided peopkle will back the status quo, especially when the Yes vote have also been caught lying or simply having no real answer to certain questions. Like how they will keep the Pound when the Bank of England have said they can't.

[Wolfshade]

Aha! SNP in the event of a 'No' vote (most likely, but not guaranteed outcome) still have a roll - ensuring that someone is dedicated to fighting as selfishly for Scotland as the Tories do for London.

And stuff Woflie was saying about 'our stuff'.....sadly that's precisely the sort of attitude the Yes vote like to feed off - they'll label it uncaring English arrogance blah blah blah. Spod on the Interweb is one thing, but when it's spewing out the mouth of actual politicians, that's another. And that includes Boris Johnson!

It is a brillinat position to be in and unforutnatley a "No" Campaign will ultimately be always you are better off together and the future is all doom and gloom. Where as the "Yes" Campaign can play at the goodness of the scottish heritage and economy and can focus on any potential/alleged benefits and lets face it, most people would rather hear about postives about change rather than the current state of affairs which they know and short sightedly have been tight on people's wage pockets.

[Denzark]

Have you seen the George Galloway bit on independence? Can't find the linky to the short piece but it was the best thing that nasty little man has ever said. I paraphrase, but something along the lines of 'When you go through a divorce, you don't get to use the family credit cards...'

V. clever.

[Mr Mystery]

Mr Galloway can shut his cakehole just on general prinicpal!

[Wildeybeast]

I'm against but also not really fussed. I mean I think it is nothing short of insane and it will be a disaster for Scotland vote Yes but it is there decision so whatever. I don't for a moment think it will happen though. Depending on the polls the No vote has 47-50% ignoring undecided voters while the Yes vote have usually 37% and sometimes they hit around 41% in some polls (which is without fail reported as a 'surge' while the subsequent drop back to 37% is never reported, by certain media outlets...). On the day when making such an important decision most undecided peopkle will back the status quo, especially when the Yes vote have also been caught lying or simply having no real answer to certain questions. Like how they will keep the Pound when the Bank of England have said they can't.

Or automatically remain in the EU when Spain has said they can't.

[Morgrim]

As an aussie my feelings don't count in the slightest, but I'll toss them in anyway. :P

I think splitting is a bad idea. Not because of anything specific to England or Scotland, but because I feel any country splitting for any reason short of both sides being unable to stand each other is a bad idea. There's no chance of a genocide occurring in the Isles, little chance even of a bout of IRA style terrorism, ergo there doesn't seem a real reason for separating that will really pay off in the long term. Two different countries automatically have so much annoying red tape and roadblocks between them that can only be addressed at a governmental level, whereas within a country you can have the public effectively sidestepping the government and actually Getting Things Done.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet there is significant call for it within Scotland. Hence the referendum.

And for what it's worth, no, I don't think it's at all fair or even explicable that MPs from Scotland can vote on English matters, and Westminster really needs to sort that out.

On the whole, I'm quite in favour of decentralising power in the UK. Too much was stripped away from local councils and landed in Westminster.

[Wildeybeast]

Is there though? How many people voted for the SNP simply because they wanted a party that focus on Scottish interests and how many voted for them specifically for their pledge of independence I wonder. We shall see in a month's time.

[40kGamer]

Splitting off seems rather pointless but what do I know, my ancestors left Scotland 250 yrs ago and haven't looked back since.

[Denzark]

Mr Galloway can shut his cakehole just on general prinicpal!

Normally I'm 100% with you on this but seriously it was a well reasoned sensible piece!

[AirHorse]

Apologies in advance for a heavy post! But...

As someone born in Scotland, living in Scotland...absolutely No. I was born both Scottish and British, and as far as I'm concerned I intend to remain that way!

This whole thing makes me quite sad personally. Nothing about Scotland is diminished while part of the UK, and I can't comprehend why things have come to this point. Now I don't think that an Independent Scotland will necessarily fail, I will always be Scottish, no matter the outcome of this vote and I will always believe in Scotland, regardless of the outcome I think Scotland will succeed, independent or as part of the UK, what I don't understand is why Scotland needs to be independent. Being part of the UK is part of what Scotland is, and has been for a long time now. I am also British, and I also believe in the united kingdom!

However I can appreciate that there are people who believe that Scotland will be better off as an Independent country, I'm not decrying those who believe that at all. I don't agree with them, but I don't begrudge them their point of view!

But what I do find awful is the aggressive sentiment that is being fired all over the place by a lot of people who are running high on emotions. Hearing comments about the "oppression" of Westminster make me sad, just as much as those who claim Scotland will fail if it goes independent. As with all things the loudest people are often the most obnoxious :(. And that goes for people on all sides of this strange equation. Things feel far too heated. I don't know if you have watched any of the tv "debates", you can hardly call them that in my opinion! Shouting matches perhaps...

I just wish that this referendum had never reared its head, as until then none of this division had showed itself. I've never heard any real anti-UK/pro independence sentiment from people I've met until the last year, only from tv and "politics". Now its causing all sorts of divisions, between people in Scotland and between Scotland and the rest of the UK and this makes me sad.


As Wildeybeast says, I don't believe that the call for independence was nearly as strong as the SNP have made it out to be, until the referendum itself got things fired up. But my view is anecdotal I know this, I've never heard anyone express their desire for Scotland to be independent until we were suddenly going to be voting on it for what it counts for!

The SNP have been the only credible party in Scotland for a while now, but they have done a lot of good in Scotland! However, I don't see why supporting the snp and what they have done for Scotland means automatic support for independence. It says a lot that internally the SNP is a very divided party! A lot of the things they claim to advocate for an independent Scotland are hugely divided within their own party...

Ultimately I feel like the only certainty before the 18th of September is that Alex Salmond is a very successful man, no matter the outcome he has done what he set out to achieve!

[Mr Mystery]

Normally I'm 100% with you on this but seriously it was a well reasoned sensible piece!

Must have been ghost written.

Or incorrectly attributed.

Everyone knows he's just a tosspot that looks to cause controversy.

[Psychosplodge]

@Airhose, don't apologise its an interesting point from someone sat staring into the abyss.

@Mystery/'Zark, I thought Galloway was about getting people to pay attention to Galloway?

[Mr Mystery]

Is there though? How many people voted for the SNP simply because they wanted a party that focus on Scottish interests and how many voted for them specifically for their pledge of independence I wonder. We shall see in a month's time.

Which is kind of the point. This is what UKIP are trying and failing to achieve in Little England - force something on Europe (though they of course would simply leave without consultation).

DC could stand to learn a lot from Salmond, and indeed, should the Tories get in at the next election (outside chance, but only just) then that is what we will hopefully get. And when we vote to stay in, bang goes UKIP, and a good 90% of the Daily Fail's journalistic endeavours...

[Wildeybeast]

If Scotland goes independent, we can get used to the Tories getting in at every election. Labour would lose 40 seats to the Tories 1, putting Labour at a massive disadvantage in general elections. Anther reason why everyone in the Uk should vote, it affects all of us.

[Mr Mystery]

On the bright side, an independent Scotland wouldn't care about England, on account they'd have but a single Tory MSP...

Such a bogus argument that one, and the No Campaign have tried it! Quite backfired on them by all accounts, as all it demonstrated was how little influence Scotland can have on UK politics.

[Wildeybeast]

Why is it bogus?

[Mr Mystery]

Well, why would an independent Scotland give two hoots (ho ho!) about who is running Westminster? I don't give a monkey's who runs France or Germany after all (though maybe I should, I dunno!)

Yet the No Campaign tried to use it convince people to stick in a system where they just highlighted a major flaw!

[Wildeybeast]

Ah I see. I thought you meant the point was bogus. You make a good point, it isn't argument an independent Scotland would care about. Though I suppose it points out to those voting yes/undecided that they do have power in Westminster, despite what Salmond tells them.

[Mr Mystery]

To a degree.

Take the attempted dismantling of the welfare state by DC and Co. It's pretty clear from the General Election results that the Scottish Electorate at least do not want that sort of policy or politic.

But because Westminster refused to devolve further power to the Scottish Government, at least until the Yes movement gathered more steam than they though it would, Scotland is lumped with it.

Now yes that is very much democracy in action, and is not a criticism of the current set up per se. But as an argument to stay in a knowingly flawed system?

[Wolfshade]

Ah I see. I thought you meant the point was bogus. You make a good point, it isn't argument an independent Scotland would care about. Though I suppose it points out to those voting yes/undecided that they do have power in Westminster, despite what Salmond tells them.

You would have thought that given that they want a currency union they would care who the chancellor of the exchequer would be...

After all, we care who runs the euro.

So there are some major postives if we lose scotland

1. The journey from the most southerly to most northerly point of mainland UK, just got a hell of a lot shorter
2. My average life expectancy has increase (thanks, Glasgow :) )
3. labour will find it much more difficult to win in a UK general election
4. All UK students will have equality (if only we can get free perscriptions on this side of the welsh border, but i would rather pay than have the welsh nhs)
5. One less legal system

Of course there are a couple of downers

1. Need to build a new place for our nuclear wessles! (though that will be beneficial to the economy where it is built)
2. Dialling friends and family in Scotland might need an international dialling code
3. How to divide the north sea oil revenue

[Psychosplodge]

Well the easiest way to keep the oil is to encourage the Shetlands and Orkneys to remain in the UK considering they've been part of the UK longer than they were part of Scotland, and then watch see how Salmond goes on...

[Wolfshade]

If you go by territorial waters they are mostly scottish.
If you go by population they are mostly uk.

You imagine though the controversy, walking around just on the right side of the border while on your mobe and suddenly you bounce to a tower on the other side of the border and you end up with roaming charges. Though it can't be too hard to sort out, after all they do it on the continent

[Psychosplodge]

I read something that said territorial waters are drawn in the direction of the border as it reaches the sea, and that its not on a east-west line in the North sea, more north/north-west?

[Wolfshade]

As a little segway, the transcontinetal women's race is a head to head scottland vs england battle.

That is currently being led by Gaby Leveridge of Cookham, Berkshire, who used her tactical nous to overhaul Edinburgh’s Pippa Handley, whom she had trailed by 18 hours at the second of the three checkpoints on the race, at Prato dello Stelvio in northeast Italy.

As of this morning, Leveridge has covered 2,730.83 kilometres, while Handley has completed 2,484 kilometres. Both are through the third checkpoint, and they respectively have 652 and 592 kilometres left. It’s not an insurmountable gap for the Scot to pull back, but she is running out of time, with the pair expected to arrive in Istanbul early on Thursday.

