Oddquine

Been browsing a lot today......and there is a best seller to come for somebody who writes a book to record for posterity all of the lies and manipulation used against the democratic right of the Scottish People to have a fairly conducted Referendum on Independence....simply to ensure the jobs and future riches of 53 Scottish Constituency MPs, and the UK position as a nuclear power, punching above their weight in the world.....regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Think I might put some of them on here from time to time...CB might be looking for an idea for another book. I notice there is a new registered participant in the Independence Campaign.on the Better Together side...Vote No Borders. It is a company based in London, backed by a London-based Scottish Tory millionaire. Now, maybe I'm a shade conspiracy theorist, but that same millionaire, who is paying for the vehicle to try to encourage Scots to remain in the Union, is Malcolm Offord. Got that off Wings http://wingsoverscotland.com/while-were-investigating/ There's a lot more info on there, but I'm trying to be less verbose, so you can read it for yourselves. Have to say if you want facts on the Independence debate, with a bit of usually tongue in cheek analysis of the the stuff in the MSM,.then Wings is the place to get it. The conspiracy theory comes in because that same Malcolm Offord wrote a paper called Bankrupt Britain at a time when Labour was in power, the National Debt was £850 billion and the Pension black hole was at least £650 billion, and he made a good case. He must be bricking it now his party has been in power since 2010, has increased National Debt to currently approx £1.3 trillion and the Pension black hole to around £5 trillion.......and Scotland is threatening to go taking nearly 10% of the UK's income with it. Have to say, if he thought Britain was bankrupt in 2008, it's not very nice of him trying to persuade us to stay and go bankrupt with them, is it? The CBI heid bummers are either so incompetent that they are kidding themselves, and their members, that they are actually businessmen, or it is the biggest chancer organisation in the UK, after the UK Government...or the Electoral Commission is biased....and, if so, we need international observers in to oversee the conduct of the election. Despite John Cridland on record in the media as claiming the decision to campaign officially in the referendum on the side of the Union was a bold democratic move.....following the resignations of a number of businesses and organisations in Scotland, he then basically claimed "Wisna me, guv..... a wee boy done it and ran away". The CBI, an umbrella group lobbying Government on behalf of some fairly important industries and businesses, appears not to check anything before it leaves the office (maybe they have learned that from the OBR, which doesn't appear to check figures, or conclusions extrapolated from them, before inflicting them on us as "authoratitive" and "independent"). Again, in conspiracy theory mode......one does wonder if that was not a deliberate ploy to test the water...and the reaction by members, and the speed of it, caught them by surprise. It does not appear that the Electoral Commission actually knows which Tom, Dick or Harry should be signing the registration application, if we are going to take their word for the fact that they accepted and actioned a registration document which had been signed by an unauthorised person. So you pays your money and you makes your choice....one of them is coming it......and one of them is covering their backside...or they are covering each others backsides. It rather begs the question that, if there hadn't been the hooh-hah, would the registration have stood. By the way, the BBC confirms that the CBI registration "was an honest mistake." Yeah! Right!

All the uncertainty is a deliberate construct of the Westminster Government, who currently have a plan A.which is that Scotland will vote NO and they don't have to do anything......and Plan B is only going to be thought about from the 19th September.....or likely later as they are in recess then....so it will probably be after the holidays...according to the Scottish Secretary of State (well, he didn't say anything about the holidays). All we can ,and have, told you is what, if Westminster stops pouting and huffing, should happen if they are going to take any notice of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement. Right now, if your passport needs renewed......it will be with a UK one....which will last as long as the passport lasts. In any event, you will be able to use your current passport until it runs out. What are you looking for people to tell you, anyway? Do you want to be a Scottish citizen if we vote YES.....or do you want to be a citizen of rUK if we vote YES.....because your nationality won't be changing at all...it is your citizenship that will change from being a UK citizen to one or other of Scotland or rUK........or if the rUK does sensible and pragmatic, and you aren't a citizen of another country, you could have dual Scottish/rUK citizenship. You have a right to a nationality already, and you are not arbitrarily being deprived of your nationality any more than you would be if you had a vote in the referendum and voted for the losing side...and you certainly aren't being denied your right to change your nationality...if nationality=citizenship. I had a look at some EU and UN nationality stuff, including some EU ones which the UK hasn't signed up to...and it seems to me as if it is primarily intended to reduce statelessness due to the actions of Governments/Civil war etc....and not a vehicle to let people demand a right to vote in a Referendum, after which, if the vote is YES the country of which they are a citizen will cease to exist anyway.......because even if you lost your UK citizenship..you would automatically be a Scottish citizen..and at no stage would you be stateless..though as it is a splitting in two of a previous state, you might possibly get to choose of which state you wanted to be a citizen. Rather think you would be whistling into the wind re minority status in a world wide Scottish diaspora.....and as far as I can see, there are no legal challenges under Human Rights Law.......because The ECHR ruling (and human rights case law) does not relate to referendums, so prisoners living in Scotland aren't entitled to a vote either, even if they permanently live here and are Scots by birth. . Does that make you feel less put upon?

But this referendum is not like "any election". It is about permanent independence for Scotland - the land of my birth and the country that defines my nationality and my passport. It is about a matter which has the potential to significantly ( and permanently ) alter and affect my identity and status and the identity and status of all Scots living outside Scotland for the rest of their lives. Yet we/they are not allowed a voice! I am being told that because I don't live physically in Scotland I get no say in the matter of my Nationality, passport and status being changed forever. I now know what it feels like to have my human rights ignored, abused and violated while people stand by unconcerned and uncaring. So what you are saying is, that you, and others like you, having freely chosen to live furth of Scotland, should forever get to decide the direction Scotland takes.....even though you aren't going to have to live with the consequences? You believe you, and others like you, have the human right, (though not a legal one), to decide for me, and for all of us who have freely chosen to stay in the land of our birth, and make our lives here...and for all those who have freely chosen to come and make their homes and lives in Scotland...our political future.... even though it is going to make no real impact on your life? Scotland will always be the land of your birth, and the land which has shaped you and defined your nationality, as it has mine. Scotland is not going anywhere physically, but is just trying to extricate itself from a political union which no longer works for us, and for which no ordinary Scot voted in the first instance. After Independence, you will still be a Scot....and still British. Would you advocate that the five million Scots in Canada get to permanently decide the future for the five million people actually living and working in Scotland? Do you think that my cousin and his family in Australia, with dual British/Australian citizenship should be able to cast four votes on the future of Scotland and the Scots from thousands of miles away, with no intentions of ever living here permanently again, four votes which may well completely cancel out the three votes cast by me and my children who will be here, living with the consequences,for the rest of our lives? Why would your status change if we vote for independence? Will you be any less of a Scot, or any less British? You will still be a Scot, living furth of Scotland, with a UK passport..just as you are now....and will certainly be until March 2016. Whether rUk will allow dual nationality with Scotland is still up in the air, as I haven't seen anything which says they will definitely.....but then making definite decisions, before the vote, loses them a scaremongering opportunity. However, if they set their face against it, but allow it for other countries...then you would really have to think that getting out of a Union dominated by a load of huffy childish politicians was a very good idea. Though, even if they do allow dual nationality, if you are already a New Zealand passport holder.you would have to choose Scottish or UK, as triple nationality is not yet on the global radar.

