Scotland Indyref 2

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!

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.

And that is exactly the sort of decision the people of Scotland should be entitled to make. Do they want to invest over the next 50 yrs to transform the country, or do they want to stick to the infrastructure they have?

What vision for Scotland is the No campaign actually presenting?

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.

And is that not the point that an independent Scotland would be free to determine its own defence approach? Ukraine may well have shifted peoples views on that – but that’s the point on democracy. I mean even if there was a written constitution that said “Scotland will not host nuclear weapons” there would be nothing to stop the appropriate democratic process from ammending the constitution.

As for the thought that corruption and cronyism will disappear the minute there’s a border,

who said it would? I don’t know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or actually think people believe that on Indy Day Scotland becomes a utopia? The difference I believe a lot of people want is to live in a country where when politicians are corrupt, lie or fail to deliver their promises voters can cast their vote and have some impact.

That democratic deficit doesn’t just apply to ousting the corrupt and the liers, although for the Conservative and Unionist Party to fail to recognise the impact their Ministers behaviour have on retaining the Union is ironic – Starmer could probably save the union with a credible major reorganisation, but back bench tories and even tory party members could make a big difference by standing up to those at the top when the cheat and lie. Currently its virtually impossible for a Scottish voter to have any meaningful impact on the UK stage because devolution actually means Scottish/Welsh/NI and English voters are actually selecting the UK government on totally different things. What matters to a typical English voter on poling day? Education, Healthcare, Social Care, Housing, Transport, Criminal Justice… all devolved issues. Even taxation – in Scotland is partially devolved. So English Westminster voters are selecting the government on totally different criteria to Scottish voters. Informed Scottish voters are picking their Westminster MPs on Constitution, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Defence issues…

Precisely what has Johnson done that an independent scotland could not have done?

Well he has been such a massive walloper that he has out trumped Trump.

Something that iScotland would of course be too wee to do, too poor to do and not quite stupid enough to do. *

*that last might be a close thing

You’re misquoting again, what a surprise.

No, i was generalising, as for the past few pages it seems that one of the big reasons to leave the UK is due to westminster corruption and cronyism, as for the ‘what a surprise’ i am neither for or against independence, as it’s not even being sold yet.

And that is exactly the sort of decision the people of Scotland should be entitled to make. Do they want to invest over the next 50 yrs to transform the country, or do they want to stick to the infrastructure they have?

And for this you’re asking a generation to pay for this, at a time when the world is as unstable as it’s ever been. That is what needs to be clearly stated.

It’s all good and well having ideals, but they have to be paid for, every initiative that is good to some, will be a ‘vanity’ project to others, it’s human nature you’re going up against, so for every £2 billion for more social housing being seen as a great thing, you’ll have the ‘but what about me, my mortgage and struggles’.

In my view the monarchy bit is a distraction or even a red rag. Constitutional reform can be achieved with a monarchy unless you want the US/ French system where the head of state holds political power. Just place the monarchy within the context of a codified constitution, you will get many more folk on-side if you do it that way. I am no monarchist by the way, but the presence of a monarch is not the cause of our constitutional woes, nor is abolishing it their solution.

I am no monarchist by the way, but the presence of a monarch is not the cause of our constitutional woes, nor is abolishing it their solution.

In Scotland there is quite a lot of people who are not a fan of the Queen and republican at heart, same as those on the other side who are partial to the Queen, the union jack and have a dislike for the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon. It would just cause more arguments among people who enjoy arguing with each other!

Scotland can’t be independent because it contains people with a variety of views? Cool. Call off IndyRef.

add it to “too wee. too poor, too feart.

add it to “too wee. too poor, too feart.

I have genuinely only ever heard that line from independence supporters. Not sure why they keep repeating it? Scotland is capable of supporting itself as an independent nation. I don’t know any pro-union people who think it isn’t, myself included.

kenny – its what the usual reasons given for opposing independence are.  Been used on this thread.  Big and daft has made the too small and the too poor point and so have others.  Its what most anti independence arguments boil down to

Of course Scotland would be a rich country if independent

I have genuinely only ever heard that line from independence supporters. Not sure why they keep repeating it? Scotland is capable of supporting itself as an independent nation. I don’t know any pro-union people who think it isn’t, myself included.

