Osbourne says no to currency union.

Plenty of good reasons to vote yes Ernie, I never did think the CBI would endorse the yes campaign its support for the union has been well known for decades really. I am content to watch the chaos at the CBI with a hint of schadenfreude.

Just to be clear no I am not saying the CBI is endorsing independence. As I said above the CBI s position has been obvious for decades. They did try to present themselves as being neutral on the issue though but a good campaign from Business for Scotland and the CBIs own cac handed administration put an end to that.

It’s hardly surprising that an American subsidy junkie like BAE would be against an independent Scotland with a centre left EU-oriented government with modest geopolitical ambitions. Without the UK’s desire to be a “world class” military power, there won’t be much business for them north of the border, and fewer tame politicians to suppress corruption investigations.

As a general rule, whatever the military-industrial complex suggests – do the opposite.

Plenty of good reasons to vote yes Ernie

That is something I was prepared to consider a distinct possibility until I saw this thread. But then all I have been offered is stuff like “the CBI is in chaos” or “the No campaign is trying to frighten us” by Yes supporters, instead of actually offering compelling reasons why voting Yes would be positively good beyond meaningless petty nationalism.

The often repeated claim that it would also benefit the less prosperous regions of the UK has likewise lacked any sort of coherent argument to back it up ……. it appears to be left to people’s imagination to work out in what ways it would help.

Fasternotfatter – I’m not saying there are no big companies against independence – the CBI’s behaviour is proof of that – but of your list:

BAE – yes, big surprise they don’t like the idea.
Shell – said they’re equally worried about Scottish independence and the UK EU referendum.
BP – stated that the company was impartial and Bob Dudley was expressing a personal opinion.
Standard Life – just making contingency plans, company has made it clear they’re impartial.
RBS – based on the idea they might have to move their HQ*
Weir – a company that’s been fined for trying to bribe dictators. See BAE.

*this suggestion has been made several times, the logic seems to be that the EU requires a bank to be headquartered in the same country as the majority of it’s business. But since Scotland is going to be unceremoniously kicked out of the EU (allegedly), why should we comply with EU rules? It also blows a hole in the argument that RBS is a Scottish bank which an independent Scotland wouldn’t have been able to bail out.

Ernie – one big compelling reason: No more nuclear weapons.

For many people, that’s enough.

No more nuclear weapons is a good one, I’ll give you that. Although I’m less convinced that on its own it is a good enough reason or that it has sufficient widespread support – I would suggest that it is way down the list of priorities for most people, even if it is on their list. Otherwise parties such as the Greens would get huge support in general elections. But as it is 80% of the electorate always vote for one of the three major parties which are committed to the retention of WMDs.

Ben that is revisionism of the highest order especially re RBS and as for “no nukes” (cough) absolutely brilliant. Don’t ask, don’t tell does not in any way equate to no nukes. Google Ole Kvaerno for some Danish honesty on that issue.

So one big lie sums up the whole issue for “many people”. How appropriate. There is hope for Farrage yet/too.

Salmond as Prime Minister and Farrage with increased power. Oh dear. Would that be an ‘axis’ of some description?

Good piece in the Times last week by Hugo Rifkind, saddened that Scots are turning to nationalism, and that even a 60% vote in favour of the UK is no real victory, although a 51% vote in favour of independence will be celebrated with gusto.
I agree with his statement that Scotland may or may not be better off economically, but will certainly be weakened culturally.
Will be a sad day indeed, and nukes certainly fall well down my list of priorities. Too many people get their knickers in a twist over Faslane to feel good about themselves.

It would create a new collective noun ATG – a “falsehood of politicians” with Alex and Nigel as figureheads.

THM – in what way has there been any lack of clarity over the nukes? The only point of debate is how quickly they can be removed. All Yes groups have been totally clear, after independence the nuclear weapons are going.

Ernie – one big compelling reason: No more nuclear weapons.

For many people, that’s enough.
Most people couldn’t give a flying f*** about nuclear weapons.
Ask Neil Kinnock.

Huh, only just noticed the Russian bomber appears to belong to the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27157504

Ben your original statement was “Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they’re not going to take a position” and now I have got you to admit that “I’m not saying there are no big companies against independence”, closer to the truth is that big companies have indeed expressed concerns about independence. So lets have a look at your list

BAE – yes, big surprise they don’t like the idea. OK so you agree there.
Shell – said they’re equally worried about Scottish independence and the UK EU referendum. the fact that they are worried about the EU in no way means they are not worried about Scottish independence.
BP – stated that the company was impartial and Bob Dudley was expressing a personal opinion. Bob Dudley is the CEO of BP his personal opinion is based on his experience working at BP, the points he makes about the EU and currency are hardly minor concerns.
Standard Life – just making contingency plans, company has made it clear they’re impartial. Moving your headquarters is hardly “little or no difference”
RBS – based on the idea they might have to move their HQ* See previous response.
Weir – a company that’s been fined for trying to bribe dictators. See BAE. That doesn’t mean that they are not a big company with concerns about independence.

