Forum menu
Independence itself is in national terms really just us picking up the tool box. It’s what we do with it that will shape the future Scotland.
Good analogy but it also depends on what's actually in the tool box and what materials you have to work with. These are also factors.
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anyone to pick up that poisoned chalice. It'll be interesting to see what replaces 'The Vow' and guaranteed EU membership this time round though...
but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in
Define "beneficial for the people".
And don't say it's simple, and everyone knows - define it.
@molgrips We'll have the same toolbox as all the other independent countries. We'll have more raw materials than some and less than others. You can read up about employers and study for your chosen profession but ultimately you learn most about the job when you actually go to work. Isn't a workers greatest tool their own knowledge and experience?
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
You need to measure it against something, without any prospectus then what do the UK government produce their benefits against?
Define “beneficial for the people”.
And don’t say it’s simple, and everyone knows – define it.
Exactly what it says on the tin, that it is of benefit to the people of Scotland, so the provision of services don't decrease, or cost increases, same with taxation, or if so what is the long term benefit of such, i.e. initial costs being offset by long term increases in services, support, etc.
These aren't trick questions, nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are, most are worried of increases to tax to pay for the initial costs and what happens to the companies, departments, services, etc that will be affected by a hard border between Scotland and England, and the potential loss of relationships between them between the two countries.
So in short, with everything costing more, is independence going to take more money out of their pockets or not, and will services be the same level, or will there be reductions for some, or many?
Exactly what it says on the tin, that it is of benefit to the people of Scotland, so the provision of services don’t decrease, or cost increases, same with taxation, or if so what is the long term benefit of such, i.e. initial costs being offset by long term increases in services, support, etc.
Of course there are other measures of "better" other than how much money is in your pocket or even the subjective judgement about quality of services, eg. the feeling of autonomy to make decisions more locally on things like tax and services; the potential to live in a fairer society which is less about money in the pockets of the lucky; the ability to distance yourself from the political chaos currently found in Westminster; the potential to access the EU/EEA and have free movement for yourself or your kids etc.
These aren’t trick questions, nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are, most are worried of increases to tax to pay for the initial costs and what happens to the companies, departments, services, etc that will be affected by a hard border between Scotland and England, and the potential loss of relationships between them between the two countries.
And yet 45% of voters in Scotland voted for it last time - where the white paper implied lots of things but of course, was unable to determine the outcome of future negotiations. I don't think anyone has suggested there would not be a similar white paper this time.
So in short, with everything costing more, is independence going to take more money out of their pockets or not, and will services be the same level, or will there be reductions for some, or many?
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
Do businesses only divide when the parties are certain that both parts will be better off separate (and do some parts actually thrive more free from the bigger part)?
Thanks poly, saved me.
But you missed:
Not having my taxes used to prop up a corrupt regime (only in power by a minority of the vote).
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
I believe they have a Scot working on something, the man brought up in Aberdeen, the one that Scots treat like Voldemort because they don't say his name
Not having my taxes used to prop up a corrupt regime
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you're so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you’re so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
1 Who says we wouldn't
2 But it's a fact that the Westminster Tories are corrupt - are you going to try and deny it?
3 Our (Scotland) electoral system at least means if they are corrupt, a majority has ACTUALLY voted for them - so it's our fault.
And I'm English born & bred, why are YOU calling ME a scumbag?
MODS - can you note who is calling who a "scumbag".
The notion that somehow the provision of public services would suddenly get more expensive/ less competent when run by an independent Scottish Government clearly hasn't paid much attention to the machinations of Westminster - £8Bn of PPE procurement for starters. Lots of anti-IS briefing going on about things like pensions and stuff - funny how they always focus on the negative stuff, much like Brexit they can't come up with any positive benefits except when appealing to their fan base. Of course there's the survey commissioned by Gove at taxpayers' expense where the results have been quietly shelved, like the Russia report.
And I’m English born & bred, why are YOU calling ME a scumbag?
Winking emoji. Just prompting people (not necessarily you) to think about any biases they might not realise they have.
