[Closed] Finally, the SNP start talking about real issues....

Isle of Man uses the pound doesn't it? Not technically part of the uk though? Own parliament, laws, currency?
Possibly doesn't contribute quite as much revenue to HM govt though..

So how, exactly, is anyone going to stop us using the pound? It's an internationally traded currency.

And the irony of being lectured about economic stability by Gideon Osborne - where do you start?

Will all this currency upheaval business affect the price of Tunnock's Tea Cakes in Cornwall?

So how, exactly, is anyone going to stop us using the pound? It's an internationally traded currency.

Are you suggesting that Scotland should use the £ without a monetary union agreement then ?

With no Central Bank backing ?

Not very wise 😐

(And never going to happen either, unless Scotland want to model their economic policy on Kosovo)

why the hell do they was a poorly valued currency, have you seen how little a £ gets you these days. Looking forward to returning with my Au$'s soon

Sponging-Machine - Member
Will all this currency upheaval business affect the price of Tunnock's Tea Cakes in Cornwall?

Coincidentally, I gave a Halfords employee two boxes of Teacakes today in return for a bike box.

And at the risk of having to admit to not having watched the borefest that is Newsnight, how is sharing a token of monetary value, valuable? Why should the pound suddenly be worth less north of the border? Pay for the privilege? Nae chunce.

I think it's an elaborate bluff by Salmond. He wants refusal, so then he'll demand Scotland's share of the reserves of the Bank of England (it's the British Bank) and set up our own currency, the bawbee and the poond.

There's actually only one issue. Everything else is peripheral and can be sorted out once the big question has been answered.

Do we want self-determination, or not?

I don't think its that simple Btian, whether its a good thing can only be determined by considering the ramifications.

I take it you're a "yes"? - seems to me that camp take your view - a decision based on the heart not head.

I laughed when I heard this on the news, made the SNP sound a bunch of amateurs - I'll concede I am no political expert tho.

epicyclo - Member
I think it's an elaborate bluff by Salmond. He wants refusal, so then he'll demand Scotland's share of the reserves of the Bank of England (it's the British Bank) and set up our own currency, the bawbee and the poond.

I understand that for a lot of the pro camp the choice is for self determination or not.

However all these details do need to be worked at beforehand and that is where Salmond becomes your normal politician ie evasive and blustering. The anti camp of course are doing very similar scare tactics.

As a scot living in England I will not have a vote but am still following it with interest.

More spin from either side to come

The Isle of Man is a British Crown Dependency. Queen is still the head of state. The UK government is still responsible for foreign policy and defence. I was unaware this was the model the yes camp are after.

If it's a good thing for the yes campaign to explain what they will do in the event that they win the referendum, it's surely also a good thing that the UK government should also explain their position in the same circumstances.

this the nub. the scots get to vote on been a part of this country but even if they dont they want to then pick and choose from thier own menu which bits they want to keep/ discard

out is out.. in means in, make a choice and stop the hot air..

Isle of Man prints its own pound note which like Scottish one are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom. But try changing a Scottish 10 pound note at a foreign exchange and you tend to get a major mais non!
The regional banks are supposed to lodge funds with the B of E before firing up the printing presses and there is such a thing a million pound note for this purpose.

Bruk - I agree, how long have these guys had to think about these issues? Their whole political lives. And when pushed they got defensive and aggressive. Classic bully tactics. If they are this unprepared now, heaven help Scotland if there is a yes vote. Seats of the pants stuff may work for Sean Connery, but Salmond doesn't past it off as well.

Thm Who is bullying who?

out is out

Which roughly translates as Oot is oot.

Surely the model for this isn't the Isle of Man, rather it's the only other country to have left the UK - the Republic of Ireland. They struggled along with the pound for many years until they realised their economy and the UK's were going in different directions at which point they let the Punt float from Sterling. Then they joined the Euro and it's all been fine since. Oh, wait...

So how, exactly, is anyone going to stop us using the pound? It's an internationally traded currency.

The Scottish government could certainly continue using the pound without any kind of monetary agreement. But they would have no say in the control of the Bank of England. So if the BoE decided to set interest rates or print/withdraw money from circulation in a way that went against the interests of Scotland, then the Scots would just have to suck it up.

EDIT: there will be someone along in a moment saying that the Scottish banks have deposited a few £billion to ensure that Scottish pound notes are convertible. That doesn't help.

I really don't see how you can be independent, if you use a currency who's value is decided by another countries fiscal and monetary policy.

