dougiedanger

This guy gets it. It is despair against hope. Which one will you choose? http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ng-of-all-hope Comment is free Scottish independence A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all - hope Independence would carry the potential to galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK George Monbiot George Monbiot The Guardian, Tuesday 9 September 2014 18.58 BST Jump to comments (39) Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the union to save England from itself. Responses to my column last week suggest this wretched apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left. Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 54 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation that cause the problems from which we ask them to save us. “A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue,” former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week. We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, Ukip, the Lib Dems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the rightwing columnists in Britain, and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”. There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation; and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism. Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences, including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest. It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals. It meant supporting every destructive and unjust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence. So now Better Together has brought in Gordon Brown, scattering bribes in a desperate, last-ditch effort at containment. They must hope the Scots have forgotten that he boasted of setting “the lowest rate in the history of British corporation tax, the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere”. That he pledged to the City of London “in budget after budget, I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers”. That, after 13 years of Labour government, the UK had higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government. That his government colluded in kidnapping and torture. That he helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his support for the illegal war on Iraq. He roams through Scotland, still badged with blood, promising what he never delivered when he had the chance, this man who helped unravel the social safety net his predecessors wove; who marketised and dismembered public services; who enriched the wealthy and shafted the poor; who pledged money for Trident but failed to reverse the loss of social housing; whose private finance initiative planted a series of timebombs now exploding throughout the NHS and other public services; who greased and wheedled and slavered his way into the company of bankers and oligarchs while trampling over the working people he was elected to represent. This is the progressive Prester John who will ride to the rescue of the no campaign? Where, in Scotland’s Labour party, are the Keir Hardies and Jimmy Reids of our time? Where is the vision, the inspiration, the hope? The shuffling, spineless little men who replaced these titans offer nothing but fear. Through fear, they seek to shove Scotland back into its box, as its people rebel against the dreary, closed future mapped out for them – and the rest of us – by the three main Westminster parties. Sure, if Scotland becomes independent, all else being equal, Labour would lose 41 seats at Westminster and Tory majorities would become more likely. But all else need not be equal. Scottish independence can galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK. We’ll watch as the Scots engage in the transformative process of writing a constitution. We’ll see that a nation of these islands can live and – I hope – flourish with a fully elected legislature (no House of Lords), with a fair electoral system (proportional representation), and with a parliament in which only representatives of that nation can vote (no cross-border mercenaries). Already, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register. The low voter turnouts in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope. If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning. If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for instance, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the UK. It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. It can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. It can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed Reply With Quote

Leave Laurence alone, he is doing amazing work for the Yes campaign. Keep it up Loz!

Some amount of panic on here by the unionists, even the inner UKIP making an appearance. Face it boys, the union is dead, come on over to the right side.

Your naivety is touching Yngwie.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mps-10-payrise-says-commons-4177390 If that doesn't make you vote yes nothing will **** up the UK then ask for a pay rise the cheek They'll be able to afford it if the Scottish MPs b*gger off North of the Border. Steady, true colors showing there. Forgot to put the smiley on but let me explain. My remark was simply based on the supposition that if there is a YES vote, then come independence, MPs representing Scottish consituencies will no longer be able to sit in the Westmisnster Parliament (which is South of the border) and therefore they will "b*gger off North of the Border". They will no longer receive their salaries and the joke was that this money divided up amongst the remaining MPs will broadly pay for the 10% rise. I know jokes are best never explained - but it was a joke! It is funny, in a UKIP kind of way.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mps-10-payrise-says-commons-4177390 If that doesn't make you vote yes nothing will **** up the UK then ask for a pay rise the cheek They'll be able to afford it if the Scottish MPs b*gger off North of the Border. Steady, true colors showing there.

No are a shambles, as is the union, on its knees, and it is a beautiful thing, history being made by the people, and the elite in tatters.

The unionists have finally arrived at a dead end, repeating the same hollow scare stories, only by this stage people have found them out and are waking up to the vision of hope, responsibility, prosperity, and self-determination that is in our hands. There is no longer any argument--it's just a question of people being bold and wise enough to do the right thing.

It's all about information, some people don't have access to anything other than the unionist propaganda fed to them by the MSM. Keep on gently persuading, every vote counts.

Ultimately when you do boil it down it is, I feel, just that - a choice between wrong and right. That's just my opinion/feeling, I know the no brigade will take offence to that, it's not meant to cause offence. Besides my vote's already cast - maybe I should keep out of it! Not at all KB, keep trying to persuade people. It is the right thing and most people know that inside, and some just need a little nudge or persuasion. We can do this!!

Sometimes you just need to man up and do the right thing.

Why would anyone choose to give up their sovereignty and wealth to be governed by the hereditary, corrupt of elite another country with one of the most unequal, divided societies in the developed world?

