Oddquine

Turning that around, if there was no oil would anybody want independence? The SNP has been around since the 1930s but had an insignificant share of the vote until 1974. I think it may have taken a longer time in getting to here, Ywngie, but I really do think it would have reached this place eventually, though possibly not in my lifetime..so for that alone, I am grateful to the oil. Where we are now has been coming since there was that first attempt at Westminster a couple of years after the signing of the Union Treaties, to get out of it.....but, for many of us, it has never really been about money....although that is certainly a part of it now, but more about national identity. If it was only about money, there would be similar parties all over England, in the various regions which lose out in funding to London and the South of England.......but there isn't apart from in Cornwall. Nationalism exists when the existence of a nation is denied, and is a response to attempts at assimilation by a larger nation. I may not live to see an independent Scotland, though I hope I do....but at least I can look down (or up) and say to anyone who will listen that I was there, rolling my eyes and shaking my head in despair and disbelief when the supporters of the Union began the process of finally killing the very thing they were trying to save.

If you are into Conspiracy Theories....I have one which would fit the bill rather better.......Wings has, for the past number of days been hit by massive DDOS attacks, which has brought the site down on a number of occasions and is making conversation on it difficult. Is it just a coincidence that one of the best, most popular, most visited, most denigrated in the UK media, pro-independence sites is under attack by more than just words? Is it just a coincidence that the Conservative Party uses the same hosts, but on a different server, and hasn't been touched? Potentially fatal rather depends if the blows land, though. If you only consider the way Westminster says stuff, they tend to couch everything in may/perhaps/possibly/according to our experts etc..which is more like sparring than a title fight...but that's politics! Lol! Unfortunately, it is hard for a lot of people who still think that the Media reports facts, is unbiased and that spin is something only washing machines do, to differentiate between what is likely to happen in realpolitik terms, assuming politicians are grown up people making grown up pragmatic decisions/compromises, and what a toddler deprived of his favourite toy might/may/possibly/ is likely to do........and currently Westminster is in that "I'll scweam and I'll scweam until I am sick (or you are!)" phase. It is getting wearing, tbh, and I think simply illustrates a large part of the reason many of us want out from under.....the fact that, in my lifetime, in this Union, Scotland has been Northern Britain, and invisible to Westminster eyes until we do something to get their attention. Westminster has never needed, because of the way the Union has been set up, to carry us with them and has never needed to consider our different political mindset,, our aspirations and circumstances while making policy etc. We are, as a nation,.irrelevant in a country in which a king invented an all-encompassing nationality, four hundred years ago, a Parliament of the elite in Westminster and one the same in Edinburgh imposed that nationality by rule of law and has spent the 300 years since trying to homogenise the four UK nations into that single chosen British nationality. Where we are now is solely and completely down to the Westminster Government...not the SNP. The SNP is a product of the Westminster mindset......and the growth of the SNP, resulting in this referendum, is our reaction to the refusal of Westminster to do any more for us than take our money, resources, young people for cannon fodder in illegal and/or pointless wars.....and in return not even give us as much respect as any decent person would give a £5 whore. Even today's speech by Osborne continues to emphasise the opinion of Westminster that the heads of Scots button up the back and they are incapable of thinking for themselves.......not being "allowed" by the rUK to share Sterling in a currency union does not equate to "If Scotland walks away from the UK, it walks away from the pound." And what does Such an arrangement would likely see Scotland lose the the Bank of England as lender of last resort - risking an exodus of banks - and have no control over monetary policy. if we unilaterally use the pound mean? If we did that, why would we even think that the Bank of England would be our lender of last resort at all? There are more sensible articles on the currency situation out there...like this one http://www.scotsman.com/news/analysis-benefiting-the-uk-is-most-logical-option-1-3304617 which show there are other options for Scotland, but options which will not benefit rUK. And that is their choice, just as Independence or not is ours. Perhaps I am overly cynical.....but if there was no oil.....would Westminster care what we did? Really? Did they care before oil was discovered? Did they care before the SNP started growing from a fringe group into a party capable of Government? And does anyone think that the way to run a Union, which was supposed to be a partnership of two nations, is to have one of the nations in it reduced to using the SNP, with what is becoming regular monotony,as a clarion call to get the insular London-based UK MPs to take notice that the status quo is not acceptable? It took until 1885 to get any real specifically Scottish representation at all in Westminster which acknowledged that Scotland was not just North Britain, with the formation of the Scottish office...and the last time, I think, that the Scottish MPs acted as a body on behalf of Scotland with any effect. Have to say, I think, even with a NO vote, that this campaign has already broken the Union past repair, and the Union is in its death throes, even if not quite dead yet.