Because of course Scotland would never have corruption, you’re so much better than those scumbag English, right? 😉
He didn't say either of those things. You know he didn't say them. You know his point was that Scottish taxpayers are helping prop up the criminal cabal of Tories in Westminster (not all of whom are English). In that knowledge, you chose to suggest that Scotland regards our southern neighbours as 'those scumbag English'. Nothing but tedious trolling with precious little understanding of the actual drivers behind why many in a small country, long governed by a widely despised political party repeatedly chosen by it's much larger neighbour, wish for it to forge it's own, very different, path. The wink emoji doesn't excuse your deliberate trolling either. Grow up.
Of course there are other measures of “better” other than how much money is in your pocket or even the subjective judgement about quality of services, eg. the feeling of autonomy to make decisions more locally on things like tax and services; the potential to live in a fairer society which is less about money in the pockets of the lucky; the ability to distance yourself from the political chaos currently found in Westminster; the potential to access the EU/EEA and have free movement for yourself or your kids etc.
This is the issue, this response isn't giving folk any positive feel, getting independence won't change the fact you'll have a country of 5.5 million people, with the demographics that go with it, the above response won't make folk who have large mortgages, kids, etc happy, all they'll think is i'm paying more tax to someone different, chaos will follow as well, 5.5 million, of that some right wing, some left wing, the unionists going mental, others not happy when they don't get what they wanted through independence, chaos is just human nature!
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
Do businesses only divide when the parties are certain that both parts will be better off separate (and do some parts actually thrive more free from the bigger part)?
There's a good percentage that do, businesses aren't charities, and lots of unhappy couples stay together because of finances and the effect it would have on the family.
On the above, would you go to a job interview without knowing the pay and conditions, or the role and what it entails, would you accept it if successful without still knowing the pay and conditions, with only a 'we think it'll be better than you are on currently' as comfort?
He didn’t say either of those things. You know he didn’t say them... The wink emoji doesn’t excuse your deliberate trolling either.
Not for the first time on this thread either. There’s a persistent pattern from one or two posters of deliberately seeking to misrepresent this as motivated by an ‘anti-English’ attitude which, for the most part, it quite clearly isn’t.
Ok, look. I do understand the sentiments involved here, we have our own independence campaign down here and yes, it gets discussed. And yes, there are valid reasons to consider it as I have already said.
My comment was tongue in cheek, for sure (which is why there was a winking emoji) but it's not trolling. I am not trying to wind you up, I am pointing out that what you say suggest an anti-English bias. You can deny it, but I am struggling to see how any independence position can't at least in part be anti-English by definition.
Comments like that are veering close to 'I'm not racist, but...' or any amount of Brexit rhetoric along the lines of 'I've got nothing against Europeans, but...'
If you really aren't anti-English* then this is something you have to square.
* or anti-Welsh but lets face it no-one else about them to they?
Do couples only get divorced where the parties think its financially a good decision?
See this piece of rhetoric as well. Why do couples get divorced? Often because they have come to hate each other, so yeah one side will definitely be anti- the other.
molgrips
Full Member
but I am struggling to see how any independence position can’t at least in part be anti-English by definition.
If you want to see it you'll find it, it is there. But it doesn't define it, nor make up a significant part of it.
That IS a new variation on the too small/too poor argument Molgrips. Well played!
If you want to see it you’ll find it, it is there.
But just because you deny it doesn't mean it's not.
And I'm sure you're speaking for yourself not your whole country, right?
So it's impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
This feels kind of like saying anyone who opposes the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Seriously, it's like there are literally no actual arguments to be made in favour of the Union anymore so opponents of independence's only option is to imply that by supporting independence it inherently makes you a type of bigot and therefore a bad person.
So it’s impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
From some angles, but perhaps not all.
This feels kind of like saying anyone who opposes the actions of the Israeli government is antisemitic.
Well no. If (hypothetically) the current Tory government were voted out and the UK was run by social democrats for 30 years, would you still vote for independence in 2052?
Well no. If (hypothetically) the current Tory government were voted out and the UK was run by social democrats for 30 years, would you still vote for independence in 2052?
