The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Ten4]

There`s just been some Nerdy English BBC reporter on the box his main argument seems to have been will `Strictly come dancing` or Eastenders` still be shown in Scotland!!

FFS has he not heard we can do `Thingummyjig` or `Parahandy`! 

[Caley Stan]

So that's it then? The Sermon at the Science Centre. "Full of sound and fury signifying nothing" (I must admit I am also tempted by the phrase which immediately precedes that in Macbeth's Act V soliloquy  )

 

After all that fuss and buid up it was a bit like getting summoned to the headmaster's office, only to discover that he doesn't actually own a belt, so all he can do is shout at you!

 

I'm really impressed that you managed to read the document so quickly.

 

 

 

Immigrants from poorer countries willing to work.

 

Sorted 

 

Only when you class a brain surgeon as the same as a low-skilled person.  Immigrant isn't a nationality or a measure of skill or employability.  Each must be judged on merit and need for the country.  Amongst some nationalities, unemployment is 5x that of the host (and it's not down to racism either as there are clear differences between countries of the same race).

 

And economics isn't the only reason.  For every new person, energy must be burned and resources must be found.

 

 

The SNP generally argue along the lines of your first point. Scotland needs an immigration policy that meets Scotland's needs and these are often very different from other parts of the UK. Even Labour under McConnell wanted to try and get hold of some powers in this area.

 

Your second point is slightly odd - i can only assume you are talking about increasing the birth-rate rather than immigration. I wasn't aware of an SNP policy on this but then i haven't quite finished reading the document. I'm not quite as quick as Charles when it comes to reading these things.   

[Charles Bannerman]

 

So that's it then? The Sermon at the Science Centre. "Full of sound and fury signifying nothing" (I must admit I am also tempted by the phrase which immediately precedes that in Macbeth's Act V soliloquy  )

 

After all that fuss and buid up it was a bit like getting summoned to the headmaster's office, only to discover that he doesn't actually own a belt, so all he can do is shout at you!

 

I'm really impressed that you managed to read the document so quickly.

Perhaps you should give the media credit for having tasked large numbers of personnel to produce digests very quickly such as here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25088251

 

What we have in this 670 page "Tome Tabard" (or "Toom Tome?") seems to come in two parts.

 

A - statements about the shape of a separate Scotland such as:-  

* Keeping the pound and the Bank of England as a lender of last resort - which Salmond, but apparently not the entire yes lobby, seems to assume that UK Continuing would be quite happy to concede on the nod,

* Secure pensions which don't seem to have been costed or shown to be affordable.

* Keeping the Queen. Brilliant!! Maybe I'll change my mind and vote yes then!

 

B - Project Bribery  which is in effect a populist SNP election manifesto - but funded here out of the public purse. This amounts to what the SNP perhaps WOULD do IF it were to be re-elected in 2016... so MAYBE. This part is full of the kind of populist policies which we are quite used to being offered by parties before general elections to get us to vote for them. However there are radical differences here. In particular, if you then decide you don't like the party which offered these promises you can vote them out at the next election.

But separation is for keeps, not just for Christmas.

Furthermore all these bribes and financial incentives, which the SNP can't guarantee to deliver even in the event of a yes vote, haven't been properly costed since they originate from that well established SNP tradition of Wishlist Politics. And in the case of the Childcare promise, they have the devolved power to do that now - so why don't they if they think it's such a good idea? Or has this something to do with the fact that they realise that they are especially short of female yes voters, so childcare becomes a central part of Project Bribery?

In effect they are asking you to stake your future and that of countless succeeding generations on a Wishlist of what the SNP say they would do if they get back in 2016.

Basically all the SNP is interested in is separation - irrespective of the consequences. So it really doesn't matter what they tell you just now, as long as they get your yes vote - which unlike at any other election will be irreversible irrespective of how bad an idea it turns out to be.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[IBM]

Here we go CB is spouting as much **** as Alistair Darling today!