Lol! If I didn't get so bogged down in minutae.I'd be unstoppable! Have to say, though...that if http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26161382 is correct, Scotland would be completely bonkers to go for a Currency Union at all. Seemingly....though how correct it is I don't know, the report is not from the politicians but by HMT and the politicians are going to ride on the backs of it.......but frankly, of the three conditions.......afraid this one.....Allow taxpayers in one country to subsidise the other is completely unacceptable......along with Underwrite each others banks and Reach broad agreements on tax, spending and borrowing levels on both sides of the border....we'd just be letting them keep same old, same old!

http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/where-did-the-love-go/ A quote from part of it...........(as usual bolding is mine) Right, so Scotland is poor, weak, and helpless, kept afloat solely by the good graces and financial acumen of the UK Treasury, steered through the choppy waters of the big scary world by captains who love us and cherish us and let us on the boat for free. See, sometimes drugs do work. We’re a charity case with nothing to offer. But this is the condition Scotland is in after being governed by Westminster for over 300 years. The Union has left us as damaged goods, a basket case reduced to pleading for free passage. And that’s despite the industry we no longer have and those we still do, like the oil and renewables and the whisky and all the rest. It happened even though we have a highly educated and skilled population who inhabit a country with an embarrassing excess of natural resources. Someone must have mismanaged those resources terribly. Who could that have been then? Oh… And we’re supposed to be Better Together with these people?

At the moment, though, the decisions taken on these monetary matters are at least made based on UK-wide economic data. Post independence, the Bank of England would only consider rUK's requirements, which is fine if Scotland's happen to be the same. But when the economies start moving at different speeds, which will happen not least because of the volatilities of the oil industry, you've got a major problem. I'm hoping/assuming that by the time that happens, we'll have organised our own currency. Personally, I've never thought of a currency union as essential or permanent...and never thought that using sterling would be more than a short/medium term happening in order to get ourselves sorted in any case......and also produce a record of servicing any debt in order to help interest rates when we go it alone. We're kinda in the position of someone who can't get a loan from anybody but Wonga, because we don't have a credit record as we have never been allowed a credit card.

"Better Together types perpetually call an independent Scottish currency the 'Groat'" I can honestly say I've never heard it called that before! The slang term for our groat would of course be a "johno". Then you don't read a lot of anti-independence posts on FB!

Re point 2...we have no influence at all on interest rates, money supply, exchange rates, inflation etc now....and we are without the fiscal tools to compensate for that fact. With independence we would still be in a better position than we are currently in as part of the union.

But not that funny when you think some of the other troch they've come up with. Commonsense on the currency........http://www.cmonscotland.org/#!Currency/c112t/C1626DDC-F8BF-40C4-98AE-26D348F165F3 So no currency union? Who cares? http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-12/scotland-would-not-need-permission-to-use-pound/

http://allofusfirst.org/resources/library/ There are a lot of ideas in there about what we as a small independent nation can do differently, we'll not get everything right (who does?) but they'll be our decisions made in Scotland by the people of Scotland at the appropriate level of governance. Got thoughts on this above, which may mean going back to the past (and of course thoughts on on Charles' last post, which I'll get around to some time)....but I'm getting to be an auld wifie...and I've had three very late nights and am shattered ..so I'll just finish tonight with this, which I have just found and...... is apropos of nothing at all....but just because I thought it was interesting. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south

Give the poor man a break..... He obviously wants the same thing as you, all that's left is to haggle over the level of parochialism;-) Lol! Charles would say that someone who wants Scotland to be a small independent country is more parochial than someone who wants it to be a small dependent country!