Just like the european union and NATO issues, Salmond really hasn't thought this through has he?

Fwiw, I love Scotland and most of the Scots I've met, and I just hope that when people vote, they vote for sensible, well thought out reasons, not just vote yes to stuff the English or the Tories.

[i]I really don't see how you can be independent, if you use a currency who's value is decided by another countries fiscal and monetary policy.[/i]

Not that unusual:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollarization

Doesn't really sound like independance to me. From what I've read there seems to be a desire by Salmond to make arbitary decisions about what he's going to cherry pick from the union to support his empire. There seems to be much made of the headline grabbing statements, but the actual mechanics of how it would really work seem to be somewhat thinner on the ground.

I can't see him getting enough votes to see it through anyway

However all these details do need to be worked at beforehand and that is where Salmond becomes your normal politician ie evasive and blustering. The anti camp of course are doing very similar scare tactics.

Well, except that there was already a report by the Fiscal Commission Working Group - who are independent unlike the Treasury - which concluded that keeping the pound would be best for both sides. Funny now the sensible discussions don't get reported, and the bluster does.

Really, it's hard to work stuff out beforehand when the No camp refuse to discuss what would happen if they lose.

Doesn't really sound like independance to me.

Sounding more like a version of devo max to me.

Is it really self determination if you leave control with the Bank Of England?

Problem for Scotland is the lack of appealing options, Euro isn't looking so great at the moment either. And setting up a new currency looks volatile at best. I'd guess at a lot of money leaving Scotland for more established options?

It wouldn't surprise me if all this had more to do with bargaining chips when it comes to negotiating the details of independence.

Doesn't really sound like independance to me. From what I've read there seems to be a desire by Salmond to make arbitary decisions about what he's going to cherry pick from the union to support his empire.

If we get independence, pretty much the whole reason for the SNP's existence vanishes - and then we can vote for whoever we want. Scottish Labour, Scottish Greens, Scottish LibDems, even Scottish Tories could get in power. And with a voting system that's much more democratic than Westminster, they probably will.

If anything's an empire, it's the UK - ruled by politicians a small minority voted for, looking after their own interests, not accountable to anyone.

And how is the SNP's stance different to how the UK operates in Europe? The UK has many binding treaties with the EU and other countries covering a wide range of things from finance to law to the environment. How is that different to Scotland having binding agreements with rUK?

Just like the european union and NATO issues, Salmond really hasn't thought this through has he?

No he has thought it through, he just wants his haggis and be able to eat it.

He wants every part of independence that works for him and all the other parts that don't to be picked up by the rest of the union.

His biggest problem is that in the face of evidence that independence will either be incredibly painful, at least for the next 15 to 20 years (arbitrary figure there) or just plain unsustainable, he won't acknowledge either of those two outcomes but rather bluster on claiming it's all a conspiracy by the UK government to defraud him of his nationalistic right.

He's too deeply invested in the idea and too arrogant and selfish to admit that independence, while possible, might actually be very painful.

teamhurtmore - Member
Bruk - I agree, how long have these guys had to think about these issues? Their whole political lives. And when pushed they got defensive and aggressive. Classic bully tactics. If they are this unprepared now, heaven help Scotland if there is a yes vote. Seats of the pants stuff may work for Sean Connery, but Salmond doesn't past it off as well.

Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

One of the problems is that Westminster is refusing to discuss ANY of the details of indy at all.

IOM comment was just an initial thought- as always, Ben seems to have formed much more constructive points than me.
Not the Edinburgh defense btw but re the comment about the Queen, is there not talk of keeping her head of state as well? In a similar fashion to other countries in the Commonwealth?

Any chat at the moment is just folk setting out their stall for negotiations (despite the UK Govt saying it won't pre-negotiate). Note that the words used are always "might" and "could", never "would" or "won't".

As bencooper says, truly independent analysis seems to show that it would be in the interest of both countries to retain a currency union. After all, each will likely remain the others major trading partner and there will remain a substantial amount of cross-border travel.

[quote=geetee1972]
His biggest problem is that in the face of [b]evidence[/b] that independence will either be incredibly painful, at least for the next 15 to 20 years (arbitrary figure there) or just plain unsustainable,
Links to that evidence please.

If we get independence, pretty much the whole reason for the SNP's existence vanishes - and then we can vote for whoever we want. Scottish Labour, Scottish Greens, Scottish LibDems, even Scottish Tories could get in power. And with a voting system that's much more democratic than Westminster, they probably will.

