[Closed] So, this Scottish Independence thing Cameron's banging on about...

Protect out sea from who?

You will have a duty to patrol the coasts from people seeking to enter the country illegally. If you did not take this seriously then that big wall would need to be re-erected to control immigration / terrorism.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
the whining Sassenachs
Racist.

Hmm, think I prefer that to 'Nigel'

tj - can we get how the 'common' (as in shared) royals are paid for added to ze SNP Questions list, presumably 50/50 as they'll be split between us ?

I know it's complex, but I'd happen to like to be told the truth (by both sets of excrement involved in the argument) and I'd like the facts established before the deal rather than paying lawyers to resolve them after.

I fail to see how Scotland can vote without knowing the facts, and I don't want them to vote without a clear understanding of Englands liabilties and I want all tossers involved to be accountable for any lies and ball ups.

e.g say I was a politician and I gave you a wish, and you said I'd like my cock to reach the ground, and I said no problem, so you said ok, I suspect you'd be less than pleased if I chopped your legs off

gusamac - its a perfectly valid point. Informed consent is the key

Plus the whining Sassenachs have never been so pissed off

Be nice now - it can't be easy having saddled themselves with a bunch of tossers who are busy screwing over their social structures, while ours are plodding along quite nicely.

The thing is we heard all the same prophecies of doom and gloom in the run up to the devolution vote - the English really are starting to sound like a bunch of political bunny boilers. What's next - we vote 'yes' for independence and you start threatening to kill yourselves?

How come you said that Scotland (indie Scotland that is) would be out of NATO?

I would have thought that it would have wanted to be in NATO given that a large part of it is surrounded by said ocean, and it would be the first place that the red menace (not ManU before anyone says it) would have to fly over/bomb on the way to get us.

Also, what are you going to tell the combined Scottish regiments if there's suddenly no work for them? No NATO means no peacekeeping. You're not likely to pick a fight with anyone, so you won't need a standing army. They might not be happy with that.

Oh, and regarding the navy, we don't have much left any more, so going for a percentage of it might mean that you actually get a percentage of a ship. Maybe a life raft or two. Or the old stuff that is in dock until it can be turned into razors. That would do for fishery protection wouldn't it?

Serious point though, can you ask the SNP what their plans are for the armed forces post-independence. I really would like to know.

What's next - we vote 'yes' for independence

You're not going to have the chance to vote. So I woon't worry about it if I were you. 🙂

Do any Scottish people here seriously think Scotland will ever become independent (at least while there's still any oil left)?

And if so, do you also believe in Santa Claus? Unicorns? The Tooth Fairy?

accept that you are ruled from London...so stop worrying about it and concentrate on building yer trams or whatever, try doing something properly for a change.

This bit is really good - remind me again, the London Olympics are now running at about £5billion overspend. The numbers of kids involved in sport in England is [i]falling[/i], so the legacy of that £9 billion vanity project will be what - some unused stadiums slowly decaying in the east end somewhere. 😆

it would be the first place that the red menace (not ManU before anyone says it) would have to fly over/bomb on the way to get us.

LOL - are you Rip Van Winkle? The Warsaw Pact disappeared a wee while back now. There is no red menace!

willard - I can answer you a bit about the armed forces stuff.

Its a controversial position in the party but I believe the position is to not be in nato but to be neutral.

The scottish regiment ( I think its all amalgamated into one now) would be a defence force for the defence of Scotland and UN peackeeping. Navy would be coastal and fisheries protection only. Airforce dunno

conventional forces only no nuclear

conventional forces only no nuclear

Actually, without the money spaffed on the willy waving vanity project that is Trident, running a Scottish Defence Force would be a lot more feasible, especially if it's also free of the ridiculous procurement snafus that characterise current defence spending.

The whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.

That is all you need to know.

EDIT: that and how to inflate tubeless tyres. That's quite useful as well.

Yup- an how many coastal defence vessels can one buy for 10% of the spend on the new aircraft carriers?

The British (English) could hire the Scottish Regiment for a suitable fee. It's well know that us Scot's are bloody handy in a good rammie !

And as for The Royal Scottish (Stewart ?) Navy, we are also rather handy at building boats that come in any shade of grey you like. Or we could just hang on to the two sitting at the shipbuilders on the Clyde just now.