There is one reason and one reason only why we are being put through this referendum just now - the SNP proposed the legislation and the SNP ensured that it passed through Holyrood. Otherwise we would just be getting on with our lives unmolested by its sheer tedium. This is their project from start to finish. And if what the SNP think is not how Scotland would be run in 20 years time in the event of a yes vote, why have they said, written and promised so much that depends on government policy post-2016, which they can't possibly hope to guarantee to deliver? Quite frankly the whole referendum business is boring me to tears with politicians from both sides being distracted on to its soapboxes rather than using their energy to run our affairs. The only real relief is to have a bit of a laugh about it. Erm.no, Charles...we could have had this referendum in the 2007-2010 term, if the Unionists in Holyrood would have allowed it, but the minority Government nixed that opportunity. The SNP was elected in 2011 on a manifesto which had, in a prominent place,and which was certainly well publicised in the Media and in every NuLabour election leaflet, the commitment to hold a referendum in the term of this Parliament if elected. And they were elected, which confounded the Unionists in Westminster who set up the PR system in order to negate the possibility of majority Governments, and may well have disconcerted Unionists who were simply sick fed up of NuLabour, but didn't read the papers, the election leaflets or the manifesto..but that is and was not the SNP's problem. After all, they have never made any secret of their aspirations,have they? It may well be that the consequences of the Scottish electorate sticking two fingers up at Westminster and the UK NuLabour party was not completely thought through before they put their crosses where they did....but again, that was not the fault of the SNP....the Scottish electorate voted for it...which was more than they did for the Westminster government. Charles, are you really as thick as you sound? if what the SNP think is not how Scotland would be run in 20 years time in the event of a yes vote, why have they said, written and promised so much that depends on government policy post-2016, which they can't possibly hope to guarantee to deliver? Sheesh! Even the dumbest ox heard Nicola Sturgeon say that part of the White Paper was an IF......as in IF the SNP was elected to Government in 2016, that was what they would aim to accomplish IF negotiations were concluded successfully. And, to be honest, I see little reason, bar stirring, why you would even pretend to believe that the SNP will settle into Government for the next twenty years.....unless, of course, you think so much of the SNP and so little of your fellow countrymen/women that you think we are never going to be able to produce any kind of challenge to them. To an extent, after all, the SNP in the White Paper did exactly the same as Cameron and his cohorts are doing right now.....have we not already had Coalition budgets which will take us past the next General Election...“We've got to make more cuts. £17 billion this coming year. £20 billion next year. And over £25 billion further across the two years after. That's more than £60 billion in total,”.which gets us to fiscal year 2017/18....and has Cameron not promised a referendum on the EU in, what was it, 2017? And, what is more.they don't even bother to say IF elected..though to be fair, they don't have to, as UK NuLabour will do much the same, as per usual. So do you think that this means that the Conservatives are definitely going to be in Government after 2015? By all means have a laugh about it......but as your comic value is absolutely nil....just make your "jokes" to yourself in future, and kindly don't inflict them on us.

Well if that is a concern for you, why should anyone expect Highlanders to vote in September for an outcome which would be completely Edinburgh or Glasgowcentric? The SNP have already taken away our local control of police and fire and rescue as well as hamstrung our local councils by imposing a Council Tax freeze and we could expect a lot more of the same if the central belt get a 100% say over our lives. Funny how the separatists bang on about the evils of the centralisation of power whilst imposing just that themselves. The centralising of the police and fire services wouldn't necessarily stay centralised anyway after Independence........it would depend on the elected Government of the day and how well it has worked out. The reason they are currently centralised is would you believe....the same Economies of Scale you cite as a benefit for staying in the Union.,.and was done in order to cut costs, so that our limited pocket money went further....into, for example, ameliorating the effects of UK welfare policies on our citizens. Into the bargain, it removed the ongoing responsibility of financing those services from local authorities. Given it has been up and running for less than a year, it's a bit early to say if it does or doesn't work. I can't quite understand the mindset which thinks that pumping all our cash into London, 560+ miles away from Inverness is going to be much much better for us than sending the same money to Edinburgh, which is about 400 miles nearer. I can't quite understand the mindset which thinks that it is preferable to pump money, (more than we get via Barnett), into the 610 square miles of the GLA containing 13% of the UK population rather than into the Central Belt which has about 70% of the Scottish population in the area in, around and between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Also can't quite understand how it can be so much better to have 7 MPs out of 650 representing the Highlands and Islands in Westminster, as opposed to 15 MSPs out of 129 in Edinburgh doing the same. Please explain your reasoning..

You mean like Eshenpee shupporter Shur Shaun who lovesh hish country sho much that he ushed to shtay in Shpain? The problem with these expats getting a vote would have been that none of them is going to have to live with the consequences in the event of a yes. Also, far too many people who may have begun life as domiciled Scots but now live abroad float about on some misplaced, Braveheart-motivated cloud of pseudo-romance and look nostalgically on Scotland as some kind of Brigadoon theme park. Good Grief, Charles.for a purported journalist, you don't have much of worth to say, do you? . Debate on the very important subject of Scottish Independence should be more than a few snide remarks invoking the Godwin's law of the anti-Independence brigade (Braveheart, Brigadoon and Brave (though you did miss that one out)) Where is your listing of what benefit Scotland has had from the UK for the input we have made to convince us a NO vote is the sensible option...and by that, I mean Scotland as a country, all we plebs, all our infrastructure, all our industry, our levels of poverty and inequality etc....and not individual Scots, who, as in 1707, certainly did well, mostly by going south. What happened to the £27 extra billion the UK got from us and spent between 1979 and 1997, as admitted by William Waldegrave.....how did that benefit Scotland? Where does the £400 million or so we don't get back every year go, if not to Scotland? I'd be interested in a cogent explanation as to how a country of 5.3 million people managed to acquire a £7+billion fiscal deficit in 2011-2012, when the Scottish Government balanced the budget they were at liberty to spend (being unable, unlike local Government, to borrow for themselves)......and we still have crap roads north of Perth, high levels of poverty, a lack of social housing etc.

