Oh, and I get sentimental about the Union too - I just bought an old book about the North British Locomotive Works, Henry V Act III ("Once more unto the breach, dear friends.."), Oates saying "I'm just going outside and may be some time", all that.
But we can celebrate our shared history without having to share our future.
scotroutes - Member
oldbloke - I hear what you say about the "independence at all costs" folk but let's say it's a Yes/Yes, based on amongst other things a settlement with the EU. What happens if in, say, 10 years time a different Scottish Government is elected that decides to pull out of the EU - or there's a re-negotiation of some other sort?
Then a future Scottish Government can try and convince the electorate to go down that route.
*A Better Together "analysis" recently announced that being independent would cost every Scot the grand sum of £1 per year. Don't know about you, but I'd happily pay £1 per year to never have to listen to a Tory politician ever again
Exactly the sort of irrelevant nonsense which clouds debate. I don't need to pay £1 to be able to just ignore them 🙂
If you want them to dot every i and cross every t before you vote, it's not going to happen.
It is exactly what I expect to happen. It is what I expect to happen when I buy a house, a car, when I resolve contracts at work, when I employ someone. Independence could be either wonderful or a total nightmare depending on its terms.
Maybe it is because I operate in a world where I have seen the impact of poorly vs well negotiated deals. But if I can't read the terms, there's no way I'm going to vote for it.
David Cameron, Alex Salmonds greatest ally.
Ben, Well put.
As a non-Scotsman who prefers the current Union, my only facile contribution would be to say;
"No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in..."
Better late than never:
1 - MoD Spending - are all the Scottish Regiments just being re-housed south of the border, is this where the increase in MoD spending comes from? I would guess not.
2 - Oldbloke - if you can actually dot the "i"'s etc everytime you employ someone then well done, I tend to find that a great deal of recruitment is still done on trust, a bit like voting for your government.
I am in no way decided on this issue but lately I feel I have more in common with Alex Salmond than David Cameron, Ed Milliband, Nick Clegg and George Osbourne. It would pain me to vote for CMD as I would feel like I would be doing the right thing with the wrong person. Actually looking forward to the next 18th months and the debate.
CMD does not want the international embarrasment of being the PM who over saw the final nail in the coffin of the Great British Empire (ironing finished) being hammered home.
CMD does not want the international embarrasment of being the PM who over saw the final nail in the coffin of the Great British Empire (ironing finished) being hammered home.
Nah, we've still got the Falklands!
2 - Oldbloke - if you can actually dot the "i"'s etc everytime you employ someone then well done, I tend to find that a great deal of recruitment is still done on trust, a bit like voting for your government.
I know what I'm going to pay them and I know what is written in their job description & employment contract. Their ability to perform is trust / judgement.
We are going to vote on something which doesn't have the equivalent of those and are going to have to trust the politicians to negotiate pay & conditions as well as ability to perform.
You may well be happy to give them that authority. I'm not.
Ojn the question of the army, can they really afford to do without the significant number of Scots who comprise the various regiments?
For me it is a yes. Having lived through the Thatcher years as a late teen,the way she abandoned my country because we didn't vote for her makes me realise that Scotland will always be way behind in any UK corp. (I realise that the majority of the population live in England)Because of this I feel that we can never rely on a Westminster Government (esp a Tory one)So I have to take this opp to apologise for dooming England to a tory government for ever.
I also have to say that I think this will be an every-generation issue. A no vote now will not be the end of it.
So I have to take this opp to apologise for dooming England to a tory government for ever.
Thing is, this won't. The Scottish vote hasn't decided any national election since WWII.
This (pro-independence) video covers lots of the main arguments:
I also have to say that I think this will be an every-generation issue. A no vote now will not be the end of it.
I can't think of a bigger case for the rest of the UK deciding it wanted to self determine as a place that didn't include Scotland 😉
who wants the perpetual moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth 🙄
Having lived through the Thatcher years as a late teen,the way she abandoned my country because we didn't vote for her makes me realise that Scotland will always be way behind in any UK corp
how come 13 years of Scottish Labour prime ministers didn't rebalance this ❓
[quote=oldbloke ]
I know what I'm going to pay them and I know what is written in their job description & employment contract. Their ability to perform is trust / judgement.
We are going to vote on something which doesn't have the equivalent of those and are going to have to trust the politicians to negotiate pay & conditions as well as ability to perform.
