The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Alex MacLeod]

Here, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/8495468/Scottish-Election-2011-results-map.html you'll find the political map of Scotland. Note the Northern Isles are Liberal but to answer your question I would very much doubt that they could break away. Western Isles are Nationalist as is most of the country.

[Oddquine]

Will the Shetlands and Orkneys vote to leave Scotland if the Yes vote succeeds? Reports here in NZ say that this is a real possibility.  A bit like the Inuit in northern Quebec voting to leave Quebec and return to Canada should Quebec vote for independence.

 

Would the Western Isles follow suit? Could the Highlands also leave an Independent Scotland?  Reports here in NZ indicate that the drive for Independence is largely driven by the disaffected inhabitants of the Central belt of Scotland where strong nationalistic tendencies abide and that as a result Scotland could split two or three ways after Independence takes place.

 

Not so sure they would....particularly as there have been mutterings from the Scottish Government about autonomy for the Islands and the Independence faction in Orkney/Shetland is actually relatively small, although  you'd not know that from articles in the MSM. I'm sure if the Islands elect, in future Scottish general elections, candidates standing with Independence for Orkney and Shetland in their manifesto/as their main reason for existence, and win, it is something which should be considered.  However right now, there seems to be little appetite for that. Bear in mind, the Islands' MPs floated the idea of seceeding from Scotland as a means(they foolishly thought) of keeping them in the rUK and holding on to the oil...and as another addition to Project Fear.

 

I'd like to see some level of the same kind of autonomy for the disparate parts of the Highlands as well, tbh. I'd like to see us reverting to the days before regionalisation to something more local, on the lines of the old county councils.  I never liked the regionalisation that produced Grampian Council (being from Moray, thats the one I know about), and having endured Highland Council ministrations from the  centre, when I lived in Caithness, not overly keen on that either(though to be honest, now I'm back in Moray, the Moray Council is even more incompetent) and if the likes of a centralised police and fire service was to be continued in an independent Scotland, (which I hope it  wouldn't be, if it was going to import all of Strathclyde's ways of policing, even if it is cheaper), it would give local areas more say over how it worked for them.

 

Those in the Central Belt were possibly, before the last few years, the least likely to vote for independence, if there was a donkey sporting a red rosette they could vote for.  There are definitely people who vote for a party because they have been brought up to vote for that party. My brother voted Labour all his relatively short  life, because my parents did, but he couldn't have told you who was the leader of the Labour Party. However,  he wasn't in the least interested in politics and only voted because he had, as I was, been brought up believing that it was his duty to vote.

 

The SNP vote, which hasn't ever necessarily been an independence vote, has, to be fair, been spread  over all constituencies at some level, but has always been strongest in semi-rural constituencies like Moray (despite the two airbases, probably because, for for general elections, many  servicemen still have postal votes in their home areas), Banff and Buchan and Angus (and is probably why they got called Tartan Tories, as those had previously been Tory constituencies). and re cities, one of the Dundee Constituencies.It has never been particularly strong in the Central Belt, though has served there on a couple of occasions as a protest vote, but in General Elections, NuLabour has dominated the Central Belt, and Scottish politics, for decades.

 

However, the Central Belt has by far the largest number of unregistered voters, a hangover from the days of the poll-tax, and they are being encouraged to register for this referendum, as nobody is daft enough to think that ignoring them, however they will  vote, is going to produce any kind of definitive decision. The more people who vote the better...but it is true that if the Central Belt votes in numbers for/against independence that will likely swing it in their preferred direction.

 

But that is how democracy works..the majority dictates the result...but only really in straight option referenda.  In elections, whether FPTP like Westminster or even the mixter-maxter "PR" set up in Scotland, the majority does not get its preferred choice, which is why I'd prefer real PR, even if (or maybe because) it could well mean there is never a majority Government in Scotland again, and we could have consensus rather than Westminster style adversarial politics.and I think that would be no bad thing.

[Oddquine]

This article http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/5411 is worth a read on both sides. The below paragraphs say it all for me.