I'm inclined to agree........there are certainly some on forums and in comments in the media who are holding the door open and prodding us out it with a big stick accompanied by chortles of glee....and some who don't blame us, wish us well and hope that, by our going, the rest of the UK might get a push into sorting out their own relationship with Westminster and the city state of London...but the vast majority are conspicuous by their absence. I already have at least three cousins in Scotland who will vote NO...and if they can't get me to change my mind..slim to no chance the cousin in England I haven't clapped eyes on in twenty years, if he gives a toss at all, is going to manage any better. The "getting more back than they contribute".or not thing is really hard to quantify.......I have heaps of GERS/PESA/IFA/OBR reports and out of them I have about 100 text files of figures.and it is down to what "getting back" means (and how you decipher accountancy-speak thirty five years and a generation+ on.) . And, tbh what English taxpayers think it means. From websites and forums, it appears that many of them really do believe that the Block Grant is the whole of the money Scotland puts into the UK pot plus we get the likes of our Welfare payments and Defence spending from Westminster on top of the block grant and Westminster pays everything out of English money..so they subsidise us. QED! If that was the case, Cameron would be packing our bags himself! However, I'm inclined to look at it more as to what we contribute now to help pay for in the UK that we don't/wouldn't need or want in an independent Scotland....like the salaries, expenses, pensions etc of 1500 or so legislators, their thousands of civil servants over all departments, advisers, administrators and the maintenance and support of the Palace of Westminster; the upkeep/leasing of around 5000 embassies/consulates and salaries etc/support for around 3000 diplomats world wide. Economies of scale only apply if you can reduce your costs by embracing them...and don't apply if that means you are stuck with paying, as part of the bargain, for something you'd never have dreamed of having in the first place..like Trident. Economies of scale, like Boxing Day sale bargains are only worth the money if you need them...and we don't need 1500 expensive legislators in London when we have our own in Scotland that we already pay for..and we don't need to be paying for 5000 UK Embassies/consulates, which appear to be on the posh side, when we neither need as many.....or as posh.because we aren't going to be pretending we are a world power.