You may well be happy to give them that authority. I'm not.
Is that not like having an over-paid, under-performing employee and then being too scared to take the risk on replacing them? 🙂
Ojn the question of the army, can they really afford to do without the significant number of Scots who comprise the various regiments?
The greater irony being that unless they happen to be registered to vote in Scotland, then presumably they won't count as residents and may well end up on the wrong side in a hypothetical conflict.
Though that does raise an interesting question: When it comes to issuing Scottish passports, who's eligible? Those who live there, those who can prove in some way that they are Scottish, or will it just be a free for all on dual citizenship?
how come 13 years of Scottish Labour prime ministers didn't rebalance this
This does seem to be a question that's being quite well evaded. Why was the balance not redressed with Scots in power in Westminster for 13 years?
Good grief, that pro independence video has put my vote straight back on the fence.
A chirpy tune, a sarcastic narrator, and saying this that and be other, isn't enough to convince me of owt.
will it just be a free for all on dual citizenship?
Can't see them stopping anyone who wants one having one tbh. Probably similar to the situation in Ireland.
This does seem to be a question that's being quite well evaded. Why was the balance not redressed with Scots in power in Westminster for 13 years?
Prime Ministers don't have absolute power.
This does seem to be a question that's being quite well evaded. Why was the balance not redressed with Scots in power in Westminster for 13 years?
Because they may have been Scots, but they were members of political parties containing politicians from all over (mostly England, of course), living in London, and working in a first-past-the-post system that doesn't really allow for change. If they even wanted change.
scotroutes - MemberIs that not like having an over-paid, under-performing employee and then being too scared to take the risk on replacing them?
You're proposing firing someone and taking your luck in what you get as a replacement. I'm suggesting I want to see the range of alternative candidates presented so I know there's a better option before I consider firing the old one.
I'll be voting yes.
I've not seen a single [i]positive[/i] reason from the "better together" campaign as to why Scotland should remain in the union. Just scaremongering and some guff about our "shared heritage".
If Scotland becomes independent the various peoples of these islands will still have a shared heritage and a shared future just under different governments.
I've not seen a single [u]positive[/u] reason from the "better together" campaign as to why Scotland should remain in the union. Just scaremongering and some guff about our "shared heritage".
Well, you'll definitely (maybe) still be in the EU, if you view that as positive
Really? Is it not just as/more likely that the UK will exit the Eu?
Prime Ministers don't have absolute power.
so why do you blame Thatcher ❓
you clearly think she didn't have absolute power 😉
Really? Is it not just as/more likely that the UK will exit the Eu?
Pretty unlikely, despite CMD's hubris.
😉[b]Alex Salmond,[/b] David Cameron[b]s[/b], [s]Alex Salmonds[/s] greatest ally.
so why do you blame Thatcher
Lazy convenience?
so why do you blame Thatcher
I don't
Edit, blaming her for what?
Not something I'm particularly emotional about. I will say that Scotland will either be a successor state or it will not. Both have advantages and disadvantages, however the SNP seem to think that they'll be able to pick and choose the best bits.
If Scotland do vote yes, I think we should break up the whole kit and kaboodle. No more struggling for devolution for Wales, NI can stand alone or join with the ROI.
big_n_daft - Memberso why do you blame Thatcher
Dunno. But whyever it is, it's probably because of Thatcher
[quote=wrecker ]Not something I'm particularly emotional about. I will say that Scotland will either be a successor state or it will not. Both have advantages and disadvantages, however the SNP seem to think that they'll be able to pick and choose the best bits.
If Scotland do vote yes, I think we should break up the whole kit and kaboodle. No more struggling for devolution for Wales, NI can stand alone or join with the ROI.
I do wonder what he impact of Scottish Independence would be on the rest of the UK;
If it's seen to be successful, would it convince enough voters that a more left-leaning party could make it into government?
Would it result in more of a ground-swell in favour of an independent Wales?
Would some of the pro-UK patriotism in Northern Ireland subside enough for a merger with the ROI?
Found this wee gem on t'internet just now- wonder if this will need to be renegotiated?
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Found this wee gem on t'internet just now- wonder if this will need to be renegotiated?
You do know it'll run out in a few years don't you?
So probably not the best thing to be basing your future economy on, regardless of how much can be negotiated.
In any case, I doubt there'll be much negotiation there. You want out, we want the oil. I suspect a proverb about cake and eating it comes in to play at this point.
