Oddquine

Considering Mr Bannerman, who incidently is a sports journalist and not a political one, does have as much right as any other person to make his views known, and also considering that he hasn't posted anything since beginning of March then I think that spat is well out of order and constitutes nothing more than a personal abuse of said Mr Bannerman. Maybe the post was aimed at something going around on FB, via the exposing anti-independence bias in the media page, regarding an article he is meant to have written for the Highland News as opposed to his posts on here. I liked the post on the premise that the FB post was correct, given he is a "journalist" and given his views as a poster on here, and given the irrationality of them......but as it turns out there is no link as yet to the article, so if I could work out how to remove the like, if only temporarily, I would. Beside where it says "You like this" on the post is a button "unlike". Not for a second disbelieving you......but seems to me to be a "before you click either" option. Maybe it's a firefox thing...or I am really thick...but the most I can do, as far as I can see, is ignore Hamish's sig now I have clicked on the "like.this post" button. I can't see any way to remove the like (bearing in mind that I'm not about to want to unlike, if that means disliking). because I don't do disliking folk's opinions with the click of a button as that means I can't pontificate to the irritation of the world (as far as the world is epitomised on this forum).

Considering Mr Bannerman, who incidently is a sports journalist and not a political one, does have as much right as any other person to make his views known, and also considering that he hasn't posted anything since beginning of March then I think that spat is well out of order and constitutes nothing more than a personal abuse of said Mr Bannerman. Maybe the post was aimed at something going around on FB, via the exposing anti-independence bias in the media page, regarding an article he is meant to have written for the Highland News as opposed to his posts on here. I liked the post on the premise that the FB post was correct, given he is a "journalist" and given his views as a poster on here, and given the irrationality of them......but as it turns out there is no link as yet to the article, so if I could work out how to remove the like, if only temporarily, I would.

Is this Whinge Over Scotland guy a real minister or just Scotlands answer to the Reverand Iain Paisley? And are you a real mainstand or just somebody else with an online identity?

Did you look past the ICM poll on the first page and check the rest of them out? ICM tinkers with their methodology a lot, and did it again in that one, even more drastically....and if you can't compare like with like, polls mean even less than they do at the best of times. Did you notice that the polls are only those for pro-Union media,btw......with none for pro-Independence media, like Wings and Newsnet.....neither of which are political parties? Wonder if there was a reason for putting the ICM poll as the first one anyone sees....or is that too conspiracy-theorist? Seems to be one law for NO and a completely other one for YES, given the virulent opposition of the MSM, including the BBC, to the YES campaign. If you ignore that single last ICM poll, the trend, even in polls on behalf of pro-Union entities is still towards YES. We'll have to wait for another round of comparable polls before you can say support for independence has fallen.

Have to say, JimboLoony is funny. If he can talk as well as he can photoshop, he'd be the Welsh Frankie Boyle!

Been reading about his speech have you? Fancy making it without removing the crap which had already been debunked, by the authors of the two reports on which the calculations were based, about the cost of setting up 180 public bodies. If he didn't have a hymn sheet to sing from, he'd be speechless. If you buy print newspapers, the Better Together booklet they've been dishing out free in them is no more truthful, it appears. Article about it here .....http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/better-together-vs-truth and Wings take on it here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lies-you-get/ Don't buy mainstream newspapers any more.......haven't for years....so I was spared reading it.

Interesting take on UKIP . http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster

