The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[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 your last point about the unpleasant sectarian issues may well be valid, but do you not think there are more serious problems with religious and racial divide in the South of England, something I definitely do not want a part off. And do you seriously think that health and welfare problems are exclusively a Scottish problem, they are a UK problem caused by the policies of successive Westminster Governments. 

[Charles Bannerman]

 

 

Charles your last point about the unpleasant sectarian issues may well be valid, but do you not think there are more serious problems with religious and racial divide in the South of England, something I definitely do not want a part off. And do you seriously think that health and welfare problems are exclusively a Scottish problem, they are a UK problem caused by the policies of successive Westminster Governments. 

 

Gordie, the issue here is that I think there is an even stronger reason in the Highlands for a No vote since the alternative is for us to have to tune called for us exclusively by the central belt rather than be part of the much more diverse society which is the United Kingdom.

[The Mantis]

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.

I think if your friends looked at the Yes website or Facebook page they would find a mature level of debate and people willing to answer or explain patiently any points they raised. Loads of FAQs too.

I'm told that anybody asking awkward questions on the Better Together page is quickly deleted and/or banned, but I'm not speaking from personal experience.

I'm out just now but this evening I will briefly give you 5 points which appear to be key in favour of independence.

Unlike Charles I will not presume to speak for anybody but myself, will not waste time rubbishing (in fact will not even mention) the opposition, will offer far more facts than opinions and, again unlike Charles, will restrict myself to 5 (five) points!

[The Mantis]

Sorry, not so brief, more like boxer shorts 

 

 

1. Europe's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons is located 30 miles from Scotland's largest city. Under Independence these obscenities will be removed, saving money for a regular defence force similar to other nations as Scotland will not need to be part of the USA's big boys' club and will not be invading anybody.

 

2. Scotland is almost as large as England but has only a tenth of the population (for which 300 years of UK government must shoulder at least part of the blame).

The policies of the UK government are aimed at solving the problems of the overheated south-east, where the bulk of the people live, so they concern themselves with matters such as controlling immigration or coping with congested roads and airspace which are irrelevant in Scottish terms, while ignoring industries such as fishing which are highly relevant. 

Scotland should be able to elect the government it chooses and not one chosen by another nation.

 

3. Scotland has abundant resources including forestry, food & drink, renewables, tourism, electronics, agriculture, shipbuilding, whisky (UK's largest export) plus oil and gas. I have visited many small, similar progressive European nations which make the UK appear backward at times, and have spoken to people there who find it incredible that we do not have the confidence to govern ourselves - although it is now established that the UK government lied to us in an attempt to diminish the demand for Independence.

 

4. It's 'normal'. Scotland needs to grow up, take responsibility and rid itself of its dependency culture: difficult when we are brainwashed into believing ourselves 'subsidy junkies' or 'whingeing jocks'. However we have come a long way since 30 years ago when we didn't really believe we could manage even a devolved parliament.

 

5. The UK is reported to be the world's 4th most unequal society. Scotland has a tradition of egalitarianism and the class structure found in England does not exist to the same extent. For instance, the concept of fee-paying schools is almost unknown in most areas of Scotland. The pinnacle of the class system is the royal family, and at a future date, an Independent Scotland could choose to become a republic. No House of Lords either.

[Charles Bannerman]

Sorry, not so brief, more like boxer shorts 

 

 

1. Europe's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons is located 30 miles from Scotland's largest city. Under Independence these obscenities will be removed, saving money for a regular defence force similar to other nations as Scotland will not need to be part of the USA's big boys' club and will not be invading anybody.

 

2. Scotland is almost as large as England but has only a tenth of the population (for which 300 years of UK government must shoulder at least part of the blame).

The policies of the UK government are aimed at solving the problems of the overheated south-east, where the bulk of the people live, so they concern themselves with matters such as controlling immigration or coping with congested roads and airspace which are irrelevant in Scottish terms, while ignoring industries such as fishing which are highly relevant. 

Scotland should be able to elect the government it chooses and not one chosen by another nation.

 

3. Scotland has abundant resources including forestry, food & drink, renewables, tourism, electronics, agriculture, shipbuilding, whisky (UK's largest export) plus oil and gas. I have visited many small, similar progressive European nations which make the UK appear backward at times, and have spoken to people there who find it incredible that we do not have the confidence to govern ourselves - although it is now established that the UK government lied to us in an attempt to diminish the demand for Independence.

