The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Sneckboy]

Is there a facility (for non-mods) to see how many posts a particular person has made on a given thread?

[Laurence]

A Quote From J K Rowling I pass on

 

I came to the question of independence with an open mind and an awareness of the seriousness of what we are being asked to decide.  This is not a general election, after which we can curse the result, bide our time and hope to get a better result in four years.  Whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren.  I wanted to write this because I always prefer to explain in my own words why I am supporting a cause and it will be made public shortly that I’ve made a substantial donation to the Better Together Campaign, which advocates keeping Scotland part of the United Kingdom. 

As everyone living in Scotland will know, we are currently being bombarded with contradictory figures and forecasts/warnings of catastrophe/promises of Utopia as the referendum approaches and I expect we will shortly be enjoying (for want of a better word) wall-to-wall coverage. 

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am friendly with individuals involved with both the Better Together Campaign and the Yes Campaign, so I know that there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this question.  Indeed, I believe that intelligent, thoughtful people predominate. 

However, I also know that there is a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence and I suspect, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve lived in Scotland for twenty-one years and plan to remain here for the rest of my life, that they might judge me ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view.  It is true that I was born in the West Country and grew up on the Welsh border and while I have Scottish blood on my mother’s side, I also have English, French and Flemish ancestry.  However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste.  By residence, marriage, and out of gratitude for what this country has given me, my allegiance is wholly to Scotland and it is in that spirit that I have been listening to the months of arguments and counter-arguments.

On the one hand, the Yes campaign promises a fairer, greener, richer and more equal society if Scotland leaves the UK, and that sounds highly appealing.  I’m no fan of the current Westminster government and I couldn’t be happier that devolution has protected us from what is being done to health and education south of the border.  I’m also frequently irritated by a London-centric media that can be careless and dismissive in its treatment of Scotland.  On the other hand, I’m mindful of the fact that when RBS needed to be bailed out, membership of the union saved us from economic catastrophe and I worry about whether North Sea oil can, as we are told by the ‘Yes’ campaign, sustain and even improve Scotland’s standard of living.

Some of the most pro-independence people I know think that Scotland need not be afraid of going it alone, because it will excel no matter what.  This romantic outlook strikes a chord with me, because I happen to think that this country is exceptional, too.  Scotland has punched above its weight in just about every field of endeavour you care to mention, pouring out world-class scientists, statesmen, economists, philanthropists, sportsmen, writers, musicians and indeed Westminster Prime Ministers in quantities you would expect from a far larger country.

My hesitance at embracing independence has nothing to do with lack of belief in Scotland’s remarkable people or its achievements.  The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world.  It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery.   The more I listen to the Yes campaign, the more I worry about its minimisation and even denial of risks.  Whenever the big issues are raised – our heavy reliance on oil revenue if we become independent, what currency we’ll use, whether we’ll get back into the EU - reasonable questions are drowned out by accusations of ‘scaremongering.’  Meanwhile, dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe.

I doubt I’m alone in trying to find as much impartial and non-partisan information as I can, especially regarding the economy.  Of course, some will say that worrying about our economic prospects is poor-spirited, because those people take the view ‘I’ll be skint if I want to and Westminster can’t tell me otherwise’.  I’m afraid that’s a form of ‘patriotism’ that I will never understand.  It places higher importance on ‘sticking it’ to David Cameron, who will be long gone before the full consequences of independence are felt, than to looking after your own.  It prefers the grand ‘up yours’ gesture to considering what you might be doing to the prospects of future generations.  

The more I have read from a variety of independent and unbiased sources, the more I have come to the conclusion that while independence might give us opportunities – any change brings opportunities – it also carries serious risks.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes that Alex Salmond has underestimated the long-term impact of our ageing population and the fact that oil and gas reserves are being depleted.  This view is also taken by the independent study ‘Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards’ by Iain McLean, Jim Gallagher and Guy Lodge, which says that ‘it would be a foolish Scottish government that planned future public expenditure on the basis of current tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas’. 

My fears about the economy extend into an area in which I have a very personal interest: Scottish medical research.  Having put a large amount of money into Multiple Sclerosis research here, I was worried to see an open letter from all five of Scotland's medical schools expressing ‘grave concerns’ that independence could jeopardise what is currently Scotland’s world-class performance in this area.  Fourteen professors put their names to this letter, which says that Alex Salmond’s plans for a common research funding area are ‘fraught with difficulty’ and ‘unlikely to come to fruition’. According to the professors who signed the letter, ‘it is highly unlikely that the remaining UK would tolerate a situation in which an independent “competitor” country won more money than it contributed.’  In this area, as in many others, I worry that Alex Salmond’s ambition is outstripping his reach.

I’ve heard it said that ‘we’ve got to leave, because they’ll punish us if we don’t’, but my guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go.  All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again.  I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.