[Wildeybeast]

I read something that said territorial waters are drawn in the direction of the border as it reaches the sea, and that its not on a east-west line in the North sea, more north/north-west?

I believe that is one of the bones of contention. If we do it that, Britain gets a big chunk of the oil fields. Salmond unsurprisingly wants an east-west line so we get no oil fields.

As for Orkney and the Shetlands, I was assuming we would cede them back to The Vikings in the Great British Break Up (presented by Nick Knowles and Alex Jones). Orkney is closer to Copenhagen than it is London and was under Viking rule longer then either Scottish or British.

[AirHorse]

Well according to the SNP Scotland is just like the Scandinavian countries! For example, highland coos have horns, just like Viking helments!(please note Viking helmets didn't have horns..). Source Article(said quote is footnote under one of the pictures) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16050269)

[Wolfshade]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57200000/jpg/_57200007_horns_thinkstock.jpg
"Horns feature prominently in the iconography of both sides (NB real Viking helmets did not normally have horns)"

[AirHorse]

See, almost identical!

[Wolfshade]

So the one on the left is the viking in ceremonial head gear?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, what about the island of Minos i think they have a similiar horn mottiff

[AirHorse]

Well if we are going to start comparing ourselves to mythical creatures we should really start with the national animal of Scotland, rather than jump ahead in the pecking order!

[Darren Richardson]

Well if we are going to start comparing ourselves to mythical creatures we should really start with the national animal of Scotland, rather than jump ahead in the pecking order!

Wot Nessie?

[Mr Mystery]

Unicorn, believe it or not.

[Psychosplodge]

Unicorn,



http://i59.tinypic.com/2j5fggh.png

[AirHorse]

Yeah, Nessie isn't mythical Darren! Duh!

I think unicorns are planned to be reintroduced to Scotland after the Bears and Lions have settled in successfully :P.

[40kGamer]

http://i59.tinypic.com/2j5fggh.png

Most of my heritage I can live with but this may be one step over the line! :p

[Gotthammer]

*tips tam o' shanter* McLady.

[Psychosplodge]

Come on I hadn't dropped a random pony(apart from the welcome threads) for days, it was coming as soon as unicorns were mentioned :D

[40kGamer]

Come on I hadn't dropped a random pony(apart from the welcome threads) for days, it was coming as soon as unicorns were mentioned :D

Well it is an attractive random pony! :D

[Psychosplodge]

Not the adjective I'd have chosen.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes but the adjective you would have chosen isn't allowed on here, you Brony you :p

[Psychosplodge]

I am nothing of the sort.
I'm merely a fan.

[Mr Mystery]

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/wayne%27sworldmonkeys.jpg

:p

[Psychosplodge]

No seriously. The word was originally a friendly expression of fandom, now it is like the mos eisley of the fandom, inhabited by the worst type of rule 34er's and worse.

[40kGamer]

Not the adjective I'd have chosen.

I'm sure there are better descriptions that could be used. I still can't believe the unicorn is actually Scotland's national animal... who decides these things?

After reading through some of the articles related to this, the argument for independence seems pretty weak. Is this just political grandstanding or does it have a serious foundation? (For example there are often rumblings in the US of a state wanting to leave the union and go independent but these ideas are mainly limited to radicals and not adopted by the majority.)

[Mr Mystery]

No seriously. The word was originally a friendly expression of fandom, now it is like the mos eisley of the fandom, inhabited by the worst type of rule 34er's and worse.

I know man. I r tease.

And you have my genuine sympathy at the hijacking of yet another thing of innocence by a bunch of segs maniacs.

[Psychosplodge]

Out of curiosity, how much coverage are you seeing over there?

@mystery Thanks, I wouldn't necessarily expect you to really know that.

[40kGamer]

Out of curiosity, how much coverage are you seeing over there?

Very little. But it isn't uncommon for US news (and citizens) to basically ignore world issues. Sad to say that a lot of people here would be hard pressed to even find Scotland on a map. :(

[Psychosplodge]

To be fair I couldn't point to most of the individual states on a map.

[Wolfshade]

Ther you go link (http://www.jetpunk.com/quizzes/counties-of-england-map-quiz)

[AirHorse]

After reading through some of the articles related to this, the argument for independence seems pretty weak. Is this just political grandstanding or does it have a serious foundation? (For example there are often rumblings in the US of a state wanting to leave the union and go independent but these ideas are mainly limited to radicals and not adopted by the majority.)


I have made my position clear so I'm sure there is bias in it, but that's exactly how I feel. The case for independence seems based a lot more on having control(Or well Scottish parliament...makes no difference where in the country the decisions get made if you ask me, its still politicians!) rather than it actually being a good idea for Scotlands future. Currency plans are the current hot topic, and to be honest it just seems illogical the arguments that are presented!

[40kGamer]

Ther you go link (http://www.jetpunk.com/quizzes/counties-of-england-map-quiz)

That's an evil quiz! I have a general idea of a few of the main counties from years of historical wargaming but most of my geographical knowledge ends at the country level...

- - - Updated - - -


To be fair I couldn't point to most of the individual states on a map.

Neither could most Americans... :D

- - - Updated - - -


I have made my position clear so I'm sure there is bias in it, but that's exactly how I feel. The case for independence seems based a lot more on having control(Or well Scottish parliament...makes no difference where in the country the decisions get made if you ask me, its still politicians!) rather than it actually being a good idea for Scotlands future. Currency plans are the current hot topic, and to be honest it just seems illogical the arguments that are presented!

I would expect to find some indication of oppression or abuse to be the foundation of a separatist argument. However on the surface it seems that Scotland actually benefits from the union. :confused:

[Psychosplodge]

41 wolfie

[Wolfshade]

41 wolfie

Damn that's good. 34, I had issues with the "home counties"

[Mr Mystery]

I have made my position clear so I'm sure there is bias in it, but that's exactly how I feel. The case for independence seems based a lot more on having control(Or well Scottish parliament...makes no difference where in the country the decisions get made if you ask me, its still politicians!) rather than it actually being a good idea for Scotlands future. Currency plans are the current hot topic, and to be honest it just seems illogical the arguments that are presented!

Of course there's bias, that's the whole point of democracy.

As for 40kGamer's comment - there is a strong argument for independence.

In short, all the UK is currently governed from Westminster, with some power devolved to the regional parliaments/assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and wherever it is in Northern Ireland, Stormont I think.

But, Scotland is simply given a block budget, and has no powers to raise it's own taxes, set it's own budget etc. It's also limited in other powers. Many in Scotland want greater autonomy for the region, with some wanting full independence.

Large part of this is fuelled by the impression (I'll put it no stronger than that, as I'm not clued up on such things to comment further) that decisions made in Westminster for the UK negatively affect Scotland.

Also, we're a famously stubborn people, and when we want something, we want it!

[Psychosplodge]

Damn that's good. 34, I had issues with the "home counties"



yeah all the b's were wrong.

[Wolfshade]

The trouble is that democracy works for what's best for the majority of the people, and while it might not be scotland focused. The trouble is that Scotland has a smaller population than the West Midlands for instance, so by that same virtue should Mercia rise up and free itself from the tyranny of london?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, with such low population densities, its going to become what is best for Aberdeen/Glasgow/Edinburgh and the people (that are left) in smaller places like the highlands won't feel the benefit.

[Psychosplodge]

Or Yorkshire. We've got North sea gas and oil too, maybe its time for independence...

[AirHorse]

Yorkshire also has Viking heritage!! That's the two main criteria pretty much sorted for you already!


Cornwall wants its independence too, problem is pastie powered cars isn't that viable :(

[40kGamer]

As for 40kGamer's comment - there is a strong argument for independence.

In short, all the UK is currently governed from Westminster, with some power devolved to the regional parliaments/assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and wherever it is in Northern Ireland, Stormont I think.

But, Scotland is simply given a block budget, and has no powers to raise it's own taxes, set it's own budget etc. It's also limited in other powers. Many in Scotland want greater autonomy for the region, with some wanting full independence.

Large part of this is fuelled by the impression (I'll put it no stronger than that, as I'm not clued up on such things to comment further) that decisions made in Westminster for the UK negatively affect Scotland.

Also, we're a famously stubborn people, and when we want something, we want it!

Although my family left Scotland in the late 1740's I fully inherited the stubborn and independent traits. Plus I have an innate love of both kilts and the pipes. :D

The independence movement makes more sense with the way the government is organized. Although I actually favor a central approach to government as it reduces duplication of services and should lead to lower taxes. It is quite the balancing act to run things centrally as it requires adequate representation to insure all parties are treated in an equitable manner.

Where I currently live in the US the government is so layered and decentralized that you have to pay taxes to the federal, state, county, city (sometimes multiple cities) and often the school district you live in. This leads to a completely ridiculous amount of paperwork and redundancy. Plus for the taxes that are taken in by the government the services provided are sorely lacking.

[Mr Mystery]

The only issue with centralised Government in the UK, is that for basically my lifetime (born in 1980), it's been run entirely for the benefit of the City of London.

Every other city was pretty much left to rot, and London supported above all.

Scotland in particular had the backbone of it's economy in industry. Now industry in Britain kind of died a death, and whilst the Government don't bear the entirety of the responsibility of that, they did nothing to prevent or slow it.

Large parts of Scotland, as with other areas of Britain, suffered heavily. Glasgow in particular went right down the tubes, and nobody did much about it.

And what we have now arrived it is those living in London having little clue what life is like outside of that city and the home counties. In short, centralised government has failed large areas of Britain, and Scotland itself has always had an urge toward independence.

[40kGamer]

So basically the same thing that has happened with the city of Detroit in the US. Depressed economy, high crime rates, bankrupt local government, failed social systems... No wonder there is a movement toward independence. If you ignore someone's needs long enough it's inevitable. Somewhat similar to the events that led the colonies to rebel a couple centuries back. Does no one in politics read history?

[Mr Mystery]

Sadly, every so often the Tories get into Westminster.

This current thing kicked off in 1997, when Labour won the General Election (where every seat in the House of Commons is up for grabs) by a massive landslide. Most notably, the Tories were wiped out in Scotland, and I think also Wales. Why? Of the three main parties, only the Tories decided there would be absolutely no referendum on devolution of power to regional parliaments/assemblies.

I mean barring the usual handful of nutters, nobody is espousing an armed rebellion. But the people of Scotland want to be heard, hence the referendum on independence.