[Caley Stan]

Of course the SNP exists for independence above all else. It's a broad church and its members want independence for a variety of reasons - i can also assume that most of them believe the overall consequences will be positive.

 

Most of what appears in the document isn't all that relevant to the decision we make next September. It reads like a huge election manifesto and for the most part contains nothing more than SNP policy for a prospective Scottish general election in 2016. It's slightly absurd that the SNP have had to tell us today that a Scottish Defence Force will contain 5000 reservists and all 3 and 4 year-olds will be entitled to 1140 hours of childcare a year. That kind of policy detail belongs at elections, and although many unionists find it difficult to comprehend, an independent Scotland will have democratic elections with different parties offering different policies. 

 

This referendum is about whether you believe such decisions should be taken in Scotland or whether they should be taken across the whole of the UK. The rest is just hype.

[+DoofersDad]

I haven't read today's document yet, but from the reports and clips of Salmond and Sturgeon I've seen, I am hugely disappointed.  A lot of what they aspire to do in a first term of Independent Scottish Government sounds like the sort of stuff I would vote for but the referendum is not about electing a Government and voting for policies, it is about the structure of Government.  The argument needs to be about how Scotland would benefit irrespective of which party was in power. 

 

Today's antics was a bit like buying the curtains when you don't yet know how many windows your new house will have and what size and shape they will be.  I'm afraid I don't buy a new house just because I like the curtains.

[Oddquine]

Just a quick one for Charles on his above post (while I am composing a very long history lesson about the commercial relationship between Scotland and England from 1603, with emphasis on Darien.....with links and lots of quotes .... in response to his previous post. (Been at it three days and am less than half way through! ))     I worked in the UK......I paid my taxes and NI to the UK.....ergo.....the UK is responsible for paying my pension ...not Scotland....as I have never paid a  penny in the whole of my working life into Scotland's coffers to pay for my pension going forward.

 

The UK pays state pensions  earned by  punters who move away and live in other countries....... so they will have to pay my pension.....as will my works pension provider (whose pension set up is based with an English company).  Failing that, Scotland will have to get the dosh for all our state pensions to stick in the Scottish piggy-bank to earn interest for Scotland until we need to use it (or alternatively, knock it off our share of the National Debt) . My pension money is a UK asset  which accrues to either me personally, or to Scotland, if they are expected to take on the UK's obligations to me.......just the same as any gun, boat, plane nuclear weapon or bank etc we have put our money into over the last 300+ years is an asset.....after all it isn't my fault that the UK set up the system to be forward financing from annual income/borrowing, rather than stick it into some kind of pension plan so it would be safe(ish) and available as a lump sum to ensure it was available if required..

 

Mind you.I suspect that it will be claimed to be beyond their capabilities to pay pensions in Scotland for Scottish pensioners, when it is no problem paying folk in the EU, Canada,.Australia, the USA etc.. ..much as a Currency Union is impossible for Scotland, even in the short/medium term.....but was no problem for the ROI for decades.(wonder if our biggest mistake was not bombing for freedom?)  What I struggle to work out is if the UK Government are undertaking political posturing, pouting and foot-stamping, if they really mean that we are going to be the only country in the British Isles to be placed in pariah mode because we have the temerity to believe that the UK  is no longer fit for the purpose, and appears immensely resistant to change..or if they will do pragmatic and sensible if/when it comes to the crunch.

 

The SNP Manifesto for 2016 which is part of the 670 pages is just that...the SNP manifesto....and they made no secret of that fact .......I even heard Nicola Sturgeon saying as much on Today this morning.and she said "if" the SNP was the first Independent Scottish Government...not "when" ..but it is a small part of the whole white paper.  Shame it is the only one anyone on here appears to have read.....or heard about.