 

 

September’s vote isn’t about which political party you prefer. It’s about how we keep the ******** honest.  Those ******** might be SNP, or Labour, or Green, or Conservative. It doesn’t matter. We’re being asked to choose a system, not a party.

One of the most dangerous ideas that’s gained currency – and it’s an idea that the No campaign is really pushing – is the idea that a Yes vote is a vote for the SNP. It isn’t. Independence could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Labour in Scotland, to the Greens, even to the Conservative party: a reborn Scottish Conservative party, one that has more in common with the long tradition of small-c conservatism than the UK party, could one day have more MPs than Scotland has pandas.

Pretty much what Tommy Sheridan said in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFWdbXqqhZE

[+DoofersDad]

This article http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/5411 is worth a read on both sides. The below paragraphs say it all for me.

 

 

September’s vote isn’t about which political party you prefer. It’s about how we keep the ******** honest.  Those ******** might be SNP, or Labour, or Green, or Conservative. It doesn’t matter. We’re being asked to choose a system, not a party.

One of the most dangerous ideas that’s gained currency – and it’s an idea that the No campaign is really pushing – is the idea that a Yes vote is a vote for the SNP. It isn’t. Independence could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Labour in Scotland, to the Greens, even to the Conservative party: a reborn Scottish Conservative party, one that has more in common with the long tradition of small-c conservatism than the UK party, could one day have more MPs than Scotland has pandas.

 

I agree with the first bit about the referendum being about a system and not a party but the 2nd bit is complete nonsense.  It is somewhat ironic that the author talks about honesty and then comes out with this nonsense about the "No" campaign pushing the idea that a "Yes" vote is a vote for the SNP.  What the "No" campaign is doing is exactly the opposite, reminding the electorate that this is about a system and not the jam tomorrow propaganda that the SNP are pushing.

 

If proof were needed, one only has to look at how the "Yes" campaign exploited the poll showing that more people were likely to vote "Yes" if they thought Cameron would win the next General Election.  How party political can you get! 

 

Regarding the conservative party and the imbalance between Scottish support and UK wide support, the "Yes" campaign continues to promote this myth for all it is worth.  It has been discussed before and the fact is that the norm is for Scotland to vote for the Goverment that the UK votes for.  The current situation is the exception rather than the rule but the "Yes" campaign plug it as though this imbalance has been in place since the start of the Union. 

[PullMyFinger]

We can agree to differ if you think a political system that returns Tories to power when they have only 1 (one) ONE! MP in Scotland isn't an issue.

[Yngwie]

You're (conveniently) forgetting that it's actually a coalition, and one which got twice as many in votes in Scotland as the SNP!

[robbylad]

You're (conveniently) forgetting that it's actually a coalition, and one which got twice as many in votes in Scotland as the SNP!

That's as maybe but no one expected the lib dems to jump into bed with the Tories. Scotland clearly didn't want them but got them anyway. Just look at how popular the lib dems are now.

[+DoofersDad]

Which all goes to show how some folk are using the unpopularity of the current UK government in Scotland as a reason to break up the Union.  That's all I'm saying for now - there's a world cup to watch.

[PullMyFinger]

Which all goes to show how some folk are using the unpopularity of the current UK government in Scotland as a reason to break up the Union.  That's all I'm saying for now - there's a world cup to watch.

 

Okay, under the current constitutional arrangement who should we vote for for a fairer society?

 

Clue: It doesn't matter who you vote for, Westminster always wins.

[Alex MacLeod]

Which all goes to show how some folk are using the unpopularity of the current UK government in Scotland as a reason to break up the Union.  That's all I'm saying for now - there's a world cup to watch.

Current???? the unpopularity has been around since 1979 when Thatcher became the dictator who experimented her policies in Scotland.

[+DoofersDad]

Yes.  Current.  There are two things here.  The first one is that the recent poll specifically indicates that there are many undecided voters who are more likely to vote "YES" if at referendum time they think Cameron will will win the next UK general.  Just how current can you get? 

