[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Another complete avoidance of answering the question !

You can't think of a good reason for an independent Scotland being a full NATO member, can you ?

Apart to regain "Scotland's national pride!" of course 🙂

I think you mean an answer you dont like - they changed their position because their supporters did just like Labour wont buy back council houses or change Union reform despite opposing it 30 years ago.

Good reasons - there are loads remember Robertson said the western world as we know it would collapse without them

they are doing it for the West as they are givers

I assume that was aimed at me,since you can't help yourself;I accused you of trying to stereotype the yes voters on this thread with that remark that others have also pointed out was crass, I stand by that.

I think you mean an answer you dont like

It doesn't answer the question 'why is it desirable to a NATO member' to say because that's what we want. It's clearly avoiding answering the question. As well you know.

Its not a great answer but it is an answer
Its not quite avoiding it either but it is not a complete either so I can see your point
they have changed their mind as they wish to win votes and this is what the folk who vote for them want
Its not exactly an unheard of approach to being a political party that wants to get power.

Anyway I shall leave it to someone who may know or care

ernie_lynch - Member
There's almost another 6 months to go seosam. I expect the debate to start getting a little heated as we approach the date of the referendum

I'll ask a question then that I've been wondering about, maybe give youse something different to bicker over!

Considering that the polls are fairly close(even if we say it's a 10 point gap). How much do you expect apathy to affect the polls on polling day? Will the fact that the Yes camp have a motivated and fairly active and enthusiastic support skew the actual vote(in relation to the polls) when you consider that we have a fairly lethargic no camp, with virtually zero grass roots campaigning?

Do pollsters consider this dynamic? Or are the No camp just keeping their powder dry until polling day?

ernie_lynch - Member
You can't think of a good reason for an independent Scotland being a full NATO member, can you ?

To stop big nasty Putin from invading us!

ernie_lynch - Member
There's almost another 6 months to go seosam. I expect the debate to start getting a little heated as we approach the date of the referendum

Indeed. Of course it would be much more helpful if rUK simply stood up and made a clear statement of what the negotiable and non-negotiable elements are. Of course, the "cold-shower" of reality would be greated with the usual diatribe of the the three Bs north of the border ( 😉 ), so it is unlikely to happen.

Given, AS's high level of BS though and blatant (and justified) attempts at maximising self-interest (take as you will) I would like rUk politicians to be very clear in defending the interests of the rUK. For too long they have assumed that a no vote is in the bag. It isn't and they also need to respond accordingly.

A yes vote had negative implications for the rUK (unless you are Tories) and this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Or are the No camp just keeping their powder dry until polling day?

I hope so, but am not confident!

I would like rUk politicians to be very clear in defending the interests of the rUK.

A yes vote had negative implications for the rUK (unless you are Tories) and this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

As for negotiations ,IMHO, you can either say no pre negotiation or you can pre negotiate. To just say what you wont do whilst saying you wont negotiate is not that credible a position - having ones cake and eating it, easily portrayed as bullying and it is also unlikely to be believed. It would not be helpful politically IMHO

Granted the debate would be easier if we actually knew what the reality was we were discussing

You obviously haven't been following the thread in great detail whatnobeer as if you had you would understand that the saltire-waving mel gibson wannabes comment was aimed at those who support a separate Scotland being a full NATO member and yet refuse to explain the desirability of NATO membership (the issue being discussed was nuclear weapons).

Nah, I read all that and pretty much ignored it. I couldn't really care less at this moment in time if Scotland is in NATO or not. The SNP party members voted to change their stance on NATO membership, so the obviously think that it's worth while. I'm pretty ambivalent on it all, likewise the subs in Faslane. It's the cost I object to, not the nukes themselves. But hey, I'm pro nuclear power which puts me in a minority in this country.

whatnobeer - Member
It's the cost I object to, not the nukes themselves.

I have entered into discussions with friends on this subject. Learnt that lesson ! It is like trying to argue people out of religious faith using facts and logic, in the end they don't believe what they believe because of facts and logic but hopes and dreams.