You've not actually lived with a PR voting system, then? For my money it's a lot less democratic - you end up with party lists, stuffed with unaccountable yes-men and -women, who owe everything to their party and nothing to the voters. Sort of like safe constituencies, everywhere.

Not the Edinburgh defense btw but re the comment about the Queen, is there not talk of keeping her head of state as well? In a similar fashion to other countries in the Commonwealth?

The Queen is queen of Britain and the Commonwealth - she's as much the queen of Scotland as she is of England, and considering how much property she owns up here and how much time she spends up here I don't think there's any doubt she's stay queen of Scotland.

The union of the crowns predates the union of Scotland and England by about 100 years, after all.

As bencooper says, truly independent analysis seems to show that it would be in the interest of both countries to retain a currency union. After all, each will likely remain the others major trading partner and there will remain a substantial amount of cross-border travel.

Yes, that's about right.

Pre-referendum there's a lot to be gained by throwing out scare stories. But in a post referendum world where the "yes" camp wins. Is the rUK really going to make any changes that have a negative impact on trade? Of course they bloody won't, they'll just shrug and go back to trying to make money.

Everything else is peripheral

that is so wrong.

Economy, education, health, defence... These are the absolute core issues that define everything.

When I vote I will be voting on behalf of my kids and thinking about what is best for them. If Salmond can prove that they will grow up in a more prosperous, safer, healthy and well educated society than that if we remain in UK then great, he will get my vote. I will not be voting based on some romantic ideology that independence is better because he says so.

So far though it seems that most of the campaign is based around exactly that, a romantic idea of self determination and 'proud scots' without any real substance, evidence, facts or policy to back things up.

It is not good enough to say we will sort this detail out later on after the vote.

You've not actually lived with a PR voting system, then?

I live in Scotland - so yes I have. Under the Scottish system, we get a wide range of people in the parliament - it actually makes a difference who I vote for.

Under the Westminster system, it doesn't - this constituency always votes Labour, always has, always will, so my vote is useless. But even more than that, Scottish votes haven't decided the outcome of a Westminster election since at least the War - the votes of every person in Scotland don't matter to who gets in power.

Compared to that, pretty much any system is better.

Fiscal Commission Working Group - who are independent

Independent? they were assembled by Salmond, although that does seem to be within the SNPs definition of independence 😉

If Salmond can prove that they will grow up in a more prosperous, safer, healthy and well educated society than that if we remain in UK then great, he will get my vote.

Turn it around - can the No camp prove any of that? No. And with the current government in power, it looks pretty unlikely.

We have to deal in basics - the future is unknowable but we can start from first principles. Would Scotland survive and thrive on it's own? Yes - even the Treasury and the Tory government agrees on that one. Would Scotland be better off if Scots had a say in the running of Scotland? Absolutely - we've already shown that by the way that Scotland is being insulated from many of the slash-and-burn tactics of the Tories. Would it be better for Scots to stand on our own two feet and stop blaming England for everything? Too right.

I have a daughter. I look at what successions of UK governments have done over my lifetime - Thatcher, then Blair, the the Coalition - and I want better for her. The only way that can happen is if my vote can change something, and the only way my vote can change something is if Scotland is independent.

I live in Scotland - so yes I have. Under the Scottish system, we get a wide range of people in the parliament - it actually makes a difference who I vote for.

Fair enough, my experience of PR here in Spain is that it's a big steaming pile of crap, there's no direct representation, you vote for a party list. I know who the top 2 or 3 people are, the rest are a mystery.

His biggest problem is that in the face of evidence that independence will either be incredibly painful, at least for the next 15 to 20 years (arbitrary figure there) or just plain unsustainable

Of course there would be pain in separation, but can you give evidence of your claims of unsustainability?. If Scotland is such a millstone round the UK's neck, why are the Tories desperate to keep us? For the votes?. All this is desperation from the unionists, and should be treated as such, and people need to remember that it's self determination we'll be voting for, not Salmond.

I along with everyone else have no idea what the future would bring if we were independent, but I see how the future is going if we remain under a government that can't see further north than the midlands, and it's not very appealing. And to the earlier comparison with Ireland, it wasn't the euro which destroyed Ireland's economy.

Scottish votes haven't decided the outcome of a Westminster election since at least the War

If you have links, I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of this. I've got the feeling that there is more influence from the Scottish votes than is being suggested. I'm thinking along the lines of reduced majorities for in power governments, it's a lot harder to get anything done with a smaller number of seats.