 

The Thatcher issue is a red herring.  She was rightly hugely unpopular in Scotland but, she is gone.  As I have said before, more often than not Scotland votes for the Government that takes power at Westminster.  Since 1945 there have been only 6 occasions when Scotland voted differently to the UK as a whole with 4 of those being in the Thatcher / Major years.  The current administration is one of the other two. It is hardly a trend that justifies ending a 300 year old marriage.

 

Interestingly, back in 1951 Scotland Voted Tory whilst England voted Labour and we ended up with a Tory government.  That goes to show how dynamic political preferences are.  Clearly Thatcher has caused major damage to her party North of the Border and was the catalyst for the rise of the SNP, but there remains a strong body of opinion in Scotland which remains conservative (with a small "c").  Given the fluctuating dynamics of party politics, it does seem wrong to me to contemplate an irrevocable change based on such a short term sense of not being represented.

 

And what of us in the Highlands and Islands?  Whilst I have not looked at the figures, I would guess that we will be even less likely to get the Government we vote for in an Independent Scotland than we currently are within the UK.  Since 1945 the Highlands has voted firstly Conservative and then latterly Lib Dem.  If we had been an Independent country all this time we would have been living in a socialist state dictated by the central belt.  Does that justify calling for Independence for the Highlands and Islands?  No, of course not, just as perceived lack of representation in Scotland as a whole does not justify independence.

 

The fact of the matter is that however large or small the electorate and whatever voting system you use, there will always be some people who perceive themselves to be disadvantaged.  But this is just a reality of democracy.  Remember that we also have a considerable range of powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament  and therefore have rather more say on our own affairs than the English do. To suggest that we need independence because that is the only way we can have a say over our own affairs is a myth that continues to be pedalled by the YES campaign.

 

[dougiedanger]

Yes.  Current.  There are two things here.  The first one is that the recent poll specifically indicates that there are many undecided voters who are more likely to vote "YES" if at referendum time they think Cameron will will win the next UK general.  Just how current can you get? 

 

The Thatcher issue is a red herring.  She was rightly hugely unpopular in Scotland but, she is gone.  As I have said before, more often than not Scotland votes for the Government that takes power at Westminster.  Since 1945 there have been only 6 occasions when Scotland voted differently to the UK as a whole with 4 of those being in the Thatcher / Major years.  The current administration is one of the other two. It is hardly a trend that justifies ending a 300 year old marriage.

 

Interestingly, back in 1951 Scotland Voted Tory whilst England voted Labour and we ended up with a Tory government.  That goes to show how dynamic political preferences are.  Clearly Thatcher has caused major damage to her party North of the Border and was the catalyst for the rise of the SNP, but there remains a strong body of opinion in Scotland which remains conservative (with a small "c").  Given the fluctuating dynamics of party politics, it does seem wrong to me to contemplate an irrevocable change based on such a short term sense of not being represented.

 

And what of us in the Highlands and Islands?  Whilst I have not looked at the figures, I would guess that we will be even less likely to get the Government we vote for in an Independent Scotland than we currently are within the UK.  Since 1945 the Highlands has voted firstly Conservative and then latterly Lib Dem.  If we had been an Independent country all this time we would have been living in a socialist state dictated by the central belt.  Does that justify calling for Independence for the Highlands and Islands?  No, of course not, just as perceived lack of representation in Scotland as a whole does not justify independence.

 

The fact of the matter is that however large or small the electorate and whatever voting system you use, there will always be some people who perceive themselves to be disadvantaged.  But this is just a reality of democracy.  Remember that we also have a considerable range of powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament  and therefore have rather more say on our own affairs than the English do. To suggest that we need independence because that is the only way we can have a say over our own affairs is a myth that continues to be pedalled by the YES campaign.

 

Sadly, many do not see this as a 300-year old 'marriage' as you put it, and have a quite different view of history as a process of assimilation, marginalization, and at times outright mistreatment, especially in the Highlands. That is a valid perspective for many, and this arrangement is anything but the benign relationship that you seem to see.