If we leave, though, there will be no going back.  This separation will not be quick and clean: it will take microsurgery to disentangle three centuries of close interdependence, after which we will have to deal with three bitter neighbours.  I doubt that an independent Scotland will be able to bank on its ex-partners’ fond memories of the old relationship once we’ve left.  The rest of the UK will have had no say in the biggest change to the Union in centuries, but will suffer the economic consequences.  When Alex Salmond tells us that we can keep whatever we’re particularly attached to – be it EU membership, the pound or the Queen, or insists that his preferred arrangements for monetary union or defence will be rubber-stamped by our ex-partners - he is talking about issues that Scotland will need, in every case, to negotiate.  In the words of ‘Scotland’s Choices’ ‘Scotland will be very much the smaller partner seeking arrangements from the UK to meet its own needs, and may not be in a very powerful negotiating position.’

If the majority of people in Scotland want independence I truly hope that it is a resounding success. While a few of our fiercer nationalists might like to drive me forcibly over the border after reading this, I’d prefer to stay and contribute to a country that has given me more than I can easily express.  It is because I love this country that I want it to thrive.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 18th September, it will be a historic moment for Scotland.  I just hope with all my heart that we never have cause to look back and feel that we made a historically bad mistake."

[GaliantGrunt]

I was going to complement you Laurence on a reasonable argument but lacking a bit in passion then when I had another look, its just an extract from what JK Rowling has already said in days/weeks gone by  .

 

Now its announced Cameron , Milliband and Clegg are heading to Northern Britain tomorrow to support the No campaign is that a BOGOF plus 50% free offer!

 

Were Cameron & Milliband not in Scotland just a week or two ago anyway- now maybe that there will be 3 of them what are they now going to do ``ringa-ringa roses``

around Holyrood ?

[clacher_holiday2]

by Irvine Welsh

When I think back to how the Scottish independence debate has evolved in terms of my personal journey, I can see it in three distinct phases. The first was best expressed by the bitter and ugly sentiment “it’s all the English’s fault.” This guff was fairly ubiquitously trumpeted when I was a kid, and largely sustained, I believe, by an infantile football mentality. I was always unmoved by this idiocy: nobody was going to tell me that my cousins in Wolverhampton or Aunt in West London were in any way culpable for our circumstances north of the border. In retrospect, the ban on the annual Scotland v England match was the best thing that ever happened to the debate, it helped folk think a little more clearly. When ‘politics’ is mixed up with football, the end result is invariably the ossification of cretinism. This phase left it’s psychological legacy; to this day I find it hard to support the Scottish national team, or, indeed, have any truck with the term ‘nationalism’.

    I’ve been greatly inspired by the post-devolution generation, and their pragmatic thinking on the issue of independence.

I came from a family of trade unionists, and in my youth I was a Labour Party supporter. My political hero was Tony Benn. I recall, with my dad, watching Neil Kinnock in a political broadcast, and, roused by the Welshman’s stirring oratory, I joined the party in my teens. I hated the SNP, regarding them as a divisive force of tartan Tories. I loved Brian Wilson’s attacks on them, in magazines like the West Highland Free Press and the short-lived Seven Days.

For most of my young adult life, I moved between Edinburgh and London. As the 1980’s wore on, I noted how things started to change in Scotland; there was a growing realisation that the problem wasn’t the English, it was our own stupid selves. Whatever our circumstances, they were only existent because we tolerated them. This was what I regard as ‘phase two’ on the evolutionary scale of the Scottish Independence debate. It was progress, for sure, but the downside of it was the self-hating element, which the character Renton identifies with in Trainspotting. Ultimately self-loathing is no more edifying than the scapegoating of others, but in order to make headway it’s probably essential to face up to your own shortcomings, no matter how painful. And this led us to stage three of the debate.

I’ve been greatly inspired by the post-devolution generation, and their pragmatic thinking on the issue of independence. I believe they have enabled an emotionally backward and immature country (as all countries, by definition must be, when they are governed from elsewhere) to grow up and move forward. It’s this generation who have given us phase three of the independence debate: beautiful, wonderful phase three, which says that it doesn’t matter who is to ‘blame’, the important thing is to fix it.

When I was recently back in both Scotland and England, it was instructive to see how generational the independence debate has become and how my own one has split on the issue. There is certainly far less unanimity between us than there is with the smart, educated young people I met in Edinburgh. Almost to a man and woman they were enthusiastically, if critically, on the ‘yes’ side of the discussion. Crucially, the few who demurred seemed very different from the depressed, resentful naysayers of my own generation, in that they were also highly ebullient about the ongoing discourse. This youth represents the new Scotland; they won’t be looking for safe a Labour seat in Westminster, or marching in sectarian parades with flute and pipe bands, and they are equally unexcited by the tartan army-esque see-you-Jimmy buffoonery of kitschy nationalism.