The simple point is being missed by most on here as usual.
The question is do we want to be an independent nation?
It's a simple yes or no answer.
Once we answer that, then we move on with all that it entails. Europe, economy, education, military etc. it's all then gets worked out.
To make matters more complex. What if the Northen Isles wish to remain part of the UK. They would retain some of the oil that Salmond is basing part of his economic policy on.
Steve, I would rather know what I am voting for. What you are suggesting is a bit like going on Amazon wearing a blindfold' pressing some keys and then seeing what happens. Thats not an internet shopping technique that most people adhere to.
At the moment there does seem to be an alarming lack of clear policy from the SNP as to what will happen to various areas as mentioned above.
Glad I'm not being asked to make such a big decision without a clear route.
[quote=athgray ]To make matters more complex. What if the Northen Isles wish to remain part of the UK. They would retain some of the oil that Salmond is basing part of his economic policy on.
(a) It's a nice, hypothetical question that currently has no basis in reality. Apart from a couple of loony LibDems there is no popular demand for the Northern Isles to remain within the UK.
However, assuming we adopt the position that everyone has the right to self-determination, what would happen if the folk living along the East Coast of Shetland all wanted to stay Scottish - would we partition the Islands?
(b)There is precedent for a small archipelago sitting within another countries continental shelf to be very restricted in terms of its maritime boundary - I believe 12 miles is the figure I've read.
Steve, many will want to ask the question - "Independence, what does it mean for us?" which is a fair question and deserves a detailed answer.
If the pro Independence movement cannot clearly and concisely answer that then they risk people remaining with the status quo.
Ive no axe to grind, i really couldn't care much less whether Scotland stays or goes but the Scots people do deserve to be given all the answers before they are asked to vote.
[quote=muddydwarf ]At the moment there does seem to be an alarming lack of clear policy from the SNP as to what will happen to various areas as mentioned above.
Glad I'm not being asked to make such a big decision without a clear route.
The problem in the main is that the UK Government does not want to enter into any negotiation prior to the result. I can see their point - to do so gives additional legitimacy/credence to the Yes campaign. As I've already pointed out, the EU will only give a definitive answer on their position if requested to by Westminster and David Cameron has refused to go down that route.
Many of the issues cannot, in any case, be decided now. After a period of negotiation the population of Scotland will be asked to vote for a new government. The policies of that government, and those that follow, cannot be set in stone by the SNP now. That includes their position on NATO, the EU etc.
Edit: the No campaign has so far been unable to come up with what would happen in the result of a No vote. There have been various mentions of added powers/further devolution despite all three major parties previously ruling this out.
The thing is, there is nothing out there at all so you are being asked to vote in darkness. Glad I'm not having to choose under those conditions.
All I'm interested in is getting rid of Greenwich mean time once Scotland leaves
Scotroutes. Angus Macneil, the SNP rural affairs spokesman admitted a year ago that Orkney and Shetland could remain part of there UK if the was enough self determination to do so.
[quote=athgray ]Scotroutes. Angus Macneil, the SNP rural affairs spokesman admitted a year ago the Orkney and Shetland could remain part of the UK [b]if[/b] the was enough self determination to do so.
😀
The point is, how far do you take it? You could split Scotland further. You could have an East West split or independent Highlands. It has been mentioned before that many in rural areas feel no more affinity to a parliament in Edinburgh as London.The SNP are clever in trying to put clear water between Scotland and Westminster by portraying absolutely everything coming from there as policy imposed on a country against its will, and we all thought Yes campaign was positive.
I saw the SNP party political broadcast yesterday. Plenty of images of youngsters skipping through the park on a sunny day post Yes. Cut to gloomy images of Westminster and dark music. Made it look a bit like the Eye of Sauron in Mordor.
The point is, how far do you take it? You could split Scotland further.
You could - equally, it's been said that quite a lot of the North-East of England would quite like to be on our side of the border.
The vote is for independence, not a vote to make us better off, or to stick the finger up at Westminster, it's simply so we can determine our own affairs.
What more information do you need exactly?
Are you one of those who will only break free as long as it can be proved you will be better off in every area?
That's just not going to happen and you are naive to think it will.
A yes vote is going to take courage for most of us, as its a leap of faith in our own ability to self govern. Some simple are unable to do this, well they will vote no, others will jump and vote yes. On the 19 sep 2014 we will know who these people are.
bencooper - Member
The point is, how far do you take it? You could split Scotland further.