As touched on before, the Tory party have offered much of the same arrogance as 1997 with their approach to this. Alex Salmond wanted three options. Yes, No, and Devo Max. Call me Dave and his lot point blank refused a Devo Max option, using the same arguments they themselves have used for wanting Europe to reform, or the UK might leave the EU. Only now the Yes campaign has gathered more steam than they expected, the tossers in Westminster are dangling Devo Max as a carrot for voting no.....

For my buck, I don't believe Scotland will take full independence. But the fact that Westminster is trying to use the promise of greater autonomy as a bargaining chit (and one they won't have to live up to) is frankly insulting to democracy. It's probably the most popular option, so it should have been on the table from the outset. It's bull**** politics by an out of touch London Elite, and it's just possible that it might be the very thing to trigger a victory of a Yes vote.

After all, when the same arrogance and aloofness that lead to all this is still being flaunted, those who want to leave the union are far more likely to actually turn out and vote. And that is what is going to swing this one way or the other - voter turn out. The No campaign like to point out they're ahead in talking head opinion polls, so are trying to score cheap points. The Yes campaign however is getting out there and working hard to convince voters....

[Wolfshade]

Or Yorkshire. We've got North sea gas and oil too, maybe its time for independence...
Yes please go and take Leeds and Doncaster with you!

[Darren Richardson]

personallY I think the whole thing could be avoided by by making London independant from the Union instead :D

[Wildeybeast]

To our transatlantic cousins: are there any states that want to come back to the warm embrace of the motherland? We may have spot opening up for one of you in the future.

[Wolfshade]

I believe that Gerald Grosvenor is quite intrested in re-attaining his property..

[Psychosplodge]

Yes please go and take Leeds and Doncaster with you!

bollocks I forgot about west yorkshire.
There's worse places than Donny, you ever been to Hull?

[Wolfshade]

Yes, almost went to university there. At the time their photonics research was cutting edge.

Rather interesting bit on the Beeb about broadcasting split: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28863806

The plan is to replace teh BBC with the Scotish broadcasting company.


Ms Curran said: "The proposals are to take Scotland out of the BBC and replace it with a new state broadcaster and I think that would be bad for viewers and I think that would be very bad for the industry in Scotland because essentially it would lead to a higher licence fee or lower quality.

"Currently we put £300m in through our licence fee but get £3bn back."


The beeb might then broadcast to scotland in the same way that bbc america works, with adverts.

[Wildeybeast]

Good. Like I've already said, if they want our stuff post-independence, they can damn well pay for it.

[Wolfshade]

Unfortunately, it comes across once again as "No you can't do this" and another negative message

[AirHorse]

It's a shame that things like this come across so negative when its just being realistic!

I just hope that if there is an SBC that its on par with the BBC and not at the level of STV!

[Mr Mystery]

Way to list only the naysayers POV there in the quote.

There are other opinions in the article suggesting it is what it is - more mindless scare mongering from the increasingly negative No camp.

And Wildey - there is no suggestion from the Yes campaign they expect everything for free. Hence the No campaign haven't tried to tickle that area.

Frankly, I have found some of the sentiments expressed in this thread pretty low and disgusting. Talk about 'voting to kick them out' etc. It's not constructive. It's not helpful. It is however, pretty racist. Replace the sentiment being about Scotland, with say, people from India or another country living in the UK.... How very, very BNP of you.

[Psychosplodge]

I was in perth during some international football tournament Scotland had failed to qualify for and the anti-English merchandise on sale in mainstream high street stores including the likes of HMV simply would not be acceptable on the average English highstreet...

[Mr Mystery]

So two wrongs now make a right?

[Wolfshade]

I just don't see how you can hope to maintain the same quality or quanitity of producing with 1/10th the budget. Especially as the infrastructure will need to be set up.

[Psychosplodge]

I didn't say that. But its certainly not a one way street. Although based on how negatives work in multiplications they may do?

[Mr Mystery]

I just don't see how you can hope to maintain the same quality or quanitity of producing with 1/10th the budget. Especially as the infrastructure will need to be set up.

And that's fine. Questioning the sanity of independence is one thing. But then claiming England (why not Wales and Northern Ireland too?) should then have a say about whether Scotland gets to stay or not is pure UKIP/BNP drivel, and frankly I expected more from the denizens of BoLS.

[Psychosplodge]

To be fair it does affect everybody in the "United" Kingdom. But on the other hand considering what 90%? of the population resides in England it wouldn't exactly be self determination for Scotland would it?

[Wildeybeast]

My sentiments on paying for stuff come from the fact that Salmond sees England as some leech draining all the life from his country, when it is well known that England heavily subsidises Scotland. Furthermore, he seems to have the expectation that he can basically just carry on being subsidised post independence, as evidenced by his views on the pound. Has he put forward any concrete financial plans about how he plans to pay for things like free university places and prescriptions other than 'with all our oil and gas cash monies'? Is he planning to pay back all the oil and has infrastructure Britain has paid for? Does he have any expectations about taking on Scotland's share of the national debt? He comes across like a petulant, ungrateful teenager who has decided they have had enough of living at home and are moving out, leaving behind all their mess and expecting their parents to pay for it all. He is Farrage with a different accent and less charisma and his brand of insular, narrow minded nationalism is a dangerous slope I want no part.

As for 'kick them out' sentiments, I'm not sure anyone has actually expressed such things seriously and let's not forget that this movement has come from Scottish people, not the UK trying to get rid of them. Though frankly, if Scottish people are stupid enough to decide they agree with Salmond's delusional and dangerous nationalism, his childish rhetoric and failure to see the value in a united, multicultural Britain, then I for one will be happy to see them go.

[Mr Mystery]

Precisely. And that's what all of Scotland wants - self determination.

It's the same demand being represented by support for UKIP about Europe, except with less rabidity, lunacy and racism (well, certainly less racism). Just give the people the vote.

And I think it's precisely the same outcome on both - a resounding 'nah, much better off as we are'. And both referendums are political inevitibilties, if only to make the nutters shut up and go away, once and for all.

Oh, what a year it would be next year to see Niggle Garage fail to win South Thanet (where a UKIP MEP has just been caught calling a Thai supporter 'a ting-tong from somewhere...), and then cry into his 'man of the people' pint when the will of the people is made further manifest, and we vote to stay in Europe (because leaving it means leaving all of it, and that's economic suicide)

Also, Wolfie - cite the bit about England subsidising Scotland. Both sides have presented evidence showing it does and it doesn't, largely because of how Westminster likes to fiddle the Oil revenues.

[Wolfshade]

The similiarities are superficial at best.

The interconnectivity of Scotland and the rest of the UK is from a finacial point of view is almost seamless.
Whereas UK and Europe is very different.

Scotland has the same currency as the UK
The UK does not have the same currency as Europe

All tax raised in Scotland are added toegether and divided (unequally) across the whole UK
All tax raised in the UK is not given to a central EU pot.

The UK is a whoel complete country made up (a bit like the trinity) of individual parts
The EU is not a whole complete country, it is an alliance, with perhaps grand aspirations to be a United Nations of Europe with a pariliamnet, currency, flag, etc.

The association of Scotland to the UK dates back what 1603 with James VI/I? Even before then freedom of movements between peoples a common language (yes various Scottish dialects/languages do exist, but not to the same prevelance)

The association of the UK to the EU was at the Mastrich treaty which most of us were alive for.

We are one peoples, we have a shared history, a shared culture a shared mythology in a way that no other country manages. France & Germany were once united under Charlamagne and yet how dispirate are those two peoples. Belgium, 1 country 2 peoples the Frnech and the Dutch.

- - - Updated - - -


Also, Wolfie - cite the bit about England subsidising Scotland. Both sides have presented evidence showing it does and it doesn't, largely because of how Westminster likes to fiddle the Oil revenues.

Can you point to where I said it was?

[Mr Mystery]

The similiarities are superficial at best.

The interconnectivity of Scotland and the rest of the UK is from a finacial point of view is almost seamless.
Whereas UK and Europe is very different.

Scotland has the same currency as the UK
The UK does not have the same currency as Europe

All tax raised in Scotland are added toegether and divided (unequally) across the whole UK
All tax raised in the UK is not given to a central EU pot.

The UK is a whoel complete country made up (a bit like the trinity) of individual parts
The EU is not a whole complete country, it is an alliance, with perhaps grand aspirations to be a United Nations of Europe with a pariliamnet, currency, flag, etc.

The association of Scotland to the UK dates back what 1603 with James VI/I? Even before then freedom of movements between peoples a common language (yes various Scottish dialects/languages do exist, but not to the same prevelance)

The association of the UK to the EU was at the Mastrich treaty which most of us were alive for.

We are one peoples, we have a shared history, a shared culture a shared mythology in a way that no other country manages. France & Germany were once united under Charlamagne and yet how dispirate are those two peoples. Belgium, 1 country 2 peoples the Frnech and the Dutch.

- - - Updated - - -



Can you point to where I said it was?

Apologies, it was Wildey. I've done it again!

[Wolfshade]

Don't worry.

If Scotland does become independent and it gets to take the majority of the north sea oil then the Scottish government can maintain similiar levels of expenditure as it does now without radically altering the tax or spending. Indeed in some scenarios it operates at a small surpluss.

For the short term, oil consumption is outpacing oil production so the price is going to be basically on an upward trend.

However, there are a couple of concerns with this such as the violatility of the oil price, so if you do the same analysis when the price per barrel is lower than the surpluss rapidly becomes as deficit.

In terms of the biggest threat to this is fracking. The USA is quite the leader in this and by fracking had reduced it's oil imports by 23% (as of 2012). And for coutnires where the economy depends on exported oil this can be a nightmare. Nigeria for instance at 2010 provided 359m barrels of oil to the US, it is now down to 22m, which represents a massive reduction. Which is ok, while there are still other countries willing (and able) to buy it.

The estimate of the amount of oil and revenue from the north sea field is very different depending on which geological/economic position you take up.

We have seen with the UK banking crisis what the effect of having a single focused economy can have. So I would be more comfortable with a wide diverse economy regardless

[40kGamer]

To our transatlantic cousins: are there any states that want to come back to the warm embrace of the motherland? We may have spot opening up for one of you in the future.

Well Texas always has rumblings of secession but they want full independence. It's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans would gladly return Washington DC and the District of Columbia as long as you take all the politicians in the deal. ;)

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

There's also vastly conflicting reports about what's left to be drilled out, and even if there's loads, not being a member of OPEC, price fluctuations remain beyond Scottish control.

BUT...............

That the Oil is finite is well know. Nobody is disputing that. What Salmond and Co are arguing is that whilst it's there, Scotland would be better served keeping thay money for itself, and preparing the economy for when it does run dry, whereas Westminster appear happy to leave yet another part of 'Not-London' to rot!