IBM subs you can do without.

This bit is really good - remind me again, the London Olympics are now running at about £5billion overspend. The numbers of kids involved in sport in England is falling, so the legacy of that £9 billion vanity project will be what - some unused stadiums slowly decaying in the east end somewhere.

Stadia that you'll have paid for but will never get to use, probably.

I'll hopefully be using the velodrome and swimming pool now and then though. And i dare say some footy team will get to use the main stadium. What return will you be seeing for your investment? Oh...

Still, at least you've got that nice trams system in Edinburgh to use.

Oh....

Face it; the onions of a couple of million Scottish folk don't count for owt, when you consider Scotland's continued (albeit decreasing) importance to the UK economy.

Once again (cos you've not answered this one yet, strangely):

Do any Scottish people here seriously think Scotland will ever become independent (at least while there's still any oil left)?

And if so, do you also believe in Santa Claus? Unicorns? The Tooth Fairy?

Answer pliz thx.

ditch_jockey - Member
LOL - are you Rip Van Winkle? The Warsaw Pact disappeared a wee while back now. There is no red menace!

I dunno. With all the gas that they have, a democratic government controlled by former KGB and Communist party members, and a lot of places that they feel they should be in, I reckon Russia will be making moves in the future. We are already seeing a lot more noise from their long range recon planes than we have done in a while.

TJ, thanks for that information. At least it shows that they have put some thought into it.

I see it like an amicable divorce. We're still fond of each other but have grown apart. A Scottish referendum would clarify how Scots feel and if a majority want to separate, then the peoples of other counties in the union should consider that application seriously. And then they should also have a referendum and if they agree then the Scots should be free to go on alone.

My personal feeling as an Englishmen is that they should be autonomous and take whatever natural resources within their boundaries with them - I would expect no less if the shoe were on the other foot.

who will get the Falklands, and their costs and possible assets.

I'm asking as didn't most of Scotland panic back when the Argies invaded and they hadn't read the atlas

TandemJeremy - Member
Yup- an how many coastal defence vessels can one buy for 10% of the spend on the new aircraft carriers?

Depends, Who will be building them for you? Open market, quite a few. Domestic? Not many.

Yes, we got shafted on the new carriers, but that was [maybe] down to a certain ex-PM wanting them build in his constituency, and other people messing up the contracts. We could have done better. Same with the new Type 45s...

Procurement. Yes, we should improve that. Good luck with that if you do get independence.

if a majority want to separate, then the peoples of other counties in the union should consider that application seriously

Why?

What about Wales? What about NI? What about Cornwall? What about Yorkshire? What about London? Etc? All would have valid reasons to split, and London certainly would benefit. I woon't want to see it happen though.

The only vote I would support would be a UK-wide one. Cos I beleive all people of the UK should have a say in the future of the Union.

Personally, I'd scrap the England Scotalnd Wales NI bit and just call it Britain. Be simpler. Then we could have a British footy team, Rugby teams, etc. 😀 We do for cycling, so why not other sports?

We'd be a stronger nation if we weren't so divided by petty regionalistic parochialism.

Elfin,

I believe there is a real possibility that we will get full fiscal autonomy (Devo Max / Indy Lite) before the oil is completely gone. I doubt we will actually leave the Union though. Although the argument for the Union would be massively diluted by effective fiscal autonomy I think the same sentimental crap that means 1/4 - 1/3 of the population are desparate to separate there is 1/3 - 1/2 who are sentimental about "Britain" and "the UK".

I think its so marginal whether Scotland is a net contributor or drain on the UK that it shouldn't make any difference either way (neither side has ever conclusively proven the balance was one way or other). That's not what worries me - the problem is that a government suddenly gaining that power/responsibility with be so keen with voter friendly policies they will forget to balance the books and so screw it up. If we grow up and pay more to get more, or accept you can't get it all without paying then it could be fine.

I really doubt most people would notice though - in the same way as there's not that much difference between Dunblin and Belfast (not withstanding that wars have been fought over such claims!).

It would be interesting to see what the manifestos of the other parties would be in an essentially independent Scotland - I'm not convinced that the SNP would be the successful party in the "new Scotland".