(and weird utopian ideas about Scandinavia and using another countrys currency)

And a few people I know see Yes as a way of never having Tories, or even worse UKIP, in charge of Scotland again. I have to say I understand and sign-up to the sentiment, but am unconvinced by the logic that one will automatically follow the other.

Interesting times...

hels - Member
UKIP

Interesting times...

The whole UKIP explosion is definitely not helping the no camp.

[quote=Junkyard ]they are doing it for the West as they are givers

With Sir BS's vision of iS the rUK is definitely the receiver.

[quote=hels ]And a few people I know see Yes as a way of never having Tories, or even worse UKIP, in charge of Scotland again. I have to say I understand and sign-up to the sentiment, but am unconvinced by the logic that one will automatically follow the other.

Well they're probably correct in a strict sense, but as ernie keeps pointing out there's nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody agrees, nor are the people of Scotland significantly different enough from the people of the UK not to vote for a party which will enable that. It might not be called the Tory party, but that only really matters to those who care about the style rather than the substance (it seems an awful lot of Yes supporters are in that camp).

aracer - Member
Junkyard » they are doing it for the West as they are givers
With Sir BS's vision of iS the rUK is definitely the receiver.

hels » And a few people I know see Yes as a way of never having Tories, or even worse UKIP, in charge of Scotland again. I have to say I understand and sign-up to the sentiment, but am unconvinced by the logic that one will automatically follow the other.
Well they're probably correct in a strict sense, but as ernie keeps pointing out there's nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody agrees, nor are the people of Scotland significantly different enough from the people of the UK not to vote for a party which will enable that. It might not be called the Tory party, but that only really matters to those who care about the style rather than the substance (it seems an awful lot of Yes supporters are in that camp).

tories exist in scotland, they have bottomed out at around 15% of the vote at the moment, the only way is up for them.

Personally I see a resurgent tory party in scotland post independence. Dunno if they'll ever make it back to a majortiy, but coalition government is certainly possible.

But that particular argument isn't really about there never being a tory party(despite the populism we have at the moment for claiming that), it's about there never being a party in power that we haven't voted for.

Independence for Shetland

I have entered into discussions with friends on this subject. Learnt that lesson ! It is like trying to argue people out of religious faith using facts and logic, in the end they don't believe what they believe because of facts and logic but hopes and dreams.

For sure , on both sides, the decision is nothing but an emotive one and the facts dont matter

but as ernie keeps pointing out there's nothing in the vision which departs from standard Western democracy enough to prevent the privileged and big business having effective control. As everybody ag

And i keep asking why do you need radical change?

Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is a fairly radical proposition. If you feel there is no need for radical change in Scotland then voting No would be logical.

If however you feel that there is a need for radical change in Scotland then offer something radical beyond a meaningless declaration of false independence of which the negatives will outweigh the positives.

So we find out the National Animal of Scotland is a [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27294419 ]mythical beast[/url]
Which is, perhaps, why logic and economic sobriety have no place in this discussion.

aracer - Member
Independence for Shetland

They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority

Otherwise that statement means nothing(see the venetian referedum for further information.)

Them thieving Scotlanders, Everyone knows Saltaire is in Yorkshire! How did they get over the border and especially through the Pennines with anyone noticing?

Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK is a fairly radical proposition.

Whatever you say it is possible to want to leave the union and not want a radical overall of your entire constitution
Its devolution not revolution

They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority

So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? - ie. you can only become independent if the 'parent authorities' [b]allow[/b] you to secede?

We're all for self determination, Shetland can go for it if the people there want it. So far though the only people who seem to mention it are shit stirrers, as far as I can see there's no real appetite for it at the moment. If there is the future they should ask to hold a referendum and they should be given the right to have one. Everyone's happy.

ninfan - Member
They would need to do what scotland have done, and agree a legal referendum with the relevant authority
So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? - ie. you can only become independent if the 'parent authorities' allow you to secede?

As I've mentioned before, this is why Scottish independence has no bearing on Italian or Spanish separatists.

The British government were daft enough to allow it(and with a yes/no option instead of 3 options). I just hope the people of Scotland take the chance.

whatnobeer - Member
We're all for self determination, Shetland can go for it if the people there want it.