[Wildeybeast]

Which is a big if There has been no clear agreement on how the oil will be divided, or any other number of things. They should have been sorted beforehand, so the Scottish people know exactly what the consequences of voting are. What happens if (as is quite likely) they vote for independence and find the bill to be rather unpalatable? Can they change their minds?

Mystery, it was the same place you found that evidence about Westminster fiddling oil revenues and running the country solely for the benefit of London. :p

- - - Updated - - -

Actually a quick bit of research turned up this (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00446095.xlsx). Even with oil revenue, they still spend more than they earn. Unless Holyrood has power to borrow independent of Westminster, which I don't believe they do, the rest of the country is subsidising them.

[Mr Mystery]

:p

Come on....We live in the United Kingdom of London (well, Canary Wharf Square Mile) and Not-London.

Interestingly though, according to the Beeb this morning, efforts to decentralise UK wealth appear to be working, with the East Midlands in particular doing quite well.

[Wolfshade]

The trouble is with all of these is that they still sound terribly negative.

Imgaine you have two people telling you about something

One is saying "do nothing, this is as good as it gets" the other is saying "do something and get better". I know which one I would prefer to hear.

So the No campaign has two messages, highlighting the benefits or what they already know, which in recent years is economic crisis, recession followed by years of austerity and cuts and saying what the negative aspects of what will happen if a spilt occurs. In order to highlight the benefit of being together they have to be negative about being apart.

The Yes capaign has 1 message, to highlight the benefits of splitting. They don't need to highlight the negativity of staying together as the recent past is quite negative.

For me I am very much better together as might be obvious from my posts. But I am concerned listening to Salmond and Sturegon that there is something fishy going on. They have 1 plan and no room to move from that.

I think seperation does occur then things will change but perhaps not as sharply as what happens.

As of 2011, £23.9bn exports were internationally, but £45.4bn was to the rest of the UK. Now certainly things aren;t going to stop coming across the border, but also 7 or 8 of the top 10 countires trading with scotland are within the eu and at independence Scotland won't be in the EU or the UK so would probably have some import duty levied on these "foreign" goods.

I would just like to know what-if .... which is an argument the yes campaign doesn't answer and of course being political it isn't a strong message.

Either way Salmond must be considered to be very sucessful a one issue party that has dominated scottish politics and also forced an agenda through westminster.

[AirHorse]

But I am concerned listening to Salmond and Sturegon that there is something fishy going on. They have 1 plan and no room to move from that.

My personal point of view on what Alex Salmond really wanted was Devo max, not full independence. If it had been a Yes/No/DevoMax vote im almost certain devo max would've smashed the other options! But his hand was forced with no Devo max option, so its not a total success on his plan.

But with the Yes/No vote I don't think Salmond ever intends to be the one who actually takes Scotland forward if it goes Independent. I expect him to let others do that so that if things don't work out its not on him! Maybe I'm a cynic, but they don't call him mr Teflon for nothing!

[Wildeybeast]

I agree entirely air horse. He wanted full control whilst still with the safety blanket/financial support of the UK. All the power with none of the cost/responsibility, who wouldn't want that? He could never publicly admit that, so Cameron called his bluff. Quite why, I'm not sure. Possibly to try to erode SNP power in Scotland, possibly just to shut him up.

[Mr Mystery]

My personal point of view on what Alex Salmond really wanted was Devo max, not full independence. If it had been a Yes/No/DevoMax vote im almost certain devo max would've smashed the other options! But his hand was forced with no Devo max option, so its not a total success on his plan.

But with the Yes/No vote I don't think Salmond ever intends to be the one who actually takes Scotland forward if it goes Independent. I expect him to let others do that so that if things don't work out its not on him! Maybe I'm a cynic, but they don't call him mr Teflon for nothing!

This is the thing.

Salmond quite reasonably requested the three options, but Call Me Dave said no, it's all in or all out.

And Call Me Dave and the No Camp are now dangling Devo Max as a reward for being good little vassals of The Tory Party, and voting No.

That is NOT democracy. If Devo Max is an option, then it should be voted on. This way, Call Me Dave is trying to act like some kind of benevolent guy, not realising that there is no way for Salmond to actually lose on this. Yes? Will of the people is heard, and Scotland splits from the UK. No? Will of the people is heard. He hasn't promised independence at any point. He's promised the referendum. Nothing more, nothing less. Boom, Win/Win situation.

[AirHorse]

I agree that its ridiculous that Devo Max has come back as a "reward" Mr Mystery! And while I don't think it was unreasonable for Salmond to want a three option vote I don't think devo max should have anything to do with an independence vote! Its utter nonsense that the Torys are bringing it back into things like they are. But then while I might be firmly on the No camp, I don't profess to be a fan of the current Westminster government either!

You're right, Salmond won the moment he got a referendum, even without his preferred devo max option it hardly matters what the vote is from his point of view! He might be the smuggest looking git i've ever seen, but he's made a hell of a career in Scottish politics!

[Mr Mystery]

If anyone has earned a smug poop-eating grin, it's Salmond.

Said it before, and I'll say it again. Most Successful Politician in a long old time!

[Wolfshade]

Well final debate last night.

I have to say a much more improved performance by the fish. Indeed on balance I think he did a much better job than Darling. Though his insistence of talking over the top of Darling was irksome.

Some stats from the BBC wesbite:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77164000/gif/_77164956_scotland_public_spending_20140821_624_v2 .gif
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77164000/gif/_77164954_scottish_oil_20140821_624_624_v2.gif
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77164000/gif/_77164955_nhs_budget_20140822_624.gif

[Mr Mystery]

Opinion piece I found online (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jean-muir/scotland-its-about-democracy_b_5699365.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Doesn't represent my view, but worth a read.

[Psychosplodge]

I didn't watch it, but had a glance through twitter and more people seemed to be commenting on the poor behaviour of the participants than any issues.

- - - Updated - - -


Opinion piece I found online (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jean-muir/scotland-its-about-democracy_b_5699365.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Doesn't represent my view, but worth a read.

Got the anti imperialist rose tinted american blinkers of denial on though hasn't he?

[Mr Mystery]

Meh.

Not sure televised **** waving serves any purpose to UK democracy. We tend to be a bit more clued up on what we do and don't want as individuals.

[Wolfshade]

Opinion piece I found online (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jean-muir/scotland-its-about-democracy_b_5699365.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Doesn't represent my view, but worth a read.

I dislike the style and I must admit that it is a bit strange, but some of those issues are universal. I don't see what the issue is that tax raised is divided out centrally. After all, you see in every other part of the union they get more spending per head than england. Not really "fair" is it. But if tax was spent where it was raised then London's expenditure would be even more extreme. Heck, Birmingham would be spending more money than the entirity of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. And so you would just do a massive dis-service to those who choose to live in less densely populated areas. All that does is force those in rural areas to move to urban areas which only further serves to compound the problem.

Also, why would Scotland have representation in the EU parliament. It wouldn't be a member of the EU. So it would have 0 representation, which unless I'm much worse at maths then I think I am is less than the current representation. The presumption that an independent Scotland would join the EU is presumptious and we have already heard that Spain would block it, since they want to keep themselves a single entity.

[Psychosplodge]

And haasn't Salmond been told they wouldn't get automatic continuation of membership? and he's ignored the european advisor that said it?
I honestly don't understand why anyone would vote for independence and then support joining the EU where they'd have a smaller say as a smaller country.

[Mr Mystery]

See, the tax thing is a bit of red herring for both sides.

It doesn't matter how much or how little is spent in any given area, but how much is raised.

There is a general feeling in Scotland that particularly with the old chestnut of Oil revenues, that they're getting the poopy end of the stick (just caught myself using we, we're etc which I have changed. Apologies if it seems like I'm taking a side. When you're talking about your country, it's hard not to use personal terms!).

[Wolfshade]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/images/obs/revenue_shares2.jpg

Ta da!

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6881


North Sea oil and gas aside, tax revenue in Scotland (£7,100 per person in 2012–13) looks much more like that in the UK as a whole (£7,300). Scots do pay £290 per year less in income tax on average, partly because incomes in Scotland are more equally distributed, with fewer of the very high-income individuals who provide such a large share of income tax revenue in the UK as a whole. But Scots contribute slightly more in VAT and in alcohol and tobacco taxes.


North Sea oil and gas

How North Sea oil and gas revenues would be divided in the event of Scottish independence is uncertain. Both HMRC and GERS show two illustrative possibilities. One divides North Sea revenues according to Scotland’s share of the UK population. Unsurprisingly, on this basis GERS and HMRC both report that Scotland’s share of North Sea revenues in 2011–12 was 8.4%.

The other approach taken is to divide revenues on a geographical basis according to the location of individual oil and gas fields. On this basis GERS estimates Scotland’s share in 2011–12 at 94% (£10.6 billion), while HMRC’s estimate is 83% (£9.3 billion). This disparity is not because they divide fields between England and Scotland differently: both use a boundary that was established in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999. Rather, it derives from differences in their models of how much taxable profit arises from different fields.


- - - Updated - - -

So the big issue comes down to

a) how you split Oil.

- - - Updated - - -

Also (big ifs) what happens if Scotland becomes independent and if it cannot achieve a currency union, what happens if large corporations re-locate south of the border.

[Psychosplodge]

I still think we should allow the Islanders to decide if they want to stay if the rScotland goes independent.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it also true that many people of working age relocate south of the border?

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty much from what I can make out!

Though I'm not sure which argument has the stronger case. One would imagine it should be based on territorial waters and that, but I don't know.

- - - Updated - - -


I still think we should allow the Islanders to decide if they want to stay if the rScotland goes independent.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it also true that many people of working age relocate south of the border?

Dunno. Wild claims are wild, and given the general negativity of the No Campaign, I wouldn't put it past them to have made some stuff up!

[Wolfshade]

If Scotland become independent then EU rules could force certain banks to move out from Scotland. (EU rules requiring a bank's HQ be where it has the bulk of its activities)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-36-of-firms-may-move-1-3334012

The Scotsman (I have no idea of it's political leanings) says 36% of firms would re-locate while 40% would not.

What we need is a time machine to see what the outcome of all these "unknowns" are so people can know facts and not just opinions.

[Mr Mystery]

Europe is another extremely peculiar issue within Scotland.

On balance, Scots are more favourable to staying in the EU, but don't have the clout to ensure that should the UK have an in/out referendum. Net result? Some Scots see Independence, and then rejoining the EU as the best way to avoid UKIP forcing a fairly South East centric issue on the rest of the UK

Stay in, and they might be out. Leave, and they might be in. As I said, an odd situation!