Of the 59 Westminster seats in Scotland only 1 is Tory and that is unlikely to change much in the foreseeable future.Perhaps Cameron is more devious than you give him credit for.....

What about Wales? What about NI? What about Cornwall? What about Yorkshire? What about London?

Do they have the same appetite for separation? I didn't realise Boris was a separatist!

Cos I beleive all people of the UK should have a say in the future of the Union

I agree

The only vote I would support would be a UK-wide one.

The problem is that the Scots' voice would be drowned by everyone else's.

Have the SNP thought about the currency that an independent Scotland would use?

I went on the SNP website to find out, but if you search it for the word "euro" you come up with just old press releases from 2002 and 2003...

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2002/jul/scots-warm-euro

60% of Scots in 2002 expected they would have switched to the euro within 5 years....

So which choice will independent Scotland make? Switch to the euro and have economic policy dictated from Brussels and Frankfurt, and cross-border trade massively disrupted; or stick with Sterling and have it dictated from London, but now with no representation?

EDIT: I think a referendum would be a good way to flush out these arguments.

I am being very thick here - Scottish lady on BBC news (second minister perhaps) who I assume is pro-independence stating that DC actions are pandering to the pro-camp and making yes vote more likely. And she is looking miserable???? She should be welcoming this. Cameron making her life easier....or am I missing something?

What about a purely Scottish currency? Norway is still currencarily (it's a new-type word I just made up) independent, with the Kroner.

But then, you'd have to establish it on World markets, hmm, that could be tricky...

who will get the Falklands, and their costs and possible assets.

Las Malvinas you mean? Argentina. 😀

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9622477.stm

Well we'd keep with sterling until it was to Scotland's economic advantage to join the Euro

I am not an economist, but I can't help feeling that wouldn't really work for very long.

The thing that really curls me up about it is that the jocks can't have a referendum on independence without permission from Westminster. Now they've got it they don't want it. A classic opening salvo really. It will be interesting to see how the cards go down on the table between Salmond and the chinless one, as the game of wits unfolds.

(My monies on the jock.)

They can opt for the Scottish pound and devalue like the Southern Irish must be thinking about now re the punt.

The scottish regiment ( I think its all amalgamated into one now) would be a defence force for the defence of Scotland and UN peackeeping.

What on earth makes you think that all of those Fijians in the Royal Regiment of Scotland would want to join this Scottish Army of yours?

Labour yesterday signed a motion with the Conservatives and Libs to demand an immediate vote....So nobody running scared then. Of course Elfinfredtaky said it won't happen so what do they know? 😉

Berm Bandit - Member
The thing that really curls me up about it is that the jocks can't have a referendum on independence without permission from Westminster. Now they've got it they don't want it.

Actually the vote is to be on Westminsters terms NOT the Scottish governments. Cameron want it now before his popularity falls to Thatcher years levels.

In all seriousness, we have enough uncertainties in our collective worlds right now, I would have thought having one less to worry about would be a good idea so if there has to be a vote then better sooner rather than later so we can move on and deal with whatever outcome.

Although it would probably be fairer to ask the entire country North & South of the border wether we even want a vote given other more pressing issues that face us at the moment, it's just bloody politicians ****ing about with things for their own self aggrandisement after all, none of us were consulted about devolution in the first place and now the whole bloody Union appears to be up for discussion who even suggested it in the first place I wonder and how many of them were there?

Timing:
During the campaigning for the Scottish Parliament, the SNP were accused by the dependence parties of "hiding" their plans for a vote on independence somewhere deep in the manifesto and of planning to hold a vote as soon as they got into power rather than concentrating on getting the economy, jobs, growth question resolved. As a result, Alex Salmond made a commitment to delay the vote into the second half of the term. Now he's honouring that pledge, the dependence parties are complaining. 🙄

It's also worth saying that the only time you'll see/hear an SNP politician talking about independence is when they are responding to something in the media or when dependence party has raised some sort of issue.

none of us were consulted about devolution in the first place

All the pro unionist parties are running scared of Salmond and the SNP. the only uncertainty is that which they are creating and there is zero evidence for business concern over the timing of a referendum.

I really cannot believe how foolish this is from Cameron but then he so clearly has no idea about scottish politics and issues from previous pronouncements.