Thought that might get a bite. I was going to say that the second two posters were variations on a theme which has been done to death already (the pound one) and one which that great economics guru and pension stealer, Gordon Brown is going to scare the crap out of us at length in Glasgow tomorrow (and on the telly and in the papers for the next few days)......but thought simpler was better. Sorry! Edited to add....spot the difference in headlines.between those for consumption North and South of the Border regarding Pensions.

At last, the positive Better Together Campaign, they have been promising for the last year and more.....and it started fairly well with the first photo which was tweeted.....I wouldn't go so far as to say truthful....and could certainly argue that it is doing what Westminster does so well...promising jam tomorrow, maybe, perhaps.....but certainly more positive.....as there isn't a NO in sight! And from there it was downhill with the first couple of billboards......though the NO is certainly more polite than all the other ways they have managed to say NO so far. and Shame it's all a load of crock, isn't it? And if anyone wants.I'll tell you why!

IF you have any sense of irony.you just gotta love this! (C&P'd from Bella Caledonia.because even less would read it if I just linked to it.) I Shall Vote NO [After Christopher Logue, I Shall Vote Labour (1966)] By A.R. Frith I shall vote No because, without Westminster, We’d never have got rid of the Poll Tax I shall vote No because eight hundred thousand Scots live in England, and there are no jobs here to match their talents and meet their aspirations I shall vote No, because my grandmother was a MacDougall I shall vote No in case Shell and BP leave and take their oil with them I shall vote No because otherwise we would have to give back the pandas I shall vote No because I am feart I shall vote No because the people who promised us a better deal if we voted No in 79, and warned us of the dire consequences of devolution in 97, tell us we should I shall vote No so as not to let down my fellow socialists in Billericay and Basildon and I shall vote No, because if we got rid of Trident and stopped taking part in illegal wars we would be a target for terrorism I shall vote No because if I lived under a government that listened to me and had policies I agreed with, I wouldn’t feel British I shall vote No because the RAF will bomb our airports if we are a separate country I shall vote No because to vote Yes dishonours the Dead of the Great War, who laid down their lives for the rights of small nations I shall vote No, lest being cut off from England turns Red Leicester cheese and Lincolnshire sausages into unobtainable foreign delicacies, like croissants, or bananas I shall vote No, because, as a progressive, I have more in common with Billy Bragg or Tariq Ali, who aren’t Scottish, than some toff like Lord Forsyth, who is. I shall vote No, because the certainty of billions of pounds worth of spending cuts to come is preferable to the uncertainty of wealth I shall vote No, because it is blindingly obvious that Scotlands voice at the UN, and other international bodies, will be much diminished if we are a member-state I shall vote No because having a parliament with no real power, and another which is run by people we didnt vote for, is the best of both worlds I shall vote No because I trust and admire Nick Clegg, who is promising us Federalism when the Liberals return to office I shall vote No, because Emma Thompson would vote No, and her Dad did The Magic Roundabout I shall vote No, because A.C. Grayling would vote No,and his Mum was born on Burns Night I shall vote No because David Bowie asked Kate Moss to tell us to, and he lives in New York and used to be famous I shall vote No, because nobody ever asks me what I think I shall vote No, because a triple-A credit rating is vital in the modern world I shall vote No because things are just fine as they are I shall vote No because the English say they love us, and that if we vote Yes, they will wreck our economy. And if you're still in the mood for more.......this is quite amusing as well.......a sample of the goodies on offer http://thescottishscaremonger.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-03-10T17:18:00-07:00&max-results=7&reverse-paginate=true

It's long, admittedly..........but it shows that the Unionist mindset has not changed one iota since 1995. George Robertson as he was then, and Lord Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, KT CGMG, FRSA, FRSE, PC , as he is now, toes the Westminster line by offering only the benefits to the Union from Scotland and not the benefits to Scotland from the Union. Have to say, I don't remember George Robertson choosing to ditch the Westminster gravy train in 1999 to stand for election to Holyrood.....in fact, I believe he buggered off,in 1999, to join the NATO gravy train and become the only Secretary General of NATO to not get a second term in the job! So how incompetent does that make him? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if-2A47U5PQ Not a lot has changed in the intervening years, imo...bar George Robertson talks crap now clothed in ermine as an unelected unionist placeman with a lifetime sinecure, rather than an elected unionist placeman chasing his future directorships and lecture tour income. He amply illustrates what is wrong with UK politics.

You can't assuage the basic question, though...because that's democracy for you, starchief. The majority trumps the minority, and if the majority is in one wee part of anywhere, then that is where the main focus will be. In the UK, it is London and the South..........in Scotland it will be the Central Belt. However, any party in Scotland which wants to be re-elected can't afford to ignore large swathes of the country...while Westminster parties don't need Scottish votes to be re-elected, not even NuLabour....so can ignore us with impunity. We have utterly flawed "democracy" in Westminster, which the UK appears happy to keep.... the Inverness and Nairn constituency voted against removing the undemocratic FPTP system, as did the rest of the Highlands and Islands, after all...so being a tiny gog in a ginormous wheel appears to suit the Scots voter even better than being a slightly bigger cog in a much smaller wheel (which would assuage the basic question, if assuage, in your mind, means making less intense...as in mitigating the effects) ....though I guess the FPTP system helps maintain the chip supported by the UK security blanket round Scottish shoulders. I really can't see any logic in saying that it is more beneficial to Inverness and area (Highlands and Islands) to have 1.08% (7) of 100% (650) MPs or 13.6%(7) of 9.07% (59) of 100% (650) than 11.6%(15) of 100% (129)....particularly in a Scottish Parliament which, even with the current PR system, is unlikely to have many majority Governments and will usually require a measure of compromise to pass bills. Much as I dislike the EU, (being an EFTA fan)...equally, I can see no logic in the notion that 6 EU MPs, elected by Scotland, out of a total of 73 representing mainly UK interests, are more beneficial to Scotland's interests than a dedicated Scottish representative in every EU committee from the EU Commission downwards and at least as many EU MPs as the likes of Denmark (13). With direct Scottish representation, Scottish farmers would at least do better out of CAP, if nothing else, rather than receiving currently at the third lowest CAP level in the EU. As a whole entity, the UK has a smaller agricultural sector than the likes of France, hence the UK rebate, but Scotland, within the UK, has a per-capita agricultural sector much larger than that of the UK as a whole...but does not receive the benefits it would be due..and does not get those lost benefits made up from the rebate, which goes direct to Westminster. I hope that some political party will give us a vote on EU membership at some stage.....but I'd be reluctant to say "no thanks" to EU membership right now, before negotiations are completed and benefits (or otherwise) are felt. We can't judge the effects of the EU in an Independent Scotland on how the UK deals with it/benefits(or otherwise) from it. It's a bit like the "nay-sayers" trumpeting that we can't afford to do this, that or the other because they assume we will follow slavishly all the policies currently in train in the UK, and spend our income on exactly the same bloated levels of incompetence and uselessness as we are forced to by dint of having the bulk of our UK input spent "on our behalf".