It’s a little painful to report that the representatives of this post-devolution generation were far more impressive than many of my old comrades. Of my motley crew, the ones excited and revitalised by the independence debate are all firmly ‘yes’ advocates. But my ‘no’ friends, all people I respect (and yes, love), were invariably annoyed, scared and even angry, that this debate, this democracy, this real discussion on their own futures was even taking place. When I asked why, what kept coming back was that we should be talking about something else. That they were almost all Labour Party supporters should come as no surprise, nor should it be a shock that the ‘something else’ was usually defined as ‘kicking the Tories out.’ To what end, I would enquire. To build a fairer society, was the invariable reply. So I wondered, sometimes out loud, sometimes not, how exactly they intended to do that. Through Trident? War in Iraq? NHS trusts? Deregulation of the City, with subsequent bailouts after they ****** it up? Through the House of Lords? Or the continuing negation of democracy, and siphonage of the country’s resources to a transnational elite?

It struck me that we, the post-war consensus generations from hippy to punk to post punk to house, have left them, the new breed, this youth engaged and politicised at grass roots level by the independence debate, with absolutely nothing. The trade unions have been debilitated, Labour rebranded as a centre-right conservative party, the welfare state and the NHS destroyed, and with this, a massive redistribution of wealth from everybody to the super rich. And all of this took place on our watch.

    So if the current youth of Scotland, with their free tuition fees and free medicines, have been ‘bought off’ by Salmond, it has been in exactly the same way that I was ‘bought off’ by Bevan.

The delusion by many on the left, that by trying to maintain the United Kingdom (the clue is in the name) they are fighting to preserve some sort of socialist internationalism, is an astonishingly persistent one, representing the ultimate triumph of hope over experience. The UK has always been an imperialist construct, set up to protect and further the interests of the rich. There was a brief period after the Second World War when it sought to be something more. The elites conned people into participating in the bloodbath of WW1 on the promise of ‘homes fit for heroes’ and the ‘patriots’ were rewarded with more slums, a depression, and hunger marches that met with only the indifference and hostility of the UK state. Then, the ordinary folks were shunted back into the line of fire to face the Nazi’s. Something fundamental did happen when we opened Hitler’s death camps at Auschwitz and Dachau, and our collective humanity was stirred. Moreover, people returned in the mood to fight for concessions, and the elites were pragmatically ready to concede them.  So we had the emergence of a post war consensus and the welfare state.

I was a benefactor of that consensus. I took evening classes at the local college for a pound, had my university fees paid, obtained a full student grant, and benefited from universal healthcare. For the social equivalent of me today, making this progress would be impossible without accruing a lifetime of debt and becoming no better than a slave – **** that bullshit. So if the current youth of Scotland, with their free tuition fees and free medicines, have been ‘bought off’ by Salmond, it has been in exactly the same way that I was ‘bought off’ by Bevan.

All that has now gone, and the Labour Party will not be bringing it back. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were no aberrations; they were the natural progression of a movement that has ‘evolved’ from its radical roots into a centre-right focus group-driven party of power. Now, on a policy level, they chase middle England votes, while lecturing working class people on their ‘duty to vote’ (Labour), in order to ‘keep the Tories out’.

Gordon Brown’s recent book My Scotland, Our Britain on the case for the union, like his critique of Thatcherism, Where There Is Greed, would be highly impressive if this was still 1985, and he himself hadn’t been in power for so much of the time that has passed since it was. Yes, politics is the art of the possible, but the message from the Labour Party to the people, is that in the face of neo-liberalism, nothing is possible – but keep voting for us anyway. Why?  Because, goes the stock reply, ‘we care more than the Tories’. This is true of Labour voters and party members, but it hasn’t been true of the leadership for a long, long time. They don’t seem to care that much that it’s likely that UKIP, the right-wing of the Tory party and the Mail and Sun will set the agenda at the next election. A no vote is therefore a vote to preserve that poisonous dialogue of nationalist politics, with more unwanted racist policies on Europe, immigration and security, foisted onto Scotland.

    Our Labour has gone; it probably died when it got rid of Clause Four, the ‘public ownership’ statement, which served as the radical conscience of the party.