 

It is no different to the manifestos of any political party in any election in the UK, tbh.....a wish list of stuff they hope to do....but I'm pretty sure that there is, comparing  past performances in both places, much more chance of a Government run by an oil economist, a business and economic consultant and a Scottish lawyer being less profligate and terminally stupid  than those in the UK which is run by,.currently.....a politics graduate who has never been involved in anything but politics, a journalist and a modern history graduate who has never worked outside politics.....and before them, we had an FE lecturer with a history degree/TV journalist, an English lawyer, who also has a politics degree, and a Scottish lawyer....and before them....an English lawyer, a Merchant Navy steward, with an economics and politics degree.and the aforementioned FE lecturer/journalist.

 

Project Bribery is a UK trait..heavily practised by Nulabour in the past to attract votes...and much of the reason we are £1.3+ trillion in debt now!. 

 

Out of interest.have you actually read the  670 pages....or are you just believing what the Unionist Press and the BBC is saying it says?

Edited November 27, 2013 by Oddquine

[Alex MacLeod]

Dont you just locve the way the NO people latch onto a hatred of the SNP. The same NO people who currently benefit, and will in future benefit from SNP policy. I was able to put three children through university because of SNP policy. I have family members on constant medication who couldn't afford it but for SNP policy. We have shorter hospital waiting times. We have higher standards of care for the elderly. We are better off now than ever we were.

[Charles Bannerman]

Dont you just locve the way the NO people latch onto a hatred of the SNP. The same NO people who currently benefit, and will in future benefit from SNP policy. I was able to put three children through university because of SNP policy. I have family members on constant medication who couldn't afford it but for SNP policy. We have shorter hospital waiting times. We have higher standards of care for the elderly. We are better off now than ever we were.

Alex, I seem to recollect that some time ago in a discussion on this referendum on here, you suggested to us that after separation there would be no need for an SNP.

That's not really the way it looks now, given that much of their case rests on the extensive range of populist but economically unproven measures they are telling us they would implement if they get the result they want and in an attempt to get peole to vote for that.

And maybe you should also add to what you have said there that we also have Council services which are creaking at the seams for lack of funding due to the SNP's six year Council Tax freeze (for which they are NOT properly compensating councils.)

Now that's an interesting one as well. The SNP is the party which wants YOU to have more control over how your life is run by moving centralised power from "Westminster" to Edinburgh. So why are they taking power away from local areas and centralising it in the form of a Scottish Fire Service, a Scottish Police service and Holyrood exercising restraint on local authorities delivering local services. They seem to want to draw everything in towards central Scotland.

[cantankerousoldgit]

After independence the Scottish people can vote for whoever we want. The SNP are simply setting out their stall but this referendum is about the principal of self determination for better or worse. Not for glory nor riches nor honours but for freedom to make our own decisions.

[Charles Bannerman]

 Not for glory nor riches nor honours but for freedom to make our own decisions.

Such as on Policing, Fire and Rescue and local authority services in the face of a Council Tax freeze - all instances during the SNP's watch where power and influence have been focused towards the central belt and away from you and me? Not much self determination there under the SNP.

And if the Scottish people can vote for whomever they want, Tuesday's 670 page Wishlist seems to depend massively on things which the SNP would have to be in power even to TRY to deliver them.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

Dont you just locve the way the NO people latch onto a hatred of the SNP. The same NO people who currently benefit, and will in future benefit from SNP policy. I was able to put three children through university because of SNP policy. I have family members on constant medication who couldn't afford it but for SNP policy. We have shorter hospital waiting times. We have higher standards of care for the elderly. We are better off now than ever we were.

Alex, I seem to recollect that some time ago in a discussion on this referendum on here, you suggested to us that after separation there would be no need for an SNP.

That's not really the way it looks now, given that much of their case rests on the extensive range of populist but economically unproven measures they are telling us they would implement if they get the result they want and in an attempt to get peole to vote for that.

And maybe you should also add to what you have said there that we also have Council services which are creaking at the seams for lack of funding due to the SNP's six year Council Tax freeze (for which they are NOT properly compensating councils.)