[Wolfshade]

I think splitting from the EU would be economic suicide. But on the other hand, I think that the European Court should not out-rule the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

This is a good little article on the topic of oil revenue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28882312

[Psychosplodge]

The EU should be nothing more than a trading block, its what the people that were given the referendum voted for.

[Psychosplodge]

Is this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28943041) not the guaranteed way to kill a fledgling independent economy?

[eldargal]

Yup. It's no kind of threat either. 'If you don't give us a currency union, we'll default on our debts and trash our economy!'.

[AirHorse]

It's a fairly awful position to stand in I agree :S.

Also, surely if Scotland isn't using the pound it will start using the "pund" again!

[Wolfshade]

Then that comic will need to re-do his joke about "I'll think you'll find that's legal tender".

It seems that they want the divorce, keep the house but don't want the share of debt that helped pay the mortgage.

For a country that has no independent credit history it will make it very expensive for the country to run. Then coupled with leaders saying, we won't pay our share of the debt, it would make me very worried about providing a government loan.

The UK is fortunate that it currently has a Aaa rating for loans, which means that banks will loan the government money and it only costs the government a small amount of interest, the lower the rating the more costly that loan becomes (just like people).

Argentina for instance have just defaulted on their debt (again) and that has really not helped their economic crisis.

[Mr Mystery]

Interestingly, having been up in Edinburgh since Wednesday, the feel up here is that Yes has more support than the media are letting on.

Banners, stickers, posters - you name it, it's out there and very visible.

General feel? We might just be seeing an independent Scotland.

[Psychosplodge]

Don't forget the nutters always shout loudest ;)

[Mr Mystery]

Oh indeed, but there's nothing visible for the No campaign...

From what my brother has told me, where the No campaign are trying big politics style, the Yes campaign are taking a more 'grass roots*' approach, going to meet the spod in the street on their own turf, and actually talking to them, rather than at them.


*hate that expression myself. Always seems associated with the far right in my mind.....

[Denzark]

I have a creeping opinion that enough people up there will vote with their hearts and not their heads, to make this happen... just increased off the back of the last TV debate. Thanks America for giving us TV debates btw.

I think Salmond could probably say that the Virgin Mary will be in Sauchiehall Street giving out free henna tattoos next Wednesday and a few tartan-heided eejits will believe him.

[Mr Mystery]

I have a creeping opinion that enough people up there will vote with their hearts and not their heads, to make this happen... just increased off the back of the last TV debate. Thanks America for giving us TV debates btw.

I think Salmond could probably say that the Virgin Mary will be in Sauchiehall Street giving out free henna tattoos next Wednesday and a few tartan-heided eejits will believe him.

Care to try that again, perhaps without the casual racism?

[Denzark]

Umm, no. Which race do you think I have shown prejudice and an opinion that my own race is superior to them, against, in which of the comments above?

[Mr Mystery]

The term 'tartan-heided eejits' perhaps?

And people wonder how we got as far as a referendum.

[Denzark]

Well allow me to explain that comment then.

Alex Salmond is known for claiming that in the event of a yes vote, various political positions can be taken unilaterally by the Scottish Government, even when those positions aren't unilateral and require consent, and even more, he continues to claim it even when the other bodies/parties whose agreement will be essential, tell him it won't be possible. I will illustrate:

1. Claim 1 - The UK Government will be forced to acquiesce into a currency union. Disagreed by every single major political party in what would be left of the UK. Ignored by Salmond.

2. Claim 2 - Scotland would get legacy rights to enter the EU. Denied by large numbers of EU politicians - I understand there is a EU parliament agreement that no new nations will be accepted for 4 years as a start.

Now, even if I have the specifics wrong or the terminology wrong - EU parliament, whatever - I think you will get the gist of what I refer to.

Now I personally find it highly illogical Salmond can declare these unilateral positions, I find it even more illogical that people will delude himself that he is right despite all evidence to the contrary. I have decided to use the colloquialism 'idiocy', perhaps erroneously if one is a pedant of the English language, to cover this illogicality.

My reference to 'Tartan-Heided' is because tartan is a colour associated with Scottish Nationalists. Including the non-Scottish persons living in Scotland who will get the vote based on living there. I am not saying all Scottish Nationalists are illogical (thus eejits) only the ones that take a pavlovian acceptance of whatever drivel Salmond is pushing out.

So to be clear, my comment is targeting anyone who accepts the more histrionic hyperbolic statements of Salmond at face value.

I am not aware that this rarified group of intelligentsia qualifies as a 'race' by any definition that could be even remotely be applied to a race in the context of racism ie 'a group one is prejudiced against and considers inferior to ones own similarly defined group based on an illogical position'. Salmond supporters are not a race, they are a group of people whose grouping transcends race.

Being impolite, offensive or condescending to someone purely on the basis of their political ideas may be many things, but racism it ain't.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, as a Scot, let me tell you such a phrase is just as offensive as if I was to refer to a Sikh as a 'rag head'.

But of course. You wouldn't really grasp that would you, because you don't seem to appreciate that many Scots have a deep seated nationally identity of which they are quite proud.

[Denzark]

I know many proud Scotsmen and the proudest with the most ingrained sense of national identity, would literally shudder at the thought of one of their compatriots so lacking in robustness as to claim that being called a tartan-heided eejit causes them as much offence as a perjorative based on insulting an item of clothing worn as a sign of religious devotion by Sikhs.

The proud Scotsmen I would know would probably have a few terms to describe such an individual, probably finishing in 'Jesse'.

Having a national identity is a totally separate thing to blindly accepting the claims of any politician, despite significant evidence to the contrary of said claims. One is entirely laudable, the other is - in my opinon - idiocy.

[Mr Mystery]

So because you feel you've not caused offense, I should simply agree yes?

Tosser.

[AirHorse]

Yeah its not exactly a great choice of words!

Going back to what Mr Mystery has said about not seeing any presence of No out in the open, that had been my general experience too...right up until the Commonwealth games! I went along to several events in Glasgow, and while walking there past all the houses etc I saw almost no "Yes" banners, but LOADS of "No Thanks" banners! It was very strange, as generally I find that the strength of the Yes campaign has come as you say from "people on foot" as it were.

It seems that there's been some incidents of the debate getting even more heated too. I've heard a few stories of speakers getting heckled, harassed and even assaulted in the last week or so(from both sides!), but I hadn't seen much news to go with it so didn't believe it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28986714 Seems its true though, its a shame, and my biggest sadness about the referendum. :(

[Denzark]

So because you feel you've not caused offense, I should simply agree yes?

Tosser.

Oh do grow up, I've said nor implied nothing of the kind. I don't dispute the words being offensive to some, I don't care either. The vast majority of 53,000,000 people in England think people who listen to Salmond's tosh and accept it blindly, are idiots.

What I have said is that being accused of idiocy is not in any league as offensive as a religious slur, nor is it racist.

[Mr Mystery]

You have said I shouldn't feel offended by your offensive wording, because you know some Scots who would laugh it off.

Implication is therefore that I'm somehow overreacting to a casually racist wording. You're welcome to call some of the Yes camp nutters or deluded. That's cool, as it's opinion. But using a slur to do so is quite unnecessary, and then insisting it isn't in fact offensive, because reasons is really not doing you any favours.

[Denzark]

If you can cut and paste anywhere were I have said you should or shouldn't do something, I'd be glad to do it. I have commented other Scots may deal with it differently, nowhere have I said I think you should emulate them.

There was nothing racist there. A UK court will view as racist the use of the word 'rag-head', it will not view use of the word 'idiot' as racist.

Anyway in the interest of getting back to the politics, I would be interested in yours (MM) or anyone's, thoughts on how advisable it would be for Scotland to default on their share of the UK debt in the event of a yes, or even how morally acceptable it would be?

[Mr Mystery]

If Westminster block a currency union, I don't see how they can hold Holyrood to any amount of debt?

[Denzark]

It occurs to me that if a nation does NOT abide by the rule of international law (a la North Korea etc) the only way you can guarantee to get them to do anything is by force - an unlikely proposition in this case.

Assuming Holyrood would not take on any debt and the remnant UK took them to some international court, it depends on (assuming the finding is in the favour of the UK) whether or not Holyrood would comply with the ruling or not - and I don't know how such rulings are enforced if ignored - what sanctions maybe?

There are big ticket items which are in Scotland and that Salmond has said he expects a proportion of which the UK has influence over. RAF Planes and RN ships for a start (not counting nuke subs of course). In the event of a default being likely, the MOD - whose central funds pay the serviceman - could order them all South - Typhoons cost £64m each before you talk about maintenance and training.

I see denial of this stuff as a negotiating point?

[Mr Mystery]

No idea.

But my Bro, who is up on the debate and very much voting 'Yes' raised the following point regarding the debt.

If Westminster is determined not to share assets, how can they reasonably expect to share the liabilities? And as a completely new country, would a court reasonably expect and independent Scotland to be responsible for a debt it did not itself (in it's new form) create?

[AirHorse]

It's certainly complicated that's for sure!

I personally think both sides have taken very petty stands in public on these two issues! Ah politics, how I loathe thee :(

[Mr Mystery]

Trouble here is that Alex Salmond was wanting to open the negotiations prior to the referendum, so both positions knew what might happen going forward.

Of course, Westminster in a typical display of Old Boy Tory arrogance denied this.

[Denzark]

I did read or hear something (telegraph or R4) about how there was a precedent of something to do with ex Soviet Bloc countries taking or not taking a share of soviet era debt - but for some reason that precedent did not apply in this case. Possibly involved a UN ruling.

Sorry for the crap description - I suppose I can sum it up by stating I understand (as with everything in this) that someone had said one side had legal precedent and the other side said in this case it didn't apply.

But what is the definition of 'asset' and why/how can it apply to the country's currency? As the moment Britain would expect say, Spain, to insist on and receive a currency union. So why would a separate Scotland be able to insist upon it?

At the very least they would have to subordinate some fiscal decision making to the head bank for said union, in this case, BoE. Also the debt for said country is underwritten by its currency - why should Welsh/Northern Irish/English voters permit a foreign sovereign nation to have that backstop?

I don't think it is sensible or perhaps achievable, to view the currency union as an asset that can be split like a share of physical assets.

- - - Updated - - -


Trouble here is that Alex Salmond was wanting to open the negotiations prior to the referendum, so both positions knew what might happen going forward.

Of course, Westminster in a typical display of Old Boy Tory arrogance denied this.