Found this interesting.......http://wingsoverscotland.com/before-the-oil-the-deluge/ There are photos of the info from the records.........but it appears that subsidised Scotland, in the year 1920-1921 (when the publication of the information was discontinued....I wonder why), and before the discovery of oil....... Transmitted to the UK Treasury, the total of £119,753,000. Spent on Scottish Services the total of £33,096,000 And £86,657,000 was retained in London for "Imperial Services" Been saying to folk for years, and particularly since devolution, that the reason Scottish infrastructure, for example, is so flaming bad is because it was never a Westminster priority, and there is no way that 15 years of devolution could sort out the neglect of 300 years of the Union.. (though the Lab/LibDem Governments not handing back unspent Barnett money to Westminster might have helped a bit.). The last photo simply illustrates that having MPs for English Constituencies forcing through bills applicable to Scotland, despite the majority of Scottish Constituency MPs voting against it, is not a new thing.....it has been happening all along...but we had neither the media or the internet in those days to make us aware of it. And just noticed the figures over the time, from 1911 to 1921, when they did publish records (and we can see why they stopped doing it) are in this link http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-historical-debt/ Not surprising that the 1920s had the highest emigration from Scotland of any decade on record.

A small selection from the Better Together Campaign's positive message to persuade us to vote NO to Independence ......... We’re positive there’ll be no currency union....in fact we are even positive that, on Independence, sterling will immediately become an untradeable currency especially to stop Scotland using it without a formal currency agreement; We’re positive Scotland will be thrown out the EU and have to rejoin as a brand new country, which will take years and years and years; We're positive Scotland will be forced, unlike any other EU country, to join the ERM and then adopt the Euro; We’re positive all your businesses will head south ; We're positive the oil will run out...if not tomorrow, then at some indeterminate time in the future, just as we said in 1979 and have been saying regularly since.....we're positive right now that there is hardly any left, and what is left won't last long; We're positive you won't be able to afford your pensions (though we are not positive the UK Ponzi scheme isn't going to be in the same boat before too long.); We're positive you won't be welcome in NATO if you get rid of Trident; We're positive that, in an Independent Scotland, Salmond will become Mugabe/Kim Jong-Il/Milosevic/Hitler in a kilt (or tartan trews); We're positive that a Scot or two in the Cabinet, a whole 59 representatives of Scottish constituencies in the 650 house Parliament, and a Scottish Parliament with pocket money to spend on what we allow it to be spent on, gives Scotland the best of both worlds (which means no real voice anywhere in the world, with all policies being dictated by Westminster without taking any notice of Scotland's preferences); We're positive that UK participation in wars on behalf of USA business interests are good for Scotland....just look at all the Scottish citizens employed in the UK military services.. We're positive that it is worth Scotland getting the lowest level of CAP payments in the EU as long as the UK gets the EU rebate. We're positive you won't be allowed to take part in the Eurovision song contest (even though Israel does) We're positive that after Independence the island will be renamed to "not Britain" so nobody in an independent Scotland can,ever after, call themselves British. We're positive that the BBC will work out how to stop only Scottish citizens in Scotland watching BBC programmes on any kind of receiver at all, even though they have not worked out yet what the BBC Charter means by unbiased and even-handed. (So good luck with that one, then, Beeb!) We're positive Scotland won't get the AAA credit rating the UK has (or had before it started to slide down in the estimation of some agencies.) We're positive that Scotland won't be able to cope with its share of the UK's £1.3 trillion debt.....and to make sure of that, we will increase it daily until the vote and beyond. We're positive that things for Scotland will change if you vote NO....we don't know just what, we don't know just when, we don't know if it will be better or if it will be worse, we don't know if we will get any change through Westminster anyway, but honest....we are positive things for Scotland will change! We're positive that apart from the unquantified change in Scottish devolution on a NO vote(as in previous positivity statement) nothing in the UK will change....we'll still renew Trident, still park it sixty miles from Glasgow, still roll back the Welfare State, still target the easy marks....the jobless, the disabled, the young, the workers on PAYE...and probably add the pensioners after 2015, still sell off the little family silver left in the UK to our pals in big business to make profits (which we hope will trickle down to us in the way of political donations, cushy jobs, shares etc), still sell off public service jobs to our pals in big business to make profits (which we hope will trickle down to us in the way of political donations, cushy jobs, shares etc), continue to produce tax laws which are so woolly and complicated that accountants make profits by working out how to get a coach and horses through them (and we hope their gratitude will trickle down to us in the way of political donations etc), continue to bankroll and schmooze all those bankers who would have been jailed, if the money they'd been playing fast and loose with had been handed to them directly in benefits, as fraudsters, continue to increase the numbers in the bloated unelected House of Lords to sodding ridiculous levels to reward all their cronies, donors, dunted MPs with an income and perks for the rest of their lives. We're positive that come 2015, it'll just be different zebras, very similar stripe patterns.......because our undemocratic voting system ensures that shades of right wing policies will produce different variations of the same policies.......not different policies. We're positive Margaret Thatcher's legacy will live on regardless of which party is in charge...and we really can't see why Scots would have any problem with that. Alistair Darling (NuLabour) the official face of Better Together, thinks that Project Fear is winning the economic argument...anyone who thinks the Union is winning the economic argument, care to provide chapter and verse as to why they agree with that belief?

Darn good article http://www.commentisntfree.com/ears-wide-shut/ and darn good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWlnk75CTzo#t=1194

Going off Topic here to an extent, because I'm interested..... Charles, you say Education - teacher numbers are falling, the Curriculum for Excellence is a mess and it is being hopelessly mismanaged. (Believe me - I saw this in action!) Having experience of, or some knowledge of, via myself, my children and my grandchildren, of the methods and end results of Scottish education from 1951 up to one grandchild continuing in education currently, I have my own opinions on it (as you might expect), and I have problems with the standard of teaching/teachers as well as the various systems which have been introduced over the years. I have kinda thought Scottish education has been a mess for a lot longer than after devolution, (we weren't devolved when my kids were in school or when my grandchildren bar one started.), and believed the Curriculum for Excellence was intended to combat our lagging behind the English results after we began to be influenced by what was happening in England and stopped having a distinctively different system in favour of just a variation on the English theme..or the "nobody still at school is allowed to fail" theme. I'm afraid I gave up on Scottish education as being worth anything when there were paper passes which weren't passes (as in 50% +) .and kids applying for jobs in the likes of banks were citing D, E or even F grades in English and Arithmetic. Why is the Curriculum for Excellence a mess? Because of its aims, because of the administration/oversight or because of the additional workload for teachers a year after introduction? I don't know a lot about it, because I don't have as close contact with the grandchild still in education, who is the only one living through it, as I had with the others, when I was child minder in chief......but I can find out the child's opinion. I will say that teachers, whether good bad or indifferent, are onto a hiding to nothing regarding discipline in schools nowadays, and effective, appropriate discipline does help in good learning outcomes, particularly in mixed ability classes...but that is neither the fault of the Scottish, or surprisingly from me, the Westminster Government, but that of the Human Rights legislation emanating from the EU and the UN which gaily hands out rights willy-nilly, without imposing any responsibilities as a quid pro quo for those rights. Got opinions on the rest of your post..but thought I'd stick to the subject I know least about for the moment, because reading the intentions/theories doesn't usually equate to the facts after implementation with politicians.