Now that's an interesting one as well. The SNP is the party which wants YOU to have more control over how your life is run by moving centralised power from "Westminster" to Edinburgh. So why are they taking power away from local areas and centralising it in the form of a Scottish Fire Service, a Scottish Police service and Holyrood exercising restraint on local authorities delivering local services. They seem to want to draw everything in towards central Scotland.

 

I have never ever said there would be no need for an SNP. I may have said that the people could decide on another party. Just on the subject of the council tax freeze. the one thing that has achieved is a vast reduction in wasteage. How often, nowadays, do you see a council worker digging a hole with six others watching. Perhaps you haven't been reading the right papers recently Charles. If you had you'd have read that the same amalgamation of Fire, Police etc is proposed for England. There is so much negativity, just for the sake of it, about centralisation of police yet the reality is that the guys on the beat will remain the same but why the hell pay for six or seven Chief constables when one will suffice. Maybe the money saved will go towards preventing and detecting crime and protecting you and I instead of paying for chauffuers and flash cars for the stiff upper lipped pr!cks in braid.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Not for glory nor riches nor honours but for freedom to make our own decisions.

Such as on Policing, Fire and Rescue and local authority services in the face of a Council Tax freeze - all instances during the SNP's watch where power and influence have been focused towards the central belt and away from you and me? Not much self determination there under the SNP.

And if the Scottish people can vote for whomever they want, Tuesday's 670 page Wishlist seems to depend massively on things which the SNP would have to be in power even to TRY to deliver them.

Your like broken record. Boo hoo the snp boo hoo.

Any party could implement those policies and maybe after a yes vote they might actually have to devise some policies. You can vote for whoever you want, a party that wants to regionalise all services if that's what you want. Until then you can just cry about the snp and repeat yourself about separatists boring everyone here to tears.

[Oddquine]

 

 

Dont you just locve the way the NO people latch onto a hatred of the SNP. The same NO people who currently benefit, and will in future benefit from SNP policy. I was able to put three children through university because of SNP policy. I have family members on constant medication who couldn't afford it but for SNP policy. We have shorter hospital waiting times. We have higher standards of care for the elderly. We are better off now than ever we were.

Alex, I seem to recollect that some time ago in a discussion on this referendum on here, you suggested to us that after separation there would be no need for an SNP.

That's not really the way it looks now, given that much of their case rests on the extensive range of populist but economically unproven measures they are telling us they would implement if they get the result they want and in an attempt to get peole to vote for that.

And maybe you should also add to what you have said there that we also have Council services which are creaking at the seams for lack of funding due to the SNP's six year Council Tax freeze (for which they are NOT properly compensating councils.)

Now that's an interesting one as well. The SNP is the party which wants YOU to have more control over how your life is run by moving centralised power from "Westminster" to Edinburgh. So why are they taking power away from local areas and centralising it in the form of a Scottish Fire Service, a Scottish Police service and Holyrood exercising restraint on local authorities delivering local services. They seem to want to draw everything in towards central Scotland.

 

I have never ever said there would be no need for an SNP. I may have said that the people could decide on another party. Just on the subject of the council tax freeze. the one thing that has achieved is a vast reduction in wasteage. How often, nowadays, do you see a council worker digging a hole with six others watching. Perhaps you haven't been reading the right papers recently Charles. If you had you'd have read that the same amalgamation of Fire, Police etc is proposed for England. There is so much negativity, just for the sake of it, about centralisation of police yet the reality is that the guys on the beat will remain the same but why the hell pay for six or seven Chief constables when one will suffice. Maybe the money saved will go towards preventing and detecting crime and protecting you and I instead of paying for chauffuers and flash cars for the stiff upper lipped pr!cks in braid.

 

 

Not sure re the centralised Police and Fire Services, myself.......there hasn't really been enough time to see if it will work successfully, given it only officially happened April last (and I can't say I've noticed any difference so far)....but doesn't the centralising of Police and Fire Services take some burden off local government at a time when they are having council tax frozen, as I thought they were going to be directly Government funded rather than the costs split between the two as it had been until then...though maybe I got that wrong?  If that is the case, however, it should help out Local Authority finances.

