I don’t remember anyone promising that on the day of independence our nuclear reactors would be shut down. Of course they’re going to run until end of life. No-one has ever suggested any different.

Hmm, interesting that you chose the phrase end of life? there Ben

mind you, this seems to be old news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17266084

Again, so what? Those are civilian power stations, not military nuclear weapons – and unlike Chapelcross they’re not able to make materials for nuclear weapons.

Blimey, it’s amazing how all those independent countries in Europe survive. They must all queuing up to come under Westminster rule. Are the Scots the only folk in Europe too dumb to run their own country – you’d think so from the comments on here.

Arguing over the details of how we are going to run Scotland is irrelevant to the question of independence.

Why is it irrelevant? Because a Scottish govt will be just as capable of sorting out any problems which arise as a UK one. Not better or worse, but more in accord with what the voters of Scotland want.*

The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it’s a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange.

26 days to go

Vote Yes. 🙂

*Now before we get the jeremiad of how all politicians are corrupt etc, we will have at least got rid of the corrupt and undemocratic overlayer of the House of Lords, so the only representatives we will have in our parliament are those we have actually voted for, so there’s more chance of them listening to us.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.

Exactly.

“Why did you vote No, Daddy?”

“Because a TV show had these letters from the guy who was First Minister to a French energy company saying that they could run their power stations for a bit longer, so I decided that Scotland couldn’t run its own affairs.”

Why is it irrelevant? Because a Scottish govt will be just as capable of sorting out any problems which arise as a UK one. Not better or worse, but more in accord with what the voters of Scotland want.*

no-one (apart from a few frothing muppets) is saying iScotland couldn’t run itself

what people are doing is pointing out the gapping holes in the sales pitch for the Yes campaign. Why? because actually despite the banter we quite like being a united kingdom and don’t want to see it destroyed by a set of people selling independence in the style of a second hand car dealer

The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it’s a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange

if its not important why does the yes campaign cling to the obvious red herring of a CU which is a dead duck (divergent economies, unbalanced risks, future uncertainty(when will iS leave?)) because rUK will never agree and refuse to clearly state their real plan?

for a substantial number of yes voters it’s a financial driver for yes (hence the polling on “if you were £x better off” etc hence the importance of the £/iS£/groat/euro in your pocket post independence

big_n_daft – Member
‘The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it’s a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange’

…if its not important why does the yes campaign cling to the obvious red herring of a CU which is a dead duck…

Probably because it is a red herring.

An inordinate amount of BTs efforts are going into combating the CU idea, which just shows how out of touch they are with the Scottish population. The more we can keep BT concentrating on a dead duck, the better.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.

get a grip, mate, you’re being melodramatic. there are few countries in the world in which nationalist separatists could successfully and peacefully execute a lawful campaign to break up the state and for no state harassment to occur. Th UK is one of them. this whole referendum – and the one before it! – are exercises in democracy up the wazoo

The more people think that the currency is a dead duck, the greater the ultimate sense of disappointment. As Europe has shown, get that bit wrong and the rest merely unravels around it.

Why did your vote for the euro daddy?

Because I ignored commons sense son. Sorry about the lack of job prospects, I was told it was a canard mordu.

Hence AS’s own advisors pointing this out now. The lack of planning over the currency is also symptomatic of shambolic preparation for which yS should not be excused. It’s embarassing.

Good to see that the Chairman of HSBC is briefed better

Of the potential Plan Bs open to a newly independent Scotland, Mr Flint said introducing a new currency would be “an enormous challenge”, while an informal link to sterling, so-called sterlingisation, would result in monetary policy being imported from the rest of the UK. He said: “Scotland would be faced with monetary policy implementation without representation – a very odd form of independence.”

You heard it here first! Very odd indeed, but the elephant is now getting too big for the room.

The Yes declaration passed one million signatories yesterday.

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland’s future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.
Being independent means Scotland’s future will be in Scotland’s hands.

There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today.

I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.

Yes declaration passed one million signatories yesterday

Very nice – but the only numbers that matter will be counted after the voting has concluded. Like the vote forced through the Scottish Assembly yesterday – this is just noise.

The film Scotland Yet is now online in full:

[video]http://vimeo.com/103919058[/video]

Very, very well worth a watch.

What’s the Scottish Assembly?

There is a lot of talk on here regarding the HoL in Westminster [a lot of which I agree with i.e Life peers, heredity peers & clergy. My preference would be a wholly elected chamber] but I believe the second chamber is a necessaty. However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?
In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered. e.g. What checks would there be to stop a majority party declaring the country to be a one party state ? Would there not be a need for an elected or otherwise enabled “upper chamber” ?

Not trying to stir up an argument just interested in how the governing of Scotland may/will have to change come independence.

In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered

Is there not a quirk in Westminster that lets the government there do that at the moment?

Either way I assume there would an elected upper house put in place, but tbh it’s never really registered on my radar.

Vaguely remembered from history at school The HoL has the power to block / stall legislation for upto 4 yrs (stems from legislation in early 20th C when Lords refused to pass Budget*.).

* Parliament Act 1911 [thanks Wiki !!]