Those who wish for independence are rubbing their hands in glee at this. Dictating the terms of the referendum from London is giving the pro independence camp an open goal and will probably tip the balance in favour.

Its laughable

So TJ same question. If DC is indeed playing into their hands and misunderstanding Scottish politics so badly, why the reluctance to go ahead with a simple vote. Why the smokescreen of waiting until the 2h when this is the KEY issue, indeed raisin d'être of the SNP? GFI it will be fun to watch.

read druidhs post above, read mine answering this question.

Affordability:
According to the last set of Government Expense and Revenue - Scotland reports, Scotland would be running a deficit of around £4Bn (this assumes a geographic split of oil & gas revenues). Not great.

However, Scotlands [i]per capita[/i] share of the UK deficit would be around £11Bn. This means that Scotland would actually be over £6Bn [i]better[/i] off independent.

druidh - Member
Timing:

You mean apart from the 1997 devolution referendum?

That didn't include us they just asked you lot had they asked the entire country the answer would probably have been different, but then they were Jock politicians running our affairs then were they not, so the whole issue is pretty fraudulent if you are sitting in our shoes.

Tell me when it was that a majority of cabinet ministers were not English.

You couldn't exactly call that period cabinet government.

The situation is probably better than Druidh says in that post as some of what is marked as Scottish spending in the Government Expense and Revenue - Scotland reports is actually spent in England - for example defence spending - more is allocated to Scottish expenditure than is spent here. There are other examples of this.

Scotland would also be able to make savings by a non nuclear defense and similar policies

Commitment:
Anyone who thinks that Alex Salmond doesn't [i]really[/i] want Scottish independence, and that this is all some sort of bluff, is living in cloud-cuckoo land. The man has dedicated his life to this cause.

They said that the SNP would never get into power in Scotland. In 2007 they did just that.

The "architects" of devolution came up with a voting system specifically designed to prevent the SNP ever gaining an overall majority. In 2011, the SNP did just that.

There is a movement and a will which is heading inexorably in one direction. All we're now arguing over is the timing and some of the fine detail.

TandemJeremy - Member
The situation is probably better than Druidh says in that post as some of what is marked as Scottish spending in the Government Expense and Revenue - Scotland reports is actually spent in England - for example defence spending - more is allocated to Scottish expenditure than is spent here. There are other examples of this.

Exactly Druids, this is a lifelong cause for which the case is apparently so strong. It is AS's raisin d'être and the thing that will commit him to history. He has been focused on this for his whole political career and here is his chance handed to him on a plate by a Tory Pm who know nothing about Scotland.

To bottle it now on the basis of manifesto weasel words would be a massive show of cowardice. The Tories are giving him the best ammunition, strengthening his case, he has the slam hand in spades. Lead the first card, show conviction and win the referendum with the ease that it deserves. Or is he just a Clegg in disguise?

Devo-Max:
Has already done the job it was supposed to do. By raising the possibility of a further, significant, increase in powers for the Scottish Parliament - including all revenue and spending powers - it is polarising public opinion into those who want [i]more[/i] and those who are happy with the way things are.

Not surprisingly, the [i]more[/i] camp are regularly coming up as the largest in any polls. If Devo-Max doesn't appear as an option, what way do you think they will vote? Do you think they'll all opt for the status quo, or will enough of them take the next step?

teamhurtmore - Member
Exactly Druids, this is a lifelong cause for which the case is apparently so strong. It is AS's raisin d'être and the thing that will commit him to history. He has been focused on this for his whole political career and here is his chance handed to him on a plate by a Tory Pm who know nothing about Scotland.

derekrides - devolution, in the form of the Scotland Act, was a Bill from the Westminster Government, a government with 650 MPs of which 119 represented Scottish Constituencies (not all of whom supported the Bill) - but you think it was forced upon the UK? The Bill then had to go to the Lords, and ultimately achieve Royal Assent - but "you" were not democratically included in this process. How about the previous time in 1974?

Is it the general principle of Democracy you don't like or only when the result of the Ballot doesn't agree with your personal preference?

It's a one way road, surely. The case is obvious. Forget devo-max, devo- lite. This is a time for balls under his kilt. The more camp momentum, the crass Tories, the economic case.......no need to tarry.