[Alex MacLeod]

We frown upon forced marraige within other races of this world yet here's DD defending a forced marriage. Look at the lead up to this so called marraige and see how England done all in her power to destroy what was a growing and thriving economy. Why? Because England didn't like the fact we were doing better around the world.

[dougal]

We frown upon forced marraige within other races of this world yet here's DD defending a forced marriage. Look at the lead up to this so called marraige and see how England done all in her power to destroy what was a growing and thriving economy. Why? Because England didn't like the fact we were doing better around the world.

Hardly think you can slate DD for his views considering you were all for the forced marriage of ICT

Anyway I see the Orange Order of Scotland have now thrown in their weight for the Against campaign and with that comes tens/hundreds of thousands of NO votes

Dougal

[Oddquine]

 

We frown upon forced marraige within other races of this world yet here's DD defending a forced marriage. Look at the lead up to this so called marraige and see how England done all in her power to destroy what was a growing and thriving economy. Why? Because England didn't like the fact we were doing better around the world.

Hardly think you can slate DD for his views considering you were all for the forced marriage of ICT

Anyway I see the Orange Order of Scotland have now thrown in their weight for the Against campaign and with that comes tens/hundreds of thousands of NO votes

Dougal

 

Naw..they'd have been NO votes anyway......it just means they can spend up to £150000 on telling us the benefits of staying in the Union.

[Oddquine]

I have, on my hard drive, three almost finished posts in response to some I have read on here......but I have decided to go simple and logical..because the alternative for you all is the lengthy and immensely boring posts I do so well.....so......

 

Can anyone who intends to vote NO on 18th September care to give reasons as to why that stance would benefit Scotland more than, or even as much as, it will benefit the rest of the UK/Westminster? 

 

And would anyone who is still swithering, care to say why they are still undecided?

[Scarlet Pimple]

Go on , chums ....Plunge into ever-ever land instead of never never land as it exists today in Scotland.

 

The old saying comes to mind-- "The river, if taken at the flood, leads on to greatness.".

 

And this river  may greatly reduce in its flow if you DON'T vote "yes".

Because it's running strong just now but of you vote "no" then  Cameron and his  friends will ensure that  this will never happen again and I don't mean because he will shower us  Scots with baubles and beads. Eventually he will cut your throats if he can..mark my words.

 

Why do you think I emigrated to the new world - Canada-- over forty years ago?

Because I was caught up in the stifling, retarded and controlling thinking of the day all these long years  ago when you could not move upwards or onwards without risking severe censure if you dared to ask when you were going to get promoted. That was a challenge to AUTHORITY and not seen as an indication of the fact that maybe, just maybe, you were little more than a likely lad with normal ambition who needed the parry and thrust of an environment that rewarded effort and encouraged further education and upward mobility. So that, at least, there was SOME goal ahead that appeared to be reasonably accessible. 

 

Emigrating is a challenge and you and your and your attitudes have to change to survive. There is prejudice also to contend with when the incumbents of the new country think that you may be a threat to their upward mobility and instead of helping you they decide to thwart you if they can. This proves to be a daunting emotional challenge but, within all the disruption and shattered concepts that you landed with, you gradually see that upward mobility coming to fruition, thanks to some wonderful people that you are fortunate to meet along the way, and eventually you find your own level of success. In the Scotland I knew, if you DARED to move-on  you were well, er, frowned upon. What a waste of energy and talent. And what a stifling existence. 

 

In Canada,  if you are not prepared to move from one company to another, or "move-on" as they euphemistically say, (maybe a complete change of career, like I did) then you have only yourself to blame for  a boring life and lost opportunity. Isn't that right Scotty?

 

Go for it, chums and make it happen, not expect it to do so!

Or to put it succinctly, accept this change as the best thing since sliced bread and run as hard as you can with the ball.

[dougiedanger]

 

We frown upon forced marraige within other races of this world yet here's DD defending a forced marriage. Look at the lead up to this so called marraige and see how England done all in her power to destroy what was a growing and thriving economy. Why? Because England didn't like the fact we were doing better around the world.