Falkland in Fife or the Falkland Islands? I dunno....I'd have thought, if we really wanted to be bothered we could possibly put up a case for getting an 8.4% share in all the crown protectorates and Overseas Territories....or maybe even half of them, seeing that the Union of the Crowns was only the two countries! There's a surprising number of them still. We did get Antarctica (or rather the British Antarctic Territory) in the Act which set up Devolution, as it wasn't on the list of the issues reserved to Westminster control. If Westminster hadn't noticed the error and wheeched it back in exchange for control over airguns when the Scotland Bill 2012 was going through Westminster....we'd have a bigger empire in area than Westminster has..though as you cannae really do anything with it, not getting that isn't much of a loss. Seriously, though, if you are being serious, Westminster thinks it is entitled to be the continuing state, regarding Treaties and being a "world power" and sitting in the plush seats in the big International organisations.....which it isn't automatically, unless we agree.....and I suppose the Crown Territories etc would come into that. Never really thought about it before....but I can't see us wanting to be footered with them, anyway. If the UK is expecting us to pay maintenance for them as if they are children of the Union...then we can negotiate maintenance like any separating couple.......and take our share of the plush seats and treaties as well! More I think about it all, the more I think the easiest way to do it would be just to pack our bags and go, leaving the movables, the house and the car behind. Noticed something I didn't know when I was browsing. I did know that the Scottish Embassy was in Great Scotland Yard prior to 1707, because I have said elsewhere (tongue in cheek) that we already have an embassy in London, as it was taken over, not bought, post 1707. But seemingly After the Act of Union no one remembered to abolish the foreign status of Great Scotland Yard, which means that even today the little street running off Whitehall near Trafalgar Square is actually Scottish territory.

I'm going to be fair intrigued when the new Project Fear Treasury Report is published next week..if only to find out what 180 government departments they think we are going to need to cope with a country of 5.3 million people. It's also going to be really interesting to see how they manage to accurately forecast the economics of an Independent Scotland as far ahead as 2035/2036, when they don't know what our taxes and income will be,what our policies will be, and the effect of those policies on our economy. Bloody hell, they can't even forecast accurately the effects of a budget on the economy of the UK for the following year when they know the figures and the policies to be applied....and even with that they certainly haven't managed to do it for the period from 2010 to 2015.......so not much of a track record to make anything they produce for a timespan of twenty years believable, is it? Do you remember that in 2010, the budget was meant to be in balance by 2015? Hasn't it had the target date revised at every budget since, until the target date is now 2019 (maybe). Of course, that will be only if they get their sums right for once, and provided the Government continues to privatise the NHS, (and thus cut the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, NI and Wales) and provided it continues to make welfare cuts and maintain the austerity regime. Or should that maybe be...maintain the austerity regime for everyone but themselves and their party donors/prospective post-Parliament employers. Where has the austerity been felt in a Parliament which spent £5.8 million of taxpayers' money on subsidising the food and drink in the House of Commons..... in the same year the Budget promised to increase VAT to 20%; introduce a public sector pay freeze; reduce the time allowed to phase in the increase in the SPA to 66; peg benefits increases and public service pension increases,(though not state pensions), to the CPI instead of the RPI; freeze child benefit for three years; increase withdrawal rates for tax credits, cap Housing Benefit; introduce a new assessment for DLA;.......and freeze the Queens Civil List at £7.9 million. Interesting that it cost us just £2.1 million more to pay for the upkeep of the Royal Family, maintain the Royal Households and pay staff etc, than it does to fill the Westminster trough to feed the pigs.

Personally, I take all polls with a lot more than a pinch of salt....whether carried out by paid polling agencies, an exit poll from a public meeting, a poll of school children or a poll on the internet etc. They are as accurate as betting odds when it comes to forecasting outcomes.....and the only benefit they provide is that, if they are in your favour, they imbue a feelgood factor for a time. Rather liked this, btw...New Zealand Cannot Exist .http://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/new-zealand-cannot-exist/. The concluding paragraph or so......(and the rest of it is quite good as well) Simply put, it’s a small country, apparently unable to protect itself, a supposed bunch of farmers sheering sheep and milking cows. Therefore, following the illogical, brutal arguments thrown at Scotland by the Better Together brigade, New Zealand cannot exist as an autonomous state. But it does. It does exist. It exists very well indeed.

You want to get to the heart of the debate......then the heart of this debate, on the ICT forum, is that, according to a Panelbase Poll done for Wings...... Most supporters of Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hearts, Hibernian, Inverness, Ross County, St Johnstone and St Mirren are in the No camp. Of the County fans who responded, none committed to backing independence, though 39 per cent were undecided. A majority of fans of Celtic, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Partick and Rangers are in the Yes camp. Got that off the Record online. Wings hasn't discussed it yet, but undoubtedly will. To be fair, I think polling is akin to casting the runes or reading chicken entrails......and maybe talking about the UK Governments treatment of ex-pat pensioners, which stop many going abroad to live with family when they are retired, isn't really about independence, though it is perhaps something an independent Scottish Government will have to think about at some stage. But, heck, I'm just glad to have someone to talk to on here!