However you try to spin this your original statement was incorrect.

teamhurtmore – Member

Ben that is revisionism of the highest order especially re RBS and as for “no nukes” (cough) absolutely brilliant. Don’t ask, don’t tell does not in any way equate to no nukes. Google Ole Kvaerno for some Danish honesty on that issue.

The claim is that an independent Scotland would not be a nuclear armed country, the suggestion isn’t that Scotland would declare a nuclear weapon free zone in its territorial waters.

Which would clearly be impractical when you consider both Scotland’s geographical location and its desire to secure NATO membership.

The treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok, and Pelindaba, might have established nuclear weapon free zones across the globe but such a treaty to cover the North Atlantic is clearly beyond the scope of an independent Scotland until the US, the UK, France, and Russia, fully comply with the commitments they made when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Bearing in mind that the UK is planning a new generation of nuclear weapons, in complete violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think we can safely assume that it will be a long time coming.

I’m not sure how much you would be able to blame an independent Scotland for that.

The claim is that an independent Scotland would not be a nuclear armed country, the suggestion isn’t that Scotland would declare a nuclear weapon free zone in its territorial waters.

So, if the Royal Navy neither confirm or deny that they are carrying nuclear weapons on their Vanguard class Nuclear Submarines, then they can carry on using Faslane?

The Royal Navy would be a foreign navy, it would be up to an independent Scotland within its NATO obligations to make such decisions. Scotland itself wouldn’t be nuclear armed.

EDIT : I do agree that an independent Scotland would have to deal with some seriously conflicting issues if it wished to be both free of nuclear weapons and a fully integrated NATO member.

But then we also see contradictions with regards to EU membership.

As has been previously suggested a the term “independent Scotland” could only be used in the loosest sense, both EU and NATO membership would seriously restrict Scotland’s ability to govern itself freely, as does the present situation to the UK.

What does your last statement mean? “As does the present situation to the Uk bit.” It is possible I agree wholeheartedly with that…

I am English and pro union but I just can’t see how independence should be decided on whether the numbers add up.
Vote with your hearts not your wallets.

What does your last statement mean? “As does the present situation to the Uk bit.” It is possible I agree wholeheartedly with that…

It means that I don’t consider that Britain can act like a fully independent nation as long as it remains a member of both NATO and the EU.

I would like to see an independent non-aligned Britain free from the EU. I doubt very much that you wholeheartedly agree with that since you appear to be a strong supporter of Yes Scotland.

You would be right,I would substitute Westminster for NATO and the EU.

zippykona – Member
I am English and pro union but I just can’t see how independence should be decided on whether the numbers add up.
Vote with your hearts not your wallets

Nah,we are tight with money,anyway,it is all because we hate English accents(fnf) or just the English in general,at least according to this thread.

You also need to look at the difference between short-term numbers and long-term ones.

Short-term, we can have as many arguments as you like about oil reserves, balance of oayments, percentage of the economy involved in the financial sector, etc etc. Danny Alexander is planning to come to Scotland next week to lay out the facts – sound familiar?

But long-term, everyone agrees that Scotland would be successful as an independent country. Even David Cameron said so.

Worrying too much about the short-term stuff is like deciding on a lifetime’s marriage based on who pays for the sandwiches at the wedding reception.

balance of oayments

Disappointed that wasn’t miss spelt ‘oatments’

Hey duckman I am merely pointing out the casually racist attitude displayed by a lot of Scots towards English people.

Nope,you were sprouting rubbish,as pointed out by one of your fellow pro union posters.And induldging in a spot of casual racism yourself.
On this thread we have been referred to as sweatys or jocks.I don’t recall you or anybody else suggesting those terms were offensive.Indeed STW had a 7 page thread where it was debated whether the term jock was offensive,started by a contributor on this thread,lots of contributors added more inventive terms.(Apparently it isn’t, we are just sensitive,also a common reply to any suggestion the no campaign is negative on this one) This was done early in the thread,don’t worry;nobody else could provide any more convincing proof than your Scots don’t like English accents crap. In the meantime,tolerant England still has 278,000 hate crimes a year.