Treat the opposition like idiots and wherever possible talk down to them, it worked well through Brexit and many other times over the last decade, should be a roaring success this time round.

Scotland can’t be independent because it contains people with a variety of views? Cool. Call off IndyRef.

Where does it state that, again, it’s about how the proposals are put prior to the vote.

Argee – you have made the “too small, too poor, too feart argument”!  As for talking down and treating folk like idiots remember the no campaign last time.  Pure baloney project fear

I think yo are missing something.  some of the things you want answers to acannot be given now.  financial position for example depends very much on how hardball westminster plays.  Much of what you want to know are policy decisions for the first government of an iScotland

The SNP can set out two things – constitutional arrangements and their position on the post independence policies.

Other parties will not put out any post independence policies.  thus the SNPs position becomes the default but it is not the only option

I always see the line used by independence supporters. An SNP supporting friend did once admit to me (after a few beers) that it was a debating point used to give the impression that pro-union supporters were keen to denigrate Scotland.

My own view is (and in my experience it’s a widely held view) is that Scotland is a great country that is quite capable of doing well as an independent country. It’s got loads going for it. However I am also of the view we’re better off as part of a bigger nation hence the reason I won’t vote for independence until I see a compelling argument that is focused mainly on economics. I couldn’t care less if the person that represents me does so at Holyrood or Westminster.

For me it’s a case of is Scotland a well-off country, or a well-offerer country. And what party is going to do something about our appalling language skills!!

Fair point Kenny – you like me are in those 30% or so in the middle – willing to be persuaded but not ideologically wedded to independence or unionism

There are plenty of examples of the too poor too wee too feart argument being used on this thread tho

Can Scotland afford to go it alone?

A reasonable overview with the only bit that needs a comment/correction is:

Which leaves Scotland with yet another question to ponder: if Boris Johnson is unlikely to grant Scots a second referendum, would he (or any successor) be likely to allow the newly independent country permission to use the pound

Note, no country can actually stop another country using their currency. Whether you’d want to, is a totally different discussion.

There are plenty of examples of the too poor too wee too feart argument being used on this thread tho

This may sound pedantic, but “too poor” suggests we are already a poor country. In global terms Scotland (and the UK) are rich. For me independence comes down to comparative levels of wealth.

For other people that’s maybe not such a big thing. I actually understand the reasons people want decisions taken at Holyrood. And it’s probably the right thing that certain things are. But I also prefer other decisions to be taken at a national level (and yes, that sentence was phrased to conflate “national” with “Britain”, that’s me cheekily trolling).

As for the so-called “Project Fear”, the union position basically has to be that by the nature of it being the view defending the status quo. It’s saying “if you vote for independence you will be worse off”, which I think is a quite valid thing to be afraid of. Whether we would be worse off or not is really a matter of opinion. Anyone who says we 100% would or wouldn’t be is a fibber.

tjagain
Full Member
Argee – you have made the “too small, too poor, too feart argument”! As for talking down and treating folk like idiots remember the no campaign last time. Pure baloney project fear

Can you post a quote to where i do this, will wait out for a response.

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!

This has thre “too poor” arguement in it as well as hints of “too wee”

Yeah, government (SNP/Greens) rather than parliament, but they need to provide real proof that independence would be beneficial for the people in Scotland, even more so now than in 2014, as the UK, and the World has changed significantly since then, and not in a good way unfortunately.

too poor and too wee again

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?

too poor again

big_n_daft
Free Member
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.

Take in their fair share of refugees?

nobody i speak to up North wants to vote for independence without knowing what the benefits are

Actually many folk do – or the intangible benefit of independence is enough.  a significant % of the population are for independence under any circumstances.  We have a couple of them on here

This has thre “too poor” arguement in it as well as hints of “too wee”

At no point does it say ‘too poor’, it is a clear statement that any proposal requires the finances to back it, so not a ‘too poor’ statement, a ‘financial clarity’ question.

too poor and too wee again

This one isn’t even about finances or size, it clearly states the provision of proof about the benefits of independence.

too poor again

And again, requesting financial (and services) clarification, no mention of ‘too poor’ or ‘too wee’, in fact you can read in the summarisation at the end is asking for clarification again on the effects.