I've already laid out what it would take for me to vote against independence and it's rooted in my belief that smaller countries are just fundamentally more democratic.
In addition, FPTP and the House of Lords aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Once you've addressed those points then we can start talking about the total shit show that is the Tory party.
Comments like that are veering close to ‘I’m not racist, but…’ or any amount of Brexit rhetoric along the lines of ‘I’ve got nothing against Europeans, but…’
If you really aren’t anti-English* then this is something you have to square.
This is what I was referring to with my antisemitic comment.
There are no arguments to be made for the Union on its own merits so you have to resort to implying support for independence inherently makes us bad people.
The battle for independence will be won or lost in the middle ground, same as last time, those who are at either extremes aren’t going to change their minds if you tell them the positives or negatives, it’s the middle who aren’t interested in the bickering who will push the vote over or under 50%, and what will sway them is the best information they have on the day.
it’s rooted in my belief that smaller countries are just fundamentally more democratic
I agree with this. Also they can be more equal (tax-havens being the exception).
There are no arguments to be made for the Union on its own merits
No? A group of countries co-operating economically to make a larger economy? This did historically have a significant benefit for Scotland after the union, and I'm yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
molgrips
Full Member
If you want to see it you’ll find it, it is there.But just because you deny it doesn’t mean it’s not.
And I’m sure you’re speaking for yourself not your whole country, right?
F are you on about, I literally admit it's there in the post you quoted. 😆
And no I'm not speaking for myself, I have zero hatred for the English.
Yer like a dog with a bone man, when will you stop pushing this nonsense, are you expecting to get a result that says yes the entire nation of scotland hates the English? It's just not true fella, it's a pretty small minority of wallopers. It's not a driving factor in independence.
gie yersel a brek.
Independence is about being out of the union that isn't working for the majority (only borne out if the voting says so) not being independent of England (even though that happens to be the case).
BruceWee
Full Member
So it’s impossible to be pro-independence without being anti-English?
We might as well go with this line of thought and declare anyone that's anti-independence as anti-Scottish, therefore Molly is anti-Scottish. That's the kinda logic we are dealing with here. It's ridiculous, comes for this school of logic.
Since witches are burned at the stake, they must be made of wood, since it burns as well. Wood floats on water, as do ducks. Therefore, if the woman weighs the same as a duck, she must be able to float on water, which means she is made of wood, and consequently must be a witch.
😆
I’m yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
As an English based British person, this is my concern for an independent Scotland - and for the rest of us you'd leave behind.
I totally understand all the flaws with FPTP, Westminster, Tories etc etc. I'd like to see all those addressed as well. My big worry is that independence would create two smaller, poorer, less viable countries, and I wouldn't want that for either nation.
Brexit has shown how hard it is to go it alone in the world.
F are you on about, I literally admit it’s there in the post you quoted.
Ok well your comment could be read a number of ways, I apparently read it the wrong way.
are you expecting to get a result that says yes the entire nation of scotland hates the English?
No. I'm just prompting people to think if they really really really aren't anti-English on some level.
Independence is about being out of the union that isn’t working for the majority not being independent of England
That's a better statement than many I've seen.
molgrips
Full Member
No. I’m just prompting people to think if they really really really aren’t anti-English on some level.
It's turning in to a tedious crusade. You've made your point(a billion times), mibbe move on?
Keeps coming up though, that's all.
Cause you keep bringing it up.
I quoted a post that I thought displayed it, I responded to it.
My big worry is that independence would create two smaller, poorer, less viable countries, and I wouldn’t want that for either nation.
"Smaller" is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/rmHgDKLQ/Screenshot-2022-03-09-154139.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/rmHgDKLQ/Screenshot-2022-03-09-154139.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
molgrips
Full Member
I quoted a post that I (wrongly) thought displayed it, I responded to it.
Fixed that for ye.
Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it's a driving factor behind the independence movement, what percentage of the Scottish population do you believe is anti-English?
“Smaller” is only relative. IndyScot would slot in-between Finland and Singapore and would actually be about average sized.