An anti-independence argument, repeated in the discussions with my old Labour-supporting pals, is one I’ve consistently heard down the years. It contends that we have to ‘stand alongside our comrades in England.’ I agree wholeheartedly, but fail to get how ‘standing alongside’ somebody involves trudging to the polling booth every five years and sheepishly sending down a cluster of political class lobby-fodder careerists to Westminster, who then continue to preside over the transfer of resources from the rest of us to the super rich. The brutal truth is that we haven’t properly ‘stood alongside’ any English or Welsh comrades since the miners strike of 84-85, because we haven’t been able to – the UK state has made sure of that with its anti-union laws. Yes, the same ones the Labour Party has had plenty of chances to modify or repeal, and let people in their workplaces have a role in our democracy. I recall twelve years later, really ‘standing alongside’ comrades in Liverpool during the dockworkers dispute, to the complete indifference and embarrassment of the Labour Party, who would rather have had everybody just go home. Towards the end of the strike, I was sitting in a London hotel with Dockers leader Jimmy Nolan and the writer Jimmy McGovern, meeting American intellectual Noam Chomsky. Jimmy Nolan was telling our visitor that they had far more support from Larry Bower’s New York longshoremen than the UK Labour Party or senior Trade Union officials like Bill (Lord) Morris. Where was this ‘internationalism’ or ‘solidarity’ from the Labour leadership? By contrast there was significant support from the Labour rank and file. They deserved better then, and they deserve better now, than a leadership that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Conservative Party against Scottish independence. Our Labour has gone; it probably died when it got rid of Clause Four, the ‘public ownership’ statement, which served as the radical conscience of the party. (I think of it as being the member of the band who kept it real. Nobody listened to him that much, because they knew that if he had his way they would never sell another record. But once he was kicked out, the band quickly lost its soul and now contests the ‘political’ version of Britain’s Got Talent every five years.)

Therefore I don’t designate what we’re currently doing as ‘standing alongside’ anybody; I call it endorsing a set-up that maintains our joint misery. Better to call time on that self-defeating nonsense and encourage and inspire others to do the same. This ‘internationalism’, so publically heralded by ‘No’ leftists, (but only in response to the Scottish independence threat –otherwise its generally forgotten about) has in reality been used as a Trojan horse for a corporate-led globalisation and imperialism, where this transfer of resources from the rest to the rich is aided and abetted by the UK state.

On a related note, as well as Scotland and England, I visited Ireland, where I lived for five years, in order to attend a wedding. I felt just as close to my friends there as I did to the ones in England and Scotland: we don’t need to have the same domestic governments to moan about in order to bond as human beings over common areas of concern. It’s called internationalism, and as tough a concept as it is for some people to grasp, that doesn’t stop or start at London. Independence isn’t divisive; gross inequality, as promoted by the UK state, now that is schismatic.

So perhaps the unionist apologists from my generation should consider that it isn’t just about them any more. A march towards democracy is a process, not a destination; it’s not solely about a ‘vote’ on September 18th, or any other vote. It’s not about politicians, including ‘Salmond’ (the bogey man who brought us free prescriptions, paid higher education fees, and protected the NHS from Labour and Conservative privatising trusts – that’s also the one who hasn’t led us into war in Iraq, deregulated the City, redistributed our wealth to the already stinking rich – we should choose our demons with a sense of perspective), for once, just this once, it simply isn’t their party.

What I think it is about, is this generation having something of their own, a project that inspires them. The rest of us should be cheering them on, not sneering, grumbling, or ‘standing alongside’ establishment reactionaries against them, fuelled by a petty strop because we so manifestly failed to deliver on our own dreams. For the new generation, social progress is about more than trying to vote in a right-wing Labour Party every five years.

So maybe its time to let those smart young Scots take the lead in building something different and inspirational, free from the whines of the browbeaten, gloomy naysayers and vested interests of the elitist no-can-dooers. And, while we’re at it, support the bright young people of England in getting on with creating a truly post-imperial, multi-ethnic civic identity and democratic society, based on ability, rather than cemented rank and privilege. Give them the chance to take the fight to the Tories, UKIP, EDL, BNP and other small minds, without being distracted by the Scottish agenda, which will not go away. As with the young Scots, I believe in their ability to do just that, without a cynical, moribund Labour Party leadership professing to enable the process, but in reality always standing in their way. Because it’s our great conceit that we’re currently ‘standing alongside’ people in England; in my opinion, we’re just getting in their road.

    I looked at the smirking face of Tony Blair and thought: there is no ******* chance I can ever vote for this guy. I’ve felt massively liberated ever since.

I believe that our joint aim should be to make these islands the home of a batch of healthy, vibrant democracies, instead of a chess piece in the saddo G7/militaristic ‘sphere of influence’ games of the power brokers: those war-mongering (never war-fighting) cowards and their pathetic groupies in the privately owned media. Let this happen in Britain, in Europe, across the world. That’s internationalism, not preserving an elitist, reactionary, pomp-and-ceremony failed UK state, which has over the last thirty-five years systematically crushed every single gain that non-privileged people in this country have fought for.

Sept 18th is a very small but important step in that process. A ‘yes’ vote won’t deliver the kind of society people aspire to any more than a ‘no’ vote will derail the aspiration towards it, but it will be a setback to a reactionary UK state, that has promoted little but elitism, hierarchy and the transnational superrich, at the expense of democracy.