Scarlet, I found a Parliamentary Briefing Paper which explains the Historical reasons behind the UK Government's decision. Think you can get it here http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01457.pdf., but if not, PM me your email address and I can send the PDF file to you. I quote When the rate of pension was increased in 1946, the increase was not paid to pensioners abroad. The reasons for this decision appear to have been related mainly to the then forthcoming new scheme of National Insurance. It was considered that the substantial increase in pension, from 10 to 26 shillings, was a first instalment of the new scheme and that pensioners abroad had made only a small contribution to their pensions and could not reasonably expect a share in the new scheme. I suppose I can see their reasoning at the time, and a general clause was included in the 1946 NI Act, which stopped increases to all ex-pat pensioners.(and to pensioner prisoners in UK jails), and at the time the only ex-pat pensioners receiving pensions were those in the Commonwealth. After 1946, the UK started making reciprocal social security agreements with various countries, which allowed up-rating for ex-pats, but they don't appear to be countries with lots of ex-pats claiming pensions at that time. The Republic of Ireland didn't start getting UK pension up-rating until 1966. According to the briefing paper The agreements between the UK and Australia, New Zealand and Canada came into force in 1953, 1956 and 1959 respectively (there had been an earlier, 1948, agreement with New Zealand which covered Family Allowance). There is no indication that the question of unfreezing pensions in those countries arose during negotiation of the agreements. So it kinda looks as if Canada could have negotiated the increases, as France, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg did between 1948 and 1955. But it appears that after 1973, the UK stopped reciprocal agreements because of, you've guessed it, the cost to the current UK taxpayers (in other words, the Government). In Parliament in 2008, it was said that The UK state pension is payable world-wide but is only uprated abroad where there is a legal requirement to do so....so it looks as if there is no agreement which specifies/requires up-rating...there will be no up-rating.and it appears that the agreement with Canada does not mention up-rating. From reading here http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/benefits/state-pension/state-pension-arrangements-in-social/ it rather looks as if the Canadian agreement is more to do with Canadian pension entitlement being counted for UK pensions for people who work in Canada but come back to the UK to retire, though I'd have thought a reciprocal agreement would have meant that the years paying towards a UK pension would have counted towards a Canadian one. Have to say, the more I read stuff emanating from the UK Parliament, the more I understand why lawyers can make a lot of money interpreting it and fighting the UK interpretation.

Scarlet, I thought that was maybe the case....but why I mentioned the fact that I was getting the DWP letters for the ex-partner who was in the USA, was because I wondered if he just hadn't told them he had gone to live out of the country and was letting them assume he was still in the UK at my address. Maybe honesty isn't always the best policy.......because if you don't tell them any different, how would they know? On rereading that link I gave, it looks as if the likes of the USA and Israel are two countries outside the EU who do get uprated, so forgetting to do a change of address may just have been a blond moment or an age thing on his part. The link also seems to say that 95% of UK pensioners are in Commonwealth countries..so methinks it has always been a money-saving decision by UK Governments. Certainly seems really unfair to me...but I suspect that it is going to be some time before the UK can afford to whack another half a billion annually onto pension outgoings even if they wanted to do that, particularly if we vote for independence and they have, additionally, to pay for our pensions out of their income for the next forty or so years, with no input from us.