The English make the case for a break-up http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/the-english-make-the-case-for-a-break-up-1.1288693.which was originally in the FT on the 6th, but you don't have to register or answer a silly question to read it on the above link. And Ian Bell's letter to David Cameron, who sat wrapping himself in red, white and blue Olympic glory well away from Scotland, while cringingly love-bombing us. It's from Saturday's Herald, as reproduced by http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.co.uk/ to save people paying for access..but I reproduce it in full. Forget the postcard Dave, it’s time to pay us a visit Dear Dave, I can call you Dave? It turns out we're friends, after all. From what you say, we could even be family. This alone is exciting news. We've never had a Tory in the family before, least of all one even slightly worried about what we might think or do. But I digress. That was quite a speech you gave there, Dave. I'm sorry I couldn't attend, but you know how it is. Paying a visit is next to impossible if you're on a busy schedule. In any case, the border is all but impassable, by all accounts. These days even a Prime Minister can't find his way north to deliver an affectionate speech, or refresh himself with an invigorating debate. It's a pity. A lot of us would really - I mean really - like to see you. We could catch up. You could tell us all your news and your plans for next year and beyond. It would be a lot more fun, I promise, than fighting your way to the Olympic Park through that hellish London traffic. As ever, you can be assured of a warm welcome. Still, we read your postcard with the speech on it very carefully. (The kisses at the end were much appreciated.) Parts of it seemed a little familiar, like one of those chain letters, but our French Canadian friends assure us this is nonsense. Your completely original thoughts bore no resemblance to the slogans of the 1995 Unity scheme cooked up when Quebec looked like voting for independence. Pure coincidence. True, the stuff about getting people to show how much they care did the trick in Canada. They also told Quebec at the last minute how much it was appreciated, needed and wanted. There was even talk - quite a bit of talk, actually - of Canadians being better off together than apart. But really: who would cynically copy someone else's campaign tactics when there are deeply personal emotions needing to be expressed? Spontaneously, of course. We're a bit confused, though, Dave. If we read your Wish You Weren't Thinking of Not Being Here card right, we can expect a lot of phone calls on those friends and family tariffs. Thanks to you, we're about to be up to our armpits in endearments. But it's not as if we really need introductions to these folk, or reminded of what they think. They were not strangers last year and they won't be strangers next year. And what's this "We want you to stay?" We're not actually going anywhere. If you would just tell your Chancellor and your other ministers to stop messing about, visitors in a couple of years will hardly notice the difference. What we might notice will be - as you are kind enough to remember - our affair. But you'll still be able to go around the world "banging the drum" for whisky. If you value your balance of payments, that is. We hope you had fun at the Olympic Park, Dave. Clearly, that was some of our money - well, freightloads, to be accurate - well spent. You're obviously attached to the place. A less imaginative politician might have decided the games have been over for a bit. He might have wondered if the symbolism wasn't a tiny bit overused, or asked himself what sport can really tell you about countries. A less brilliant politician might have said it was all getting a bit tacky. Don't let us put you off. You were born to wear red, white and blue. That is, of course, your privilege, but it's not a look we can all carry off. You won't mind, in the meantime, if your line about "the summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and into the sun" pops up again in a few months? No-one can teach you anything about nationalism and optimism, Dave, and you surely wouldn't object to a bit of plagiat, as they say in Quebec. Here's the thing, though, that's giving us a few problems over your invitation to join you on the sunlit uplands. You tell us we're at the heart of "a vision". You reckon the United Kingdom will be "deeply diminished" without Scotland. You paint the rosiest of pictures of worth, esteem and partnership. But be honest, Dave: that's not exactly what we hear from those who speak on your behalf, is it? Your reports don't quite match what we hear day in and day out from your personal Team GB. Perhaps they didn't get the memo. These things happen. But while you talk about shared values, about freedom, solidarity and compassion, some of your friends don't do positive. Instead, they tell a story you didn't manage to mention. That's the one about chaos, ruin and economic degradation, worthless currencies, bankers fleeing to the border to claim new passports, pensions unpaid, jobs lost, food unaffordable, and international ties severed. Lately, they've been taking the veils off the threats, Dave, and it's all getting a bit tiresome. If more of us believed the tale we could use it to frighten children. Still, it's a shame you forgot to say in your speech that the nonsense has to stop. Did you lose a page? By the sounds of things, it might have been more than one. You said a bit through your Olympic Park loud-hailer about the kind of country you want to see, the sort of UK that you and your government have in store for us if we follow your advice on September 18. But then there were a couple of tiny gaps in that inspiring narrative. We weren't taken aback to notice that you didn't go into details about social security, bedroom taxes and the like. You didn't find time to explain why your Chancellor's austerity programme rolls ever onwards when things are going so swimmingly: that was understandable, even predictable. But, no offence, your enthralling vision didn't include the answer to a question that has bothered a lot of us: what happens when the society you mean to create is not one we would consent to inhabit? We get the news up here. We can see what you intend for the welfare state. We've a pretty good grasp now of how you regard the NHS, education, or the rights of working people. A lot of us don't find it congenial. When we see how things are going, many of us don't believe that the partial protections of devolution are enough. It's hard to know how to put this nicely, so I'll just say it: exactly how did you become our Prime Minister in the first place, Dave? Your speech was addressed to us among the peoples of these islands. You do remember how the vote went here last time, and you know how it will go next time if we follow your guidance on September 18? One last thing. That stuff about "the brand", Dave? Drop it, there's a good lad. It's embarrassing. As to the rest, if this is what we can expect should you visit over the next seven months, the best of British. Regards. Ian Bell might, of course have added that after the big speech, Twitter was aflame with people furth of Scotland saying go for it, Wish you luck etc. Not quite what was intended, I suspect.....and I haven't had one single love bomb phone call.

I'll add a tenner to my already promised one.

It should be...banks are more than capable of transmitting money to foreign countries. Those of us already retired and receiving state pension are due our pensions from the country which ingathered our NI and taxes and used those taxes and NI contributions to add to the Westminster pot, in order to pay the pensions of those already retired while we were working. It shouldn't be affected income wise as long as we use sterling......but who actually pays it would depend on how pension obligations are negotiated....it may be that the SG would pay it after independence..and in that case it would be an internal transaction anyway. Any problems will be those made up by Westminster to be difficult, imo.