You could - equally, it's been said that quite a lot of the North-East of England would quite like to be on our side of the border.POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
And in all seriousness we would welcome them with open arms as this is not a personal vendetta against the English people, it never has been, it's such a shame that many seem to think it is.
Quite a useful article from the mainstream press....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/a-vote-for-independence-is-not-a-vote-for-salmond.20593742
What more information do you need exactly?
Enough to make an informed decision as to whether nationalistic fervour is worth the many changes that will happen as a result. Currently, noone knows whether this will result in all things better, all things worse, or a mixture of both.
As said up there, to a lot of people it will still be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". From my time in North Wales, I can assure you that the Welsh assembly, for the most part, is only marginally more positively thought of than Westminster given their South-centric policies and spending. I would assume much of Scotland would feel the same way about Holyrood once London stopped being an easy target to blame
I think generally devolution works. We do govern our affairs and have a big say within the UK which does have more clout on a world level. I just wish that the UK parliament is more progressive and pro European. I would rather we were pro European in the UK than pro European in a independant Scotland.
If courage is stating that Scotland can become one of Europes big hitters because we have a significant amount of its fish, then Big Eck is a braver man than me.
More seriously I dont believe that a Yes vote next year is an act of courage as I am not currently afraid within the UK.
Vote on self determination, nothing more, it's not difficult. I refer to my previous post.
Is that a cross in the Not Quite box?
Steve, I wish what you said was true. I would have a great deal of sympathy for the notion that this was a vote merely about self-determination. Such a concept is very simple and if valid, the vote could happen tomorrow as this is a very simple and very basic question. But sadly, the vote is a lot more hence the complexities and challenges that result in this long drawn out process (during which I can only assume that the waters will be muddied significantly by a wide range of self-interests.) The politicians who have spent the whole careers focusing on this notion are still unable to provide clear and sustainable answers to basic economic and political questions. It's astonishing at how badly prepared they are. Or is it, the reality is that there is a pretty clear trade off between the simple question of self determination and economic and political well-being. Most people know that in their hearts, hence the challenge that this whole represents for both sides.
But I would love you to be correct. Hold the vote tomorrow on the basic principle - do we want self determination or not? Then work out how to deliver it. It will never happen.
If it is deemed positive and courageous if we vote out of the union, will the same be said if the remainder of the UK vote out of the EU over the coming few years. Its the same idea but just the waving of different flags.
[i]But I would love you to be correct. Hold the vote tomorrow on the basic principle - do we want self determination or not? Then work out how to deliver it. It will never happen. [/i]
But in the end that is what the vote (if YES) will achieve. And irrelevent of what was promised etc before, it is only after that reality will require a sorting out of issues.
So its simple really, Independence from UK or stay in. Anything else is just 'noise'. And whtether its a YES or NO we need to ensure that the political system focusses on enabling Scotland to flourish.
And lets be clear, for the average citizen of the UK irrelevent of where they live, whether its a YES or a NO it will make pretty much no difference to them at all - odd margins/percentages either way maybe, but on the whole no difference.
[quote=teamhurtmore ] The politicians who have spent the whole careers focusing on this notion are still unable to provide clear and sustainable answers to basic economic and political questions.
"Which Currency" seems to be the most fundamental and I suspect opinions have changed over time. At one point joining the Euro was probably the favoured option. Given what's currently happening it would be folly for any country to be advocating that. But that could change in the longer term.
What other "basic questions" can be answered before negotiations have taken place and before the political make-up of an independent Scotland is known?
That's why I'm enthralled by it all, it makes no difference to me whether the Scots are in or out but I'm intrigued by a late medieval concept being translated into the C21st. Plus, if it does go horribly wrong i wont be paying the price!
Vote on self determination, nothing more, it's not difficult. I refer to my previous post.
I suppose it is quite simple. Except without the above, you have no idea what, precisely, you are determining, beyond the fact that you'll no longer be able to blame London for any of it.
muddydwarf - Member
... I'm intrigued by a late medieval concept being translated into the C21st...
Strangely that's how I see it too. Living in a pretend democracy with an unelected upper house consisting of hereditary members, appointees, and the hierarchy of a church seems positively medieval to me.
Right now we exist as subjects, another medieval concept, instead of citizens.
That's why I will be voting for independence.
Who will qualify for a Scots passport?