Druids please help a simpleton like me. It has to be more than an apparently forced manifesto statement? The detail like Europe (apparently) can wait. The case etc us there, put it to the vote. If not, there has to be more than manifesto pledges. Since when has that been a driver in the realpolitik?

Anydody want to bet it will be small steps rather than the full split at first? I would be terrified by an immediate sundering of the union. But an incremental split,to a planned frame of years; yes please.

Is it not the case that any referendum will be "advisory" and that Westminster can just say "No" to any result they do not care for ?
Not an expert on constitutional/parliamentary laws but everything I've read in laymans language suggests that there's no mechanism for a unilateral declaration of independence by any part of the Union.....

teamhurtmore

I beleive there is a tactical edge to it as well - Salmond wants to run on the SNPs record in a majority government and to compare this to Camerons record. The later the referendum the better the SNP will look. There is also the aspect that there remains much to be discussed and decided and this takes time.
The uncertainty and the constant banging on about a referendum are coming from the unionist parties only.

However he is also doing something rare in a modern politician - sticking to his word. The whole political ethos under which he works is different to Westminster.

Ah well I would read it as a lot of people in Scotland although pro independence are understandably nervous at the thought of unanticipated consequences. The 3rd way option proposed by the where Scotland would gain more independence, but still be part of the union / have someone else to blame for failings (depending on your political outlook) giving them a chance to get comfy with the concept and decide at leisure what path to follow may well appeal to a lot of the electorate.
I'm assuming that Cameron is thinking that given the all or nothing options, people don't feel sufficiently disenfranchised to make the leap, and Salmond's dreams are shattered.
Alternatively he may just not have much of a problem with the concept of separation, and just wants to hurry it along. Though that seems unlikely.
Either way I don't really see a problem, likewise if it boost SNP support, that's fine too.

I beleive there is a tactical edge to it as well - Salmond wants to run on the SNPs record in a majority government and to compare this to Camerons record. The later the referendum the better the SNP will look.

You could be right, but it's a bit worrying if Scottish people would be basing their vote on the performance of the SNP. The vote after all would/should be on the proposal for an independent Scotland, rather than an SNP governed Scotland.

IanMunro - Member
Ah well I would read it as a lot of people in Scotland although pro independence are understandably nervous at the thought of unanticipated consequences. The 3rd way option proposed by the where Scotland would gain more independence, but still be part of the union / have someone else to blame for failings (depending on your political outlook) giving them a chance to get comfy with the concept and decide at leisure what path to follow may well appeal to a lot of the electorate.

The point about running on the record is it allows Salmond to say - we were able to do this under devolution and it worked, but under independence we could do this+ and it would work better.

One of the arguments for the union is effectively that Scotland is not able to run its own affairs

Ian I tend to agree with you. This is a fundamental question on the independence of Scotland not a question of whether the SNP can navigate the current troubles better than the Coalition.

That would point to a straight vote ASAP.

But thinking about the tactics for a moment. Was AS "forced into the 2H" commitment earlier by the pro-union lobby and now secretly fearful of being seen to be reactive to their initiative again? It seems that he is danger of looking like Clegg if he tries to put tactics over conviction.

But it still odd - independents tell me that he has a strong case, he is holding all the cards for the grand slam of his political career. And a Tory MP just led the wrong card by aggravating the Scottish population. The tricks are all there to be won and yet he seems to be blinking. Has he miscounted his trumps?

THM;I am not so sure it is as clear as that. I think Alex the Fish might be hoping the Tories proceed to do their usual nosedive in Scotland,thus building the momentum a bit. I also think he wants to find a way of ensuring the biggest tunout possible to avoid any of the arguements caused by the poor turn out in the 70's.

thm
Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?

The tricks are all there to be won and yet he seems to be blinking

It's entirely possible that he's been caught on the hop - he's a canny politician, but that's not the same as being infallible!

I think TJs right regarding the timing - it's to allow time to establish a credible track record of competent governance, although I suspect that a referendum on Independence is more likely to succeed if the economic outlook is more optimistic than at present. People are understandably nervous of making a radical move when the European economy is in such a shambles with no clear political route map as to how the problems are going to be resolved. Scotland may or may not be economically viable in the long term, but economic decision-makers have a long track record of 'spooking' without much rational cause, and it doesn't seem to take much to have them all wetting their panties at the present time.