Thanks for that, PMF. I know the Alan Bissett one I've watched it a few times in other places, but have never watched the Cheviot, the Stag and the Black, Black Oil before, though I've heard about it. Just shows capitalist greed hasn't changed much over the last couple of centuries bar in the methods of satisfying it.....and nor have Governments.

I'm in if I can donate via Paypal.

It's a right wing Government thing........and not something liable to change even if the current UK Government does, given the reluctance of NuLabour to roll back any Tory policies at any time..as they tend to continue with them, but blame the previous Government for them. (Much as the Coalition is still blaming NuLabour for the fact that the Coalition has added a lot more than £400 billion to the overall national debt since 2010). Food banks are the safety net of safety nets. It is only when government fails that food banks have to step in, and they show that welfare cuts and inefficiency cause hundreds of thousands of people to depend on emergency food aid. This Government has failed. Problem in the UK is that the Government is just not accepting that their policies have anything to do with anything. Despite the fact that the Trussell Trust is practically a partner in the Welfare State, with the DWP issuing vouchers for people to access food parcels on an emergency basis, Ian Duncan Smith has dismissed claims that the problems are linked to welfare reforms and attacked the charity for publicity-seeking. He further said that the reason more people access them is because they know they are there! Church leaders, many of whom work with the Trussell Trust, or have non-aligned Food Banks/Soup Kitchens, were incensed by reports in December that the government had turned down a potential pot of £22m of EU funding for food banks, on the grounds that the UK did not want to be told by Brussels how to spend money for European structural funds. Go figure! According to research last year for the Scottish Government, (DEFRA has produced research for the UK Government, but it has not yet been published....one wonders why!) the top three reasons for referrals are currently benefit delay, benefit change and low income. There is uncertainty in when welfare recipients will receive money and how much they will be getting. Interviewees also reflected on the effect of the bedroom tax, an increase in sanctions and increased referrals from the Scottish Welfare Fund. The statistics shows that 23,073 people (including 6500+ children) in Scotland were provided by Trussell Trust with emergency food parcels between April and September 2013. Between Spring 2012 and Spring 2013 the Trust has seen a 170% increase in demand. Over half of referrals were related to benefit delays or benefit change/withdrawal, an 11% increase on the previous year. In 2009, there was one Trussell Trust foodbank operating in Scotland. By October 2013, this had increased to 42 established and 17 in development. As of October 2013,there are around 400 Trussell Trust foodbanks across the UK, which provided emergency food aid to around 400,000, and they think, to fully address the problem, there would need to be between 750 and 1000............just how sodding sad is that in 2014 in a country which bums itself up as being a developed country, having the sixth biggest economy in the world and being a world "leader". A world leader in what, I ask myself........wasting money on nuclear boy's toys and keeping the rich in the manner to which they have become accustomed? I'm inclined to think that it is the rich and the politicians who have the real "entitlement" mindset, not those they are trashing with monotonous regularity.....but what do I know.......maybe Cameron is worth £142,500 a year of our money to help the growth industry of food banks...and maybe the CEO of RBS is worth £1million a year, though I can think of no cogent reason as to why he is....... but then I buggered if I can see what makes Wayne Rooney worth £250,000 a week either, so I am obviously not a Thatcher's child.