 

4. It's 'normal'. Scotland needs to grow up, take responsibility and rid itself of its dependency culture: difficult when we are brainwashed into believing ourselves 'subsidy junkies' or 'whingeing jocks'. However we have come a long way since 30 years ago when we didn't really believe we could manage even a devolved parliament.

 

5. The UK is reported to be the world's 4th most unequal society. Scotland has a tradition of egalitarianism and the class structure found in England does not exist to the same extent. For instance, the concept of fee-paying schools is almost unknown in most areas of Scotland. The pinnacle of the class system is the royal family, and at a future date, an Independent Scotland could choose to become a republic. No House of Lords either.

Mantis... is this you been out for a pint with Tommy Sheridan again? (Well at least I hope it was just the pub you were at  )  That list reads more like Citizen MacSmith's election manifesto.

 

1 - Yes, Macmillan should have done better on that original Coulport deal with the Yanks but I wasn't aware of any consequent surge in nationalistic sentiment during the 60s when the danger of nuclear war was hugely greater than it is now. You also make it sound terribly simple just to snap your fingers and the nukes will magically disappear with no collateral consequence.

 

2 -  I thought even the SNP had put the "It's all the fault of the b*****d English" line on the back burner in order to make themselves more acceptable. And not a mention of the significant prosperity (eg the growth of Glasgow) as a result of being part of the Union.

 

3 - I get a bit bemused by this assertion about "having the confidence" to separate since it rather presumtuously and patronisingly assumes, without justification, that separation is a fundamentally good idea. Meanwhile it also conveniently ignores the awkward truth that a great number of people disagree - and/or have far, far more important issues in their lives.

 

4 - A sort of mixture of 2 and 3 above.

 

5 - The vast bulk of the Scottish population is within pretty easy reach of private education and it's only in the thinly populated Highlands and Islands that this is significantly inaccessible - and that for reasons of geography and population density, not ideology. Just as so much of the separatist case seems to depend on a wish list of what the electorate MIGHT vote for subsequent to any referendum vote, much of number 5 would depend on the subsequent election of a rabidly left wing government. And in that connection, I am not aware of the solely Scottish elected Scottish parliament having set about what it controls with evangelistically left wing zeal.

I also thought that Yesscotland was pretty firmly committed to retaining the monarchy.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[culduthel]

Sorry, not so brief, more like boxer shorts 

 

 

1. Europe's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons is located 30 miles from Scotland's largest city. Under Independence these obscenities will be removed, saving money for a regular defence force similar to other nations as Scotland will not need to be part of the USA's big boys' club and will not be invading anybody.

 

2. Scotland is almost as large as England but has only a tenth of the population (for which 300 years of UK government must shoulder at least part of the blame).

The policies of the UK government are aimed at solving the problems of the overheated south-east, where the bulk of the people live, so they concern themselves with matters such as controlling immigration or coping with congested roads and airspace which are irrelevant in Scottish terms, while ignoring industries such as fishing which are highly relevant. 

Scotland should be able to elect the government it chooses and not one chosen by another nation.

 

3. Scotland has abundant resources including forestry, food & drink, renewables, tourism, electronics, agriculture, shipbuilding, whisky (UK's largest export) plus oil and gas. I have visited many small, similar progressive European nations which make the UK appear backward at times, and have spoken to people there who find it incredible that we do not have the confidence to govern ourselves - although it is now established that the UK government lied to us in an attempt to diminish the demand for Independence.

 

4. It's 'normal'. Scotland needs to grow up, take responsibility and rid itself of its dependency culture: difficult when we are brainwashed into believing ourselves 'subsidy junkies' or 'whingeing jocks'. However we have come a long way since 30 years ago when we didn't really believe we could manage even a devolved parliament.

 

5. The UK is reported to be the world's 4th most unequal society. Scotland has a tradition of egalitarianism and the class structure found in England does not exist to the same extent. For instance, the concept of fee-paying schools is almost unknown in most areas of Scotland. The pinnacle of the class system is the royal family, and at a future date, an Independent Scotland could choose to become a republic. No House of Lords either.

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply to my request  Mantis.  As you say in your other post a patient and mature level of response.

[IBM]

I have to laugh at CB's post where he said;

 

"In particular as a Highlander, I have no desire at all to have my entire existence governed by the central belt."

 

And yet he is happy to be governed by hundreds of MP's and Lords in Westminster who couldn't care less about the existence of us Scots!