I'm not sure Scotland - or the RUK - would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)
Out of interest, since you obviously think (wrongly) that it’s a driving factor behind the independence movement
Whoah, I made no claims about numbers. I'm just commenting on the words I see here. But I'd be surprised if it wasn't a factor to greater or lesser extent in many minds.
Well...Not a lot I can do about your irrational prejudices I guess.
No? A group of countries co-operating economically to make a larger economy?
Yes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.
*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement.
BruceWee
Full MemberYes, that is what Scotland would like to return to*.
Well mibbe, we'll need to have a discussion about that...
Well mibbe, we’ll need to have a discussion about that…
Sure, but if we really want to pursue the North Korea option we might as well stay with rUK.
@molgrips I think you're trying to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.
*whether that means full EU membership, EFTA membership, or some other arrangement
Buy land near Gretna, they have to put those lorry parks somewhere....
Not for the first time on this thread either. There’s a persistent pattern from one or two posters of deliberately seeking to misrepresent this as motivated by an ‘anti-English’ attitude which, for the most part, it quite clearly isn’t.
I just love all the posts after this that are just so, "civic"
errs big_n_daft looking for a bite. 😆
Why doesn’t the UK government have to produce proof that maintaining the Union would be beneficial for the people in Scotland?
Let's pick a current one, it's maintains NATO's strength
Why?
Firstly there is no guarantee that iS will apply to join NATO and if it did the non-nuclear policy of the SNP is incompatible with membership.
The SNP defence plans for iS have inadequate resources for territorial waters and airspace, are rUK jets expected to scramble everytime the Russians test the airspace? What anti-submarine capabilities do the SNP propose? Etc etc
The UK occupies a strategic position and by it's size and investment a strategic capability that the smaller members of NATO are net beneficiaries of. Ireland just freeloads in the knowledge that it's geography means the UK does the work or it can rely on fishermen to try and disrupt Russian Martine military training
The SNP proposal is to make up for this by providing the field hospitals for the dead and injuried casualties of other NATO members https://www.thenational.scot/news/19762944.snp-mps-call-independent-scotland-world-leader-military-medicine/
Or iS may stay out of NATO after diminishing one of its key members
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotland-should-not-join-26397712
But don't worry about the Russian mapping of Aberdeen and Dundee
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/past-times/2889739/military-maps-show-how-the-german-and-russian-armies-knew-all-about-aberdeen-and-dundee/
Remember to stay "civic" when you tell me I'm wrong
What? The man your team would have made the president of an independent Scotland has been busy taking Russian money for years. Less corrupt? Aye right.
1. The policy of "his team" is not to have a president.
2. Out of interest way he taking money from the Russians when he was First Minister? I only associate it with his time after that.
3. The point of indy is not to appoint one person, or even party as "prime minister" but rather to give the people of scotland a better say in who that person is every 5 yrs.
I’m yet to be convinced that Scotland can actually become wealthier post-independence despite being a smaller economy.
the point you are missing though is many people in Scotland aren't focused on Wealth (or at least financial wealth). Are there enough of them to trump those who are all about the money and afraid of the financial risks? Who knows... ...that's kind of the point of having a referendum so people can discuss and decide for themselves, there are relatively few people who say Indy is guaranteed to bring bountiful riches and a land of milk and honey so it is to some extent a vote on ideals v's risks.
No. I’m just prompting people to think if they really really really aren’t anti-English on some level.
My views on Indy would likely be different if UK was saying they would become a republic, within the EEA where the representatives in the HOC were elected proportionately and a massively reformed HOL. Likewise, if the flavour of Scotland on offer was an entirely undermocratic/meritocratic second chamber + FPTP parliament that ruled out EU/EEA ties I'd be saying No. So does that mean I hate the English? I don't think so - although I do hate that the English voters and politicians don't see these issues as important enough to fix.
There’s a good percentage that do, and lots of unhappy couples stay together because of finances and the effect it would have on the family.
And it may well be an entirely legitimate decision to do so, of course often one party is manipulating the other to stay and any impartial friend would tell the other to escape. Certainly nobody would suggest that if you decided a few years ago to put up with it that you should never again be allowed to reconsider your position.