Not without an agreed legal referendum they can't.

ninfan - Member

So, your position is that there should be no right to autonomy? - ie. you can only become independent if the 'parent authorities' allow you to secede?

Yes,its called the Baroness Jay defence. 8)

Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

*******
Now here was me, thinking that this was specifically a vote for [b]independence[/b] not devolution!

teamhurtmore - Member
Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

There is no right to self determination in a peaceful country.

where are the marines?

unless we gave it to you very recently to annoy the argies

Should the Lerwick Declaration be considered in the same light at the Edinburgh version?

More trumpets from the elephants!! 😀

But one side does have more facts, the status quo is real (are real ? I did Greek at Uni). The other side has more predictions, assumptions and suppositions. Some of them may be realistic. Some may not...

[quote=whatnobeer ]So far though the only people who seem to mention it are shit stirrers

Moi?
[img] [/img]

hels - Member

But one side does have more facts, the status quo is real

Thing is though, the status quo isn't a fact- post-No vote, there's no guarantee that things will remain the same. We might see cuts in Barnett funding, changes in national policy, exit from europe, more recall of power to Westminster, all that jazz. It's a vote for the status quo politically, is all.

teamhurtmore - Member

Shetland (and attitudes towards the Isles) is just one of the many elephants crowding the room. All very telling!

It's kind of like an elephant in the room that nobody talks about, except for 2 minor differences. 1) It's been talked about a lot and 2) There isn't really an elephant there. Inconveniently, Shetland refuses to want to be independent.

It's a nice metaphor though... Someone said, "Is there an elephant in the room", everyone else had a look and found that no, there's not. But there's still some people who want to believe. And if you're on Project Elephant, the fact that nobody else is talking about elephants is probably Very Telling.

hels - Member
the status quo is real

Thing is though, the status quo isn't a fact- post-No vote, there's no guarantee that things will remain the same. We might see cuts in Barnett funding, changes in national policy, exit from europe, more recall of power to Westminster, all that jazz. It's a vote for the status quo politically, is all.

AS which in my opinion is what he really wants

NW - a quick google reveals:

Tavish Scott, the MSP for Shetland and former Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, told party activists on Saturday that the constitutional debate was the islands' chance to fight for their own "home rule", and a case study for the Lib Dems' localism agenda before the next general election.

Scott, who first raised this argument in a paper last year, fears that whichever side wins the independence referendum, more powers will be centralised by the Scottish government in Edinburgh, 300 miles south of the islands' main town, Lerwick.

Political leaders in the islands worry that their separate local authorities could be abolished after the 2014 referendum, either combined into a joint islands council or merged into a new super authority for the Highlands and Islands as the next government tries to rationalise Scotland's diverse group of 32 local councils.

Scott said there had been a "remorseless pattern of centralisation" under Salmond's Scottish National party government.

"For me, this is about home rule; our islands being able to assert their natural and local identity, their distinctiveness, and get the powers and responsibilities they need to make the best of the modern world," Scott told the Guardian.

There isn't really an elephant there. Inconveniently, Shetland refuses to want to be independent.

So given there is no elephant, I guess the following is talking about a mirage

A petition currently before the Scottish Parliament is seeking referendums to be held on all three islands exactly a week after the rest of the nation votes on the future of the union with Westminster.

In the event it should get the go-ahead, the 70,000 inhabitants will be given the choice of either staying in Scotland or seeking independence of their own. A third question following a successful yes vote will offer the possibility of staying within the UK while seceding from control of Holyrood.

In this case I guess it's just a white elephant then???

Yesterday, Shetland’s MSP Tavish Scott used a speech at the Lib Dem conference in Dundee to say it was “time to seize the opportunity of Island home rule”, proclaiming: “It’s not your oil Alex, it’s wirs.”

Hmm, where have I heard stuff like that before?

A petition currently before the Scottish Parliament is seeking referendums to be held on all three islands exactly a week after the rest of the nation votes on the future of the union with Westminster.

In the event it should get the go-ahead, the 70,000 inhabitants will be given the choice of either staying in Scotland or seeking independence of their own. A third question following a successful yes vote will offer the possibility of staying within the UK while seceding from control of Holyrood.