[quote=mogrim ]
Fair enough, my experience of PR here in Spain is that it's a big steaming pile of crap, there's no direct representation, you vote for a party list. I know who the top 2 or 3 people are, the rest are a mystery.
The PR system in Scotland has 73 constituency MSPs and 56 regional "list" MSPs. The latter are used to provide a cross-party balance reflecting the vote. There [i]are[/i] indications that some List MSPs are party "place-men" but, on the whole, the system seems to work fairly well and it has provided us with some interesting Independent/Non-party MSPs - though the number of the latter has been squeezed recently.

Alex Salmond has been given a very easy ride with the media so far, and the opposition, as he wasn't really considered a threat of wielding any real power. Much as UKIP are viwed presently, south of the border. The SNP manifesto has not been picked over and scrutinised in anywhere like the detail of those of the main parties. Much like the Lib Dems 'we'll abolish tuition fees' manifesto pledge. Clearly unrealistic cobblers, but they were never going to get into power, were they?

That's all changed now of course. And thats why you're seeing some political heavyweights* weighing in now. Expect the attack dogs in the right wing press to fall into line, and get suitably nasty, as the referendum approaches.

Personally I think Alex, Shrewd bastard that he is, will like nothing more than being attacked by a bunch of Eton Tories, and the Daily Mail. That should swing a big chunk of votes his way

* Yes I know its laughable to call Dave and Gideon political heavyweights, but everything's relative, and in the absence of the real thing...

piemonster fill your boots

http://www.ukpolitical.info/

Yes it is true that majorities would have changed, the same could be said for removing 60 or so seats from any part of the UK, but whether there would have been any real impact is a matter for conjecture. N.B. that during the Thatcher years it is likely that the government majority would have increased rather than decreased.

The point however stands that the balance of power has never been decided in Scotland which as it has only 10% or so the overall number of seats isn't really that surprising.

The PR system in Scotland has 73 constituency MSPs and 56 regional "list" MSPs. The latter are used to provide a cross-party balance reflecting the vote. There are indications that some List MSPs are party "place-men" but, on the whole, the system seems to work fairly well and it has provided us with some interesting Independent/Non-party MSPs - though the number of the latter has been squeezed recently.

Ah, that makes more sense - you have a proper M(S)P that you voted for, and have some (albeit small!) influence over. Sounds considerably better than a full PR countrywide system.

Like him or not (and I don't like some things he's done) Alex Salmond is a far better politician and political operator than any of the other lot.

He's also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

In Westminster, you can get complete power if less than 20% vote for you - in Holyrood, you actually need people to like you and vote for you.

The point however stands that the balance of power has never been decided in Scotland which as it has only 10% or so the overall number of seats isn't really that surprising

It all just sounds like propaganda to me, you could say the same about any region of the UK with around 8.4% of the population. I'm not sure that, "we didn't get to decide over everyone else" is really that good a criticism.

It might be a good reason to leave, but it's not really a fault. And often when I see it I read it as something portrayed as a fault.

Turn it around - can the No camp prove any of that? No

Presumably the burden of proof for any positive or negative effects should really rest with those proposing a change from the status quo?

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films....

I was wondering when Mel would raise his blue face

[quote=zokes ]
Presumably the burden of proof for any positive or negative effects should really rest with those proposing a change from the status quo?
Everything is a change from the status quo though. We've had 34 years of right-wing government in the UK and there seems little prospect of that changing anytime soon. To take one example, that suggests we'll see further privatisation of the NHS. Can the The No campaign paint that picture of what the UK will look like in 10-15 years time even? It certainly won't look quite as it does today.

If Scotland is such a millstone round the UK's neck, why are the Tories desperate to keep us? For the votes?.

Given how idealogically bankrupt the current administration is in westminster it would be a stretch to believe they actually wanted to hold on to the union out of principle rather than the fact that Scotland being in the union benefits the UK economically.

[quote=richmtb ]
Given how idealogically bankrupt the current administration is in westminster it would be a stretch to believe they actually wanted to hold on to the union out of principle rather than the fact that Scotland being in the union benefits the UK economically.
I'm not so sure about that one. You're forgetting ego and the retention of power. Who would want to be the PM/Party in power when the UK is dissolved? Is there not the possibility of a backlash from the rUK public?

Like him or not (and I don't like some things he's done) Alex Salmond is a far better politician and political operator than any of the other lot.