Surely how a truly Independent Government is going to be run should be high on the list of things for the Scot voters to be concerned with, especially considering how the Westminster model has been slated in this discussion.

This is why a proper written constitution is a good thing to have.

Ben I agree with that. Is a written constitution part of the White Paper recommendations ?

Yes – also see here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

konabunny – Member
‘Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.’
get a grip, mate, you’re being melodramatic. there are few countries in the world in which nationalist separatists could successfully and peacefully execute a lawful campaign to break up the state and for no state harassment to occur.

Don’t think I don’t appreciate it. If we get independence I’ll be the first to subscribe to a bronze statue of that great statesman David Cameron for his part in this.

But don’t forget, our side is peaceful too, and that’s a major achievement because at one stage there were many who believed we would have to go the Irish way. There’s no doubt a few bampots who still think this (our version of EDL?). Salmond and his predecessors should get due credit for culling this sort out of the SNP.

But nothing will convince me that a system with an overlayer of hereditary, appointed, and Anglican clergy who are not subject to the electorate is any way a proper democracy, especially when they are there for life.

If you were starting from scratch, founding a brand new country, what kind of government would you set up?

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists – it’s a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Yup, the UK got lucky – being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

Of course Scotland also had a parliament before 1707 – and in fact because of Winnie Ewing’s wee bit of mischief when she reopened the Scottish parliament, Scotland’s parliament is technically older than Westminster’s:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiottF-df3Y[/video]

😉

Ben you could look at it as a 1000 yr period of evolution [the optomistic view]. For such a flawed system an awful lot of countries have used the basic template to create their own parliaments.
The (r)UK parliament will change / evolve in time, no established government changes overnight [except by revolution – normally armed !!] The Scots have a chance to use past systems to create an “ideal” government if such a thing exists and for that you are fortunate.

carlossal – Member

However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/committees.aspx

Committees made up of members from all the parties.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/12422.aspx

How it works.

How it works

Or not

I’m not surprised that people think it works ok. That’s one of the benefits of being an entrenched oligarhy that owns the press. They say it’s all good, and the press they own agrees.

If we are to have an upper house to do the checks and balances, then let it be an elected upper house, because then the ultimate system of checks and balances is the ballot box, not some high heid yin.

In a joint statement issued before their press conference, the opposition MSPs said it was the first time the public audit committee had failed to reach a consensus.

Hardly the norm then is it?

Remember that the Scottish Parliament system was based on the electoral system that was supposed to ensure that no single party would have a majority. Therefore the fact that you needed a coalition government would in itself implement a form of checks and balances. Without that then you can end up with a single party state. Which is often what Westminster is accused of. An unelected second chamber can act as a balance because it dies not have to worry about being elected.

The problem with an elected second chamber is take away the primacy of the HoC. See the US for when the two houses, Congress and Senate, compete.

No system is perfect, both the system at Westminster and Edinburgh work and both have their faults.

Was there not an act passed relatively recently (last few years) probably by the Blair government around the time of the Iraq war which made it so that when push came to shove the House of Commons could overrule the House of Lords and prevent them from blocking legislation?

Parliament Act has been around for over a century. Limits the Lords to delaying.

As above – the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it’s bills if needed

jota180 – Member
As above – the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it’s bills if needed

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Not really, the commons allow the Lords to debate and offer amendments, it’s very rare for the commons to invoke the parliament act and force a bill through.

So was it more a case of the house of commons invoking the parliament act before the iraq war?

No

The 1911 Act was used three times before its amendment in 1949.[4] These were:

Welsh Church Act 1914, under which the Welsh part of the Church of England was disestablished in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales.
Government of Ireland Act 1914, which would have established a Home Rule government in Ireland; its implementation was blocked due to the First World War.
Parliament Act 1949, which amended the Parliament Act 1911 (discussed above).
The amended form of the 1911 Act has been used four times.[4] These were:

War Crimes Act 1991, which extended jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War (the only time that the Parliament Acts have been used by a Conservative government).
European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the system of elections to the European Parliament from first past the post to a form of proportional representation.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities with that for heterosexual and female homosexual sexual activities at 16.
Hunting Act 2004, which prohibited hare coursing and (subject to some exceptions) all hunting of wild mammals (particularly foxes) with dogs after early 2005.
The Welsh Church Act and the Government of Ireland Act were both given Royal Assent[37] on the same day as the Suspensory Act 1914, which meant that neither would come into force until after World War I.[38]

More rats leaving the sinking ship today. Only Alex Bell (Edinburgh agreement anyone) now seeking to cover his reputation

He adds: ‘The fact that Scotland will not have her own currency is a significant restriction on what she can do. The referendum asks ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ but what the White Paper describes is arguably not independence, because of the currency union.’

Is anyone still behind the DO or have they now seen sense just at the last minute?

26 days until we find out…

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists – it’s a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

are you a religious man, Ben?

Yup, the UK got lucky – being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

the UK is not an island. Bad separatist! no independence!

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

are you a religious man, Ben?

Um, no?

the UK is not an island.

I’m pretty sure it is, I’ve seen maps and everything.

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

Yes, abundant coal and mineral reserves close to the surface were essential for the industrial revolution.

Thanks Nigel.

That will convince a few more switherers… 🙂