See this piece of rhetoric as well. Why do couples get divorced? Often because they have come to hate each other, so yeah one side will definitely be anti- the other.
Clearly you will take every example and try to turn it into hate. Obviously some people hate their husband/wife but others get divorced because they just don't love each other anymore, because their interests and values are no longer aligned because what they want from life had changed enormously since they got in bed donkey's years ago, because they quite fancy that fun, culturally diverse European along the road etc. I'd say of the divorcees I know the happy ones still care deeply for their ex's and get along well - the ones who really resent each other are the ones where one party really didn't want the other to go and tried to manipulate them to stay, often by throwing out language like "do you hate me" and when invited to listen to the reasons they are considering leaving respond "well that's who I am so basically you hate me" or "I don't want to be like that either, but I can't change - it's your problem that you can't tolerate it as well as I do".
On the above, would you go to a job interview without knowing the pay and conditions, or the role and what it entails, would you accept it if successful without still knowing the pay and conditions, with only a ‘we think it’ll be better than you are on currently’ as comfort?
I'm not sure its a particularly good analogy - not least because I don't think anyone is suggesting having a vote without a prospectus or discussion about the pro's and con's. Of course lots of people do jump jobs even with uncertainty, perhaps they are more inclined to when their current job makes them feel they can't thrive, or they don't like the ethos of their current employer. Many people have changed jobs for better money only to regret it - because money isn't the be all and end all. Equally virtually anyone who took a job with a performance bonus, commission or share options took a something uncertain. Some do it under the aspirational belief that they would get rich (or at least stood a good chance of it) but others looked at the total package and said, well even if those aspirations come to nothing the other attractions still seem worth it. The other reason its a bad analogy though - is it is usually fairly easily to leave a new employer if it doesn't go to plan - returning to the Union is unlikely to be an option if things get messy.
Remember to stay “civic” when you tell me I’m wrong
Only if you promise to keep up the wee digs? 😆
Big and daft - many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.
Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws
Well that has convinced me;this year the Ukraine; next Aberdeen and the 'shire. Keep trying to piss into the tent. I wonder where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course) I mean; the MP for Portsmouth said there were too many people close by for them to be located on the South Coast. Look on the bright side, they could make it a tourist attraction; an opportunity sadly under utilised here by everybody except CND.
It is strange just like last time all arguments against independence are absolutes. Yet we have a Tory government who have made it up as they went along for the last 2 years; usually a month late. For all their failings I know who I would rather have had in charge.
I think that Scotland should just be allowed to get on with it, then the SNP can start planning for Indyref3 then in 2030. This is never going away. I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don't change dramatically. So, Indyref2 will be bloody close around the 50% mark each way in reality (give or take 5% like last time). So, about half a chance of leaving - and genuinely good luck to Scotland if so - and about half a chance of keeping it is at is. Which means another couple of terms of the SNP demanding a third ref.
Whatever happens, I hope the terms of the ref are very clearly laid out with the pros and cons of each side and an actual commitment for how long it will be until the next one. The last two referendums in this country haven't really been very successful in making big political decisions...
Big and daft – many of us want no part of NATO, want to be a neutral / demilitarized country.
A fine ambition, I wish the whole world could be, but you know, Putin etc
Many of us have no wish to go parading around the world pretending to be billy big baws
I would say we are the opposite, the lack of ability to parade around like Billy Big Bawes is what is getting everyone excited. I think the Ukrainian people want to be friends with a Billy to get help throwing out Vlad hence their despair at the lack of action
In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she's going to do something or insisting others do it. As a neutral country demilitarised what help would iS be able to give? Would there be any concerns about how a key member of NATO was reduced in capabilities etc etc
I know there are lots of different polls, but the numbers in things like this don’t change dramatically.
Actually, from the time the first ref was announced to when it actually happened, support for Yes went from 30% to 50% and then back down to 45% after the Vow (although, of course, the Vow had nothing to do with it).