Great piece that, was just going to post it. In fact, here is the full thing: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...gland-scotland England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country? By George Monbiot - Tuesday 2 September 2014 19.06 BST Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control. It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power. So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre? What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses. So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification. System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results. System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary. It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no. The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing. Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary. The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City. To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable. Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this? Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice. To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.

And us being "free people" is not going to change in the event of a Yes vote, so I do still view the original statement as pointless. And if I did have to attempt to find a point to it it would be as mild doom mongering. Apologies if you if find that offensive, it's not meant that way. No offense taken at all. And apologies if my comments have caused offense to anyone - certainly none intended. But just a final thought. We are having this referendum because we have the freedom within our current democratic structure to discuss these matters and because the UK Government has respected the fact that the SNP has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to seek a referendum on independence. Further, the UK Government has accepted the result will be binding and that only a simple majority of those voting will be necessary. Of course, the ability for the Scottish people to seek independence through the democratic process has existed as long as we have had a parliamentary democracy. The fact that we are only voting on the issue now is a reflection that over the years, the majority of Scots have been happy to remain proud Scots within the United Kingdom. Huzzah for the Brits! Latest yougov poll, No 53%, Yes, 47%. http://youtu.be/aQtaqgW6MXg

What is the point in this statement? Are you suggesting that this is going to change with a Yes vote and Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night? Of course you are not - so it's a pointless thing to type. The No campaign is founded on keeping people in fear. A lot of the Scottish public are starting to realise this and now it's the No camp that is getting the fear. His point was that in their eternal wisdom and grace the British have given us a certain degree of freedom, that we should be happy with what we are given, and how dare we ask for the same freedoms that virtually all independent countries enjoy. It's like when right-wing Americans say to African-Americans that they have more than other black people in the world, and don't get why they are not happy with what they have been given.

No offence, but your views on freedom and sovereignty do not necessarily coincide with that of the rest of the population, and as a Scot I won't be lectured to on how I am supposed to feel about any of this. Many of us have never felt in the slightest bit British, however hard you find that to believe. This issue has to do with pride, honor and identity, not in a romantic, "Braveheart" way as you put it, but as a chance to be a properly modern, progressive nation, and to take responsibility for our own decisions, for better or worse. The union is finished either way, we will be free on September 18th, and it would be sheer folly to hand that freedom straight back to Cameron, Johnson et al.

September is here, and on the 18th we will for the first time in 300 years have our destiny in our own hands. We will be free for that day, and potentially for all days that follow. Would you want to hand over that freedom?

For large parts of the world, the wonderful British government is and has been the tyrannical oppressor, but these naive Brit unionists will no doubt think that the Empire was all about civilizing the savages. The British do nothing unless it is to their own advantage.

And don't rule out some royal "health scare" either.

Expect more of these "security alerts" as the referendum approaches, as predictable as it is typical from the British government, seeking to ramp up the fear, which is its only trump card.

And that's just Yngwie.

Not really, independence is an opportunity for all, including businesses, to reinvent themselves, and the best business people will adapt and thrive in a prosperous independent Scotland.

Great post Clacher, it really is make or break for all of us.

Get yer house on it Laurence!!

More good news for Yes : http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28894313 More than a million people have signed a declaration that they are in favour of Scottish independence, campaigners have said. Yes Scotland set itself the target of getting a million signatures to its Yes Declaration when it launched in 2012. First Minister Alex Salmond said at the time that if the target was met, Scotland would become independent. The pro-UK Better Together campaign has said it still speaks for the majority of Scots. The Yes Declaration states: "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." The announcement of the millionth signature was made at an event attended by the Proclaimers at Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh. The chief executive of Yes Scotland, Blair Jenkins, said breaking the one million barrier at this stage was a "clear indication" that the pro-independence campaign was on "a winning trajectory". 'Great confidence' He said: "We are hugely grateful - not just to the one million plus people in Scotland who have now signed the Yes Declaration, but also to our many thousands of volunteers all around the country who have worked so hard to help us reach this target with just under a month still to go. "More and more people are waking up to the fantastic opportunities created by a Yes vote. People realise that only with a Yes can we protect our NHS and other public services, grow our economy to create better jobs, and make Scotland a fairer society. "Today's announcement is a clear indication of the level of support we're getting, and it gives us great confidence as we work towards securing a Yes majority on 18 September." Yes Scotland said that the precise number of signatories was 1,001,186 at 16:00 on Thursday. A spokesman for Better Together said: "Whilst the nationalists spend a lot of their time talking to nationalists, we are focused on convincing those who have yet to make up their mind that we can have the best of both worlds for Scotland within the UK. "We can have what the majority of Scots want without taking on all the risks - more powers for Scotland guaranteed, backed up by the strength and security of being part of the larger UK. "We should say No Thanks to putting that at risk on 18 September." Just over four million people will be eligible to vote in the referendum on 18 September, when voters will be asked: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"