He's also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

Cameron et al have a mandate, they didn't invent the system after the vote just to get themselves into power.

Surely in any election or referendum it's up to all the sides to make their own case.

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films....

And by that rationale, the only ones wanting to keep the status quo would be Tub thumping royalists, who read the daily mail.

A vote for independence isn't necessarily a vote for SNP. If there's a Yes vote in 2014, SNP would have just over 1.5 years to implement independence before the next Scottish election (May 2016 I think to avoid a clash with May 2015 general election), would that give enough time to sort it all out? London could easily slow things until the next 2016 election.

The next Scottish parliament may then have a completely different composition with no majority SNP party. All the other parties, sticking with their union ties don't give any indication of what they would do in the result of a Yes vote; would they not seek to work/negotiate in a different way with the UK government than the SNP?

If the No vote wins, what does the SNP do then? Back to the drawing board? Would they lose credibility as a party? Have any of the other parties got any credibility anyway?

At the moment, it's pretty much all mis-information from all sides as there's no certainty as to what would happen and there doesn't seem much unbiased info available. There seems much frothing at the mouths of those who are Yes or No, with a whole lot in between who probably aren't that fussed either way, and just want to have a job, pay the mortgage/rent and put food on the table.

Why can't the country look at things afresh and determine what is the best democratic setup for the UK? How about a similar setup in Wales, England and Northern Ireland as Scotland has now, with a UK parliament looking after defence, foreign policy, big economic stuff, that affects the whole UK. No chance of any change though as everyone protects their own - it's politics that holds things back.

I just worry that the only people I know who would vote for independence are those who list Braveheart as one of their favourite films....

I for one will definitely be casting my vote based on a fictionalised account of events which may or may not have happened over 700 years ago.

[quote=bazookajoe ]
Why can't the country look at things afresh and determine what is the best democratic setup for the UK? How about a similar setup in Wales, England and Northern Ireland as Scotland has now, with a UK parliament looking after defence, foreign policy, big economic stuff, that affects the whole UK.
A fully federal UK was the LibDem policy (I don't know if they do policies these days). There is a lot to commend it but it would be a partnership of un-equals. Would each home country have an equal say in policy or would England (being much larger) have it's own way in any case? I'm not sure you'd get any agreement on defence either - let's start with Trident Replacement.....

Do any parties have coherent policies these days? Or is it more "here's an idea we've come up with, vote for us and we'll come up with a completely different idea you knew nothing about and may not have voted for"

I'm not sure you'd get any agreement on defence either - let's start with Trident Replacement.....

In a Federal UK that kind of decision would be centralised (assuming it's similar to the US). The problem is you end up with twice as many politicians, one thing in favour of Scottish independence is that a large number of the current lot will end up on the dole 🙂

It's about having our own government which will be directly responsible to us and elected by us without a layer of superior unelected aristocracy and appointees over it.

Scotland has not received fair treatment in the Union from Westminster.

Actions speak louder than words.

??In the last 100 years, the population of England has grown by 55% and that of Scotland by only 11%. Most of our children have to emigrate to get jobs.?? If the cake was being shared equally, you would expect growth in Scotland to match that in England.?

Population

Scotland 1911 - 4,760,000 England & Wales 1911 - 36,000,000
Scotland 1961 - 5,179,000 England & Wales 1961 - 46,100,000
Scotland 2011 - 5,295,000 England & Wales 2011 - 56,000,000

I'm sure a new Scottish govt will at various stages make mistakes, head in the wrong direction, but at least we will be able to do something about it. At the moment our needs are swamped by the more populous rest of the UK.

[quote=epicyclo ] At the moment our needs are swamped by the [s]more populous rest of the UK[/s] needs of the SE of England.
The English Regions (and Wales) are also stuck in a "union" that also treats them as second-class citizens. The difference is that Scotland still has some trappings of nationhood and the ability to change things.

[b]INDEPENDENCE FOR THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!![/b]

[img] [/img]

SNP say an independent Scotland would maintain membership of EU
SNP say independent Scotland would keep the pound

The No folk disagree as it's probably just opposing the SNP view. If the Scottish Tories or Labour were saying that if the Yes vote won they'd seek to keep the pound and maintain membership of the EU, would London say no you wouldn't? Of course not, it would be a different dynamic to working it out, but none of them can say that as it would mean those parties looking like promoting independence vote, which the national parties are against. Bonkers, there's very little rational discussion on it and what it all means, it's either SNP ideas or not.