Hardly think you can slate DD for his views considering you were all for the forced marriage of ICT

Anyway I see the Orange Order of Scotland have now thrown in their weight for the Against campaign and with that comes tens/hundreds of thousands of NO votes

Dougal

 

 

Including your own perchance?

[dougiedanger]

Go on , chums ....Plunge into ever-ever land instead of never never land as it exists today in Scotland.

 

The old saying comes to mind-- "The river, if taken at the flood, leads on to greatness.".

 

And this river  may greatly reduce in its flow if you DON'T vote "yes".

Because it's running strong just now but of you vote "no" then  Cameron and his  friends will ensure that  this will never happen again and I don't mean because he will shower us  Scots with baubles and beads. Eventually he will cut your throats if he can..mark my words.

 

Why do you think I emigrated to the new world - Canada-- over forty years ago?

Because I was caught up in the stifling, retarded and controlling thinking of the day all these long years  ago when you could not move upwards or onwards without risking severe censure if you dared to ask when you were going to get promoted. That was a challenge to AUTHORITY and not seen as an indication of the fact that maybe, just maybe, you were little more than a likely lad with normal ambition who needed the parry and thrust of an environment that rewarded effort and encouraged further education and upward mobility. So that, at least, there was SOME goal ahead that appeared to be reasonably accessible. 

 

Emigrating is a challenge and you and your and your attitudes have to change to survive. There is prejudice also to contend with when the incumbents of the new country think that you may be a threat to their upward mobility and instead of helping you they decide to thwart you if they can. This proves to be a daunting emotional challenge but, within all the disruption and shattered concepts that you landed with, you gradually see that upward mobility coming to fruition, thanks to some wonderful people that you are fortunate to meet along the way, and eventually you find your own level of success. In the Scotland I knew, if you DARED to move-on  you were well, er, frowned upon. What a waste of energy and talent. And what a stifling existence. 

 

In Canada,  if you are not prepared to move from one company to another, or "move-on" as they euphemistically say, (maybe a complete change of career, like I did) then you have only yourself to blame for  a boring life and lost opportunity. Isn't that right Scotty?

 

Go for it, chums and make it happen, not expect it to do so!

Or to put it succinctly, accept this change as the best thing since sliced bread and run as hard as you can with the ball.

 

Great post SP, people in Scotland will only realize their full potential if they free themselves from the very culture of control and domination that you describe and which is very much alive today.

 

Maybe in the future so many young Scots won't have to leave to realize their ambitions.

[Alex MacLeod]

 

We frown upon forced marraige within other races of this world yet here's DD defending a forced marriage. Look at the lead up to this so called marraige and see how England done all in her power to destroy what was a growing and thriving economy. Why? Because England didn't like the fact we were doing better around the world.

Hardly think you can slate DD for his views considering you were all for the forced marriage of ICT

Anyway I see the Orange Order of Scotland have now thrown in their weight for the Against campaign and with that comes tens/hundreds of thousands of NO votes

Dougal

 

Guess what Dougal.....once again you're wrong. I wasn't around for the particular forced marraige you refer to. Nice of you to get that one into another thread though.

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

Can anyone who intends to vote NO on 18th September care to give reasons as to why that stance would benefit Scotland more than, or even as much as, it will benefit the rest of the UK/Westminster? 

 

 

A NO vote is a vote for the status quo.  If it was going to give any benefits to anyone compared with what we have now then it wouldn't be the status quo. 

[+DoofersDad]

With all due respect to SP, I found his post above to be one of the most depressingly negative comments I have read on the Independence debate.  It comes across as a plea for Independence so that the youth of the country aren't forced to emigrate as he did. It is sad that he felt he needed to leave Scotland to progress but obviously it is great that the move worked out well. Nearly 40 years ago I moved to Scotland to work and was certainly never short of opportunities to progress. No doubt views are coloured by one's own experiences and the kind of business you are in.