Will it just be council tax payers? I can't think of a definitive way of doing it.
Anyone on the electoral roll, I presume.
i hope they vote yes... it ll be an interesting thread on here for sure and will enliven those trips north passports and travel insurance etc.. will there be import duty on irn bru.. most importantly NO MORE SCOTS coming down to the english parliament and mucking it up.. blair brown etc GO HOME..
You would still have had Blair. Dont recall his constuency being in Scotland. Currently got Michael Gove and Liam Fox.
Only the politicians though totalshell 😉
It was me that mentioned growing up in the years of Thatcher's Government as the forming of my nationalistic tendencies.For the pedants here is an edit,(although she is the nearest we have had to a dictator in several hundred years)....[b]"The Conservative Governments of the 1980's"[/b] 😉
Poll tax,Ravenscraig and the swapping of our fishing quotas for Spain's oil seed rape allowance were all happening in my mid-late teens. Scotland was punished for wiping her party out up here and the imposition of the poll tax a year earlier than the rest of the UK was a shining example of that. My view is that if we have a Scottish Government that doesn't have to answer to Westminster,(as devolution isn't)they will have a vested interest in the place remaining a going concern.
zippykona - Member
Who will qualify for a Scots passport?
Will it just be council tax payers? I can't think of a definitive way of doing it.POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
Probably the way every other country does, by birth.
totalshell - Member
i hope they vote yes... it ll be an interesting thread on here for sure and will enliven those trips north passports and travel insurance etc.. will there be import duty on irn bru.. most importantly NO MORE SCOTS coming down to the english parliament and mucking it up.. blair brown etc GO HOME..
You will be about 8 years old I guess?
One thing that does intrigue me about self determination.
Is does it really mean that much anymore. Global economy being what it is, just how much power would Holyrood actually have?
The UK government was acknowledged to not have all that say in the matter as far back as the early 70s iirc?
[b]piemonster[/b] - Member
One thing that does intrigue me about self determination.Is does it really mean that much anymore. Global economy being what it is, just how much power would Holyrood actually have?
More than it has now.
Sort of, if they go for Sterling it wont be that much more?
More than it has now.
Perhaps, but I can't imagine Scotland having more influence on the "world stage" on its own than it does as part of the UK's meagre influence currently. We've just witnessed with Cypress how the little boys are bullied.
It's not possible for the yes campaign to provide details about what might happen after a yes vote. The UK government has refused to enter negotiations about any settlement after a yes vote precisely because they believe the better together campaign will benefit from the uncertainty
Interesting parody...
Would it not be prudent for the "no" campaign to detail a few scenarios to counter this uncertainty.
It's all very well blaming the other party, but an educated guess wouldn't go amiss.
The better together campaign is rapidly becoming known as bitter together. It is all Alex said/did/if you leave your children will starve...As above, why should I vote for the union to remain?
Would it not be prudent for the "no" campaign to detail a few scenarios to counter this uncertainty.
The Treasury did, and decided we'd be £1 per year worse off after independence:
I would like a lot more truth and a lot more information from both sides over the next 18 months, it is not a decision we should be expected to make based on the political spin of either side.
While i dont see there being much impact on day to day life whichever way the vote goes, and i know it will be subject to "negotiation", but i do wonder what happens with things like, among other things, the BBC and the TV licence for example. If you tell people they arent going to be able to watch their favourite BBC programmes anymore it may be a bigger factor in how they decide to vote as it has a bigger impact on their everyday life than where the parliament is based.
How much do ex-pats in say Holland or Spain pay to watch the BBC?
I have no idea, probably nothing.
It's the [u]British[/u] Broadcasting Corporation, paid for by everyone in the UK at the moment, so presumably it'll carry on as normal. Lots of corporations manage to have divisions in several countries at once without a problem.
I have no idea, probably nothing
I have an idea, it's something!
We (in Holland) can only get the BBC through a subscription service, it comes as part of the cable package it isn't available free.
Of course you can get it via SKY with a big dish but that's not exactly legal, you can also get it via iPlayer using a UK proxy but again that skirting the rules a bit.
It's the British Broadcasting Corporation
license fee and expenditure set by the British government. What happens after the split? Do we end up with a license fee that's different between the two countries, and a programming/infrastructure/investment split that reflects this?
What happens if the UK government decides it wants to change the BBC's charter but Holyrood likes it the way it is?
A split BBC is only a matter of time.