Then, after the Brexit vote, 12-13% of Yes voters went to No and 12-13% of No voters went to Yes. That's a full 25% of the population changing it's mind.
There is a core support on both sides who will never change their minds. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't at least 50% of the population who would change their minds if the right conditions were met.
If there were a complete overhaul of the UK system of government that reduced the democratic deficit (which is where a lot of the support for indy is coming from, imo) then it wouldn't surprise me if the question of Independence was put to bed for good.
So yeah, ball's in your court.
Brexit has shown how hard it is to go it alone in the world.
Independence isn't about turning our back on the world like Brexit is, which is why we didn't vote for it.
And I'm more than happy to adopt a more demilitarised/neutral philosophy as a country, as opposed to the pretend patriots who still seem to think there's an Empire.
Note, the Suez Crisis was nearly 70 years ago, that's when the Empire 'officially' ended.
Like many other things, it's probably worth looking at Norway and how they organise their military/foreign policy to get some ideas about what our priorities should be.
I’m not sure Scotland – or the RUK – would be able to match the economy of either, to achieve the day to day benefits people may want independence to bring them (accepting that being free of Whitehall = priceless!)
But, but, but... without having to subsidise Scotland, surely there are only sunlit uplands ahead for the rUK?
it’s probably worth looking at Norway
Too wee...
Too wee…
Too stupid as well. You know that instead of spending all the oil money on gold plated bath tubs they said that the revenue doesn't belong to a single generation and should instead be used to benefit future generations.
Morons.
where they are going to put their nuclear subs? ( Once they have compensated Scotland for our share of them of course)
Hang on, I thought this was about ideals - you want rUK to pay you to take away the things you don't want?
(Playing Devils Advocate)
Yes - 9% of those subs belongs to Scotland. Of course the value would be a part of the negotiations same as any other joint asset
Big and Daft - Putin has really been deterred by scotland being in nato. Of course he got his aim of weakening the EU by brexit.
Brexit is much worse for european security that iScotland not being in nato
In a similar crisis would Sturgeon be on TV saying she’s going to do something or insisting others do it.
as a neutral demilitarised country she should do very little bar ensuring dirty russian money is not used in Scotland
You just do not get it - we do not want to play at being billy big baws
Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done? Indeed I would want iScotland to do more but its a low barrier to beat
@Poly, not going to link as that's getting quite long now!
The reason i focus on finances is that those who want independence for the reasons you mention, well they're pretty much in the Yes camp, and have been for years. As per an earlier post, it's the swing voters in the middle who will decide this, and they aren't that interested in FPTP, choosing Scotlands own premier every 5 years or the likes, they will be the normal folk, lower middle class or whatever we call them these days, the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won't go down well.
As for all the Norway discussions, that ship sailed a generation ago, an independent Scotland would start life with a proportion of the UK national debt and a lot of work ahead, i think most of the oil fields are leased out for years anyway, and again, to follow Norway requires a lot of initial funding. The focus needs to be a lot wider than that, or turning any IndyRef2 into some type of slagging match, learn from the mistakes of the Brexit vote, and the US election that Trump won, belittling some of the population hasn't worked well in the last decade for elections!
As for all the Norway discussions, that ship sailed a generation ago, an independent Scotland would start life with a proportion of the UK national debt and a lot of work ahead,
Depending on the divorce agreement - this can go many ways although it would be prudent to allow for taking 9% of the debt
As for all the Norway discussions,
I mentioned Norway in relation to it's defense policy (and a comment about a focus on building for future generations rather than purely our own selfish interests). Not sure how that ship has sailed .
The principles the Scandinavian countries are built on is very relevant to the discussion. Strongly capitalist (limiting crony capitalism wherever possible) coupled with a strong welfare state.
Even Scandinavian countries with no oil resources follow this model.
The reason i focus on finances is that those who want independence for the reasons you mention, well they’re pretty much in the Yes camp, and have been for years.
I think you are mostly right, people with strong views for fundamental reasons have already picked their side - although I think its wrong to assume that this doesn't change over time. Demographics mean probably about 1/6th of the voters change every 10 yrs. I know quite a few people who voted no last time on economic reasons / the vow / actually wanting DevoMax, or worries about EU membership, who are now at least seriously considering Yes.