Yup, and it got about about 1200 signatures, over 200 of which came from outside the UK. A high impact petition? What the council up there want to avoid is being all lumped together into an aggregated authority, which is fair enough, I'm not convinced there's a real desire to leave Scotland or to stay in UK anymore than there is anywhere else in Scotland.

I'm not convinced there's a real desire to leave Scotland

I could say the same about Scottish peoples' desire for independence.

“The SNP is holding a gun to the islanders’ heads and saying 'I will not do anything for you unless you vote yes'. It is like the proverbial English colonial governor telling the natives what to do. People in the islands are very independent minded and they do not like being treated like this,” he said.

Isn't this exactly what the Yes campaign and supporters accuse the British government of?

You could say the same about Scottish peoples' desire for independence.

I did say that, although it was maybe easy to misread.

The SNP is holding a gun to the islanders’ heads and saying 'I will not do anything for you unless you vote yes'. It is like the proverbial English colonial governor telling the natives what to do. People in the islands are very independent minded and they do not like being treated like this,” he said.

Are they doing that? As this thread shows we trust anything that a politicians says. The SNP has promised an enquiry to look at the giving the islands more power. I didn't see anything in that statement that hinged on a yes vote...

But WNB, this whole thing is based on principle isn't it?????

But WNB, this whole thing is based on principle isn't it?????

What are you talking about? Why so many question marks? I've already said if there's a real appetite for it then they should ask for a legally binding referendum and then be given one.

Edit: I'll say now before I get accused of no true Scotsman fallacy, I only qualify with 'real apatite' so that we don't end up wasting a load of time and money on something which is doom to failure.

I assume the final line was not meant to be ironic?

Nope. The SNP had it in their Manifesto and have a mandate for it. The vote will be close either way I suspect so although [b]you[/b] might think of it as a waste of time and money there's a lot of people who feel differently.

teamhurtmore - Member

In this case I guess it's just a white elephant then???

Wait, earlier you said it was an elephant in the room that nobody talked about. But now you're posting links showing people talking about it. Have you decided to cut out the middleman and argue with yourself? 😆

Not coincidentally, while disagreeing with your own posts you've ended up proving my point, by showing how little support there is. Cheers! That petition's optimistically hoping to net as much as 10% support, but has currently made it to the dizzying heights of just over 2%... Well, as long as you count votes from people who don't actually live there.

where have I heard stuff like that before?

I could say the same about Scottish peoples' desire for independence.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/top-economist-deal-on-the-pound-for-iscotland-is-still-possible.1399474745

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-currency-deal-intractable-1-3401699

Westminster politicians and the currency - no no thtat of course not that is fact. Will it be those who point out that international law says it is theirs[ Scotlands]? A point so unambiguous no one rational denies it? Why does this debate make everyone so partisan?

I'm not denying most of the oil is Scotland's - but I think 'you're taking our oil and we want it for ourselves' is a pathetic argument in favour of nationalism, and I've seen normally sensible people on here using it as well as the Yes campaign.

Everyone has the right to be wrong and to compare chalk with cheese

Have you not seen the Stewart Lee but where he points out that chalk and cheese aren't actually that dissimilar at all? 🙂

Is there any decent data on how many support Shetland independence? Feel free to quote it if so - dismissing it out of hand seems a bit poor. I'm only going by what their elected MSP is saying, I assumed he represents his constituents.

BTW I'd like to retract my earlier statement of agreeing with THM as he's becoming incredibly ridiculous on this thread. 🙂

Of course Shetland should have a ref,but let's move the boundary of where their waters start before they do. Ha ha! I am an evil genius, nobody else could ever come up with such a cunning dastardly plan to control their neighbours resources....Aw shite!

grum - Member

Is there any decent data on how many support Shetland independence?

I assume you mean shetland independence rather than scottish? If so, THM's petition should remove any doubt but if you're discounting that, just look at the absence where an independence movement would be- if there was a significant and strong desire for shetland independence, there would be more than a failing online petition.

NW's, I will keep the jokes a little simpler in future.

I'd like to retract my earlier statement of agreeing with THM as he's becoming incredibly ridiculous on this thread.