religion

Belief

Occam's

The Official Positive Case For the Union from The Secretary of State for Scotland, via Westminster..and it just same old, same old Project Fear reproduced in 24 pages. Wings take on it is here......http://wingsoverscotland.com/none-more-positive/ And I quote the last paragraph So, in summary: there’ll be loads of forms to fill in, everything will cost a fortune, we’ll go bust if the banks collapse, our mortgages will go through the roof, there’ll be no telly, no lottery and no jobs, we’ll be awash in crime, we’ll have to bail out the UK even though we’ll have no money, and all our businesses will be bankrupted or leave. We don’t know about you, readers, but that’s about as much positivity as we can take before lunchtime. We’re off to do a little happy dance. and another bittie here http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-lie-that-wont-die/ about not being allowed to use the pound..in which case the banks will withdraw the millions on deposit in the BOE to cover the Scottish banknotes in circulation. No Scottish pound, no need to cover them, is there? Now, maybe it's just me....but in all of the stuff quoted from the "Positive Case" in those articles, the assumption appears to be that we are too wee, too stupid, too poor and completely incompetent and we are, unlike Eire, which fought and killed for their independence from Westminster, to be cast into the international wilderness, friendless and alone. And you know something.it makes me sick.....pig-sick and very angry, that people who claim they are Scots....even "proud Scots" sometimes....and actually represent us in Westminster, are so bloody arrogant and denigrating to those who keep them in fecking jobs! Duplication of services the UK already deals with, like HMRC, DWP, MOD etc, for example, is a bad thing for an independent Scotland, to hear them...while I prefer to think of it as essential jobs and services coming into Scotland to be undertaken by Scots provide jobs and boost the economy...and maybe even being shared out around the country, instead of being all in one place. Seems to me, just as the Scottish Government has managed to balance the books since devolution (if it wasn't for Westminster profligacy in spending on reserved items and debt interest), it will be able to do all the stuff that Westminster currently does (very expensively and incompetently)...probably at less cost than the amount we currently pay for our share of the Westminster equivalents...particularly if we reduce the pointless complexity of a lot of them. Sorry........but only the unthinking would believe any of the negative crap in that taxpayer funded booklet.....and maybe the Scottish Office needs to check out the meaning of positive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-ZMwp1elXw The effects of Westminster Policies.

Think Scarlet gets no increases from the sounds of it, and will only get the equivalent of the number of years he paid into the UK system...at the level it was when he first got it.....at least that's what I take from the DWP site. Seems unfair to me that other pensioners in some other countries get increases, and those mostly in the Commonwealth don't. Part of the reason I'm hoping Scotland takes over the paying of all pensions, with a cash adjustment, as we will likely be in the Commonwealth. Found an article about it.....http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/22/retiring-abroad-state-pension-freeze

Is the amount of pension based on what you paid into it? For us in the UK just now, it is Alex. I didn't work enough years to get a full pension, having taken time out to bring up kids, but I get increases. pro rata to my NI contributions. I think the problem is that the UK only increases pensions for those living in the EEA, Switzerland and countries which have agreements with the UK to allow annual increases. Frankly, I don't understand why you would need an agreement with a whole country to increase an individual's pension....unless it has something to do with both doing it for all pensioners or neither for any. Be interesting to know if Canada pays Canadian pensioners their pension entitlement if they live in the UK....and if they do, if they get annual increases......because I suppose if Canada doesn't do annual increases, and the UK does, there is, in the UK's mind, the idea that the Canadian pensioners are more liable to fall back on the UK welfare state as their money reduces in real terms.....so maybe the UK is making sure that Canada pays one way or another. From a quick look, it all appears to be darn complicated....but then that's a problem with anything to do with the UK tax or welfare systems. Kinda wonder if it is because the pension is being paid direct to an account in Canada, with a contact address in Canada....maybe if Scarlet had organised a trusted UK contact address before he left and the money had gone into a UK bank account in his name, he'd have gotten increases.and been able to transfer the money to Canada himself. Thinking that because my address was used as a contact address for DWP by an erstwhile partner who retired in the USA, so until I contacted his son, and told him to tell his dad to stop taking a lend, I was getting all his letters from the DWP....though I was nice enough not to return them as "not known at this address". As he was pretty financially clued up, I did wonder why, after a few years married in the States, he still had my address on his DWP records and a UK bank account..