[Oddquine]

Dont you just locve the way the NO people latch onto a hatred of the SNP. The same NO people who currently benefit, and will in future benefit from SNP policy. I was able to put three children through university because of SNP policy. I have family members on constant medication who couldn't afford it but for SNP policy. We have shorter hospital waiting times. We have higher standards of care for the elderly. We are better off now than ever we were.

 

To be fair, the NO people can't latch onto anything else to illustrate that Scotland would be better inside the Union than Independent........so they kinda have to fall back on personality politics to have any real argument. Reasons for voting "NO" bar the "better the devil you know" and the scaremongering kind of twaddle are conspicuous by their absence.

 

According to the Telegraph today

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10487295/Autumn-Statement-2013-Britain-can-no-longer-afford-welfare-state-warns-Osborne.html

 

The welfare state is unaffordable, George Osborne will tell MPs this week, and permanent cuts will be required to make the public finances “sustainable”.

The Chancellor will use his Autumn Statement on Thursday to set out more details of a new cap on welfare spending after the next general election.

It is an attempt to put permanent limits on around £100 billion a year of spending on items such as Housing Benefit and some unemployment payments.

Mr Osborne yesterday hinted that, even after the current austerity programme, more fundamental changes will be needed to give Britain an “affordable state”.

 

But at least they are going to lift 800000 people out of "Fuel Poverty"..by moving the goalposts!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/800000-people-lifted-out-offuel-poverty--by-redefining-it-8976232.html

 

So that's fine then....only those who have bigger than average bills are fuel poor..and how much you have left to spend on other necessities like eating is not important.  If your bigger than average bill is produced by running a washing machine and tumble drier daily, having a TV in every room, with every family member also having a laptop, a mobile phone and probably an Xbox.and taking a shower....  and having a hot house as opposed to a comfortably warm one....you are in fuel poverty.  So who decides what is average? The same people who decide on what is the "average" wage?

 

And then we have the  All Parliamentary Taxation Group recommending that if Scots vote No, the Barnett Formula should be scrapped. If Scotland has had a "black hole" in its finances before......it is going to be a deep pit after 2014 with a NO vote!  Kinda funny that according to the "NO" Camp, we are going to be in dire financial straits as an Independent Country (though they can't possibly know that..unless they intend to up the National Debt drastically between now and then so that both countries will be in dire financial straits!)...when we are clearly going to be in dire financial straits as a part of the UK..and we do know it!

 

Independence of itself will not make Scotland richer or poorer...it is what we do with it which will decide the future!  That has got to be better than handing all our money to Westminster, getting pocket money back and being told what we get to spend it on, letting Westminster use the rest of our money to help pay for Trident, wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, interest on the money they borrow ( because they won't close tax loopholes which let the wealthy and businesses avoid tax), and the likes of London's sewers, HS2, the Olympics, the Channel Tunnel, Cross Rail,salaries, expenses and pensions for 650 MPs and about 850 Lords, the back-hander to South West England water customers because they are being hammered by the private water company and of course our share of the (non-Barnett) payment to the biggest "subsidy junkie" in the UK after NI.....London.

 

 

[The Mantis]

BBC Scotland and the curious case of the changing headlines

Edited December 20, 2013 by TheMantis

[culduthel]

The Press here in New Zealand are reporting that the independence campaign in Scotland looks increasingly like a dead duck with the Yes vote polling around 20% and the No vote polling around 70% with the remaining 10% undecided.

They state that a large proportion of the No vote are younger people. The Yes vote being made up of largely disaffected older people.

There are also reports that indicate that if the Yes campaign were somehow successful then the Orkney and the Shetland Islands and possibly in the Inner and Outer Hebrides would cede from Scotland back to Britain and take most of the North Sea Oil and Whisky with them. Is this true and is it possible?