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! I will when they start to try their best and work hard for more than their cronies and their own self interest! Equally, I consider life in Scotland since 1999 compared with before the Scottish Parliament and I ask "In what respects is life better?" Apart from the smoking ban, it's a question which doesn't seem to have too many answers. I'm not saying life is worse, but I can't really say it's better either. So in other words, because devolution didn't make any real difference to your life, it didn't make any difference to anybody else's life either? How arrogant is that?

Maybe you could try that approach as regards Westminster! I will when they start to try their best and work hard for more than their cronies and their own self interest! Edited to add......and having watched JoLa trying, and failing, to explain what the NuLabour Devo-Zero offer was meant to do bar make sure that Scotland got nothing useful to Scotland....that applies to all Unionist politicians it appears, whichever Parliament they inhabit. What a waste of two years discussion! Only benefit of JoLa being in Holyrood is that she's not in some school trying to teach Scotland's children.

It was.....the post was just about finished as the game started, but it took a few minutes to check the spelling....though I did listen to the commentary on the telly, while doing that...and watched the rest of it. Shame it had to go to penalties...I feel for McKay and Tansey. Don't know enough about football to say if it was a "good" game, tactics-wise..it wasn't results-wise...but it was good watching (maybe because I don't know much about football and am pretty uncritical as long as they are trying their best and working hard....which they all were.)...thought second half was a bit better than the first, though. Defence did well, but but finishing wasn't great at the other end. Luckily, Aberdeen's wasn't either.....until the penalties. Not the best way to lose a match, but better in the final than the first round if it was going to happen. Pleased to see Ryan Christie getting on as well.....always was a cracking wee player. Dunno why men appear to think that women can't multi-task, though.......much the same comment was made when I posted during another game that was on the telly, though I took the huff, then and didn't reply to it. I can do ironing and watch the TV as well, without scorching clothes....most men I know,while watching footie on the telly, can't do anything requiring more concentration than lifting a beer can to their lips and swallowing.

Fair question. Similar to to asking the separatists why they : DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner, with whom they share a language and are culturally aligned, have centuries of peace and success together, and where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process. but instead they: DO want to be part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth, with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. That would be because we have no say at all in the Union which comprises the UK. If we were in the EU we'd have at least the six current MEPs speaking up for, and voting on behalf of, Scottish interests, whereas now, at least four of them focus on the interests of the UK to the exclusion of Scotland. . It is a toss up as to which is the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth...you say the EU...while I think that Westminster, if only because of the bloated administration and the preponderance of MPs out only for their own self interest. ..........but pretty please, how do you get a strong voice out of 59 MPs from Scottish constituencies in a 650 member undemocratically elected parliament which runs the UK without reference to anywhere much outside London and the South? Does my first paragraph not amply illustrate that we have NO voice th Westminster...and therefore NO voice in the Union? The strong voice is a claim which has been puzzling me all my life.....and nobody to date has managed to square that circle to my satisfaction. ...and lots more beside Interesting responses. Whilst not really expecting a response from the the right wing anti EU "Better Together" supporters, I made my observation as a little dig at a mentality which criticises the "Yes" campaign for saying they want independence but at the same time want to be tied to Sterling and the EU. Two sides of the same coin really. Yngwie doesn't defend that position but cleverly and succinctly summarises the apparent illogicality of the "Yes" position. Oddquine has, as usual taken the bait and rather less succinctly tries and, I'm afraid, fails to defend the "Yes" position. I have edited the bulk of her post out in order to leave the main points I want to respond to. <rest snipped> DD, in my turn, I am stripping out most of your post to leave the only points to which I want to respond, I have specifically given or otherwise touched upon my thoughts on pretty much the rest of your post in other responses on this thread. If you wish, I can give you the links to the appropriate ones. You say "I have come into the Independence debate hoping to listen to informed and mature debate. As the "debate" progress it seems that the "Yes" campaign can't tell us whether we will be part of the EU after independence or even what currency we will use. Now we are told that we have no voice in the UK parliament despite having 10% of the MPs, the elected Scottish Representatives to the UK and EU parliaments act against the interests of Scotland and that the majority of Westminster MPs are out only for their own self interest. So much for informed and mature! Unfortunately, until the Westminster Government becomes more informed and mature, we have to do the best with what we've got. There could easily be clarity on the EU....if Westminster would ask for that clarity...and the fact that they won't, makes one suspect that it is because they think they might not like the answer. We have clarity over the currency issue.....if we vote yes, we will negotiate to try and arrange a formal currency Union (which is not my preferred option)....and failing that we will use sterling anyway. Either way, we will be using sterling in the short/medium term at least. I have a feeling that all this has already been said in posts. By the way, I don't defend the YES position, because the YES position does not need to be defended...independence is the normal aspiration of any nation not already Independent. The YES position is simply that they believe that decisions for the people of Scotland are best able to meet the aspirations of the majority of people in Scotland if made by a Government chosen by the people of Scotland...a Government with the ability to control our finances, fiscal, foreign and all other policies..in other words, take responsibility for ourselves..so what is there to defend in that.....is that not the norm? 140 other nations have come to that same conclusion since 1945...so why would anyone expect the Scots alone to believe that they are somehow less than other nations? That alone is what the referendum is all about.and pretty much all I have believed in for the last 50+ years. What needs to be defended in this referendum is the Union, as that is a political entity created by treaty 300+ years ago, not a nation which has existed from about the 9th century or so. Everything else I post is my own personal opinion formed over those years,sometimes illustrated by linking to, or quoting from, facts and figures from various articles. Unlike many on here and elsewhere, I do not believe that independence will herald economic catastrophe....or immediate utopia. I rather think that economic catastrophe will arrive as part of the Union....when they start having difficulties paying the unfunded pensions in a few years, for example. And Utopia is a very long-term aspiration which will always remain an aspiration. While I think that the economy is important, it is not as a reason for independence and an end in itself, but a means to an end. Nobody disagrees, not even most Unionists, that Scotland could be a successful country economically, although it wouldn't be hard to be more economically efficient than successive Westminster Governments have been on the way to our £1.3 billion National Debt and continuing regular addition of millions in annual borrowing. But it is all about what we do with our income that counts most. Independence will allow us to be the socially just country we wish to be. As is so common, Ywngie's "baiting" illustrates the hypocrisy of much pro-Union thinking. When it comes to British versus Scottish nationalism (note the small n), the "simple soundbite" tendency masks the fact that the points made can be turned on their heads to apply to the EU and the Union in the other direction. He could as easily have said, about the referendum promised in 2017 regarding removing the UK from the EU.... DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner, with whom they share a language and are culturally aligned, have centuries of peace and success together, and where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process. That, regarding the EU is not completely accurate, of course.. but soundbites rarely are.....which is why they do newspaper headlines in soundbites. The DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner applies. While we might not share a language with the disparate countries involved, we do share a common economic, foreign policy, human rights etc language, which are woven into our laws by virtue of our membership..and our laws reflect the culture of the majority in the EU Parliament. A Parliament which was elected on a PR system, which is a real democratic system, compared to the preferred FPTP system applicable in Westminster, and in which the UK has a stronger voice by virtue of that more democratic system. However, unlike in Westminster, in the EU, opt-outs can be negotiated, which gives each country the ability to choose to either not apply, or not immediately apply, the decisions agreed on by the majority. And the EU does not dictate how much tax a country has to apply, and what on, or dictate who is entitled, or not, to what levels of welfare benefits, or dictate that state and public service pensions should be unfunded, or how much is spent on defence/foreign embassies/consulates/, or how much is spent on maintaining a bloated Government machine, including 650 elected MPs and nearly 900 unelected Lords etc. The EU certainly sets some basic parameters for some things, but how those parameters are fulfilled is up to each country's elected Government. Cultural alignment between countries, if you assume culture equates to the outlook, attitudes, values, morals, goals and customs shared by a society or nation should, imo, produce some measure of accepted political alignment....so we are not culturally aligned with the EU, as, if we were, there would be more enthusiastic political alignment.....and there would not be a referendum on membership to come. But then, if you think about it, the different voting patterns between Scotland and the rest of the UK , because of the way most of us view the concept of social justice and equality, the purpose of defence etc, indicates that there is no political alignment in the Union either. Having a UK wide tendency to queue behind each other in a line at checkouts and driving on the left does not a culture make. Regarding the centuries of peace and success together....where is the peace, either as a member of the EU or within the Union, given that, since 1914, not a year has passed without our forces being involved in conflict somewhere, for some reason. Certainly we don't have Scotland/England internal military skirmishes anymore, but that is not peace due to the EU or the Union....peace would be not having our soldiers coming home in body bags after being killed in action in foreign countries. It rather illustrates the mindset of the MOD when A senior British defence official described a year without military action as a problem. Recruiters were already struggling and the prospect of no action in 2015 would not help. "You want to join the army to do stuff," he said. So the way it is perceived in UK Government circles appears to be that we need war to recruit soldiers because we need soldiers to fight wars....ergo war is the default position. Peace.......really? Regarding being in the Union, he could just as easily have said we are "part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth,with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. Again, that wouldn't be completely accurate, Westminster is corrupt, but not the most corrupt on earth (and nor is the EU), it is certainly wasteful and undemocratic...and we have little in common politically with the politics voted for by the majority in the UK, though I suspect that everyone in the UK could point Scotland out on a map..North Britain is, after all, pretty obvious when it is a third of a single island..and I say again, that we have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. Individual Scots do, for sure, but they are doing their saying on behalf of the UK, not Scotland. If Scotland did have a say, when the majority of Scots MPs voted against the Poll Tax, the Iraq War, the austerity cuts, the welfare benefit cuts/caps, the renewing/replacing of Trident, the bedroom tax etc..would we have got them..as we did or will? How much of a say did we have over the reduction in coastguard facilities or the removal of Nimrod....an action which had the House of Commons Defence committee saying "we believe the risk is likely to worsen in the medium term as further maritime surveillance capabilities are withdrawn or not yet filled. The UK's maritime flank is likely to be increasingly exposed" and that flank is Scottish Waters. Taking some notice of Scotland's preferences would certainly have saved the UK the ignominy of finding out that there were Russian ships anchored off the Moray Coast, via twitter, after the event, and the further day it took to get any ship up there to check out what they were doing. Heck we could have been invaded and the Russians could have been charging over the border to attack England by then, if that was in their mind (and on the way down past, they could have taken over Faslane and/or Coulport and commandeered the nuclear facilities, over which we also have no say in the Union!) Regarding that stronger voice in the EU, which is something often cited as a benefit of the Union.... how much of a voice do we have in the EU? How much say did we have over handing over to the EU control of our fishing waters? And how much say do we have in what the EU does with that control now they have it? How much say did we have when Scottish farmers were specifically allocated EU convergence payments under CAP..and Westminster decided to share our allocation out among the whole UK. What benefit has our voice in Westminster, or in the EU as part of the UK ever done for Scotland?