Again, i’m arguing with someone who is 100% in the Yes camp and not even thinking of hard facts regarding the risks for the people of Scotland relating to Independence, it’s a bit like arguing with a brexiteer a few years back about the risks involved in exiting the EU.

Errmmm – I am a very reluctant independence supporter.  Its far from my ideal position.  I am certainly not ideologically driven for it.  I have however read and thought a lot about finances and my belief is an independent Scotland would be richer.  Wewould no longer be subsidising the rest of the UK, we could have immigrtion and financial piolices that suit scotland not london, we could borrow to invest and so on

all of those quotes you are insinuation Scotland is too poor and too small to be independent.

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.

assuming an independent scotland would be poorer – the “too poor” argument etc etc

I guess you do not even realise you are doing it but you certainly give the impression you believe Scotland is too wee and too poor to be independent

Its what most anti independence arguments boil down to

No it isn’t.

I don’t fully understand the ‘democratic deficit’ argument. We had a vote and the majority chose ‘No’. Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!

Those pro independence are forever berating anyone not convinced, for not agreeing with them, but at the end of the day you’re going to have to convince enough of those who have yet to decide.

I don’t fully understand the ‘democratic deficit’ argument. We had a vote and the majority chose ‘No’. Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!

It’s the bloody electorate. They keep voting for pro-independence parties! Bastards!!

Immediately those pro independence wanted another vote!

Two years later after the brexit vote which changed the whole foundation of the debate.  We were told  the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in the UK – well we voted 60+ % to remain in the EU sand dragged out against our will – yhat changes everything

Also the fact that in Scotland we have not voted for the tories to be the largest party for the last 70 years but have had to put up with tory governments the majority of that time

Both things have caused immense damage.  Damage limitation means we have to be independent

No it isn’t.

What other arguments for unionism have you seen?  Because everything I have seen is a variant on too small too poor too feart

I suppose “tradition” could be one but a pretty weak one

so please – educate me.  Explain what other reasons you have seen

Out of curiosity, has this specific thread (with more than 6,000 posts) convinced anyone who change their mind, in either direction? Or even made them consider changing their minds?

I’ve found some of the pro-independence arguments do make sense, but not enough to convince me we wouldn’t be worse off by breaking away from the UK.

Wewould no longer be subsidising the rest of the UK,

How much do you subsidise the rest of the UK? Citation please.

we could have immigrtion and financial piolices that suit scotland not london

Once people choose to settle in the UK they essentially have freedom of movement within the UK, they disproportionately choose London, and more choose areas like Oldham than Scotland. What policy is going to attract immigrants to an independent Scotland preferentially to rUK and London?

What financial policy differences would iS fundamentally have to current UK? MMT? Has the currency question been settled yet?

we could borrow to invest and so on

At the same or higher government bond rates than the UK has now?

Damage limitation means we have to be independent

Or does it compound the damage? Which market is the biggest for Scotland. RUK would need to treat iS as a “third country” in regard to the post Brexit trade deal, friction is implicit

@big_n_daft

Are you not getting bored yet mate? Coz your boring the pants off me mate!

I must admit I’d like to see the evidence of Scotland ‘subsidising the rest of the UK’. My understanding, as a Northerner from England, is that the South East is the part of the UK that does the subsidising. Or at least that’s the historic trend.

Can you cite it TJ? Genuinely interested.

9.1%of UK tax revenue came from Scotland

8.3%  of the UK population live in Scotland

£10,000 tax per head in Scotland

£9,200 tax per head, rest of UK

: Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28879267

Plus you have all the exports especially oil improving the balance of payments so improving the UK economy and of course the Gers figures are deliberately intended to understate the scottish financial position

I suppose “tradition” could be one but a pretty weak one

so please – educate me. Explain what other reasons you have seen

It doesn’t matter how weak you think the argument is though, if it’s enough to convince someone to vote against independence, that’s all that matters – at least to them.

For me, it’s just that we have more in common with each other than that which separates us. We’re on an island – it seems sensible to me to all group together. Now, they may be the weakest of weak reasons, but I still get to vote.

Fair enough.