[Tichy_Blacks_Back]

Talisker would be no great loss - Highland Park on the other hand.... ;-)

Edited December 21, 2013 by Tichy_Blacks_Back

[Alex MacLeod]

The Press here in New Zealand are reporting that the independence campaign in Scotland looks increasingly like a dead duck with the Yes vote polling around 20% and the No vote polling around 70% with the remaining 10% undecided.

They state that a large proportion of the No vote are younger people. The Yes vote being made up of largely disaffected older people.

There are also reports that indicate that if the Yes campaign were somehow successful then the Orkney and the Shetland Islands and possibly in the Inner and Outer Hebrides would cede from Scotland back to Britain and take most of the North Sea Oil and Whisky with them. Is this true and is it possible?

Do your New Zealand press have any sense of Scottish geography or the make up of the Islanders? I can see were the Northern Isles suggestions may come from but the Hebrides? What say can they have on North Sea oil? Also only around five percent of Scotlands total whisky export comes from the islands mentioned.

As for the poll, perhaps the NZ press are not the best ones to report truth. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-shows-yes-narrowing-gap-1-3239245

[Charles Bannerman]

 

The Press here in New Zealand are reporting that the independence campaign in Scotland looks increasingly like a dead duck with the Yes vote polling around 20% and the No vote polling around 70% with the remaining 10% undecided.

They state that a large proportion of the No vote are younger people. The Yes vote being made up of largely disaffected older people.

There are also reports that indicate that if the Yes campaign were somehow successful then the Orkney and the Shetland Islands and possibly in the Inner and Outer Hebrides would cede from Scotland back to Britain and take most of the North Sea Oil and Whisky with them. Is this true and is it possible?

Do your New Zealand press have any sense of Scottish geography or the make up of the Islanders? I can see were the Northern Isles suggestions may come from but the Hebrides? What say can they have on North Sea oil? Also only around five percent of Scotlands total whisky export comes from the islands mentioned.

As for the poll, perhaps the NZ press are not the best ones to report truth. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-shows-yes-narrowing-gap-1-3239245

 

What the Scotsman is reporting is a single poll reporting a 1% (ONE PER CENT) increase in the yes vote. And that's before the publication of the catastrophically vacuous White Paper/ publicly funded SNP manifesto which went such a long way to illustrate the emptiness of the separatist case to the extent that the SNP will be quite glad bombed into obscurity the instant it was published, hence limiting the damage.

[Alex MacLeod]

Yes Charles it is just one poll but theres still a few months to go for your employers to lie and twist the truth be impartial reporters of the facts. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/8491-bbc-scotland-and-the-curious-case-of-the-changing-headlines

[culduthel]

Thanks for that link Alex. Had a read of it.

 

Briefly what do you think are the top five compelling reasons for the yes campaign and independence. Or alternatively someone else like Charles could briefly state the top five compelling reasons for staying part of Britain.  Many Kiwis ask me to summarise/explain the main arguments of both sides of the referendum question as they cannot find them clearly articulated anywhere.  I have to tell them I can't find them clearly articulated anywhere either.

It seems to most Kiwis that I meet that the whole referendum question suffers from poor quality debate and presentation of ideas. 

[Charles Bannerman]

Thanks for that link Alex. Had a read of it.

 

Briefly what do you think are the top five compelling reasons for the yes campaign and independence. Or alternatively someone else like Charles could briefly state the top five compelling reasons for staying part of Britain.  Many Kiwis ask me to summarise/explain the main arguments of both sides of the referendum question as they cannot find them clearly articulated anywhere.  I have to tell them I can't find them clearly articulated anywhere either.

It seems to most Kiwis that I meet that the whole referendum question suffers from poor quality debate and presentation of ideas. 

OK... here we go.

 

* I would much prefer to benefit from the security and stability of being part of one of the world's leading nations than turn the clock back 300 years to become a small, one trick pony of questionable viability, whose principal claimed asset is going to run out sooner rather than later. Britain has been incredibly successful since it was formed in 1707/1801 and I would want to remain part of that. Small nations have shown themselves to be uncomfortably vulnerable during hard economic times. That is a risk I simply don't want to take for what i see as no benefit.