[Charles Bannerman]

I have to laugh at CB's post where he said;

 

"In particular as a Highlander, I have no desire at all to have my entire existence governed by the central belt."

 

And yet he is happy to be governed by hundreds of MP's and Lords in Westminster who couldn't care less about the existence of us Scots!

Across history, I really don't think that we in the Highlands have got much to thank the rest of Scotland for.

[The Mantis]

 

 

Mantis... is this you been out for a pint with Tommy Sheridan again? (Well at least I hope it was just the pub you were at  )  That list reads more like Citizen MacSmith's election manifesto.

 

1 - Yes, Macmillan should have done better on that original Coulport deal with the Yanks but I wasn't aware of any consequent surge in nationalistic sentiment during the 60s when the danger of nuclear war was hugely greater than it is now. You also make it sound terribly simple just to snap your fingers and the nukes will magically disappear with no collateral consequence.

 

2 -  I thought even the SNP had put the "It's all the fault of the b*****d English" line on the back burner in order to make themselves more acceptable. And not a mention of the significant prosperity (eg the growth of Glasgow) as a result of being part of the Union.

 

3 - I get a bit bemused by this assertion about "having the confidence" to separate since it rather presumtuously and patronisingly assumes, without justification, that separation is a fundamentally good idea. Meanwhile it also conveniently ignores the awkward truth that a great number of people disagree - and/or have far, far more important issues in their lives.

 

4 - A sort of mixture of 2 and 3 above.

 

5 - The vast bulk of the Scottish population is within pretty easy reach of private education and it's only in the thinly populated Highlands and Islands that this is significantly inaccessible - and that for reasons of geography and population density, not ideology. Just as so much of the separatist case seems to depend on a wish list of what the electorate MIGHT vote for subsequent to any referendum vote, much of number 5 would depend on the subsequent election of a rabidly left wing government. And in that connection, I am not aware of the solely Scottish elected Scottish parliament having set about what it controls with evangelistically left wing zeal.

I also thought that Yesscotland was pretty firmly committed to retaining the monarchy.

 

Come on Charles...... it was a "Beginner's Guide For Kiwis", not "Let's Have One Last Go at Converting Charles" 

It's touching that you gave it some of your time though..... up to your usual mischief, blurring the lines between "Westminster" and "The English".

It's a civic affair Charles, not an ethnic one...... after all you've never hidden your contempt for "The Central Belt" but you don't really hate Lowland people ..... do you 

BTW in the issue about 'having the confidence' I wasn't quoting my own words.

 

Now I swore I would leave your list alone for the Kiwis to decide, but I think you should be thankful that they won't be voting.....

Out of six (!) points, three appear to be saying the same - BIG IS BETTER (fair enough), and one is just ranting your opinions of the opposition. Not very inspiring, but anyway enjoy your turkey, and don't respond with the obvious joke  .

[Joe DiMaggio]

.

[Joe DiMaggio]

 

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.

 

 

Wow, if that is the argument for NO then please share it as much as you can as it can only lead people to voting yes. So hypocritical, bitter and negative.

 

1. The union has been around for 300...so what. That is not a reason to continue. Scotland is also not a small nation, in terms of population it would be a median nation. Also your going on about small nations constantly is nonsense. The majority of the 10 most prosperous nations of the last year are similar in size or smaller than scotland in terms of population. As are countries with triple AAA rating, standard of living, life expectancy etc. The UK does not make these lists so your point about small countries is rubbish. As for security, what a joke. Do the people of Norway, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland, Denmark etc walk around with a constant fear of invasion. More scare nonsense from you.

 

2. What are you blabering on about. You mention 2 countries that went through unification, so what, German unification has nothing to do with the Scottish independence debate. Over 100 countries have become independent since the end of WW2 (trumping your examples), around 50 of these from the UK. How many of them want to go back. None.

 

3. What a joke. Here you show yourself to be a hypocrit yet again. You mock Scottish identity on one hand but laud British indentity on the other. This vote isn't about what Charles Bannerman thinks cause outside your head, no one else cares. You mockingly go on about independence for Pictland or the north east and that Scotland was just a creation of different kingdoms. But then on the other hand mention your strong feeling of British identity, hypocritical much. There is a stronger feeling of Scottish indentity in this country than British as was shown in the census.