As per an earlier post, it’s the swing voters in the middle who will decide this, and they aren’t that interested in FPTP, choosing Scotlands own premier every 5 years or the likes, they will be the normal folk, lower middle class or whatever we call them these days, the ones who will be struggling at this point with stagnant wages, higher energy prices, etc, so any fear of more stress on their finances won’t go down well.
I'm not sure I agree who the swing voters are - but that might be about definitions of "lower middle class". I'm not convinced (from those I've spoken to) that those who are genuinely struggling week to week / month to month are worried about wealth and ecconomoy of Indy, their personal finances never seem to track the GDP growth that gets mentioned in the media anyway. The people I've seen raise those concerns are comfortably off! However, I don't think anyone is suggesting that financials aren't an important part of the considerations for everyone - my point was that "the benefits" aren't just about bottom-line cash in voters pockets as someone was saying. Even the most callous, tax dodging accountant will have a view on whether the cabal in London lining their mates pockets is a good use of "our taxes" and having some ability to boot out the corrupt and the liers. Even some Scottish Tory voters I've had discussions with say that the problem is Westminster politics are targeted at solving English issues - ultimately the "West Lothian Question" has had a different effect from Tam Dayell predicted, its not made Scottish MPs have undue influence, its made English politics dominate the UK.
Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done?
Large scale supply of AT missiles (short and medium range) and training, supply and training on MANPADS, massive ISTAR resources, positioning of troops in vulnerable NATO countries from the top of my head, I'm sure there is lots more.
so why would iScotland not be able to do that? 9% of it obviously
Johnson of course has been slow to sanction oligarchs because they own him
Yes – 9% of those subs belongs to Scotland. Of course the value would be a part of the negotiations same as any other joint asset
If you are counting assets you need to count liabilities as well, so that is 9%of the decommissioning as well
Yes - and your point is?
so why would iScotland not be able to do that? 9% of it obviously
You can't provide resources you don't have. What defence capabilities will your paradigm for iS as a small neutral demilitarised country have?
You seem to have Schrödinger's armed forces
Youare conflating two differnt things to sew confusion - what a suprise
Scotland can have whatever military set up it democratically decides. the starting point is 9% of the UK assets. Now on a straight 9% split then scotland could have offered 9% of the support Johhnson has done.
My preference is for a demilitariszed iScotland not acting outside its boarders.
Possibilities are infinite. choices we make puts the limits on. We can chose any path we want from a US style path to a costa rica type path
Morecashthandash....so was I
mind you a former forum member suggested just annexing the base as what were Scotland going to do about it? It also highlights the fact that there are so many variables and unknowns that anybody saying this or that will definitely happen is talking rubbish.My support for indy, (apart from OBVIOUSLY being anti-English) is because I see and visit other countries of a similar size who seem to be doing just fine,looking after their citizens and doing that even without nuclear weapons. So why should we not get rid of the broken system of Government that we are tied to if we are able?
If you want to kill the independence movement,give us Devo Max,a system of PR for Westminster elections,another ref on Europe and abolish the monarchy/tax the ex-members. Oh; and we have a weekly free lottery in which a lucky winner gets 5 mins in a dark room with Jacob R-Mogg.
Oh; and we have a weekly free lottery in which a lucky winner gets 5 mins in a dark room with Jacob R-Mogg.
I'm sold, and moving north....
Scotland can have whatever military set up it democratically decides. the starting point is 9% of the UK assets. Now on a straight 9% split then scotland could have offered 9% of the support Johhnson has done.
My preference is for a demilitariszed iScotland not acting outside its boarders.
Possibilities are infinite. choices we make puts the limits on. We can chose any path we want from a US style path to a costa rica type path
Except you can't salami slice capabilities, you have to pick. You just sew whatever suits the point you want to make regardless of the contradictions
9% or demilitarised, flip flop
Oh dear - are you really living up to your name? Conflating the possibilities for iScotland with my personal preferences! Much as I would like to be I don't think I get to be the first king of iScotland
An independent scotland will have whatever military set up it democratically decides. this could even include and increase in military spending
MY preference is to be demilitarised.