* I am perfectly happy as I am so have no desire to change - as, for instance, are the people of two other major nations Germany and Italy, which underwent unification in the second half of the 19th century, much later than Britain did. The yessers keep quoting the Czech Republic and Slovakia but fail to acknowledge that Czechoslovakia was merely a contrived political expedient at the end of WW1.

* In common with many Scots I have a strong feeling of British indentity which I do not want to lose. It is also increasingly apparent that this is also felt by the younger generation who are the ones who would have to live with the consequeces in the event of a yes vote.

* Britain offers massive benefits and economies of scale in areas ranging from defence to pensions and from consular facilities to currency which I do not want to lose. All of this is hugely important and not to be thrown away on the say so of a group of people who ideologically want a separate Scotland - irrespective of the consequences.

* The separatist lobby have utterly failed to show any credible evidence for what they think would be so much better. Meanwhile they accuse Better Together of "scaremongering" and the like when they quite simply are pointing out a whole range of very obvious problems which are totally avoidable by staying as we are.

* Scotland has a number of serious problems such as health and welfare liabilities in certain areas as well as unpleasant sectarian issues. Separation would mean that these problems become a much bigger part of 5 million population Scotland than 60 million population Great Britain. In particular as a Highlander, I have no desire at all to have my entire existence governed by the central belt.

[culduthel]

Thanks for that Charles. 

 

Can anyone have a go at the five main reasons for the yes campaign?  Briefly and to the point, thanks.

[gordieict]

 

Thanks for that link Alex. Had a read of it.

 

Briefly what do you think are the top five compelling reasons for the yes campaign and independence. Or alternatively someone else like Charles could briefly state the top five compelling reasons for staying part of Britain.  Many Kiwis ask me to summarise/explain the main arguments of both sides of the referendum question as they cannot find them clearly articulated anywhere.  I have to tell them I can't find them clearly articulated anywhere either.

It seems to most Kiwis that I meet that the whole referendum question suffers from poor quality debate and presentation of ideas. 

OK... here we go.

 

* I would much prefer to benefit from the security and stability of being part of one of the world's leading nations than turn the clock back 300 years to become a small, one trick pony of questionable viability, whose principal claimed asset is going to run out sooner rather than later. Britain has been incredibly successful since it was formed in 1707/1801 and I would want to remain part of that. Small nations have shown themselves to be uncomfortably vulnerable during hard economic times. That is a risk I simply don't want to take for what i see as no benefit.

* I am perfectly happy as I am so have no desire to change - as, for instance, are the people of two other major nations Germany and Italy, which underwent unification in the second half of the 19th century, much later than Britain did. The yessers keep quoting the Czech Republic and Slovakia but fail to acknowledge that Czechoslovakia was merely a contrived political expedient at the end of WW1.

* In common with many Scots I have a strong feeling of British indentity which I do not want to lose. It is also increasingly apparent that this is also felt by the younger generation who are the ones who would have to live with the consequeces in the event of a yes vote.

* Britain offers massive benefits and economies of scale in areas ranging from defence to pensions and from consular facilities to currency which I do not want to lose. All of this is hugely important and not to be thrown away on the say so of a group of people who ideologically want a separate Scotland - irrespective of the consequences.

* The separatist lobby have utterly failed to show any credible evidence for what they think would be so much better. Meanwhile they accuse Better Together of "scaremongering" and the like when they quite simply are pointing out a whole range of very obvious problems which are totally avoidable by staying as we are.

* Scotland has a number of serious problems such as health and welfare liabilities in certain areas as well as unpleasant sectarian issues. Separation would mean that these problems become a much bigger part of 5 million population Scotland than 60 million population Great Britain. In particular as a Highlander, I have no desire at all to have my entire existence governed by the central belt.

 

 

Charles thanks for that, I was in the undecided camp but if thats the best the no campaign have to offer then I am voting Yes