Also if you can be Scottish and British just now when Scotland isn't independent then why can't you be Scottish and British when Scotland is independent? At the moment in all intents and purposes you are British. You have a British passport and are a British citizen but some people, not all, class themselves as Scottish as that is the area of Britian they come from. After independence it is just reveresed and in all intents and purposes you would be Scottish as you would be intitled to a Scottish passport and Scottish citizenship but Scotland would still be located on the island of Britian so you can class yourself as British if you so wish. Also you could very well hold dual citizenship and passports actually making you equally Scottish and British for the first time.

 

4. Again the usual assertions. Size of the nation is not a benifit when you look at nations of a smilar size to Scotland. Look at the most prosperous nations, standard of living etc. Being part of a larger nation is not a benifit especially when it is skewed in favour of the south east of england. Scotland also owns 10% of consular facilities and scandanavian nations share ones.

 

5. This is a reason for voting no. 'Those bad nationalists say we scaremonger but actually we dont'

What have we has, bombing of scottish airports, hague not promoting whisky, you will have to drive on the right hand side of the road, roaming charges the day they are being done away with...even people within the no campaign are criticising it for being too nagative.

 

6. Is popualtion all you can mention without actually showing how a 'small' population is a problem. You just previously said that better together are fasley accused of scaremongering then you go and say sectarianisim will increase...without saying why. Total nonsense again.

 

You also can't see how ridiculas your statement is about Scotland having serious health and welfare problems within the union which we have been part of for 300 years, so this is a reason to keep things as they are? That is a reason to change.

[Oddquine]

This will be at least a two-parter, given the character restrictions on posts in place on here and my verbosity!

 

Charles seems bereft of reasons to vote NO.......bar all those which will benefit the UK more than Scotland.....as in...........

 

Big is Better/Economies of Scale....which simply means we share the costs of funding, among other things, a large pretty undemocratic House of Commons, and an even larger completely undemocratic, unelected House of Jobs for the Boys in Ermine; plough our taxes into helping pay for Olympics, London Sewage systems, HS2, the Channel Tunnel, covering England in Motorways (compared to Scotland); pay our share for Foreign Embassies and the running of Government Departments, like HMRC ......but if Scotland wants to actually use the facilities we already contribute towards, we have to pay more on top of what we already pay out.

 

Big is Better/Economies of Scale means we, who entered the Union with no national  debt, but from day one, acquired a share of that already produced by England's war making machine, now share in a ginormous debt total, solely down to the lack of economic nous (and propensity to make war) by Westminster Governments. Perhaps Charles could tell us how much of the current UK debt total was incurred solely by, or on behalf of Scotland (without going the Scottish Banks disintegration route..because Westminster made that possible...if not pretty inevitable).

 

Big is Better/Economies of Scale means we help fund the salaries and pensions of 448,835 UK Civil Servants  as at March 2013. Of those, about 29,000 working in reserved departments(which will be included),are Scottish based...and, depending if the UK total includes those employed by devolved administrations in the total, another 16,400 are employed in devolved areas including support within Holyrood.

Been browsing the most up to date Scotland Office report I can find (that for 2011-2012), and after wading through pages of "we worked with the Scottish government to" and " The Scottish Office chaired meetings to" we find that the pretty pointless Scottish Office transmitted to the Scottish Government, in 2011-2012, £26,179,500,000 in hard cash.......to undertake all devolved items. (at least I THINK that is what it says). I find it interesting that no Senior Civil Servants in the pretty pointless Scottish Office is getting less than £60,000 annually and one of them gets between £90 and £95 thousand.and that was in 2011-2012. I shudder to think what they are going to get pension-wise, eventually!

I do really have to admire (as a one time Apprentice Chartered Accountant) the ability of Government agencies/accountants to surround everything they say in so much verbiage that it is really hard to abstract any figure from that verbiage and actually understand to what part of where the figures should be allocated. .I did note that, over the piece, the UK MP punters who man the Scottish Office get golden parachute payments when they are dunted (wish everybody who is dunted from their jobs did....I'd be quids in!) 