Interesting debate in the office:

Apparently we will feel more British in 2012 because of the Olympics; and we will feel more Scottish in 2014 because of the Commonwealth Games (in Glasgow for an extra bonus) and 700 years since Bannockburn.

I'm not convinced but I could imagine political advisors could see such things - hence the rush.

Apparently we will feel more British in 2012 because of the Olympics

It's fair to say the only way is up in terms of how 'British' I feel. So the observation may be accurate, but it won't change the way I'd vote in an Independence referendum.

I don't think salmond has been caught on the hop. teh scottish unionistparties have been pushing for an early referendum on and off for a while. there is a lot of automatic gainsaying of the SNP position which is rather amusing as it leads to scottish labour and tory voting against proposals that are Westminster policy

The scottish unionist politicians blocked the previous atttempt at a referendum

1) having made a commitment then he needs to stick to it - no u turns and showing integrity
2) there is no way he can agree to Westminster setting the timing and question on a referendum - its an issue for Scotland to decide on and how can he let a Westminster government override a scottish government manifesto pledge
3) there is the tactical advantage of going later

Cameron is already backtracking anyway

2) there is no way he can agree to Westminster setting the timing and question on a referendum - its an issue for Scotland to decide on and how can he let a Westminster government override a scottish government manifesto pledge

I heard something similar this morning, and it struck me as a bit of an own goal. If people are fed up with Westminster government meddling, give them this one last meddle and then vote them out for good.

override a scottish government manifesto pledge

SNP maifesto said nothing about timing of the referendum.

SNP maifesto said nothing about timing of the referendum.

True.

"We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s
future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest
that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our
Referendum Bill in this next Parliament"

I can't see any reference in the manifesto to when the vote should be held.

But the question of whether Scotland should be independent can only be decided by the people of Scotland and that includes the timing. The unionists had a chance in the last parliament to allow a vote which I think they would have won. They bottled it though. Now with the SNP overall majority (achieved despite a voting system expressly designed to prevent it) the ball is in Salmond's court. He will only get one chance. Cameron is only increasing the risk of the UK breaking up by interfering and making a vote for independence into an anti-tory vote. If anything is likely to increase the pro vote then that is it.

Nobody, not even the SNP anticipated their overall majority. If they can achieve that then independence is possible.

druidh - Member
There is a movement and a will which is heading inexorably in one direction. All we're now arguing over is the timing and some of the fine detail.

I think its a polarised social grouping - most folk I know are undecided or unbothered by it but I do know some strongly pro independence folk

I doubt a referendum will ever vote yes.

If the Partie Quebecois couldn't get a majority for independence from Canada even with the far more radical seperatist tendancy there I dounbt if the SNP can get a majority.

Which is why I say give the rest of the UK a chance to expel Scotland!

[img] [/img]

TandemJeremy - Member
thm. Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand?

Well, you see TJ I have been following your helpful posts for understanding. Starting from the outset:

TandemJeremy - Member

The SNP have in their manifesto a obligation to have a referendum towards the end of their term. Cameron is threatening to force a referendum earlier than that and that he would set the question. [b]Is he so dim as to be unable to see what a boost that would give the SNP? Really everytime he opens his mouth on Scotland the SNP gain support and so does independence.[/b]

[b]The SNP would prefer a straight yes / no referendum. [/b][[i]DC's foolish opening lead to 7 (brave) hearts[/i]]

[b]Self determination is all[/b] [[i]so no need for tactical timing. Its a matter of principle[/i]]. However cash flows out of Scotland into England so most commentators believe Scotland would be better off without having to support England.

Reasons why Scotland would be better off independent. No foreign adventurism / wars and no expensive nuclear power or deterrent. NO wasted money on such nonsense as foundation hospitals and city academies, no massive austerity cuts damaging the economy.