All 3 parties and the Welsh first minister are united in saying an independent Scotland will not get currency union. The sheer cost and scale of such a negotiation means I think far from it being arrogant, I think it a sensible decision of government not to waste time and money on something before it actually happens.

[Mr Mystery]

It's general post-yes negotiations that Call Me Dave has thoroughly nixed, in a move to try to discredit Salmond as having no credible plan, and make it look like he's not bothered.

Whole No campaign is very fishy. Recent egging of a No Campaign MP? Egg thrower was wearing an earpiece. Which seems odd. And not a bluetooth one. One of those with the wiggly wire thing.

[Wolfshade]

No idea.

But my Bro, who is up on the debate and very much voting 'Yes' raised the following point regarding the debt.

If Westminster is determined not to share assets, how can they reasonably expect to share the liabilities? And as a completely new country, would a court reasonably expect and independent Scotland to be responsible for a debt it did not itself (in it's new form) create?

Is this the same sharing of assets like the north sea oil...

[Mr Mystery]

Buggered if I know. But probably.

All these things Salmond has been wanting to begin discussions about, but been told 'no' by Westminster. Which has oddly helped the Yes campaign more than the No it would seem.

[Denzark]

I've looked through the BBC coverage of that and I can't spot that (too far away). But whilst neither campaign is covering itself in glory I would be more likely to believe it is just an excitable yes campaigner (give Salmond the benefit of the doubt that he didn't personally sanction it) and not that it is a no smear campaign - do people in the business of using discrete comms equipment allow themselves to be filmed with it in?

A little too conspiracy for me.

- - - Updated - - -

On the subject of whether sterling is an asset...

"However, economists have said sterling is not an asset that can be divided between two countries as its value rests on the ability of UK taxpayers to stand behind it. A separate Scotland would no longer pay taxes to the UK Treasury."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11064526/Alex-Salmond-drops-pound-shared-asset-claim.html

[Denzark]

Ooh dear, North Sea oil revenues dip £1.4Bn in a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11065077/Salmond-attacked-as-North-Sea-oil-revenue-plummets.html

[Psychosplodge]

So there's been some of salmons sneaky yes-men that failed to comment...

[Denzark]

Interesting comment from a 4 star general just leaving a job in NATO - another SME contradicting the SNP's position:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/in-full-general-sir-richard-shirreff-s-letter-1-3526265

[Psychosplodge]

So somewhere else where Salmon's figures don't add up?

[Mr Mystery]

Yet it's looking increasingly likely Scotland will make the break.

3 point shift, and it's a Yes.

And don't lose sight of the fact that it's not so much about being better off financially for many, as being out from under the yoke of Westminster.

[eldargal]

Yet it's looking increasingly likely Scotland will make the break.

3 point shift, and it's a Yes.

And don't lose sight of the fact that it's not so much about being better off financially for many, as being out from under the yoke of Westminster.
It's not that rosy for Yes really. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29037323)

[Psychosplodge]

Yet it's looking increasingly likely Scotland will make the break.

3 point shift, and it's a Yes.

And don't lose sight of the fact that it's not so much about being better off financially for many, as being out from under the yoke of Westminster.

Actually its exactly about financial security, there was an article at beginning of campaign that suggested the undecideds could be swayed for as little as £500
a year better off.

[Mr Mystery]

As I said, for many financials aren't the be all and end all in the way the No campaign have been claiming.

I still don't think we'll see it happen, but it is getting too close to call. Yes voters have much more to gain, so are more likely to actually turn out. Consider it a sort of UKIP affect. UKIP did well not because they're exactly popular anywhere, but because their supporters actually got out there and voted. Regardless of how you feel about that particular brand of political lunatic, they have achieved something the three main parties haven't in a long old time (probably because Politics is a lot easier with widespread political apathy)

[eldargal]

I think people are ignoring the impact the 'oh **** this is real with real consequences' moment people will have when they actually come to vote.

[Mr Mystery]

There is that to factor in, but the Scots do tend to be quite bloody minded.

[eldargal]

Not stupid though. Far more pragmatic than ideological too in my experience.

[Mr Mystery]

True.

I know that the wider country really wants Devo Max - and as said before, the fact that Call Me Dave said no to that outright, and is now dangling it as a carrot for a 'No' vote sucks. It's either an option, or it isn't.

[Wolfshade]

I don't want to see us seperate. We are one great nation and are in synch really well.

At the time you had Henrvy VIII stepping away from teh church of rome for politican reasons, you also had in Scotland the church stepping away from rome for politcal reasons. Different politics, but same effect at the same time. One was top down, the other bottom up.

Toghether we did amazing things, most of the world's banking is based on scotish bankers, the historical feirceness of the highland regiments.

I know my grandfather was terribly proud to be captain in the black watch during his national service and all that that entailed.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet Scotland feels sidelined.

I daresay it's the same sentiment felt in the former Coal communities around the country - when that ended, Westminster shrugged and did nothing, except start blaming poor communities for all the countries ills.

Scotland hasn't done too badly, but areas have suffered horribly, such as the Clyde Ship Building. It's unrealistic to expect the UK to compete in those areas due to our higher than many wages, but it's the lack of care and help from Westminster that has honked people off.

[Morgrim]

From what I've seen it looks like while separation could be a viable option, the current plan is rushed and incomplete and a potential disaster. Which is kind of sad. I'm reminded of the Aussie referendum a decade ago about whether we should become a republic and the general consensus was "we would quite like to become a republic yes but this plan you are offering us is terrible and THAT is why we are rejecting it".

Can Scotland, Wales, Ulster and the non-London bits of England sort of decide to abandon London and go camp in Edinburgh? Because that looks like it would solve most of the issues and benefit the rest of the UK too.

[Wolfshade]

It comes down to emotions and the truth of the matter doesn't seem to be valid.

As someone not living in London, I feel sidelined.

What care and help would you want, there is a universal benefit system? A nation wide centre that activiely finds work for people, what else is there?

last month, didn't the Royal Navy order a multi-hundred pound contract for ships based in the clyde area?

I mean this decline has been since WW2, it is the same sort of decline that hit most industrialised cities, but it is down to local government to determine that it will diversify and attract new industry. Birmingham City Council for instance at great cost built the NIA, it bid and won for the NEC and spent obscene money rennovating the International Airport and putting it back on the map. That is the function of local government, or at least is hould be.

[Psychosplodge]

You feel like you're sidelined?

We might as well not exist...

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

Trouble for Scotland, is that they've always had a strong sense of national identity, a feeling of not being quite as united as the name of the country might suggest.

This gave a banner to stand behind, and something else to complain about etc. I myself have had a drive through the former Welsh mining towns, and I know Scotland didn't get the worst of it, not even close. But the sentiment remains. So much of the media is London centric, it's hard to feel you're getting a fair deal.

[Wolfshade]

I would actually say that that is quite recent (in the grand scheme of things)

Yes, certainly, in the highlands this has always been the case and indeed when you go over to the islands, even places like Stornaway English is the second language.

The low-lands however have for a long time considered themselves more "civilised", more urban and "entlightened" (in terms of historical movements, rather than an intellectualism) than those rural areas.

[Wildeybeast]

True.

I know that the wider country really wants Devo Max - and as said before, the fact that Call Me Dave said no to that outright, and is now dangling it as a carrot for a 'No' vote sucks. It's either an option, or it isn't.

It shouldn't be an option. You are either in or you are out.

As for this feeling sidelined, I personally don't. Sure, the nation is London centric, but that is to be expected. That is the seat of government, the financial capital and contains getting on for a 10th of the population. Of course things will be skewed that way. As someone who lives in Derbyshire, we took a good hit when the coal industry was gutted and there are plenty of villages that haven't recovered, but we didn't sit around feeling sorry for ourselves. For all it's many failings, the council made significant efforts to improve the economy. They bent over backwards to persuade Toyota to build their manufacturing plant here and have done their best to promote Bombardier and Rolls Royce. Sure, central government can always do more to help promote growth and regeneration, and provide better access to skills and training, but there comes a point when local governments and individuals have to start taking responsibility for themselves. If Scotland feels the best way to do that is independence, then more power to them, but as I've said before, it needs to be proper independence, not this parasitic vision the Salmond has.
b

[Mr Mystery]

So why dangle it now?

As I said, it's either on the table, or it's not.

If it's an option at all, let Scotland vote for it. Way things are now, there is precisely nothing binding about that promise, and I wouldn't put it past Westminster to neatly forget all about it if it's a No.

[Wildeybeast]

Agreed, that seems like typical political shenanigans. Possibly it's the no camp realising that their campaign is pretty much all based around how bad things would be if they left and feeling like they need an incentive to stay.

[Mr Mystery]

And the action seems to have strengthened the Yes vote, rather than damaged it. Nice one Dave. You big twonk!

[Denzark]

The thing about 'London centric' is that a certain level of centralisation is desirable. But the capital could have been anywhere - its just now, the costs of reversing 'London centric' versus the benefits, don't make it worthwhile. In any meaningful way.

Take HS2. People in government/civil service plan the routes, calculate approximate monetary benefit - and then some tinpot 18th biggest city has an academic from their ex-polytechnic assess that if the HS2 strayed off route to them, their city would be more profitable. WTF? Who is right?

There is no pro-rata tax division for infrastructure. Crossrail, Europe's single largest infra project, is London, - but London is the beating economic heart of the country. Make it more attractive for Saudi princes. When they buy 100k watches the treasury gets 20% VAT.

I live in Norfolk. I care not one jot if the lackwit labour city council in Norwich has to live off their own nous and not try and moan about London.

Anyhoo the Barnett formula is a matter of absolute fact - Scots get more tax payers money per head than any other nationality so to complain about London seems trite to me.

As to coming out from Westminster's yolk, whilst I can see how that would be a perception, that perception could apply equally to any minority in their perception of how their democratic body should be run. The Scots if they got independence and joined the EU (against what a whole bevy of EU politicians say) may find that only Scotland want 1 thing and all 20 something member states want another. But that 'yolk' is acceptable to Scotland? Hmm.

[Wolfshade]

I know 1 man who is going to profit from HS2. He bought a long term lease on a pub that is opposite the Birmingham proposed terminus before the route was annouced, owing to the amount of refurbishment on the pub he negotiated a low rent, currently it is ticking over a small profit, however when work on that station begins he is going to get the work men in spending their money and once the station is completed he will get the travellers popping in for a quick pint.

In terms of HS2, I think the idea behind it is good, improve the connection to London for people outside the M25, however, all I can really envisage is that Birmingham becomes the new commuter belt for London, accellerating the fiscal pull to the capitol, rather than a re-balance.