 

But regarding the Economies of Scale, thingie I'm inclined to think that it doesn't exist, and am more inclined to think that the UK Government has "Bottomless Pocket Syndrome" just as so many of the now privatised Nationalised Industries did, but the Government likes it more when they reap the subsidy benefits, and aren't so keen on joe punter  getting as much benefit as they do from taxpayer input. Looks as if we have paid, since 2010 and the change in Government, a share of Golden Parachute payments for a dunted Advocate General, who got £24,000 in severance pay, a Secretary of State for Scotland, who got about £19000,  a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Scotland Office who got about £7000 and the UK also paid about £36,000 to the Lord Wallace of Tankerness because, as Advocate General, he was more important than an elected MP who was Secretary of State for Scotland, and was entitled to also claim his House of Lords Office Holders Allowance on top of the £90 odd thousand he got for being Advocate General.  I have to say I can fully understand why Scottish Unionist MPs and Lords are so dead set on stopping Scotland getting independence..because their gravy train will hit the buffers and at least grind to a halt, even if it doesn't crash!

 

Big is Better/gives more security and safety.......well it certainly does for everywhere South of the Border as long as Trident is in Scotland, but given that in WWII the priority for Westminster was the defence of England, and losing Scotland to invasion was acceptable to ensure all available forces (including those from Scotland) could fight to prevent England being invaded, not a lot has changed in that attitude over the time from then to now regarding the importance of Scotland to the union.....which appears to be something expendable to make sure England will always go on being. That was likely the reason the experimental fast-breeder reactor went to Dounreay.......less and more unimportant collateral damage if it all went wrong.........just as they consider the area around Faslane and Coulport to be expendable http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-mod-says-trident-nuclear-weapons-not-safe-enough-to-be-stored-at-english-base-1-2721194 .And it certainly doesn't imply more security and safety when you consider the lack of Maritime defences, which entailed a destroyer (or something) chuntering up from Plymouth when the Russians turned up 30 miles from the Moray Coast. If this link is correct http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533846/Battle-stations-Navy-scrambles-destroyer-challenge-Russian-warship-British-coast-takes-24-hours-make-600-mile-journey-Portsmouth-base-Putin-testing-response-time.html it's the third time(I think) in the last few years that the Russians have been in a position to invade if they had wanted to do so! More secure and safer? Really?

 

Big is Better/We have importance in the world as part of the UK.......but that is a downright lie, because we don't have any such thing. The odd individual Scot may well be warming a seat in the UN, the EU, NATO, etc....but they are sitting there on behalf of the UK, not Scotland.....so the nation of Scotland has no voice, anywhere in the world...which isn't being used to bum up the UK, bar in the EU Parliament, and those few Scottish focused voices are drowned out by the cacophony of UK oriented ones.  However....with Trident parked in Scotland, the UK certainly has importance in the world, though likely not as much as the Westminster Government has in their own  minds.

 

Big is Better/Currency.....now there I am inclined to agree...although, personally, I'd be more than happy to go short term with an informal arrangement that the rUK couldn't stop anyway, while we got ourselves set up with our own Central Bank and currency. Having the ability to rejig our own fiscal policies  to ameliorate rUK brainfarts in the short term is not that much different to what we do now in our limited way using the Block Grant, after all. but full control of all fiscal policy will make it easier. But if there is no currency agreement, I rather think that a UK which has a pretty big trade deficit at the moment will have a much bigger one if, as rUk, they remove, just because they do cutting off nose to spite face, the input from Scotland to the rUK Trade figures. What gets  me is that Scotland, via the Scottish Government, is trying to be fair to both Scotland and the rUK in their proposals, and build a kinda co-operation of neighbours.......but Westminster is doing pouting, huffing and foot-stamping, much as  any toddler having a tantrum does.......and the way they are behaving now is not so different to their reaction in 1979 at the time of that referendum.

 

Being an old bugger, I can remember stuff in the Unionist media then like  "How much of Scotland's economy will be left intact if a Scottish Assembly gets the go-ahead on March 1? Will our coal mines go gaily on? Will Ravenscraig or Linwood thrive? Will Bathgate flourish and Dounreay prosper?”  And I distinctly remember the promise that Douglas-Hume made that, if Scotland voted NO, a future Conservative government would offer Scotland "something better". And when we  voted NO, under the special new 40% rule imposed, (despite actually voting YES, as I did myself)....what happened? Our Coal mines did not go gaily on, Ravenscraig and Linwood didn't thrive, Bathgate didn't flourish..and Dounreay  didn't prosper.  And  the Conservative "something better" turned out to be Margaret Thatcher and an 18 year hiatus before any form of devolution.....which didn't come  from the Tories, who were too busy closing Scottish manufacturing industries/coal mines, selling off the UK family silver and introducing the poll tax, to remember the promise made on their behalf. 