Scotland's economy remains in surplus as it has been for a long time. No deficit here, no national debt being created in Scotland [[i]really is a slam hand - 39 or 40 points? 9-10 brave hearts[/i]]

Cameron is posturing here for his own party.[b] I cannot believe he is so dim as to give Salmond - the best political operator in the UK such an easy open goal as to interfere in a referendum on Scottish independence[/b]

Now you are the expert here and you have laid it out very clearly. So no, I don't understand the delay and the upset (allegedly) caused by DC offering Scotland the chance for the vote that you all seem to want. So I was being really thick until you enlightened me finally on this page:

I doubt a referendum will ever vote yes.

No, even a simple bloke like me gets it!

Which is why I say give the rest of the UK a chance to expel Scotland!

and Northern Ireland, a waste of tax payers money and resources for decades.

So I did email the SNP asking why there was little info on a post independence settlement on their website using the examples of

nato membership, what happens to the army, what happens the nuclear sub bases
Embassies, how to divide up the tax and benefits system and all these
details. Central bank formation, national debt allocation

Teh answer

Thank you for your email.

More information on an independent Scotland can be found at www.scotlandforward.net

However, the issues that you mention would be subject to negotiation between Scotland and Westminster following a yes vote, so it is impossible to give a definitive answer.

With thanks
Susan

So teamhurtmore - you are actually just point scoring and being argumentative not interested in the issues

On the contrary TJ - I am merely following your posts with interest and starting to understand the issue a lot better with your help. Thank you. I was just puzzled why the bit about a yes vote not succeeding didn't come earlier. It would have helped thicko's like me understand it so much better.

No sure what you mean about point scoring? Am I not agreeing with you?

OOI, reading the NS's comments on Miliband's position today:

Since becoming Labour leader, Ed Miliband has said little about Scottish politics, despite the reality that his party has the most to lose from an independent Scotland. But in the Q&A session following his speech to London Citizens, he was finally forced to address the subject.

Miliband said that he supported David Cameron's decision to call for an early referendum on independence and called for "greater clarity about the legal position, what is actually going to happen and when it's going to happen." He also made an impressive and extensive defence of the Union, referring to the "sense of solidarity that exists across the border" and to shared institutions such as the NHS and the BBC.

Who would have thought that the two most important politicians in Westminster (give or take a few) would make such a horlicks of the issue?

There is a movement and a will which is heading inexorably in one direction. All we're now arguing over is the timing and some of the fine detail.

This +1

Even if Scotland votes [i]"no"[/i] this time around thanks to Westminster interference, then it reflects the pattern over devolution - rigged [i]"no"[/i] vote in 1979, then several years suffering the impact of Tory economic policy on our social and economic infrastructure led to an overwhelming desire to vote [i]"yes"[/i] twenty years later.

Whether we vote "yes" now or in 20 years time, it will happen eventually.

Whether we vote "yes" now or in 20 years time, it will happen eventually.

We'll all look forward to Alex's dream of the Arc of Prosperity finally being truly realised then

OI! Stop s****ing at the back!!! 😉

The yes vote not succeeding is my opinion - one not shared by druidh for example. I don't think it has any bearing on the reasons why the vote should be organised by the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland in line with previous commitments.

This is what you don't want to see - its not about political opportunism. Its about integrity, honouring commitments and doing what you believe to be the best for the country.

Please note labour and Tory parties worked together to stop a vote in the last holyrood parliament - they are making u turns and its cheap grandstanding from them which diminishes them in Scotland.

Labour and Tory parties worked together to stop a vote in the last holyrood parliament - they are making u turns and its cheap grandstanding from them which diminishes them in Scotland.

Although in the case of the Tories, there's not much left to diminish...

Anyway, who needs oil when the south of England is slowly turning into an arid desert - it won't be long before we can charge you about as much for water as we will for oil. Not to mention that we won't be subsidising the electricity you get over the interconnector anymore either.

TJ - What do I not see? I have read your points and understand your view about integrity etc. entirely. AS is a man of integrity and honesty versus a couple of political chancers. As you say the Tories and Labour party don't have a clue here.

So instead of an advisory referendum you are being give the opportunity/invited to a legally binding, yes/no vote (which you tell me the SNP want) at the best possible time - wont Scotland beat England at M'field in a few weeks time. What momentum.

This "matter of principle" is nothing to do with opportunism, so why wait for the economy to recover? Its there on a plate for you. And its in the interests of Scotland as you say.

And if druidh is correct, then wey hey!