Not really since they all seem just to be yet further convoluted restatements of your fundamental dislike of Westminster , and your unshakeable resentment of what you perceive to be the bum deal "Westminster" has gone out of its way to dish out to the poor downtrodden Scots for the last 307 years. In any case, this week I have been focusing rather more on the backside even falling out of the SNP "oil bribe"..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10616789/BP-chief-Bob-Dudley-attacks-Scottish-independence.html And there's also the strong concern that while even your and my pension prospects look to be under serious threat in the event of a yes vote, it will be far worse for younger people who face a generally more challenging pensions environment in any case.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26015455 When this referendum was first mooted back in 2011 (God! It actually feels like a century!) my strong inclination to vote NO was largely motivated just by a straightforward belief in the principle that the UK needs to remain intact. Now, after three years of people constantly banging on about separation, I am in addition seriously worried about the emerging threat to the standards of living and quality of life which a yes vote would also pose for Scottish people. Yes Scotland's strategy seems to be to try to get the turkeys to vote yes, without actually telling them that it's Christmas they are voting for. Pot and kettle springs to mind with your continual railing against the SNP, and Salmond etc! I speak re Westminster from what I know and have experienced.......maybe you have been luckier than a lot of us and Westminster policies have been good to you! Dearie, dearie me......where do you get "backside even falling out of the SNP "oil bribe" out of what was reported and what was said on the Beeb! What he said was You know there's much debate about currency, what would happen with the currency and of course connections with Europe or not."These are quite big uncertainties for us". What he said was " not concerned, but there's enough uncertainty to talk about it. " What he said was "it depends on what the tax regimes are" and he said "'quite big uncertainties' if the sterling issue isn't resolved. Now, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong..but is it not Westminster which is promoting and promulgating that uncertainty for their own Project Fear purposes, when we all know very well, that the uncertainty can be removed completely if they just say first .....that there will be negotiations, in the event of a YES vote, re a currency agreement (as will happen, imo), just as they did with saying they would repay all the National debt to mollify the uncertainty among UK bond-holders.....and second....wrote an official letter to the EU regarding the positions of Scotland and the rUK in the event of a yes vote. Result would be no uncertainty.....but then that would mean the end of Project Fear, which is, to date, the only weapon in their "positive" case for the Union. As an aside....maybe Dudley is thinking of all the money he has wasted hiring George Robertson as a "special adviser" for his access to the Westminster corridors of power only to find that it mightn't be Westminster corridors of power he needs to influence. I dunno about you..but I paid my taxes and NI into the UK pot.....and the UK spent it when I paid it..and grabbed the VAT when I spent my salary.....so the UK owes me my pension, just as it owes it to everyone who buggers of to live in Spain or the USA to retire .and if, as Westminster says, rUK is going to be the continuing state....then the rUK pays my state pension...not Scotland. Cross-border and reciprocal agreements re pensions exist currently within the UK with different countries...why would that not apply to Scotland? At the end of the day, Charles...all these Project Fear scares are not based on commonsense or pragmatism, but petulance and huffing......not a lot different to the petulance and foot-stamping of the wee boy in the playground saying "if you're not going to pick me to play, I'm taking my ball home so nobody gets to play". In the end, between Governments, commonsense and pragmatism will prevail...you know it will...it isn't in any Government's interests to cut off their nose to spite their face. Pleased for you your standard of living is so good.....mine is OK as well....but we are the lucky ones (at the moment...though pensioners have been mentioned as the next targets by IDS). If you were disabled, in a rented house on state benefits with a carer, and being hit with bedroom tax, PIP, ATOS, the benefit cap, the coming cuts to Carer's allowances etc and a VAT increase to 20%, which hits the poorest hardest, would you be so sanguine. Or if you were under 25 and lost your entitlement to housing benefit, so you had to become homeless or go back to live with parents, who may have no room for you (because they have downsized to beat the bedroom tax). You may be happy to live in a country in which you are comfortably enough off....but which punishes the disabled, the unemployed and our young people, in a country in which there are relatively few real jobs because they can't find a job. (I don't count zero-hours contracts and part-time work as real jobs unless they are a choice deliberately made because it suits their life-style/family commitments).and at the same time, fails to plug the loopholes which allows the rich and businesses to avoid tax, which cuts the tax rate for higher earners, which subsidises, with taxpayers money, the profits of businesses by the payment of working tax credits, allowing them to pay less than a decent wage..and continues to keep the UK one of the most unequal societies in the Western World, which continues to allow the banks to rip us off, which has privatised the utilities.and then allowed them to soak us to make shareholder profits and pay themselves ridiculous wages, which is gradually privatising the NHS......and which has made sounds regarding doing the same to Scottish Water and the Scottish NHS. I'm not defending the benefit levels, which are ridiculous, particularly the working tax credits and child credits, and are a result of the tit-for-tat eternal change expensively produced after pretty much every election, because of promises made to their voting demography. You can see it now with the feather-bedding of the grey vote (for the moment) because we old folks are most likely to vote in elections.so we don't have to "be all in this together" but the benefits are the way successive Governments have made it..and any entitlement culture has been instilled by Governments over decades. Since Tony Blair, this country doesn't appear to like people who are taking out of the system, even though what they take out goes straight back in by spending, thus into VAT receipts and also the profits of businesses, adding to their taxable income (which they then pay accountants lots of money to hide from HMRC). We have an incompetent UK Government focused only on furthering their ideology, but without the ability to polish up the same type of crystal ball forecasting the future consequences of their actions that they seem to think the Scottish Government has! I really think Scotland can do better....I know Scotland can't possibly do worse.............and I am voting YES on that premise.....not for my benefit, but for my children, my grandchildren and my great grandchild.