I’m still –even now- often asked; don’t I feel sad at abandoning the party of my parents and grandparents? I went through that dilemma years ago, when I looked at the smirking face of Tony Blair and thought: there is no ******* chance I can ever vote for this guy. I’ve felt massively liberated ever since. On the contrary, I feel very angry about the current Labour Party’s continual betrayals of everything those generations fought to achieve. Brian Wilson still attacks the SNP, but now from the right, and I can’t believe Jack McConnell signed up for all this to argue against food banks from the House of Lords. Neil Kinnock is now a Brussels commissioner who probably doesn’t even know there’s a referendum in Scotland, but in the Yes movement I feel the same kind of inspiration I did when I was seventeen, after hearing his moving and invigorating speech in that broadcast. I know that plenty others who joined the Labour Party had one of those big moments in their youth too, and that’s why I’m writing this piece.  Although I detest what it has become, with its detached political class leadership, and spineless, focus group opportunism, the voters and the rank and file members of Labour remain the salt of the earth. Underneath all the cynicism, defeatism and no-can-do-ism they’ve swallowed down the years, I believe they still want the same thing: a fair and democratic society. They’ve just been fighting rearguard actions for so long, to defend jobs and services, many have simply forgotten how to go on the offensive. For the first time in years the UK establishment are taking a kicking by the people, and it is on the issue of Scottish independence. Labour should be gleefully putting the boot in, not shielding our blows on their behalf. So we need real Labour people to be inspired again, as they were when they first joined the party, in order to help build new democracies in those islands. And if they try to tell us that they are getting that inspiration from either the UK state or the Labour leadership or the No campaign, we just know that they are faking it. Maybe some have merely grown old and tired. That happens to us all, but becoming a defacto Conservative and standing alongside the establishment, that still remains an optional part of the ageing process.

But after mouthing off about the Labour Party, it’s only fair that I make a personal declaration as to where my own politics lie today. Like most people, I’ve moved away from my tartan Tory perception of the SNP and accept it as a benign, bourgeois party of the centre-left. Yes, it’s nakedly opportunist, but that factor certainly doesn’t distinguish it in modern politics, and its fairly narrow goal of Scottish independence makes it harder for it to sell out. Nonetheless, its not my party, I’ve never voted for them and would find it hard to do so, for the same reasons I can no longer vote Labour and will obviously never vote Conservative – it’s not in my internationalist DNA. Having long given up on parties, I’m stuck with having my political aspirations for these islands placed squarely in the hands of a new, broadly-based, grass roots campaign led by a different generation, and I wouldn’t want it any other way. I’m now a dedicated ‘phase three’ yes man: let’s get it sorted out. But I want as many of my old buddies, and as many real Labour people on that journey as possible, and for bigger reasons than to deliver a yes vote for social progress on the 18th. That, as I’ve said, is only part of the process. I want them onside, because the core values that they believe in; fairness, justice and democracy, are the only values that a new Scotland -and a new England- can be constructed on.

 

 

___

 

I'd rather listen to an author who tried to write about the unseen reality of Scotland than an author who wrote about flying brooms, who made a billion by guilting parents into thinking they were neglecting their child if they didnt give them Harry Poter books.

[Ayeseetee]

“I don’t have a vote in this. It is for Scots to decide and that is where the debate should take place.” david cameron rejecting to debate the referendum on the 5th of january 2014

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-cameron-rejects-tv-debate-with-alex-salmond-1-3256371

 

 

 

 

I wonder what happend to that rule...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Laurence]

This referendum is not about personalities

It is not about the present political situation

It is not a general election

It is not about manifesto issues or policies

It is about Scotland leaving a Union is has been an important member of for over 300 years

A Union that was set up by a Scottish king  who became a king of all the British Isles and beyond

Scotland has over those 300 years enjoyed great wealth generated by industries mainly operating from the Northern counties of England and the great ship building yards throughout Great Britain

The United Kingdom is still a power in the world and its influence is seen over all parts of the globe

The wealth created in the City Of London, in banking and Finance has brought prosperity to these Islands that sustained the country in two massive wealth draining wars  during the 20th century

The Civil Service in Whitehall is generally  regarded as the most efficient organisation of its type throughout the world.

What we have is a policy from the Nationalists which is riddled with uncertainties' maybe not now, but in 5 10 20 or even 100 years time.  It is gambling with the future. there are very few Income tax payers in Scotland as a percentage of the population at a guess less than 2 million of that 2 million not many will pay more than £2000 a year , making an estimate of somewhere in the region

of 2 billion pounds , the NHS alone costs 5 or 6 times that amount. You can add VAT income to that amount and revenue from oil.  Also subtract the very favourable Barnet formula which is the money Scotland gets now each year.