 

Which just goes to illustrate how much  store Scotland can set by any promises made by UK Parties,ever , when you remember that it took Labour 100+ years to get round to setting up the dependent baby brother of the Home Rule which had been in their manifesto from 1888 (ie Devolution) and the Lib-Dems are still chuntering on about federalism but given the chance to try pushing it, they went for getting PR...and didn't even manage to succeed with that!

 

I look forward to Charles.or others explaining to me where I have gone completely wrong in my interpretation of the attitude and actions of Westminster with regard to Scotland.

 

I'm off to bed now, but will be back later today, hopefully, if I have enough time before a YES Moray Coast meeting, to give my take on what staying in the Union will mean for us, given we already know much of what is going to happen until 2015 and are currently getting told pretty much what the various UK Parties have in store for us beyond then.

 

 

[IBM]

Hope you managed to get some sleep after writing all that post Oddquine, good reading!  The thing that I wonder about is all the people that are happy to accept the Millions going to waste!

[+bughtmaster]

I agree with a great deal of what you say Oddquine but I have great reservations about what it will do to the Highlands especially the Northern Highlands if the very Bolshi almost dictatorial SNP get their way.

Mr B 's historical issues regarding the lowlanders is very real and I fear desecration will befall our wonderful scenic and tranquil land and shorelines through lack of voice and certainly support for us.

Anyway I look forward to your next instalment which may reassure me that I need not sit on the fence much longer.

 

Just think you could be instrumental on which side I land on !!!..............Choose your words with care.

[Joe DiMaggio]

Need to remember that this is a referendum, not an election. In 2016 we can vote for whatever party we want to govern Scotland. The constant obsession with the SNP and Alex Salmond is a very poor deflection from the actual debate but is one the unionists like to bang on about. (without mentioning that if a yes vote is a vote for an snp government in an independent Scotland then a no vote must be a tory vote within the union)

 

I also find the argument that we will be rulled by Edinburgh lacking any substance. If that is the case then at the moment we are purley goverened by the South East of England which has far more different priorities, why stay with that. The percentage of Highland MP's in a Scottish parliament is far far greater than the percentage of Highland MP's currently in Westminster so our voice can be heard much better. Our MP's dont even make up 1% of the Westminster parliament but 12% in Hollyrood

[IBM]

You are right Joe if Scotland votes YES at the next Scottish elections we can vote for any party we want it does not have to be SNP.  If that happens I am sure there would be a Scottish Tory Party of sorts they are not going to just disappear and although there are not many Tories in Scotland I would still respect anybody that would vote for them. 

[Yngwie]

Need to remember that this is a referendum, not an election. In 2016 we can vote for whatever party we want to govern Scotland. The constant obsession with the SNP and Alex Salmond is a very poor deflection from the actual debate but is one the unionists like to bang on about.

 

True, but the greatest blurring of the lines between independence and SNP policies is actually the White Paper.

[+DoofersDad]

 The constant obsession with the SNP and Alex Salmond is a very poor deflection from the actual debate but is one the unionists like to bang on about.

The fact of the matter is that the policies of the SNP are more popular than the concept of Independence.  The dilemma for Salmond and the SNP is that they are more likely to win "yes" votes if they can give voters the impression that a vote for independence is a vote for SNP policy.  But by linking the two they are open to charges from the Unionists that they are turning the referendum into an election.  Of course the Unionists are going to bang on about it.  They know that a focus on the deeper longer term constitutional issues, regardless of the merit of the argument, is not going to enthuse an apathetic electorate in the way that short term political policy can.

 

Salmond will be forced to adopt a strategy linking independence and SNP policy whilst strenuously denying he is doing any such thing.  It's a risky strategy but he will certainly lose if he does what he demands of others - i.e.sticks to the real issues.

[Alex MacLeod]

A fact to consider............Britian has oil and is in very serious debt. Norway has had the same oil for the same amount of time and, through hedging proceeds of that oil away for a rainy day, whilst still maintaining a control on budgets, spending and borrowing, is now in a position where they could, effectively, make every man, woman and child residing in that country a millionaire.

 

 

I agree with a great deal of what you say Oddquine but I have great reservations about what it will do to the Highlands especially the Northern Highlands if the very Bolshi almost dictatorial SNP get their way.

Mr B 's historical issues regarding the lowlanders is very real and I fear desecration will befall our wonderful scenic and tranquil land and shorelines through lack of voice and certainly support for us.

Anyway I look forward to your next instalment which may reassure me that I need not sit on the fence much longer.