And given we, the public, have paid for the production of every anti-independence report from Westminster Government and "independent" agencies on behalf of the anti-Independence campaign..........plus the parachuting in of politicians to lecture us.

Erm..it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - and we WOULD no longer be part of that. Far too many people in connection with this referendum are failing to use the conditional tense - ie WOULD.... as oposed to WILL which implies a degree of certainty which is not at all justified. But here again we have yet another suggestion from the yes camp in tge quoted extract that voting yes really is no great deal and nothing will really change very much... so go on!! Have a fag!!!! The stark reality, which the yessers are trying to play down at the moment along with the institutionalised Anglophobia of the SNP, is that separation would be complete and permanent with no chance of reverting to the security of the UK when it all went t!tsup. (Alex..nobody types as many words (or uses as many exclamation marks and ..... as I do......and here I go again! ) Charles, Britain does not equate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the shorthand for that is the UK (bar in the minds of the same kind of ignorant folk who think England and Britain are interchangeable and mean the same thing). Britain, on the other hand, is the main island and it has had that name since at least the days when Pliny the Elder was writing, and in that case Alex is correct. You know fine well that Alex was talking about nobody taking a JCB to the border and physically separating us from England and Wales and floating off out of the vicinity. The unlikelihood of that means that we would still be British after Independence....as in inhabitants of the Island of Britain. What we would, however, not be is British as a forced blanket single nationality, as was tried for at the Union of the Crowns and politically constructed at the Union of Parliaments. Logically, if the Union of Scotland and England, which gave Great Britain, is broken, there is no Great Britain.....and therefore no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...in the same way as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist in 1922, (although the name of the political Union wasn't altered until 1927). However, the Republic of Ireland is still part of an island in the British Isles,though I should think the inhabitants, outside the Six Counties, rarely think of themselves as British, as many Scots don't. I'm afraid that if you will keep banging on about the institutionalised Anglophobia of the SNP, you do really need to produce something to prove your continually repeated blanket contention...I'm sure the English SNP party members would be interested in links, as I would be myself...otherwise it is just another example of Unionists talking utter crap because they know the SNP are a threat to the Nulabour Party fiefdom in Scotland, and possibly to the whole Union concept. (if not this time, another time in the not too distant future). Westminster Government-phobic would be nearer the mark, (as we have produced plenty facts/figures to illustrate why we hold that opinion) if you really feel a compelling need to categorise hundreds of thousands of your fellow-Scots as racist.......bear in mind that Westminster Government consists of more than just English members of English constituencies. I do realise that anti-Westminster phobia won't smack of the anti-English racism you insinuate we Yes voters harbour,and I do realise you feel you have little option, given the lack of positivity in the Project Fear Campaign, bar do snide and pejorative, but your posts are starting to smack of trolling (which is what people with nothing useful to say do for fun and effect!). Your posts read to me a lot like anti-Scottish racism, just as irrational as that produced on the Daily Fail/Torygraph comments section by ignorant English voters, who are still quite convinced we are too wee, too poor, too stupid and too subsidised to cope with Independence. They, however, have the excuse that they are mostly regurgitating decades of MSM spin and propaganda....but your excuse is what, exactly? Do you really think you are being funny....or clever? You know very well that the YES campaign is not just the SNP...if it was, the NO campaign wouldn't be getting so irritatingly irrational with their Project Fear pronouncements, because there is not a snowball's chance in hell that an Independence Bus, with only SNP members as passengers, would ever be able to get out from under the Union hand pushing it in directions they don't want it to go. The increasing vituperation....and the beginning of promises of devo-Jam tomorrow, maybe, if they can get the Westminster Parliament to agree with some version they haven't actually thought through yet, and which will come in three party flavours, and, going by Calman, after about ten years talking......none of which, looking at the ideas proposed (note.....proposed.....not promised or guaranteed, because none of them can do that without Westminster agreement.as we noticed in 1979...about the same time as we realised Westminster politicians will deliberately lie through their teeth to get elected/keep their jobs) so far will do no better for our aspirations than let us tax more to have about the same as we do now, by the time you add in the Barnett reductions due to austerity cuts and privatisation of public services south of the border, to the reductions in block grant to force us to use the new Scottish Tax and pay for its collection, it seems to me that Devo-whatever-the-flavour is not intended to improve the lot of the Scottish population at all, but is intended, as the 1997 Referendum on Devolution was, to cut the SNP off at the knees..and negate the threat to the Union contained in a political party which exists primarily to tear up the Act of Union. What pertains at Independence, whatever that is, will be the result of agreed negotiations on a liabilities/asset split..(or no/failed negotiations, therefore no debt and no assets bar those fixed assets in Scotland..and we won't know which, or which combination, until we see how politically pragmatic a Westminster Government will be, if presented with a fait accompli) and that will be the start of a journey, not the end of it....and where we go from the date of the May 2016 election will be our choice, and may be completely different....or stay much the same..but the important thing is that it will be up to all of us to choose our Government, for good or ill, not 57 million people in the rest of the UK. As someone so keen on polls, there was a Panelbase one last year which found that, if Scotland was already Independent, only 18% of the population would vote to join the Union, so I guess life in an Independent Scotland would have to be pretty crap before the Union would be a better proposition. How many other countries which have become Independent from the UK have been clamouring to rejoin lately.......or ever?