 

It may well be that 40 years ago someone with ambition and ability found it hard to progress in Scotland (and the rest of the UK for that matter) but Scotland is not like that now.  Whilst North America may have led the way in encouraging ability, the UK has caught up and in my view has a far more balanced approach than is evident across the pond.  Moving from company to company may provide one kind of experience but staying put in the same company provides experience and knowledge of the business that many employers have the sense to value.  In any case, there are loads of folk who simply want to stay in jobs they like and are good at and don't wish to be pressurised into feeling they constantly have to move and "progress".  My experience of the workforce in Scotland is that we have a great balance of opportunity for those who wish to change and progress whilst offering job security for those wishing to stay put.

 

Scotland is undoubtedly a more vibrant and dynamic place than it was 40 years ago.  Far from people feeling the need to emigrate to find work, the population of Scotland has been rising steadily as folk from the rest of the UK and Europe move to Scotland to live and work.  The Scotland SP knew 40 years ago is not the Scotland I know today.  There are no yokes and shackles for the Scottish people to break free from in order for Scotland to flourish.  Scotland is already flourishing as an integral part of the UK - and long may it continue to do so!

[dougiedanger]

With all due respect to SP, I found his post above to be one of the most depressingly negative comments I have read on the Independence debate.  It comes across as a plea for Independence so that the youth of the country aren't forced to emigrate as he did. It is sad that he felt he needed to leave Scotland to progress but obviously it is great that the move worked out well. Nearly 40 years ago I moved to Scotland to work and was certainly never short of opportunities to progress. No doubt views are coloured by one's own experiences and the kind of business you are in.

 

It may well be that 40 years ago someone with ambition and ability found it hard to progress in Scotland (and the rest of the UK for that matter) but Scotland is not like that now.  Whilst North America may have led the way in encouraging ability, the UK has caught up and in my view has a far more balanced approach than is evident across the pond.  Moving from company to company may provide one kind of experience but staying put in the same company provides experience and knowledge of the business that many employers have the sense to value.  In any case, there are loads of folk who simply want to stay in jobs they like and are good at and don't wish to be pressurised into feeling they constantly have to move and "progress".  My experience of the workforce in Scotland is that we have a great balance of opportunity for those who wish to change and progress whilst offering job security for those wishing to stay put.

 

Scotland is undoubtedly a more vibrant and dynamic place than it was 40 years ago.  Far from people feeling the need to emigrate to find work, the population of Scotland has been rising steadily as folk from the rest of the UK and Europe move to Scotland to live and work.  The Scotland SP knew 40 years ago is not the Scotland I know today.  There are no yokes and shackles for the Scottish people to break free from in order for Scotland to flourish.  Scotland is already flourishing as an integral part of the UK - and long may it continue to do so!

 

With respect, SP was making a valid point from the perspective of someone born in the Highlands, and that perspective mirrors that of many in subsequent generations. It is great that you have witnessed progress in your time here, but again with respect, the experience of people born and bred here may not exactly reflect your own.

 

And yes, begin governed from London is indeed a yoke and a shackle as you put it, for countless reasons.

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

Can anyone who intends to vote NO on 18th September care to give reasons as to why that stance would benefit Scotland more than, or even as much as, it will benefit the rest of the UK/Westminster? 

 

 

A NO vote is a vote for the status quo.  If it was going to give any benefits to anyone compared with what we have now then it wouldn't be the status quo. 

 

 

But it isn't......it is a vote for more uncertainty....and less likely to be of the beneficial kind which may well come with independence.

 

The status quo is what the UK is like currently. It is a share in £25 billion of cuts, and whichever Government is in power in 2015..we know that austerity will continue into the next Parliament and beyond It is a Scotland with pocket money decided by England..and I say England advisedly, because Barnett is, for the devolved governments, a proportion of England's spending on devolved matters...so as England privatises, by the back door, the NHS, we get less for our NHS, which will eventually force privatisation...or cuts.  England can and does deem specific spending in England, generally in London, to be of benefit UK wide......so the public spending on HS2 and however many HS numbers have to be constructed before it gets to Scotland, if it ever does, is not transport spending counted in Barnett that we can spend on our own transport needs...although we'll pay our share of every mile of it, through England,for decades to come. The upgrade to London's sewage system, which kinda smacks of a private water board subsidy anyway, is deemed a UK wide benefit...but Scotland has it's own water board, publicly owned...which is paid for from a block grant which doesn't benefit from a share in the millions being spent in London...and with reducing Scottish budgets and the regular calls via the media and the CBI to privatise it, it's only a matter of time. So the status quo is cuts upon cuts.