 

Just think you could be instrumental on which side I land on !!!..............Choose your words with care.

What are they going to do?...................Come along and develop jobs and industry on those lands? Did you voice opinion when Westminster overruled everyone else in favour of SSE and allowed the Beauly to Denny power line with its desecration of our wonderful scenic and tranquil Cairngorm National Park

[+bughtmaster]

Precisely why I have fears Alex.

We are thought of as the wastelands up here, a place and facility to use for whatever nasties money could be made out of to fill the coffers and subsidise the wastage of monies on  glorious schemes to attract visitors to Edinburgh, Glasgow and the rest of the Lowlands. OH yes we will no doubt get a few patronising projects and loads of promises and yes a lot more promises to keep the natives quiet.

 

At the moment Westminster can take the blame while the Scottish government, smugly, keeps quiet and lets them get on with it.  Will it be so different after separation ? Prove to me that it wont be, I have yet to be convinced that things will not worsen!

 

I am still sitting on that fence and I am not very comfortable on it !

[Alex MacLeod]

Quality and not quantity is what breeds success and happiness. Its not about size but how you use it. Small countries around the world are able to vouch for that. Where are all the big industrial projects in the modern world? South Korea. A country of similar size to Scotland though, admittedly, with a population equal to the whole of the UK yet it still maintains vast areas of unadulterated natural beauty. SK is the sixth largest exporter of goods in the world. GB is tenth. SK is at the forefront of the worlds ship building and oil production platform building. Indeed the replacement for BP's Schiehallion FPSO is being built there. It is also at the forefront in the manufacture of industrial equipment as well as motor manufacture. All this is achieved under the threat of their border neighbour.

 

Better Together tell us we mustn't break away because bigger is better. The original founders of the EEC thought that and look at the state many european countries are in now. What other reasons do they give us for staying together? Absolutely none. Why? Because if they answered that question truthfully they'd disassociate many more from their ranks. The real truth is that Scotland does not need a government in Westminster to survive and prosper. The real truth is that the government in Westminster needs taxes from north of the border to help get Britian out of the vast debts created by successive Westminster governments.

 

We as an independant country will survive. We will prosper. We will develop. We will trade with England and the rest of the world. But most of all we will hold our heads high and say we done it on our own.

[dougiedanger]

Precisely why I have fears Alex.

We are thought of as the wastelands up here, a place and facility to use for whatever nasties money could be made out of to fill the coffers and subsidise the wastage of monies on  glorious schemes to attract visitors to Edinburgh, Glasgow and the rest of the Lowlands. OH yes we will no doubt get a few patronising projects and loads of promises and yes a lot more promises to keep the natives quiet.

 

At the moment Westminster can take the blame while the Scottish government, smugly, keeps quiet and lets them get on with it.  Will it be so different after separation ? Prove to me that it wont be, I have yet to be convinced that things will not worsen!

 

I am still sitting on that fence and I am not very comfortable on it !

 

We are so well protected by Westminster that they are asking the Russians to work against independence: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/camerons-plea-to-putin-help-me-stop-salmond.23138182

 

Highlanders must be the most docile and passive people out there, and it's time they woke up and stopped doffing their caps to their perceived superiors.

 

You get the government you deserve, independence or not.

[Renegade]

Does anyone actually see the Yes option winning in September?  I know there's still a while yet and a lot can happen in that time, but does anyone (whether they're for it or not), actually see the independence vote winning?

 

I'm afraid from what I can see, the No folk have this one wrapped up.

[Sneckboy]

I starting think it might be closer than I had initially thought. The 'YES' campaign could get close to 40% but 40/60 would still represent a comfortable 'win' for the 'No' camp.

 

 

[Oddquine]

Does anyone actually see the Yes option winning in September?  I know there's still a while yet and a lot can happen in that time, but does anyone (whether they're for it or not), actually see the independence vote winning?

 

I'm afraid from what I can see, the No folk have this one wrapped up.

Did anyone see the SNP winning over Labour two weeks before they got a majority in the  2011 Scottish election? Labour thought they had it all wrapped up.   Still a lot to play for!

 

As an aside.....how come Cameron won't debate Salmond because "the referendum is for Scotland to decide"...yet we are getting bussed in celebrities from over the Border.....who can't vote..to tell us to vote NO...and he has invited Putin and Rajoy, who can't vote either, to stick their oars/boots in?

Edited January 13, 2014 by Oddquine