I would never refer to a Scottish person as a sweaty or a jock. However it is undeniable that there is anti-English feeling in Scotland. Here is some proof. I don’t condone the names that some English people use to refer to Scots and I am sure you would not condone the violence against English people by some Scots. For the record the line about “Cameron sounding so English that you can’t bare it” was a wind up, did it touch a raw nerve? 😉

Worked with a guy a ‘Taste of London’ a while back.

He got the crap kicked out of him in Bristol. He was by himself having a pint waiting for a train, was attacked from behind without any known provocation other than the stated “being a (insert derogatory names for Scots here) ****”

You could almost say there are idiots everywhere. They no know boundaries and are truly one of the most internationalist movements to be found anywhere in the world.

Purely from personal experience, I’ve observed far less anti foreign person sentiment in Scotland than I did in England. At least that’s been the case in my corner of Scotland.

Nope,bollocks like that statement allows folks to put your posts on this thread into context.As for touching a raw nerve? Nah,I have encountered lots of English who have a disparaging view of Scots,based on their own sense of superiority.Bearing in mind the thread I mentioned,hardly a surprise there is another posting on here.

Purely from personal experience, I’ve observed far less anti foreign person sentiment in Scotland than I did in England. At least that’s been the case in my corner of Scotland.

What proportion of the Scottish population is foreign compared to that of England?

Slightly clunky statement konabunny, but I know what you mean. Don’t know the percentages, however I would imagine Scotland can only ever dream about the kind of ethnic and cultural diversity apparent in England. This diversity of a population in a relatively small space does bring pressures and issues to be discussed, hence the rise of UKIP.
Scotland can then stand at the sideline and proclaim a moral superiority.
The truth is that the UK and England in particular has been a welcoming place for immigrants of all backgrounds. Scotland has not been the destination of choice for the overwhelming majority. Would be interesting to see the statistics for Afro Carribean immigration to Scotland.
Scotland will not be the destination of choice post independence either, hence our culturally weakened state.
The welcoming nature of Scotland becomes apparent when my wife, who has lived here for 10 years, feels guilty about voting no. She feels that it is not her place to try to burst the bubble of Utopia voiced by the noisy nationalists.

Duckman the original statement was asking why Cameron is loathed when he has done less damage to the UK than the two previous Scottish PMs Brown and Blair. As is often the case the question was avoided. So English people have a sense of superiority, it is generalisations like this that are the basis for all forms of racism. 1 in 3 English living in Scotland suffer racial abuse.

I have encountered lots of English who have a disparaging view of Scots,based on their own sense of superiority.

So English people have a sense of superiority,

Spot the difference. If generalisations are the basis for racism, stop making them.

Nope fnf,you will have to do better than that,your statement was that “we hate cameron because he sounds so english.” Here is a wee uncomfortable fact for you..Tony Blair has spent more time in Oz than Scotland,and we do hate him as well.I was surprised by your link as there were only 4012 reported hate crimes in Scotland last year,does that mean there are only 12,000 English folks up here? As for the first one,it contained 8 incidents of anti English harrasment the most recent of which is 3 years old.We are supposed to be sensitive,yet a holiday comp for during the time England were in the football is one of your examples of racist Scots?
Suggesting the majority of Scots are anti English and voting because we hate David Cameron is just you being lazy at best,or displaying a sense of superiority based on being English that I encountered a lot of in my 9 years in London.Mind you,I didn’t say all English people had a sense of superiority,but as said above,generalize away!

Wrong again Duckman my exact words were “Scots only dislike Cameron because he sounds so English that you can’t bare it”. I have provided proof that some Scots are Racist towards English people, the link above says it is as high as 1 in 3 English people living in Scotland have faced discrimination, face it you have a problem up there. Blair was born in Scotland he is your I am afraid whether you like it or not. I also suggest you look up the difference between exaggerate and generalise. I will leave the generalisations to you being as you are so good at it.

For the record the line about “Cameron sounding so English that you can’t bare it” was a wind up, did it touch a raw nerve?

Stupidity often does 😉

OK then,I will leave you and anybody reading your contributions to think about how valid any of the nonsense you spout is,you know when you decide a week later it is a “wind up” As for generalizations may I ref you to both stef and JY above…

It is actually spelt generalisations, or after independence are you planning on using American English just like you are supposedly going to use the pound? I did read the reply from Stef and dismissed it as pedantry, at least junkyard is getting into the spirit of things.

Is that the best you can do? Tell you what,I wish to change my opinion on the way my tablet spelt it. Shall I do it next week and pretend it was a joke? Just to fit in with you. Stef picks you up on misquoting and it is pedantry? ARF! Must be a bit of a sod when you display how stupid you are then dig yourself in deeper A WEEK LATER!

Does anyone have a good popcorn gif?

I do,no idea how to convince it to display mind.