And i keep asking why do you need radical change?
I am failing to see why it needs to be radical

It was fun while it lasted Grum

Miss you already xxx

What's the fing point of perpetuating the current social inequality, educational attainment levels, lack if social mobility, job insecurity and the general shittiness of early 21 century "all in this together" austerity capitalism under a slightly different brand at huge expense, then?

I think you might have missed the point............it's about [b]"FREEDOM"[/b]

[img] [/img]

konabunny - Member

What's the fing point of perpetuating the current social inequality, educational attainment levels, lack if social mobility, job insecurity and the general shittiness of early 21 century "all in this together" austerity capitalism under a slightly different brand at huge expense, then?

Mentioned this up the page but just getting off the sliding slope would be positive. Pushing back towards even the status quo of 10 years ago, more so. I don't think most people would consider that radical change.

(I would- but then I consider the ongoing changes to be radical change too, just very well packaged and stealthed.)

konabunny - Member
And i keep asking why do you need radical change?
I am failing to see why it needs to be radical

What's the fing point of perpetuating the current social inequality, educational attainment levels, lack if social mobility, job insecurity and the general shittiness of early 21 century "all in this together" austerity capitalism under a slightly different brand at huge expense, then?

Personally I think the act of independence is fairly radical in itself. Scotland will diverge from ruk politically because of it IMO. It certainly won't be the same. Might be slightly different, might be vastly different.

We won't find out that answer until 20 or 30 years down the line though.

And btw we were told devolution would be bad for us. That turned out to be balls, and it's only 15 years down the line. Having free education, free prescriptions, sensible land access laws and an NHS that isn't getting sold to the highest bidder strikes me as being a fairly radical divergence from the rUK norms....

[img] [/img]

Oh we're back to Scotland is the last colony of the British Empire argument again. Why the hands round a lit candle btw ?

And btw we were told devolution would be bad for us.

No you weren't. Scots were told that devolution would be good, in fact it was offered decades ago but most Scots initially showed little interest in devolution.

[quote=seosamh77 ]consider that more half the existing parties are refusing to even consider independence and the are parties that will form that no one has heard of as yet, then it becomes slightly difficult to quantify how radical an IS will be (in the short term, as let's face it that's all you are asking here, a short termist question). All we have to go on is a SNP manifesto/wishlist.

If you're talking about the general political structure, who holds the power etc., then it's not at all difficult to quantify. I know you like to have your fairy tales, but it has been pointed out time and again that there is nothing radical proposed which will change things in the way you imagine might happen.

Well apart from that you'll be ruled from Holyrood rather than Westminster by a government "you choose", so you'll have the impression that you have more power.

Kona Bunny whilst I would like to see a socialist Utopia or even a Scandinavian fairer capitalistic model I really dont see why it needs to be radical or you can just dismiss it at pointless

Using the best analogy i can muster, what is the point in kids moving out when they will still have to do all the same things ? They can only leave if they choose to move to a Yurt or to subsistence farming or to something else radically different and anything else is not worth the cost or effort.

Oh we're back to Scotland is the last colony of the British Empire argument again. Why the hands round a lit candle btw ?

Dont be daft there are loads still left, a point you yourself surely accept.
Nonetheless this argument is still a straw man
The hands are round I assume because,given the angle of flame ,it might be a bit windy and to make it visually nicer.

Nonetheless this argument is still a straw man

Yeah, if you have a think about it you'll realise that's exactly my point.

If devolution is so bad:

1. Why do more people want that than full independence?
2. Why does the BoD argue essentially for a higher form of devolution and not independence at all?
3. Why is currency union such a hot topic? Because it is admission at the highest level that independence is not what you want and, by implication, need.

BT doesn't need to say anything. As always yS tells the story as it is, albeit indirectly.

But the absurdity of all of this - as pointed out many times here and indeed the central argument of george Galloway - is that in the case of a yes vote your end up with less independence not more. No representation at any level in the bodies that will sent the key instruments of policy - interest rates, tax, location of nukes, etc. Government will be even more impotent to tackle the challenges ahead. And people think that this is a good idea?

One safe bet, is that iS will face pretty much the same challenges and will tackle them in much the same way despite the fairy tales in the BoD. If anything the requirement for further austerity will be as high, if not higher (see how markets price Scottish risk in time) than before. In the end , you can't buck reality.