Most of Scotland's Income  will go in paying for Imports. ( the reason why the Chancellor does not want pounds sterling to be used by Scotland is that  the pound will be weakened if it has the burden of paying for a a foreign countries imports. ( Scotland)  It wont do that.  The Chancellor said,"  leave the Union leave the pound". I don't feel that the Nationalists boast that the Chancellors words where a bluff is valid.

I think from his point of view a very sound comment.  On my last trip to England I counted 200 HGV,s heading up the motorway an hour carry goods into Scotland. All those goods have to be paid for , not by pounds sterling if the Chancellor, does not back down.  When a country becomes autonomous it  needs a foreign policy i.e representatives in each capital City throughout the world , I am told without the cost of buildings, that Ambassadors, secretaries and staff  cost well over £2 million pounds each. Not to mention the cost of setting up passport services etc. Foreign policy will need lots of good quality civil servants, To attract them from London will cost a financially back breaking premium. I recommend that if the "Yes"  vote prevails people in Scotland should keep hold of their  UK passport, no point going abroad without the back up of the UK  for problems. Also cheque with your car insurance , sometimes you need extra insurance crossing International borders.  Also remember your mail to England will cross an International border and will quite probably require an international cost. As the Nats are threatening to Nationalise the Royal Mail , this will cause a break up of the mail service with England when mail passes over the border it will pass to a separate company causing potential  extra costs.  I personally will leave all my savings and banking in England. I may even buy a house in England to save guard my Interests , I lived in France for a while and I found that was the best policy. I am considering all my options, should the Yes prevail. I do not relish, living in a foreign land. I suspect the Scots living in England feel the same way.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Laurence

[Ayeseetee]

May I suggest you move to a dictatorship like N.korea if it's a yes vote and you can't accept democracy?

 

 

Just want to point out you have also been very quite on this subject since you were proven wrong and I havent seen you post since you were calling anyone from the uk not supporting england at the world cup "biggots"

 

 

 

(Normal rules don't apply to laurence / bannerman they do not show the same respect back)

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Yngwie]

This thing that's happening now with the UK's political leaders deciding to drop everything and work with their enemies reminds me of the Cold War era when we all believed (or at least I did) that the USA and Soviet Union would put aside their differences to jointly fend off an alien invasion!

[Laurence]

“I don’t have a vote in this. It is for Scots to decide and that is where the debate should take place.” david cameron rejecting to debate the referendum on the 5th of january 2014

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-cameron-rejects-tv-debate-with-alex-salmond-1-3256371

 

 

 

 

I wonder what happend to that rule...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386

 

 

I think the Prime Minister has enough on his plate with Syria and Iraqi insurgence at the moment. To use up valuable time on this issue. He Has  said he does not have a vote. There are others on the No side capable of debating issues of this nature. From my observations all you get in these debates are cheap manifesto points that have no relevance to long term separation.  Seperation from the Union geos much deeper than SNP promises in the short term.  In any event who knows who in the event of a yes vote will control Scotland or even the Uk in the future.  So any particular party cannot give long term commitment's of any kind , debates between politicians are just entertainment and used in a media eating frenzy. Nothing more than boo  ray episodes. We clap and boo according to who makes the next futile point. The Ironic point is most BBC staff will move south in the event of a Yes vote.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Laurence

[Laurence]

May I suggest you move to a dictatorship like N.korea if it's a yes vote and you can't accept democracy?

 

 

Just want to point out you have also been very quite on this subject since you were proven wrong and I havent seen you post since you were calling anyone from the uk not supporting england at the world cup "biggots"

 

 

 

(Normal rules don't apply to laurence / bannerman they do not show the same respect back)

 

 

Are you talking to me?

 

How old are you?

 

One of the reason I stopped posting on here was because of Idiotic comments  from people wearing yellow and gold glasses. this is not pub talk but a serious debate,

Edited September 9, 2014 by Laurence

[Ayeseetee]

I have a vote and my age has nothing to do with it, you a threatening to move out of scotland if you don't get your way.... And you think anything you have said can been seen as "serious debating points"

 

 

One of your points was copy pasted from a billionaire fiction writer who has donated lots of money to better together!

 

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[clacher_holiday2]

Seperation from the Union geos much deeper than SNP promises in the short term.  In any event who knows who in the event of a yes vote will control Scotland or even the Uk in the future. 

 

 

Your first point is the hope, Scotland will shine a light on the inequality and corruption that has taken over Europe. 

Who will ultimatley control Scotland post-Yes vote will be the people of Scotland, in the event of a No vote it'll be any combination of Farage, Boris, Ed or Clegg.

[Laurence]

I have a vote and my age has nothing to do with it, you a threatening to move out of scotland if you don't get your way.... And you think anything you have said can been seen as "serious debating points"

 

 

One of your points was copy pasted from a billionaire fiction writer who has donated lots of money to better together!

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has something to do with it. very much so.