Another scare story from Better Together bites the dust. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27309215 I've been saying all along, to the punters panicking about getting their pensions post-independence, that all I know is that I have paid all my taxes and NI into the UK pot...and, now I am retired...the UK pot has the responsibility to meet their obligations to me re State Pension, (just as my past employer does re my small work pension) and just as they do for all ex-pats everywhere else in the world, who have paid their NI in the UK. The fact that I will be living in an iScotland and not an iFrance or an iUSA,makes no difference to that obligation..and the obligation applies not only to State Pensions but to public service pensions as well. There has been a lot of scaremongering about pensions from Better Together in the media for ages, whenever the politicians get fed up of doing "you can't use the pound" and "you can't afford the welfare state" and "The EU doesn't want you" and "NATO doesn't want you"and "you can't defend yourself" and they are continuing the pension theme in their current "positive" campaign, as illustrated by the "PUT OUR PENSIONS AT RISK? NO THANKS" billboard declaration. In Facebook, there have been a number of posts by people who have actually gone to the bother of writing to DWP to ask about the pension position post a YES vote, and had the reply that, after Independence, we would continue to get the State Pension as we do now...which is from Westminster.though that has not been reported in the media, perhaps because the media don't ask questions to which the answers won't fit their agenda, which is pro-Union. Even last month, we had Alistair Darling saying in print “On the subject of pensions, what happens with separation? Nobody knows – certainly not the Scottish Government.” Now, you'd have thought that, given the uncertainty being touted over pensions post Independence, that the MSM would have been all over the attendance of the Pensions Minister in the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster, on 6th May saying on record that anybody who had paid UK National Insurance would be entitled to their State Pension, regardless of the referendum result. But no...not a bit of it...just a wee bit on page 2 in the print edition of the Herald...and in the P&J...and an online bit in the Scotsman (behind a paywall, of course)....but nowhere else.......bar in the BBC news online on the afternoon of the 7th May Sure, how it would work is subject to negotiations post the referendum, along with everything else. Imo, given the level of UK National Debt, even after Scotland takes a share, a £5 trillion UK pension black hole, and the possibility that pensions in an iScotland may change re amounts, retirement ages etc, compared to what will happen in rUK, it would be pretty complicated ensuring pensioners were all treated the same in iScotland if rUK pays what they want to pay and iScotland have to make adjustments to that. Seems to me that it would be pretty unfair if people like me, who are already retired, will be stuck with the Westminster version of pension for the rest of my life, if iScotland improves it for pensioners who retire post independence. Seems to me that the best way to do it would be to work out how much of the £5 trillion black hole would be due to be paid over the piece, to Scottish pensioners and future pensioners who have paid into the UK system.and knock that amount off the Scottish share of the debt, making the Scottish Government responsible for paying the unfunded pensions for current UK pensioners and NI payers living in Scotland. That should give us a decent nest egg to start with rather than debt, most likely. If so, we could always shove it in a piggy bank to gain interest to help meet the ongoing costs....or would that be too sensible? So with that that out of the way. That just leaves, from over the campaign so far.... The threat of border guards; Not being able to watch Coronation Street; Higher mobile phone costs; A Scotland isolated from the world; A health service that would not be able to look after the sick; Kicked out of the European Union; But forced to join the Euro; Not accepted in NATO; Having to return the Edinburgh Zoo pandas to China; unable to defend ourselves; Part of Scotland annexed by rUK to house their nuclear missiles; Scottish airports bombed by rUK; Family and friends living in rUK would become foreigners; Could not have bailed out our banks; Won't have the £85000 savings guarantee if banks do go belly up; It'll cost more to post letters; We can't afford broadband connections to rural areas; Can't use the pound, no way, no how; Have to renegotiate 14000 Treaties; No triple A credit rating outside UK; Overly reliant on oil income; Independence, even the prospect of it, will damage inward investment to Scotland; rUK won't buy your energy; No dual citizenship;Can't afford to replicate 200 public bodies; No intelligence sharing; Lose thousands of defence jobs. Those are only the ones I could think of right now......and you know the bit that worries me more than anything......all of the above are from the mouths or press releases of our UK politicians....which does make one wonder at the level of their intelligence...but then those same intelligences are responsible for the economic state of the UK..so maybe there is no need to wonder....they have the collective intelligence of a par-boiled amoeba. Editing to add something not connected with the above, bar it does show the calibre, or lack of it, of Unionist politicians in whichever Parliament they sit...and is why we must, in a Written Scottish Constitution, have some mechanism to allow we voters to recall our elected representatives if we deem it necessary. And it also has had a lot more Press coverage in Scotland than the pension information, unsurprisingly! Imo, it is one thing to hold politicians and businessmen with dubious practices to account for those practices, another again to smear elected politicians and celebrities using gratuitous insults, as to an extent being in the public eye invites opinions, good or bad, but altogether unacceptable for any politician to smear private citizens all over the media solely in order to get at other politicians or political parties. http://wingsoverscotland.com/what-an-********-looks-like/ And edited again to add this. It's a video of a doctor talking about the NHS in England, the NHS in Scotland, and the prospects for the Scottish NHS, if there is a NO vote. Longish, but worth a watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI

Was reading a new, to me at least, blog today, here http://grousebeater.wordpress.com/ and wandered further in to look at some of his previous posts.....to find this one....http://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/an-essay-in-betrayal-2/.which immediately attracted my interest, as I'm keen on history and Scotland....and combining both just now with an independence slant in addition, is as good, imo, as cuddling up in bed with Zippy, my hot water bottle, and his wee pal, a mug of black coffee with the addition of a dollop of Amaretto, plus a bag of Werther's Originals and some light reading by Ian Rankin or Stuart MacBride or the like...and that is just utter bliss! The first thing that struck me was the title page, which says, and I quote (but I can't do the funny f for S shape) An Historical Essay, shewing that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland is Imperial and Independent. Wherein the Gross Mistakes of a late Book, Entitled The Superiority and direct Dominance of the Imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland, and of some other Books to that Purpose are Exposed.With an Appendix, Containing the Copies of some WRITS and SEALS, which illustrate this Subject. It was written by James Anderson A.M, Writer to Her Majesties Signet, and printed in Edinburgh in 1705. And the second was this OUR Independence hath of late not only been attack’d first in Historical Treatises, but also we are insulted by a querulous reviling Pamphlet, set forth under the title of “Select Fables.” And beside there’s very lately published a plagiary Treatise of the Account of Scotland. This obliges Us, by the necessity of self defence, after repeated attempts upon the Sovereignty of our Crown, to vindicate our just right of Independency, and to lay open the unbecoming artifices, that have been used in the Claim of Homage. The design of this Treatise, is to evince, that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland, is Imperial, and Independent; and that the pretences for the Homage Claim’d by England from Scotland, are chiefly founded upon Forgeries, vitiated or patcht up Laws, Fables, and extorted acknowledgments: which are the very signs of England’s bad cause. Seems to me that, 309 years on...not a lot has changed in the attitude of Westminster to Scotland and Scots when it comes to our independence from them, particularly re the Superiority and direct Dominance of the Imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland.which is exactly what happened in the Union, as far as England is concerned.... as evidenced by the Westminster claim that the Act of Union "extinguished " Scotland........and precisely why they are fighting, with lies, myths, misrepresentation and spin to hang on to their only remaining wholly controlled "colony" (which just happens to have oil and a lot of useful space for storing nuclear weapons and over which to practise live bombing). Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

What about future generations who are born in an independent Scotland should the yes vote win? Not that it bothers me personally as I am always Scottish first in my mind My take on it......and only the impression I get from my reading.......if YES vote wins, Scotland, in 2016, will become an "official" nationality, if nationality=citizenship, confirmed by the right to have a Scottish Passport. Scotland already has a choice of national identities, Scottish or British..but only British is the "official" nationality, which is a purely political construct, subsuming the English/Welsh/Irish(or at least NI) national identities as well as ours....because the UK is the sovereign state. After Independence all that will change, in that British will become a national identity related to geography......more on the lines of the Scandinavian or European ones, for those who want to think of themselves that way..while Scotland will become a sovereign state with a voice in the world with our own "official" Scottish nationality. Right now, we are the equivalent of the likes of the Basques, the Catalans and the Cornish (bar we don't get minority status in the UK) So future generations born in Scotland after a YES vote and Independence Day will be Scottish citizens, while those of us living in Scotland now, and until then, will be what our passports say we are. After 2016, as far as I can see, the choice is ours...though that would likely depend on how rUK decides to deal with us re dual nationality etc. The IOM population, being a Crown protectorate, albeit with much more powers than a Scottish Parliament (or even an NI Parliament) are still officially British citizens with British passports....but as they (and the Channel Islands) are not in the EU, they have a caveat printed on their British passports, afaik, saying they have no free right of passage in the EU. Kinda makes one wonder, if we vote for Independence, and stay in the EU..... and the rUK comes out of the EU, if choosing to continue using a British passport would be overly useful as a plus point.