In terms of expenditure per region per head:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/chsfigure5identifiablepublicexpenditureonservicesb ycountryandregion201213v02_tcm77-354066.png

The problem is that if you look at it:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/chskeystatisticsscotlandpopulationdensity2010map_t cm77-274722.png

You have the Glasgow-Edinburgh band of high density and Aberdeen (it should be noted owing to its place in oil refinery Aberdeen is more like London than average UK, the house prioces are supidly high and they did not hit recession).

People complain about the London Centric approach but it kinda makes sense owing to spending per head, but London has 13% of the UK's population. If Scotland goes independent, the Glasgow & Edinburgh will account for over 20% of the Scottish population so the expenditure in that region will be even more dispropotionately high.

As I have said before Scotland and the West Midlands are the same sort of size in population, but one gets 12% more per head than the other because of reasons.


Though all of this is unlikey to say people as Mystery has pointed out before, it isn't so much where the money is spent it is where the money is raised, and taking into account North Sea Oil (which the Scotch see very much as theirs rather than a shared asset) they generate more revenue per head.

It is a trisksy subject and i very much doubt that facts and figures are what will win this argument, but more who gets the emotional reaction. Which is something that the yes campaign is very much better at doing than the nos whom seem to rely on facts rather than feelings.

[Mr Mystery]

I actually back HS2 myself. We need it. Frankly, stuff the cost. If we don't build it, our transportation systems will remain pretty archaic.

As for fiscal pull? Yep, there will still be high levels of (somewhere)/London commute in London's favour. But, it's where that money earned in London is then spent that will support not-London economies elsewhere. Least that's the way I see it!

[Wolfshade]

I actually back HS2 myself. We need it. Frankly, stuff the cost. If we don't build it, our transportation systems will remain pretty archaic.

As for fiscal pull? Yep, there will still be high levels of (somewhere)/London commute in London's favour. But, it's where that money earned in London is then spent that will support not-London economies elsewhere. Least that's the way I see it!

But isn't that the antithesis of the scottish funds raised being spent outside scotland arguement?

I am in general in favour of capital expenditure, it is good.

Having said that I would rather see the money being spent on nuclear power plants rather than a railway that will be subsidised by the public funds, rather than a private power plant build that well sell back power at overly inflated prices.

[Mr Mystery]

Meh. I live in the South East of England and work within the Canary Wharf area. DFKDFC to much of that, hence me having no opinion about Scotland going independent (very unlikely to affect me in any way).

Build the railway, nationalise the railways. Boom. Railways cost something like £15,000,000,000 to run. This is subsidised to the tune of £5,000,000,000 by the government (or indeed, us as it truthfully is). Let's just take that whole lot on the chin, and admit a value for money Public Transport Scheme does not in itself have to be profitable in order to bring economic benefits (though one should always ensure it's run as efficiently as possible. And no, some fat git whacking a profit margin on it does not count as efficient!)

[Psychosplodge]

It's already obsolete if they're gonna do highspeed rail they need the really highspeed stuff like Japan and now China has.

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting thought....

I'm about to renew my Passport, on account of the booze cruise to save mucho casho on tobacco in Belgium.

Right now, I'm a British Citizen. In a fortnight? Perhaps not!

[Wolfshade]

You could probably claim residency rights and become a resident you've been here long enough haven't you?

The interesting ones would be the scots who live in scotland and travel to england to work. They would have no right or indeed the correct visas to enter the uk or work in the uk and vice versa.

[Mr Mystery]

I honestly do not know.

All I have heard is that being born in Scotland, I become Scottish by default. Which doesn't worry/offend me at all. Just one of the curiosities.

I mean a split won't happen over night - this much Salmond at least has made clear, but worth considering for me. As if they want me to pay to change from UK to Scottish passport, they can sodding well whistle!

[Wolfshade]

You might have dual citizenship.

I think that this is one of the things which people haven't given much thought too.

Certainly, if I were in Scotland I wouldn't make a big deal of border control, can you imagine it though, a big immigration hub on the M6/M74 and A68?

I don't think that it is in either's interest to make a big thing about it to be honest, though goods coming into the EU (UK) would need to be valued and taxed.

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty sure both sides are in favour of an open border. Just pointlessly costly to do it any other way.

Though the interest thing would be immigration and that. Right now, asylum seekers are meant (under EU law) to settle in the first country they are discovered in - no cherry picking like. Which is why France faced a lot of pressure to close off Sangatte, conveniently placed, and poorly manned enough to encourage people to jump a ferry or a lorry and get to the UK. All of Europe could play that game, except for the UK as there was nowhere convenient for us to palm them off to.

But, independent Scotland? ???

[Wolfshade]

Urgh imagine if there is a yes and Scotland remain outside of the EU, the UK has to build a border (ala Hardian's wall) like the border between Mexico and the USA to keep the illegals out.

[Mr Mystery]

Well true. Scotland wouldn't want it's borders crawling with Geordies and Scousers seeking a better life :p

[Morgrim]

I doubt they could pull it off. After all, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the middle of the worst part of the Troubles was leaky enough that tourists could accidentally wander from one country to another without realising. And then have very awkward conversations with helpful military officers who thankfully thought that my parents were confused about which county they were seeking, not which country the county was actually in...

[Psychosplodge]

scotland border is smaller though isn't it. sixty odd miles of wall shouldn't be that hard to erect.

[DWest]

A wall is going to be completely worthless-- the US/Mexico fence gets surmounted daily by people who are poor and have basically nothing in the way of material resources to use, and they still manage. You think you're going to put up a wall, and one side of that wall are going to be Scots who are bored and pissy and have *money* to buy *tools* (and also whisky, which should count as both means and motivation really), and they're going to stay on that side? They wouldn't even get the whole thing up before somebody's torn half of it down and carried it off, just to say "ha ha, we did it!"

[Psychosplodge]

doh

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting article on The Grauniad today about why they feel Yes is gaining ground rapidly.

Can't find it right now, but here's a cartoon instead.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/3/1409757648494/Steve-Bells-If---04.09.20-004.jpg

Found it! (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-5-reasons-yes-winning-polls)

[Mr Mystery]

No Campaign caught talking bollocks about a Tesco price increase....by Tesco! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393)

[Wolfshade]

Actually, it would depend on what if any import tax Scotland imposes if they go independent.

If they do then that would be passed direct to the consumer, (most likely).

However, what currency the shop would use is confusing...

[eldargal]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/3462caa5117b487c252e9f785ff4ac61/tumblr_na3nhkxXH81svwvspo1_500.jpg

[Mr Mystery]

Ahh Viz, where would we be without you?

[Mr Mystery]

Seems Westminster is in the process of changing it's troosers, and promising once again more powers if there's a no (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29096458)

Whilst again I have no opinion either way, as it's unlikely to affect me (live in Kent, work in London, have no dependence on state money), this does seem very underhanded.

Original request for the referendum was Yes, No, Devo Max (moar autonomy and tax raising powers etc). Westminster nixed the third option. Now they're dangling it as a reward for voting No in the referendum. As well covered, my opinion here is 'either on the table or it's not'. Westminster have essentially tried to keep two of the options wanted as a win for them. Hardly democratic!

[Wildeybeast]

Surely such political game playing is the very essence of democracy?

[Mr Mystery]

Nope.

In this specific case, you simply cannot say no to an option, and then offer it outside of a choice on the referendum.

[Wildeybeast]

Apparently they can and have. I actually don't think it is that unreasonable. Westminster is willing to let Scotland go if that is what she wants, but is rightly cautious about handing over law making powers that the UK will still bear the financial burden off. That sort of thing should be carefully negotiated and decided on, not left to the whims of the mindless masses. Plus, that option on a ballot paper would automatically win. Hey Scotland, do you want to stay as you are, move out and do exactly as you please or get to do whatever you want with none of the responsibility? That's pretty much a no brainer.

[Wolfshade]

First poll puts Yes ahead of No for the first time, though it is the first poll to do so

[Psychosplodge]

Saw conspiracy theories yesterday saying Westminister is sat on the news about a large offshore field and the rig workers are all sat at home on full pay with NDAs hanging over them.
Another one that MI5 is rigging the ballet.

[Mr Mystery]

Mmmm. Casual racism from the Sun with the headline 'Jocky Horror Show'.

Because despite it being just as offensive as calling someone a spik, wop, dago or other unsavoury term, it's a-ok to use Jock.

[Psychosplodge]

As loathe as I am to defend the sun, Isn't it in the same vain as Scouse, Geordie, or Cockney?

[Wolfshade]

Is it "racist" to use the term "john smith" to refer to an unknown/generic uk person?
Is it "racist" to use the term "john doe" to refer to an unknown/generic usa person?

[daboarder]

Mmmm. Casual racism from the Sun with the headline 'Jocky Horror Show'.

Because despite it being just as offensive as calling someone a spik, wop, dago or other unsavoury term, it's a-ok to use Jock.
seriously mystery, this entire thread reads as casual racism.

[Mr Mystery]

Is it "racist" to use the term "john smith" to refer to an unknown/generic uk person?
Is it "racist" to use the term "john doe" to refer to an unknown/generic usa person?

Is it "not racist" because you don't feel it so, even though someone whom it purports to describe is offended by it?

[Wolfshade]

Don't Black Watch call themselves "the jocks"?

- - - Updated - - -

If you find collective nouns upsetting then that's fine, we will chastise you every time you use the term like scouser or brummie or guys.

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot see how such an affection is a racist term, afterall, there is no such thing as racism as we are all the same race, homosapien.

The use of Jock can easily be affectionate but in the hands of others banter can easily turn nasty.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45921000/jpg/_45921157_broonites_henrydavis466.jpg
From Private Eye's Broonites strip.

[Denzark]

MM- post #186 you make a sly comment about 'scousers' and 'Geordies' seeking a better life in Scotland. Now you are bandying around casual racism again? Seriously? Why should a nickname based purely on geographical areas be acceptable in 2 cases that happen to be English but not in reference to scots?

[Mr Mystery]

Spod on internet is one thing.

National newspaper is quite another, yes?

[daboarder]

MM- post #186 you make a sly comment about 'scousers' and 'Geordies' seeking a better life in Scotland. Now you are bandying around casual racism again? Seriously? Why should a nickname based purely on geographical areas be acceptable in 2 cases that happen to be English but not in reference to scots?

well I havent done that and Im calling this whole thread out on racism.

[Wolfshade]

National newspapers use those terms also.