 

I  can only debate with someone who has some form of life style I can understand, as a 71 years old pensioner, I feel it hard to relate to a teenager.  My life style is a business man who stands to lose £100 a week just on postage charges to England for my business. I just wondered who I was talking to.

 

If you are willing to debate on a sensible basis fine but wise cracks are well behind me. Maybe 50 tears ago I would cross swords with you but not now.

 

You should realise I am very very worried about this referendum and I can do without childish jibes - Thank you.

[Laurence]

 

Seperation from the Union geos much deeper than SNP promises in the short term.  In any event who knows who in the event of a yes vote will control Scotland or even the Uk in the future. 

 

 

Your first point is the hope, Scotland will shine a light on the inequality and corruption that has taken over Europe. 

Who will ultimatley control Scotland post-Yes vote will be the people of Scotland, in the event of a No vote it'll be any combination of Farage, Boris, Ed or Clegg.

 

 

 

Any political party with any kind of politics could be elected in control of a Scottish parliament in years to come.

Whether a Yes or No vote. Every single democratic nation on the globe changes parties all the time.,

 

I can look back over 60 years on British Politics , parties change, politicians change. policies change.

 

Nobody knows the future. No point voting Yes based  on a boo ray debate, on TV

[Laurence]

Can we all stop the silly jibes

 

It is becoming a factor in this campaign.

 

" If you don't like the message". Shoot the messenger

 

This is the future of a great nation at stake not who runs a bath

[Ayeseetee]

 

I have a vote and my age has nothing to do with it, you a threatening to move out of scotland if you don't get your way.... And you think anything you have said can been seen as "serious debating points"

 

 

One of your points was copy pasted from a billionaire fiction writer who has donated lots of money to better together!

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has something to do with it. very much so.

 

I  can only debate with someone who has some form of life style I can understand, as a 71 years old pensioner, I feel it hard to relate to a teenager.  My life style is a business man who stands to lose £100 a week just on postage charges to England for my business. I just wondered who I was talking to.

 

If you are willing to debate on a sensible basi(s fine but wise cracks are well behind me. Maybe 50 tears ago I would cross swords with you but not now.

 

You should realise I am very very worried about this referendum and I can do without childish jibes - Thank you.

 

 

 

firstly I am 24...

 

you are worried about your bank account and I am worried for my future but since the average age expectancy in scotland is 76 you only have your bank left so I am not surprised you are holding on to it for dear life (so to speak)

Edited September 9, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Yngwie]

Guys, let's not make this personal.

[clacher_holiday2]

 

I can look back over 60 years on British Politics , parties change, politicians change. policies change.

 

How many of those 60 years, did Scotland get the government it voted for?  25 years

[Kingsmills]

 

“I don’t have a vote in this. It is for Scots to decide and that is where the debate should take place.” david cameron rejecting to debate the referendum on the 5th of january 2014

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/david-cameron-rejects-tv-debate-with-alex-salmond-1-3256371

 

 

 

 

I wonder what happend to that rule...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386

 

 

I think the Prime Minister has enough on his plate with Syria and Iraqi insurgence at the moment. To use up valuable time on this issue. He Has  said he does not have a vote. There are others on the No side capable of debating issues of this nature. From my observations all you get in these debates are cheap manifesto points that have no relevance to long term separation.  Seperation from the Union geos much deeper than SNP promises in the short term.  In any event who knows who in the event of a yes vote will control Scotland or even the Uk in the future.  So any particular party cannot give long term commitment's of any kind , debates between politicians are just entertainment and used in a media eating frenzy. Nothing more than boo  ray episodes. We clap and boo according to who makes the next futile point. The Ironic point is most BBC staff will move south in the event of a Yes vote.

 

 

If the UK prime minister has no ability or inclination to 'use up valuable time' on the most important political event in Scotland in several generations then he has scant regard for  or  knowledge of our ancient nation and it's high time we had our own Premier who gives a damn. Thank you again Laurence for your latest argument in favour of independence..

[Kingsmills]

To expand on that last post, there is something about the Independence debate that continues to surprise me.

 

Whilst I am strongly in favour of independence and am very unlikely indeed to be persuaded otherwise I do think that there are are strong positive and tenable arguments to be made on the Unionist side the trouble for the Unionists is, to the delight of us Yes supporters, they are seldom if ever made with the Unionists still trying to frighten the nation out of it's aspirations with myth and scare stories that, even if they have some basis of truth, have been distorted and exaggerated to the extent that they become no longer credible. At the beginning of this process I did not believe independence to be a likely outcome and it still might not be but it is far more likely than it was at the outset and, whilst that is in part due to the positive message and vision of the Yes Campaign it is in equal measure because the 'Better Together' camp have abandoned positive argument in favour overwhelming negativity.