 

The Scottish Government is in the gift...as they continually remind us...of Westminster, as Westminster is sovereign..so even what we have now can disappear like the snow off a dyke. Parliamentary committees in both the Commons and the Lords want to remove Barnett completely. UKIP wants to remove the Scottish Parliament completely. There are mutterings from Burnham about an integrated British NHS and sounds from Brown of an integrated education system.....making Scotland North Britain, in fact.

 

Any devolution is just Devo-tax and nothing approaching devo-max. NI has more devolution than Scotland.....in fact, right now, local Government has more devolution than the Scottish Parliament. And the status quo which is flagged up for after 2015, as in the Scotland Act 2012, will serve to cost us money in the collection of the Scottish rate of tax, whether we leave it the same as in the rest of the UK or not....but as they will remove the 10p from the block grant, we are forced to use it, and our grant will be adjusted it in following years depending on our tax levels in the immediately previous year. 

 

So, logically, to keep the status quo as it is now, with the free prescriptions, the free tuition, the bus passes etc.we will need to increase taxes to make us the highest taxed area in the UK, or cut back on the benefits we have received from devolution. And we will get a borrowing power for the first time....but we must borrow from the Treasury....so the Treasury will benefit from the interest we pay....and we will still have to pay our share of interest on Westminster borrowing for Westminster's purposes, even though we will, on top, be responsible for what we actually do borrow on our own behalf. and if, in the end, we do manage to improve the economy......it won't be us who get the benefits....it will be Westminster who collects any extra tax from Scotland due to the policies of a Scottish government, just as they do now..because we can collect tax, but can't spend it as we would wish. So Westminster is quids in coming or going.and Scotland ain't.....we do well, Westminster benefits....we do badly and Westminster benefits, because all Westminster devolution proposals since 1979 have been set at the lowest level they believe can manage to put the SNP's gas at a peep and reduce any chance of us moving towards independence...and nothing to do with what Scotland wants or needs.

 

And the "offers" not guaranteed or guaranteeable by any of the Unionist parties, if we vote NO are just more of the same uselessness writ larger ...but polishing a turd makes it no less a lump of noxious crap.   If there had been any intention to offer any power to grow our economy to benefit us, as opposed to just more responsiblity for spending the hand-out they so kindly give us, then Devo-max would not have been removed by Cameron and Moore from the referendum agreement.

 

So whichever way the vote goes......there is no certainty, bar the certainty that life in the Union isn't going to get much better for most of us.and the certainty that life in an independent Scotland couldn't possibly get any worse....and beyond a NO vote...there will be no status quo..........apart from the status quo of Westminster in sovereign control of everything.

[Oddquine]

For those who are completely illogically convinced that the BBC still does unbiased and even-handed and are to be trusted.....according to the BBC on their website, which does not allow comments on Scottish independence flagged "news" reports or blogs  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28079812 Police said there was a maximum of 350 protesters, who carried flags and banners outside Pacific Quay, the BBC's Glasgow base.

 

But what they didn't say was that there were another 1000 plus not carrying flags and banners and that unofficial police estimates made the crowd as being 1500-2000.  So do you accept the BBC version....or the version from the police before it has been put through the Union-bias filter.or accept that the BBC didn't actually lie through their teeth.....but were economical with the truth..and manipulated their figures to fit their agenda, without actually lying..but that is fine by you because it suits your agenda as well?

 

If you check out http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/events/3071707/videos/55189328,, though the bulk of the crowd is only seen time to time in bits of a long video, or any non-BBC taken and broadcast  photos on FB, even the most arithmetically challenged Unionist  punter would concede that....yet again.....the BBC is lying through their gritted union flag decorated teeth.

 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Oddquine