Re Scotland deciding governments- as has been said it's a myth. But Scotland getting a government they decisively rejected? That's no myth. Ask the Scottish Tory MPs. Did I say MPs plural? Oops. Or ask the Labour MPs who make up 2/3ds of Scottish westminster MPs.

Ah well just for completeness let's look at Wales. 20% Tory, 60% labour.

Why it does appear that rather than the UK getting a labour government because of Scotland, the rest of the UK gets a tory government because of England. How astonishing 😉

bencooper - Member

If we get independence, pretty much the whole reason for the SNP's existence vanishes - and then we can vote for whoever we want. Scottish Labour, Scottish Greens, Scottish LibDems, even Scottish Tories could get in power.

Ooh I dunno though. I mean, the main reason there's a realistic Yes campaign is the fact that the SNP have been effective in power, and aren't defined by independence. I'd vote for them regardless of their position on independence and so it seems do a lot of others (since it seems lots of SNP voters won't vote yes!).

Tell me they didn't erect that statue anywhere important..

The English Regions (and Wales) are also stuck in a "union" that also treats them as second-class citizens. The difference is that Scotland still has some trappings of nationhood and the ability to change things.

Yup. 🙁

I seriously think that if Scotland does get independence there should be a campaign to allow the North of England to become part of it (if you'll have us). I know it will never happen but I would say we have a lot more in common with Scotland than with the south east of England/London.

What region of England would be the first that wanted to join? I'd definitely want Northumberland in.

They'd have to accept the Land Reform Act though.

[quote=Northwind ]
Ooh I dunno though. I mean, the main reason there's a realistic Yes campaign is the fact that the SNP have been effective in power, and aren't defined by independence. I'd vote for them regardless of their position on independence and so it seems do a lot of others (since it seems lots of SNP voters won't vote yes!).
It's a bit "chicken and egg" though. I could argue that the SNP has been effective because it can be neither strongly right-wing nor strongly left-wing, containing as it does elements from both. Take away their raison d'etre and I think we could see it splintering.

Finally, the SNP start talking about real issues....

Just another thought, was it not Osbourne who raised this yesterdayin his speech, not the SNP. Their only talk' was responding to what the westminster government said....

[quote=franksinatra ]
Just another thought, was it not Osbourne who raised this yesterday in his speech, not the SNP. Their only talk' was responding to what the westminster government said....
No. He only had something to talk about because the SNP had already outlined their plans. Don't mistake the amount you hear/read about stuff in the media with what's actually happening.

Guardian [b]9th December 2011[/b]....

The SNP wants to retain sterling as its currency

He's also got a mandate, unlike Cameron et al, and got a majority under a voting system that was specially set up to prevent him getting a majority.

Or perhaps he's got a majority because people suggest that the English are out to get him and use that as a way of promoting him as the alternative to Westminster.

?? If the cake was being shared equally, you would expect growth in Scotland to match that in England.?

Speaking as a displaced northern-England-er who moved to the South East (and have since moved further away) to follow my career, that's the situation everywhere in the UK, not just Scotland. Is that a bad thing for the communities people leave? I'm sure it is but I'm not so worried about where I'm from that I won't move for work, life quality etc.

fingers crossed they do get independance, and then kick all the nuclear submarines out of scotland, then instead of having to live in faslane i can stay in plymouth

fingers crossed

sbd16v - Member
fingers crossed they do get independance, and then kick all the nuclear submarines out of scotland, then instead of having to live in faslane i can stay in plymouth
fingers crossed

Minor problem, there's nowhere in the south like Coulport at the moment and it'd be bloody hard to make one! Take the Dolphin badge off and go on normal shops?

Just like the european union and NATO issues, Salmond really hasn't thought this through has he?

[quote=sbd16v ]fingers crossed they do get independance, and then kick all the nuclear submarines out of scotland, then instead of having to live in faslane i can stay in plymouth
fingers crossed
How is your French?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lilelonguesubmarineb/

Tell me they didn't erect that statue anywhere important..

Only at the bottom of the actual Wallace Monument. I think it's gone now - a national embarrassment, which had a protective cage erected to stop the locals smashing the face off with hammers.

Ironic?

[img] [/img]

It's a condition of joining the EU now that you commit to a schedule for joining the euro. Scotland could not be independent and keep the pound whilst being a member of the EU. Salmond wants to keep the pound because he needs the Bank of England support, Scotland doesn't have the financial rescources to stand on it's own as Salmond knows it.