Willie Bell sounds like a man after my own heart! Not overly keen on Mike Russell, tbh.....but to compare him to Gorgeous George.........come on! Can't think of anyone on the Yes side, offhand who is quite as irrational as Galloway...(bar maybe me..to save you saying it!)....but then, it just shows that we have less numpties than the ones on the No side who get all the media attention.......I can give you lists of them! Any response to my other questions, btw?

It's at times like this that Better Together could do with nutters like Willie Bell to counterbalance complete tubes such as Galloway. Oh well - I suppose Mike Russell is at least still on the go Who is Willie Bell? When did Mike Russell get involved with Better Together, if you mean the Mike Russell I think you mean? What was the point of your quoted post? And, as I'm in a question asking mood....if Scotland votes NO.... With the Government and UKIP squaring up to the European Union, and a promised referendum, will the UK remain a member of the EU? With Westminster politicians threatening to uproot the Barnett formula and cut Scottish funding by £4 billion, how secure are Scottish finances after a No vote? Will the UK still be one of the most unequal countries in the developed world? Can Scotland trust Westminster to deliver any further devolution, given that depends on the votes of the UK Parliament? In fact, can it be trusted not to roll back devolution altogether, as has been mooted by some? And, finally...... regarding the prospect of a currency union.or even just using sterling unilaterally..... If it is “not independence”, as many No campaigners claim, then surely many unionists will feel able to vote for it..and if not.why not?

What Mr Carney seems to be saying is that the Romans have been rather busier than the People's Front of Caledonia would have us believe. Nope...what he's saying is that the Romans have been busier than the Romans would have us believe! Mr Carney wouldn't be up here saying anything at all if he hadn't been allowed to say it. Have to admit, though, that I almost prefer Project Fear if the alternative is Project Love Bomb.....if Barrowman was the first effort........it is going to be boak-making! Was really impressed at the way Mr Carney didn't allow the TV folk and journalists to put words in his mouth, as well! Bet they went away spitting nails to make up headlines! I'm backtracking........bring on Project Love Bomb.....it will raise my blood pressure less than Project Fear. Does anyone think that, at some stage before September, Better Together is going to start listening to what gets said, instead of burying its collective heads in the sand and allowing their anal orifices to repeat the interminable spinning ordure to which we have been subjected since 2011? http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/fact-checked-13-of-the-snps-craziest-currency-claims Better Together wouldn't recognise a fact if it grew teeth and bit them on the bahookey! http://archive.is/vcQ78 (Financial Times) and pretty pictures from http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/ The basic fact is that Scotland came into the Union with no National debt.......and Scotland had no part in building up the UK Debt mountain to use for our own purposes........every penny of it was borrowed by Westminster to fund Westminster policies. If we'd had any say.in anything, we'd have better roads, less poverty, more industry, oil rigs near Faslane, no bedroom tax,no trashing of the poorest, the under 25s and the disabled and no tax breaks for the rich while we are doing that trashing, no illegal unjustified wars to sook up to the USA and NO TRIDENT! The fact is that we are part of a Union with a Government which couldn't organise a party in a brewery and ensure everybody gets a fair share of the booze, as they are so busy dishing it out to the Government and Corporate alkies from London and the South of England. Nobody has said.....‘An independent Scotland will refuse to take on any national debt if the UK refuses to share the pound’..but what has been said is that if we get a share of the Debt..we are entitled to a share of the assets, which includes the Bank of England which is the UK's National Bank, and the Mint, which is the UK's Mint.. Seems only fair that if we have to pay out for something we had nothing to do with and no say in, we should also get a share of the assets we help/helped buy, maintain and run. Simples!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-could-become-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html Just what I've been saying....(more or less...kinda! ) Not so much the richest country on earth OTT stuff though...though it would be nice.....but cutting back on the internal public empire building so beloved of Westminster Parliaments..small may not be beautiful...but it is more controllable. (could be describing me, in fact ) There were 98 unelected special advisers in 2012 (only 19 on a pay scale in which they might earn less than an MSP), at approaching seven and a half a million in wages altogether ...and what for...policies which haven't met any of the promises made before 2010.....plus 650 elected MPs and about 800 unelected Lords......costing a total for basic salaries/entitlements alone (assuming only half the Lords turn up every day to claim) £66,369,800...about the same amount as they.will save the luxury Bond Street retailers in business rates by putting off the revaluation of business properties until 2017. Seems a lot of money to pay a coterie of bloated incompetent nincompoops to govern the UK......badly! (And a bit thick that small businesses have to struggle until 2017 while the likes of Chanel and Burberry get a tax break out of it.) Who was it who said "we're all in this together" ?