Oh come off it, this was a sensible debate until you said that! It's refreshing to see that you favour true independence, whereas the Yes campaign are obviously advocating EU membership (even if they still struggle to grasp the concept that Scotland will have to apply to join and will need all 28 current members to agree). I recently got a Yes newspaper thing through my letterbox, which I did flick through before putting it in the recycling bin. There was a 2 page spread on how fantastic Norway is and how we're suddenly going to be just like that (although it forgot to mention the recent survey which shows that the cost of living in Oslo is now higher than Tokyo). Bit more importantly, it didn't mention that the comparison is somewhat invalid because Norway IS truly independent - it is not in the EU, and it has its own currency. It makes all its own laws, sets its own interest rates, controls its own economy, makes all its own decisions (including participating in all these illegal wars you keep going on about) and has been pretty successful with that approach. I can understand why people would want (true) independence, but not why they would choose instead to put themselves under the control of the army of unaccountable Belgian and German bureaucrats. I'm away out shortly to deliver YES literature, so won't respond to your whole further post at this time, but hopefully, unless the debate has moved on, get back to it on my return. In the meantime...... I notice you don't address any of my specific points......one of which I will repeat again, in different words, in the hopes you will at some stage respond cogently to it.......you say of Scotland in the Union......where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process. Please elucidate, for the benefit of the logical among us, firstly..... what strong voice you think we have, when policies we vote against are imposed on us by a preponderance of votes from English constituency MPs; secondly.....what you consider democracy, when, we have a FPTP voting system which means that the majority of the voting public, not just voters in Scotland, do not get the Government for which we vote, and have not since 1931. That does not, under any definition I understand, equate to democracy. thirdly.....we may be slightly over-represented with regard to population, having a whole 9% or so of the total number of Westminster MPs.......but we are slightly under-represented if you base it on how much monetary value alone, Scotland brings to the UK table.....and in the end.I get back to my original point.......that 59 Scottish MPs in a UK Parliament, even if they were to vote en masse against policies which are, in Scottish eyes, considered inequitable, unfair.....and often downright nasty..they produce not a strong voice but an ignorable whimper. So how is Westminster any better waste-wise, corruption-wise and regarding the level of democracy than the EU? Democratic deficit in the EU comprises the placemen of Governments in the EU bodies which are not directly elected....however, most, if not all, those placemen were elected in their own countries, so at least have some small measure of legitimacy. In the UK, however, we have a completely unelected by anybody at all, second chamber of failed politicians, wealthy party donors and other party placemen, which has the ability to dicker with bills introduced by the elected house and amend them. Now, I'm not saying that from time to time they don't make a useful contribution, though I do query if that time to time contribution warrants the cost of their maintenance...when there is already a Parliamentary Committee system which could do much the same thing. I agree that the EU is an expensive white elephant.....but it is a white elephant in charge of a herd of 28 disparate sovereign countries. The EU, according to the European Court of Auditors, wasted, in 2012, almost £6 billion (or 5% of its budget.) on erroneous projects....which cost the UK taxpayer over £800 million. But just consider that the UK Government wasted £45.3 billion due to public sector fraud, inefficient public sector procurement and poor use of outsourcing alone, in a country comprising four national "regions".it does kinda make one wonder if the EU is the most inefficient....or if it is our own Wastemonster which wears that crown. Corruption in the EU is difficult to quantify given national governments, rather than EU institutions, are chiefly responsible for fighting it. Despite the UK having the likes of the Bribery Act, it is also difficult to quantify in the UK, as many cases are settled out of court. Interesting article here http://news.sky.com/story/1205755/uk-defence-firms-vulnerable-to-corruption However, I suppose that, without facts and figures, public perception is all.......and 64% of UK respondents believe that corruption is widespread in Britain.......whether it is or not......much like so many people believe that one chancer on benefits reported in the likes of the Daily Fail means all people on benefits are chancers....or mock referenda in one school district coming out against Independence means all 16-18 year olds in Scotland are against independence. Corruption certainly exists.....and given the past furore of cash for questions, exists in the heart of government.......but I am pretty sure that it does in EU institutions, as well as in EU member countries. I'd not have said the EU institution was corrupt, tbh....it was you who said EU and corrupt in the same breath... because I simply don't know....but in a free market economy, it would be a very foolish person who would say that no individual punter or politician, political party, businessman or corporate entity wasn't out to make a fast, easy buck in any way they can....legally or illegally......or using the dubious grey areas in between the two extremes.