But surely such terms must be offensive regardless of what context, especially being called one of Jock Tamson's Bairns...

So you using Geordie in this context must be as abhorent as a national newspaper using it. Unless something is only offensive if a threshold of people hear/read it...

- - - Updated - - -


well I havent done that and Im calling this whole thread out on racism.

Last I was aware the people who dwell in the land of Scotland were homosapiens too, so not sure how that can be racism since you know that is the same race as the rest of the world

[eldargal]

Well I don't know about this thread but a fair chunk of the Yes vote is grounded in nationalism and racism even if they are doing a better job of disguising it recently

[daboarder]

Last I was aware the people who dwell in the land of Scotland were homosapiens too, so not sure how that can be racism since you know that is the same race as the rest of the world

....wha?

[Morgrim]

Despite what every single fantasy book in existence says, race != species. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming... *slinks out of here with her long pole*

[Psychosplodge]

Pro independence poll result blamed for drop in pound, and larger drop in share price (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103445)of companies in Scotland.

[Mr Mystery]

That's nothing.

According to the Sunday Post, Islamic State are trying to force a yes vote. Presumably for reasons best known to themselves, as one suspects few of their fighters are interested enough in geography or non-middle east politics to be able to point out Scotland on a map (http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/isis-targeted-scot-to-force-a-yes-vote-in-referendum-1.562793)

Nice one, No Campaign. I'm sure that convinced a few mad old biddies who were going to vote No anyway to vote No.

[Psychosplodge]

It doesn't matter anyway, did you miss #201? We're rigging the ballet anyway (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/scotland-poll):D

[Mr Mystery]

Ah fringe lunatics on all sides, helping to keep the common spod disinterested in politics, lest they be perceived as one.

Apparently, Darling has called for armed police at polling stations, in case the yes camp kick off (or presumably vote yes).

[daboarder]

man and I thought the press in aus was bad....why havent you murdered the lot of em yet?

[Psychosplodge]

man and I thought the press in aus was bad....why havent you murdered the lot of em yet?

Industrialised murder got a bad rap after the germans misused it in the early twentieth century.

[Mr Mystery]

Quite so.

And to be honest, it's an Ozzie who has caused all the damage!

[Mr Mystery]

Daily Mail blaming Labour already (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747260/As-No-campaign-sleep-walks-disaster-Mail-s-Home-Affairs-editor-JAMES-SLACK-declares-real-villain-debacle-Red-Ed.html).

Apologies for linking to Das Daily Mail.

[Wildeybeast]

Apology not accepted. Mystery, out of curiosity, what will you be if Scotland goes independent? You going to be British citizen or a Scottish one? I assume you will have a choice of citizenship.

[Mr Mystery]

Dunno.

Last I heard, instantly Scottish, as that was my birthplace.

Whether I'll have to hide from UKIP, EDL, BNP etc forever after remains to be seen. But one thing's for sure, it'll be another reason for the Das Daily Mail to dislike me. Sadly, it's only my male persuasion and white skin preventing me otherwise winning 'Daily Hate Bingo' as they sure don't like my lifestyle!

[Wildeybeast]

So, you'd have to apply to stay here then (as a citizen of a non EU country)? This is why folks not living in Scotland should have been given a vote. It affects them as well.

[Mr Mystery]

Honestly do not know.

Been here 23 of my 34 years though, so possible automatic citizenship (essentially Scottish for a fraction of a second like).

[Wildeybeast]

I would have thought you'd all get indefinite leave to remain. It's just yet another thing that hasn't been thought through. Both sides have really botched the whole thing. I could honestly see Scotland voting for independence and then three years down the track just saying 'bugger it, the whole things too complicated to sort out, let's just stay out'.

[Mr Mystery]

No idea.

Had a look on Wiki, and it seems the Yes campaign are more advanced in that area of planning, with Westminster only wanting to address it if there's a Yes vote. Idiots.

[Al Shut]

Apologies for linking to Das Daily Mail.

Linking the Daily Mail to the German language? Unacaptable!

[Denzark]

Spod on internet is one thing.

National newspaper is quite another, yes?

Good seeing as I'm another spod on the internet I'll continue to use the phrase 'tartan-heided eejits' to refer to those persons who take Salmonds more outlandish tosh at face value.

[DWest]

Pro independence poll result blamed for drop in pound, and larger drop in share price (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103445)of companies in Scotland.
Wait, the pound's down to 1.61 vs the dollar? Nifty, that puts me $80 closer to the Reaver Titan I've always wanted. Now I just need to find the other $916 . . .

More seriously, being 1/2 Scot by ancestry (and X generations removed to the other side of the pond), I keep feeling like I should want to feel something one way or the other, but it's just too odd. This and the potential WWIII (or at least Continental Brouhaha round N+1) stewing up over Ukraine, it's sorta like, "wait, this is happening now? I thought people had gotten over screwing with the maps".

[daboarder]

Industrialised murder got a bad rap after the germans misused it in the early twentieth century.

how about artisan?

[Faultie]

As a Yank (is that ok to say?), I've only been tangentially following this, but am I correct in assuming that should Scotland vote No, I can expect V for Vendetta to materialize in England, and Animal Farm to do likewise in Scotland upon a Yes vote? In either event, can I still visit as a tourist? Will I be allowed to pay in monies, or by that point will beads and trinkets work? Will livestock still be available for sale?

In case it's not obvious, I'm mocking the doomsaying on each side. I actually have little interest in how it turns out. Good luck, folks.

[Psychosplodge]

Wait, the pound's down to 1.61 vs the dollar? Nifty, that puts me $80 closer to the Reaver Titan I've always wanted. Now I just need to find the other $916 . . .

More seriously, being 1/2 Scot by ancestry (and X generations removed to the other side of the pond), I keep feeling like I should want to feel something one way or the other, but it's just too odd. This and the potential WWIII (or at least Continental Brouhaha round N+1) stewing up over Ukraine, it's sorta like, "wait, this is happening now? I thought people had gotten over screwing with the maps".


how about artisan?

lols @ you both


In either event, can I still visit as a tourist? Will I be allowed to pay in monies, or by that point will beads and trinkets work? Will livestock still be available for sale?


Well in case of no you will still be able to, in case of yes They don't know.

[Wolfshade]

It isn't a problem since they won't have shops and even if they did they wouldn't have stock

[Mr Mystery]

I still think it's going to be a 'No'.

If anything, the recent polls should help get the No voters out in force. And perhaps unfairly, I also consider 'undecided' to be more likely to end up voting to maintain a status quo. And all those extra powers Westminster is suddenly offering could prove crucial.

Whichever way it goes - Salmond will still walk away the outright winner :)

[Wolfshade]

Yes, his single agenda party has done well and he himself has made a political carear of, what was probably thought a "pipe dream" and now is a real possibility, and even if the independence doesn't happen the shift of power towards local governance must be beneficial.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeedy.

Bunch of people in Westminster should take stock of what he's done and how he's done it.

But not Nigel Farage. He needs to take himself down the Knacker's Yard toot sweet.

[Wolfshade]

To be fair knock off nigel is doing the same thing.

Which is what the green's should be doing, rather than persecuting people for bike sheds in their front garden

[Mr Mystery]

Nige is currently little more than a rabble rouser.

If he gets serious about clearing out the proper loonies from his party, he may start to get somewhere. But right now I see him playing very dirty politics, what with defections and the like in seats they might possibly, if you squinted in the right light, win. Kind of hope UKIP get a bloody nose in the upcoming elections - they need it.

And again, I kind of hope the Tories win the next election, one way or another. I may not particularly like their policies, or what they do to my country, but they will give a referendum on Europe, and one way or another shut down UKIP as a going concern/protest vote. And that would get my vote every day of the week.

[Denzark]

MM - Do you think the SNP and/or Salmond has played a dirty politics? The defection was not pleasant especially for the candidate already supposed to be fighting the election, but I don't recall UKIP cyber bullying or rallying their activists to push on one issue or other.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't know enough about what has and hasn't happened - as earlier explained, I have no real opinion on the matter as I don't live in Scotland.

And has the SNP been actively cyberbullying, or is the behaviour of activists now being attached to the party?

[Denzark]

Good point. Nats not SNP I suppose.

[Mr Mystery]

I just get a bad taste in my mouth when any actively serving Politician jumps ship.

Always seems less to do with their actual moral compass, and more sensing which way the wind is blowing, and wanting to keep their job. Clearly the UKIP defector got the feeling he might lose his seat to UKIP, and so defected for purely selfish reasons. Horrible, dirty politics that.

[Denzark]

I didn't read it like that - his comment about Cameron's advisors/political team, supporting an EU referendum just as a general election gambit, rank true to me. He had a sufficient vote share enough to not worry about a UKIP swing.

I am not convinced diluting the tory vote will support his aims - ie if there is no EU referendum because the dreaded others get in. We will see if his personal record with his voters is enough to win the by-election. But I do feel sorry for the UKIP candidate who has just been shoved aside.

[Mr Mystery]

Whole thing seems smelly to me.

And yeah - EU Referendum. Can only be held once every so often (as we live in a Democracy, and much as UKIP might wish it, we can't simply pull out because of a few radicals, nor keep holding referendums until those few radicals get the result they want). He has left a party promising, and in a position to actually deliver said referendum, for one who claim (against all evidence) that they're the only party who can deliver an EU referendum - despite having no political power within Westminster.

Tell me there's not something very, very fishy going on there. To put it in crude terms, that's like ditching your girlfriend for someone off the internet you've never actually met who has promised the world to you, but you still suspect might be a 25 stone trucker called Kevin who still lives with his Mum at the age of 55.....

[Denzark]

To expand somewhat on your metaphor, he either believes that the internet promise is good - or that his then ex girlfriend will confess to cheating and come back and give him head and steak dinners nightly for the next 20 years in order to profess forgiveness.

One of these is considerably more naïve than the other though.

[Mr Mystery]

True that.

Still feel there's more than meets the eye here, especially as Call Me Dave seems 100% genuine on an in/out referendum on Europe. I do wish Labour and the Lib Dumbs would get on board with that, if only to make the whole issue go away for a few decades.

I'm confident it would remain an 'in' result, as big business know what's good for them, and generally speaking, what big business wants, big business gets, and contrary to popular belief, isn't always bad for the spod.

[Psychosplodge]

IDK I literally can't think of anyone I know IRL that would vote in.

[Mr Mystery]

Whereas I'm the opposite - I don't know anyone (well, apart from you) who would want out. No it's not perfect, but we're in no position to stand on our own - which is something the Eurosceptics tend to try to gloss over in the press.