 

This thread seems a microcosm of the national debate. For every pro Unionist such as Doofers Dad who makes a positive or reasoned argument, albeit one I disagree with, there are far too many Charles Bannermans who are content to peddle recycled and largely debunked scare stories and sneer at the ability of their own countrymen to manage their own affairs or, worse still, those such as Laurence who do not even have the wit to do that and simply quote others while accusing those holding a legitimate contrary view of being stupid or ignorant for holding that view.

[Renegade]

 I lived in France for a while and I found that was the best policy. I am considering all my options, should the Yes prevail. I do not relish, living in a foreign land.

 

So you don't want to live in a foreign land, yet you were quite happy living in France?! 

 

Once again you play the part of the patronising Englishman, who's moved up here and look upon the locals (who you've described in the past as "bigots" who live "hum drum lives") as less important than you. This stuff about postal costs and crossing the border is just scaremongering.  As anyone who's crossed the Irish border will know, you barely know where the UK ends and the Republic of Ireland begins.  I can't see us being any different.

 

Maybe as well, if you indeed haven't posted on here much due to "childish jibes" and "idiotic comments", you need to look a bit closer at your own posts and the attitude to which you deal with others.  Comments such as those is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[dougiedanger]

Leave Laurence alone, he is doing amazing work for the Yes campaign.

Keep it up Loz!

[Caley Stan]

My life style is a business man who stands to lose £100 a week just on postage charges to England for my business. I just wondered who I was talking to.

Have you been reading Brian Wilson? His lies about postal charges are comprehensively deconstructed here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/brian-wilson-is-a-liar/

There's nothing to be afraid of, Laurence. It's all going to be just fine.

[dougiedanger]

This guy gets it. It is despair against hope. Which one will you choose?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ng-of-all-hope

Comment is free

Scottish independence

A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all - hope

Independence would carry the potential to galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK

George Monbiot

George Monbiot

The Guardian, Tuesday 9 September 2014 18.58 BST

Jump to comments (39)

Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the union to save England from itself. Responses to my column last week suggest this wretched apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.

Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 54 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation that cause the problems from which we ask them to save us.

“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue,” former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week. We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, Ukip, the Lib Dems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the rightwing columnists in Britain, and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”.

There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation; and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism.

Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences, including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest. It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals. It meant supporting every destructive and unjust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence.

So now Better Together has brought in Gordon Brown, scattering bribes in a desperate, last-ditch effort at containment. They must hope the Scots have forgotten that he boasted of setting “the lowest rate in the history of British corporation tax, the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere”. That he pledged to the City of London “in budget after budget, I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers”. That, after 13 years of Labour government, the UK had higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government. That his government colluded in kidnapping and torture. That he helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his support for the illegal war on Iraq.

He roams through Scotland, still badged with blood, promising what he never delivered when he had the chance, this man who helped unravel the social safety net his predecessors wove; who marketised and dismembered public services; who enriched the wealthy and shafted the poor; who pledged money for Trident but failed to reverse the loss of social housing; whose private finance initiative planted a series of timebombs now exploding throughout the NHS and other public services; who greased and wheedled and slavered his way into the company of bankers and oligarchs while trampling over the working people he was elected to represent. This is the progressive Prester John who will ride to the rescue of the no campaign?

Where, in Scotland’s Labour party, are the Keir Hardies and Jimmy Reids of our time? Where is the vision, the inspiration, the hope? The shuffling, spineless little men who replaced these titans offer nothing but fear. Through fear, they seek to shove Scotland back into its box, as its people rebel against the dreary, closed future mapped out for them – and the rest of us – by the three main Westminster parties.

Sure, if Scotland becomes independent, all else being equal, Labour would lose 41 seats at Westminster and Tory majorities would become more likely. But all else need not be equal. Scottish independence can galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK. We’ll watch as the Scots engage in the transformative process of writing a constitution. We’ll see that a nation of these islands can live and – I hope – flourish with a fully elected legislature (no House of Lords), with a fair electoral system (proportional representation), and with a parliament in which only representatives of that nation can vote (no cross-border mercenaries).

Already, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register. The low voter turnouts in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope.

If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning.

If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for instance, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the UK.

It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. It can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. It can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed

Reply With Quote

[Scarlet Pimple]

Putting a younger 'un in his place is little more than a fall-back position borne out of fluster bluster since you can't think of much else to say, Laurence.

 

If we don't encourage the young'uns to comment on here what kind of an undemocratic thread is this...eh?

 

This issue affects everybody and no aged wonder-boy, who might be stuck in the past like S.P., has a lock on  the answers. If the debate rages on then all power to your elbow to anyone who thinks he/she  can make a constructive comment.  After all, you can't see the black without the white to contrast it can you?

 

  Thank goodness there are some young people around who are actually  interested in the whole thing because it sure interests me. 

The pound fell because it had to as it will in any arena of uncertainty. But when the dust settles and things are seen to be working then it will rise again.