Be careful what you wish for. Fairy tales are not reality.

Aracer. The only evidence we have to go on is the performance of the Scottish parliament. The evidence there is pretty clear that it is different from Westminster.

I know you like to have your fairy tales,

I am however willing to bow to your ability to predict the future and dismiss such and outlandish and unreasonable statement with your STRAW MAN 😉

FFS if there is on thing we all agree on it is that we cannot really predict the exact outcome of independence

Exactly, did you see the recent debate between Sturgeon and Lamont? Two leading lights doing a send up of Les Dawson and Roy Kinnear!

If devolution is so bad:

You shouldn't of bothered writing the rest of that post, there's not many (if any) in Scotland that would rather not have devolution, so your premise for the rest of the post is flawed.

That you ave the same arguments against Scottish independence as George Galloway speaks volumes...

Reading through these posts, the fundamental negative proposed by the NO team seems to be that Scotland, unlike all the other countries that have become independent since 1945, will be unable to run its own affairs.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country?

in fact it was offered decades ago but most Scots initially showed little interest in devolution.

Btw I know

Nice swerve, but point missed exactly and equally understandably. It is the biggest elephant in the room after all!

epicyclo - Member
Reading through these posts, the fundamental negative proposed by the NO team seems to be that Scotland, unlike all the other countries that have become independent since 1945, will be unable to run its own affairs.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country?

That is not what is being said. There is a falsification of the picture presented by the deceitful one and the assymtery in the risk/return in many of the hopes that he presents as facts. There is no reason why Scotland would be incapable. More of an argument about which is better - and since, stripping away the rhetoric and BS, yS are the ones arguing that you need to have dependency not independence on the principle instruments of government, BT need to add nothing to the argument. YS admits it themselves - Scotland is better served as part of the UK. The majority (just) of Scots still recognise that.

140 countries have chosen independence since 1945

and how many of them then broke down into civil war & chaos shortly afterwards?

The statistic is wrong anyway since many of those 'countries' fractured off from other countries after independence, for example is India counted as one country choosing independence or two (India and ****stan) and does Bangladesh get counted once, twice or three times (seceded from ****stan in 1971)? Working out how you would count 'independence' in Yugoslavia just makes my head hurt!

The poster's theme also ignores the most obvious contemporary theme in modern politics. But hey, in a mad tipsy turvy world of Scottish Independence, what's new?

The whole thing should be re-labelled to "Devo Reverse" since the first thing that an iS would do would be to devolve the fundamental instruments of policy and stability to a foreign country. Is that an Indian or an African elephant?

Do the Noes in here ever stop to have a listen to their continual, dreary counsel of despair?

This monarchy, this ludicrously over-centralized state, with its unelected peers and myriad forms of entrenched privilege and inequality, its hostility to doing things differently in any way whatever, is the best of all possible worlds; no finer constitutional arrangements could ever be devised by any stretch of human ingenuity.

You might as well forget politics and give up because the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergs and the military-industrial complex run everything anyway and any attempts at reconfiguring constitutional arrangements so that they reflect more faithfully the desires of the people they hold sway over are basically just re-arranging the deckchairs on a voyage doomed to failure.

Anyone who seeks to change things and try and offer some alternative must conjure up a system that is at once perfect in every respect or be lambasted for being too wee/poor/stupid/Bravehearted/anti-English/alcoholic/whatever the casual, snidey [i]insult du jour[/i] happens to be.

If at first you don't succeed, give up.

Is it any wonder that the "No" campaign, despite having every possible advantage in terms of getting its message across via a compliant and sympathetic mass media, is heading the wrong way in the polls?

There are no doubt some among the "Yes" camp who imagine the road to Brigadoon will be paved with golden shortbread but I'd imagine the majority are ordinary, decent folk who look around them at 21st-century Britain and think, is this really the best we can hope for? Maybe the sky [i]won't[/i] fall down if we try to do things differently. Maybe Devo Max is the most-desired outcome and maybe such "independence" as you can have in an interdependent world is closer to it in most respects than is the future being offered to Scotland under the Union.