I mentioned Norway in relation to it’s defense policy (and a comment about a focus on building for future generations rather than purely our own selfish interests). Not sure how that ship has sailed .
The principles the Scandinavian countries are built on is very relevant to the discussion. Strongly capitalist (limiting crony capitalism wherever possible) coupled with a strong welfare state.
Even Scandinavian countries with no oil resources follow this model.
Norway, and many other Scandinavian countries built that over the last couple of generations since the end of WW2, Scotland has the infrastructure it has, it has the capitalist network that it has, and it has to manage that without causing issues or panic at the start.
Military wise, Norway would not be a good example, they have spent a fortune on military over the years, and still do, they are part of NATO, and in the last couple of decades have moved away from being more defence force minded to international collaborations/coalition forces, as well as peacekeeping. I'd say Ireland would be the role model for an independent Scotland to start with.
As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there's a border, that's just day dream thinking, there will always be corruption, there will always be cronyism, it's human nature and happens every day in every country in the world. Any initial period of independence will show this, those early days of competing contracts for new independent services, infrastructure building, etc, where there money, there will be independence carpetbaggers!
Except you can’t salami slice capabilities, you have to pick. You just sew whatever suits the point you want to make regardless of the contradictions
And we're back to demanding absolute assurances and clarity from the Yes side without holding No to the same standards.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that unless we come to a conclusion about exactly what iScotland's military will look like (no doubt including a full breakdown of the taxation levels required to fund it) right here on this thread then Scotland can't be independent?
Are you saying it's impossible for Scotland to have a military and a foreign policy?
Scotland has the infrastructure it has, it has the capitalist network that it has, and it has to manage that without causing issues or panic at the start
So because it has the starting condition it has it can't work towards a common goal of a fairer society. It's doomed to remain the same for the next 1000 years?
I’d say Ireland would be the role model for an independent Scotland to start with.
Actually, I think Scotland will end up with a solution that suits it's own needs. Which is the whole point.
As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there’s a border, that’s just day dream thinking, there will always be corruption, there will always be cronyism, it’s human nature and happens every day in every country in the world.
I'm not sure where I said it would change overnight.
What I did say is that it's far easier to hold politicians to account when you don't have to grapple with the democratic deficit that the UK has to deal with.
In Norway I've drank with and chatted to the Norwegian minister for culture in the pub. He just happened to stand next to me at the bar.
Can you imagine something like this ever happening to BJ or any other British PM?
Politicians have to pay a lot more attention to their constituents when they have to deal with them face to face on a daily basis.
As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there’s a border,
No one is saying that apart from we will no longer be a part of the corrupt westminster system and of course cronyism and corruption is much less at holyrood
As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there’s a border, that’s just day dream thinking, there will always be corruption, there will always be cronyism, it’s human nature and happens every day in every country in the world
You're misquoting again, what a surprise.
And we’re back to demanding absolute assurances and clarity from the Yes side without holding No to the same standards.
This, pretty standard it seems and especially from big&soft.
If you want to kill the independence movement,give us Devo Max,a system of PR for Westminster elections,another ref on Europe and abolish the monarchy/tax the ex-members. Oh;
100% - if rUK want to save the Union fix the political system, and you guarantee to kill the Indy movement. I'd love to see one of the main parties challenge the monarchy status quo - it would put the SNP in a really odd position of wanting to be independent with Liz as Head of State whilst the rUK were pushing towards getting rid of the monarchy! rUK really faces the decision - what bits of its status quo is it willing to sacrifice to keep the union together. Even if Scotland has another referendum and narrowly loses do they think the issue disappears? for how long. Northern Ireland is a mess, Wales is getting there and the "North" is just one coherent identity from realising they are ignored too.
and we have a weekly free lottery in which a lucky winner gets 5 mins in a dark room with Jacob R-Mogg.
Seems like a missed revenue raising opportunity - lots of people would pay good money for that!