Fair question. Similar to to asking the separatists why they : DON'T want to remain in a union with their nearest neighbour and biggest trade partner, with whom they share a language and are culturally aligned, have centuries of peace and success together, and where they have a strong voice are overrepresented in the democratic process. but instead they: DO want to be part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth, with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. That would be because we have no say at all in the Union which comprises the UK. To date, before the advent of the Coalition, the majority of Scottish MPs voted against the Poll Tax, the Iraq War, the replacement of Trident and other such (to quote Johann Lamont) "little things". Since the Coalition came to power in the undemocratic UK FPTP system, the majority of Scottish MPs, voted against other "little things", like the Bedroom tax, the austerity cuts, the hike in VAT, the welfare cuts/caps contained in the Welfare Benefits "uprating", the privatisation of Royal Mail. Even the Scottish Secretary, who, before 1999 was meant to be Scotland's man in Westminster, as opposed to his role now, which is Westminster's man in Scotland, was unable to stop all the draconian cuts to the Scottish budget, which was a consequence of the failed gerrymandered 1979 referendum, and which saw the Scotland Office budget cut by more than that of any other part of the UK. Do you really think that attitude will change if we vote NO in September, given the rhetoric from Unionists in and out of Parliament? If we were in the EU (which I personally would prefer not to be) we would at least have decided that for ourselves, and will not have to wait for rUK to decide if we are in or out along with them in 2017, whatever we think. And into the bargain, we'd have at least the six current MEPs speaking up for, and voting on behalf of, Scottish interests, whereas now, at least four of them focus on the interests of the UK to the exclusion of Scotland. Additionally, it is the UK which gets any money allocated to Scotland under, for example, the CAP awards, as they are the EU member currently, and .that means that they can do with it what they will, as has been seen with the sharing of the convergence payment to Scotland over the whole UK. While negotiations would obviously have to take place, we would probably have direct representation in the likes of the Council of Ministers, the EU commission etc, which we do not have as part of the UK. I have read Unionists saying Scotland's voice in the EU would be very much diminished if we were independent..and I am really really struggling to work out just what voice they think we have, given that, as with Westminster, the Scots, even if they all sing from the same hymn sheet (which they don't) can't even make a whisper heard over the clamour of the rest of the UK Had to laugh at instead they:DO want to be part of the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth, with countries with whom we have little in common and who couldn't even point us out on a map, and where we would have absolutely no say in anything whatsoever. It is a toss up as to which is the most corrupt, wasteful and undemocratic organisation on earth...you say the EU...while I think that Westminster, if it is not worse, is at least as bad, if only because of the bloated administration and the preponderance of MPs out only for their own self interest. We will still have plenty in common with rUK after Independence, if the rUK doesn't decide to huff for Britain..........but pretty please, how do you get a strong voice out of 59 MPs from Scottish constituencies in a 650 member undemocratically elected parliament which runs the UK without reference to anywhere much outside London and the South? Does my first paragraph not amply illustrate that we have NO voice th Westminster...and therefore NO voice in the Union? The strong voice is a claim which has been puzzling me all my life.....and nobody to date has managed to square that circle to my satisfaction. Independence is not about fear, it's about hope. It's not about the past, it's about the future. It's not about tradition, it's about ambition. It's not about wealth, it's about fairness. It's not about Salmond or Cameron. It's about your (and my) children and grand-children. The Union, regardless of which colour of party is in power, nowadays, is about wastage, and war mongering, and the rich elite and corporate rule, and privatisation of the necessities of life for profit for business, with an eye to donations for the political parties and jobs for themselves after politics, and it is about the daemonising of the "underclassses" like the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the working poor. It is about food banks and rolling the welfare state back to as near to the Victorian era as it can manage. It is about a Government of millionaires, out of touch with the life of the ordinary citizen, and with connections to private companies awarded lucrative contracts in many public service areas, pandering to their own greed and sense of entitlement. It is about borrowing to keep in with the USA Government Jones', and to maintain the nuclear chocolate teapot. It is about borrowing to allow the rich tax cuts, and tax avoidance/evasion. It is about borrowing to pay the interest on the accumulated debt, which will have doubled in the five years of this Coalition up to 2015 from the level it took NuLabour to achieve in their eleven years. It is about borrowing to support banks in order to pay bankers extortionate salaries and ludicrous bonuses as a reward for giving the Government the excuse to roll back the welfare state and trash the "underclasses" under the cry of austerity, as they cap public service wages and benefit increases to 1% while being awarded themselves, what was it, a 16% increase, on salaries which are already between £65000 and £135000 plus expenses, gold-plated redundancy payments and pensions? It is about borrowing to pay about 900 unelected placemen to ensure a place for those who don't manage to get sinecure directorships in a tobacco company or a financial institution, or get on the lecture circuit, so they will be able to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed on our dime, and to reward the donors to their particular parties. Ermine comes expensive......as does Westminster Government as the level of National Debt and annual borrowing shows! Better Together? Yeah.....right!

Don't suppose this will interest Charles.......but may interest others........Alex Salmond's New Statesman Lecture. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/alex-salmonds-new-statesman-lecture-full-text Contrast it with the speeches from Westminster and by those in Better Together......please......and then vote YES in September!

Alex... thank you very much for that welcome item of extra ammunitiion. Because we can indeed add reduced corporation tax to the SNP wish list of incentives to vote yes - BUT which will (maybe?) only materialise IF an SNP election win in 2016 were to follow a yes vote. You need to make up your mind whether any re-election of the SNP in 2016 would be a good thing because in the event of a yes vote it might help the wish list towards a degree of reality, or a bad thing because an increasing number of people are seeing through them as this infinite campaign rumbles on. CT is indeed yet another element of the SNP philosophy (yes... a cracker of an oxymoron I know ) which promises jam tomorrow.... but only if they can manage to get a van to deliver it (and the van doesn't break down). I'm not so confident that a left-leaning Scottish administration would be all that rabidly keen hand the capitalists a CT offering like this which is probably already sticking in the throats of Nat lefties like Cunningham and "Photographergate" McAlpine. But hey-ho! Let's just feed the masses with as much pie in the sky as we need to get them thinking the way we need them to for their 30 second stay in the polling booth. And let's not worry too much about what will actually be affordable (note this morning's further warnings on oil revenues) or deliverable post-any yes vote.... because that will be irreversible and by then we will have got the only thing we are interested in to the extent that we don't actually give a stuff about the consequences. That be the same kind of jam tomorrow being muttered about if we vote NO, currently by Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell? .....ie more devo-something or other, if the parties can come to some agreement, and if they then manage to get that through a Westminster Parliament unscathed? That be the same kind of jam tomorrow the Union is so kindly allowing us to have in 2015, via the Scotland Act 2012....the jam which is more irritating pips than juicy fruit? The jam which has less sugar, as in our share of the currently flagged £25 billion in Coalition cuts, a probable £4 billion reduction in Barnett receipts, (if they even continue at all, going by Westminster MP rhetoric) partly through "realignment" and partly through continuing privatisation of public services like the NHS in the South, and by the use of Westminster "reserves" (as in our money) to pay for stuff like the Olympics, HS2, London's Sewage System, Crossrail etc in England......and the 10p in the pound cut to force the application of the Scottish Tax? That the same kind of jam tomorrow which, for Scotland, continuing in the UK with the Scotland Act 2012, has the addition of rancid vinegar with the cuts which will have to be made in our spending to compensate for the reduction in the block grant, plus allow for the added cost of collecting the Scottish Tax, even if that does not vary from rUK levels..or which will require a tax increase to maintain even some of the devolution "perks" we have currently..and as a result will mean that either we won't be able to ameliorate the worst excesses of the policies instituted by Westminster, as currently happens, or we will probably have to become the most highly taxed country in the Union,( in order to ensure the Westminster Gravy Train and the City State of London can continue to live in the manner which UK borrowing levels have long entitled them.) "Control" of Income Tax without any influence on fiscal levers to grow the economy is simply.....lets be honest, here...Westminster being more interested in isolating and trying to hamstring the SNP to try to head off another referendum, than in meeting the popular demand for more powers for Holyrood.......because if they really wanted Scotland to have more real power, they have had decades in which to hand them over....or alternatively, they could so easily have allowed the third option in the referendum...but that would have tied them into doing something meaningful......and they have no intentions of doing that. Is our future to be independence and the ability to make a kirk or a mill of it for ourselves, or eternally paying more taxes than the rest of the UK to try to "mitigate " Westminster policies where possible via Devo-something or other...or even, as has been mooted by some, a rolling back of devolution to become North Britain and a region again to teach us not to try to rock the UK boat? Got a link to this morning's further warnings on oil revenues.....and are they based on the incompetent OBR forecasts or the Oil and Gas companies themselves.......and do they take account or not of the the possible effects of the tax increase on the oil industry outlined in the Autumn Statement in December? Like the "Photographergate", btw.....almost clever......surprised it took you so long to find it! I'm away to look for all the hunners of equivalents in our Westminster hierarchy to post on here to counteract it ..I may be some time, though....... I'm sure there will be a fairly long list!