Bit more drama plz. dougiedanger - I am trying very hard to achieve the level of drama exhibited by a few of the more frequent posters on this topic but it is not easy. I am not a natural drama Queen/King. So I am doing the best I can to match them but it is obvious that they are past masters in the art and have had countless years of practice. If you are currently in New Zealand, whatever the status you have in that country is, which is not clear at all, why do you feel so impelled to try very hard to achieve the level of drama exhibited by a few of the more frequent posters on this topic? What exactly does the debate on our life and our future, in a country in which you no longer live, through choice, have to do with you......really? Referenda do not come under any laws outside the country in which they apply and voting in them is not a right under any international law currently in force....so live with it! I think that there is nothing more hypocritical and self-serving (bar maybe the opinions of pro-Union Scottish constituency MPs in Westminster, who will get thrown off the Westminster gravy train if we vote for Independence) than people who were born brought up and educated in Scotland, but no longer live there, trying to keep all of us wedded to UK Governments which instituted the same circumstances which persuaded/encouraged/forced them out in the first place. The original "positive" case for the Union, in the "new positve campaign" which started last Monday, says, apart from the absolute and utter lie that they can guarantee any further devolution of any kind, the Better Together campaign also said that there would be "more job opportunities as part of the UK". however, the job opportunities as part of the UK has never been the problem..they have existed, furth of Scotland, since 1707..but what has definitely not been guaranteed in the current "NO" campaign, or has happened in the last 307 years, is permanent job opportunities in Scotland for those of us who want to stay here. In 1707, Scotland had one fifth of the population of England..currently we have less than one tenth....and that is because Scots have had to leave Scotland to get job opportunities...and which is why there are lots more people descended from Scots in the diaspora than in Scotland, some of whom are whining because they can't vote in the referendum. I'm afraid I can't see that a Union, which has managed to reduce the numbers of Scots living and working here to that extent, as a success (and if we are going to be really picky...the descendants of born Scots who existed in 1707 are a helluva lot less than the current Scottish population and we would be nowhere near 8.3% of the UK population in numbers now if not for the immigration from England, other UK countries and elsewhere.) But, hey.......if you can convince me that you, in New Zealand,and my Cousins in Australia, the families of two of my my great uncles in Canada, and a great aunt in Australia, descendants of my great great uncles in Tasmania are examples of the utter success of the Union for Scotland......I am prepared to listen.

Seemingly a proposal that we swap oil for debt has been proposed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/economist-proposed-iscotland-deal-to-swap-oil-reserves-for-share-of-uk-debt.1398862713 They really do think our heads button up the back. Apart from the fact that they are saying that Scotland has 84 % of the oil...so in other words they think they are going to be able to hang on to the 6000 square miles and the 6% of the oil and gas they nicked in 1999, they're looking to grab even more. Just goes to show that Project Fear it is all about the oil (and Trident) Dr Armstrong argued such a deal could work because it can be "quite problematic" for smaller countries to deal with assets which are "highly volatile", such as fluctuating oil revenues as Norway, of course has found. But he said the debt-for-oil swap proposed depended on an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK being able to reach an agreement on what the oil reserves are worth. We certainly wouldn't be taking the Government's OBR poodles calculations on oil and gas value, as they haven't managed to get it right from one year to the next. Mind you, I suppose we could maybe let them keep some of what they have already stolen as full and final payment.and get out with no debt. Found this interesting too http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/01/treasury-economy-recovery-hype-growth-osborne-crash-risk James Meadway, a former UK government policy adviser at the Treasury, has criticised Chancellor George Osborne's claim that newly released GDP figures prove "Britain is coming back." He argues that the government's relentless pursuit of stringent austerity and expansion of household debt is reinforcing the risk of a major economic crash