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers. It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders. Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction. This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation. Most of them are not necessarily moving anything, though...whatever the impression being given by the MSM. Contingency plans don't indicate definitely but do indicate " just in case" It's not a great deal different in 2014 than it was before the 1997 devolution referendum.....and Standard Life, who was threatening to leave then, have stuck around to threaten to leave again.....maybe. For large multinational Companies, like Shell, it is not uncommon to operate different companies in different countries, all under the one umbrella. It's perfectly natural and, in some countries, is actually a requirement. And Shell seems to be more worried abut the In/Out of the EU vote which has been promised in 2017 than Scottish Independence. we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." Alliance Trust : "If anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders." Standard Life So if it wasn't for the NO to a Monetary Union from the Three Stooges, they wouldn't even be contemplating a flit. But, to be fair, the S&P Report appears to think that it would be a good idea for Scotland to lose some of the risky financial sector..so some movement south by parts of some financial services would perhaps not be as unwelcome as it appears on the face of it. . Not sure why you choose Shell Oddquine. They dont have headquarters in Scotland. Nor do BP They have offices to support their North Sea Operation and their biggest part of those operations was sold off before the SNP came to power. On saying that, and knowing all about the effects of Scottish Independence, niether of those two majors have stopped investing in Scottish waters. Indeed both have increased spending and have indicated they will continue to do so over the next five years. The Chinese, who bought over Canada's Nexon Corporation have also, recently, pledged more investment in Scottish waters. These alone should tell the world exactly why Westminster is so keen to hold on to us. And more especially why they lie through the teeth about the future prospects of North Sea Oil. There are enough known reserves around our shores to last a very long time. It just needs the technology development to retreave it from our deepwater, unpredictable seas. And thats not far away As for the banks, if they choose to move their headquarters then so be it. they still have custom in Scotland and they will still make profit from Scotland so they will still pay taxes in Scotland. And I'll wager that if currency union doesn't happen they'll all be creeping back to bid for the Central bank opportunity. For all those institutions who are threatening to pull out there are as many happy to stay and many of those threatening will also stay for the reduced level of corporation tax that Charles omitted from his selective list a few posts ago. Cited Shell a) because it was the only non-financial global company I could think of off the top of my head and b) because it has been used as a stick of uncertainty to beat the YES campaign with ,on other forums, since it sold off the Anasuria, Nelson and Sean assets back in February, and has been resurrected since the CEO mannie spoke about his personal preference that the UK doesn't leave the EU and Scotland doesn't leave the Union. As for all the rest of your post, I concur. Businesses will come/go/stay as long as they can make profit, regardless of the political and/or economic regime in a country..

Nobody is saying they will move everything south. Call centres etc will stay here, along with whatever infrastructure is needed to serve their Scottish customers. It's nothing to do with the mainstream media by the way, as even they don't appreciate the scale of what would happen and all the knock on effects. It's just common sense that financial institutions will relocate their head offices and other key functions, to meet the needs of their customers and their shareholders. Do customers (mostly living in England) really want their pensions and investments held in a foreign country? With an unproven regulatory framework? With a different currency perhaps? With a government that doesn't have the appetite or the resources to resolve the next crisis? The shareholders have similar concerns, and in the case of RBS the major shareholder is course the rUK government, who will do whatever is best to protect and control their substantial investment and that will involve having it based in their own jurisdiction. This isn't scaremongering, it's just how business works. The fact that an English airline reckons it might make higher profit from its Scottish customers isn't really any consolation. Most of them are not necessarily moving anything, though...whatever the impression being given by the MSM. Contingency plans don't indicate definitely but do indicate " just in case" It's not a great deal different in 2014 than it was before the 1997 devolution referendum.....and Standard Life, who was threatening to leave then, have stuck around to threaten to leave again.....maybe. For large multinational Companies, like Shell, it is not uncommon to operate different companies in different countries, all under the one umbrella. It's perfectly natural and, in some countries, is actually a requirement. And Shell seems to be more worried abut the In/Out of the EU vote which has been promised in 2017 than Scottish Independence. we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." Alliance Trust : "If anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders." Standard Life So if it wasn't for the NO to a Monetary Union from the Three Stooges, they wouldn't even be contemplating a flit. But, to be fair, the S&P Report appears to think that it would be a good idea for Scotland to lose some of the risky financial sector..so some movement south by parts of some financial services would perhaps not be as unwelcome as it appears on the face of it. .

Truthfully, I don't know, and I'd personally prefer no formal Currency Union at all, but if it was to be, definitely not one which tied us to a long fixed term. I would much rather have, in the fulness of time, our own Scottish pound and central bank, but it seems only sensible to use sterling in the short/medium term, though I'd prefer to use it without a formal currency union. Seems to me that no Central Bank to act as lender of last resort would focus spending policies at a sensible level to produce balanced budgets and not produce the same kind of OTT borrowing which takes place in the UK. I am inclined to think, (or probably over-think), that it was believed to be less scary for the Scots if there was no unnecessary change just for the sake of change, so in the short term at least, we'd still have the monarchy, sterling, open borders etc..and initially we'd see little difference in our day to day lives. As far as I'm aware, negotiations are not going to be the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government, but will include representatives of other parties and individuals with expertise in various areas...and post negotiations and an election some things may well change, but more gradually than suddenly on independence, depending on who is elected in 2016. The different parties and groups in favour of independence have different ideas on how they'd like to see an iScotland work, and they include those who want a Scottish currency, those who want rid of the monarchy, those who want a Thatcher-esque free market approach , those who don't want to be in NATO etc. Pretty much all they mostly agree on is that they want a nuclear free Scotland and a more fair and equitable society (bar the Thatcher free market fans.who say "The key to future happiness lies not in the redistribution of wealth - the key to future happiness lies in the creation of wealth."). So what the SNP proposes just now may well be how we set out on our journey, but won't necessarily still be how we look further down the road. But isn't the whole point of independence that our government is elected by the Scottish voter only...and we get to choose what the country we live in will be like. Whatever Westminster says about a Currency Union putting restrictions on Scotland's sovereignty, they conveniently forget that it will be a negotiation and not Westminster dictat, if it happens, ( as I think it well may, unfortunately...at least in the short/medium term) it won't just be Scotland having it's borrowing etc restricted, rUK will also have restrictions negotiated...otherwise it isn't a negotiation......just Westminster doing what Westminster does best....telling us what we are or aren't allowed to do.