The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Yngwie]

Wow, thanks for the taking the time! I've looked at each link and there's nothing that remotely answers the question or substantiates Alex's claim, just scaremongering.  That's not to deny that the NHS has huge funding challenges that will need to be addressed, both up here and down south, as DoofersDad has discussed - but let's separate fact from fiction. 

 

Besides, Health is already a devolved power, the Scottish government can allocated as much or as little of its resources to it as it wants, and if it doesn't think it has enough money it also has the power to raise the rate of income tax.

[dougiedanger]

 

It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.

 

In that case it'll be easy for you to provide a link to demonstrate this.

 

Remind me, which side is "project fear"?!

 

The English folk wouldn't stand for the things you talk about any more than the Scots would. Everybody wants the same thing from the NHS.

 

 

The "English folk" voted for the Tories--we didn't, and haven't done for decades, which suggests strongly that we do indeed want starkly different things from our governments and social services.

[dougiedanger]

Wow, thanks for the taking the time! I've looked at each link and there's nothing that remotely answers the question or substantiates Alex's claim, just scaremongering.  That's not to deny that the NHS has huge funding challenges that will need to be addressed, both up here and down south, as DoofersDad has discussed - but let's separate fact from fiction. 

 

Besides, Health is already a devolved power, the Scottish government can allocated as much or as little of its resources to it as it wants, and if it doesn't think it has enough money it also has the power to raise the rate of income tax.

 

If you agree with this principle, why shouldn't the Scottish government and the Scottish people have complete control over their own affairs? 

[Yngwie]

That's not even one of the options on the table at the moment, given the proposal is to be in the EU and to have a monetary union with the UK (not to mention an English monarch as head of state). 

 

I make that point just to highlight that even for the nationalists it's all just a case of finding the right balance between the benefit of more localised decision making and the strength/stability that comes from membership of bigger institutions. 

 

A straight yes/no question inevitably polarises opinion but in reality the debate is not as simple as that and for most of us it's a case of weighing up the pros and cons. 

[dougiedanger]

So you want absolute power for the Scottish government, but that is not quite on offer, so your decision is to vote for the option that gives us the least amount of power and the distinct possibility that any power we have will be considerably diminished by a Westminster government desperate to shut down for good the issue of Scottish sovereignty?

 

Bizarre.

[Yngwie]

I don't want what you say I want and I haven't decided what you say I've decided.

[dougiedanger]

Hard to make sense of any of these No reasons/excuses, people tying themselves in knots to vote against themselves.

[Oddquine]

 

No comment by me required.

 

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/yes-scotland-challenges-alistair-darling-nhs-funding-hypocrisy

 

Yes Scotland Chief Executive, Blair Jenkins, has challenged No campaign chief Alistair Darling to explain the difference between claims made about the threat to Scotland’s NHS funding, that helped get him elected as an MP in 2010, and the exact opposite and contradictory claims now being made by the campaign he leads.

Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling, you were elected saying a Westminster Tory government would 'slash funding for schools and hospitals' in Scotland but now lead a campaign that wants us to believe that Scotland’s funding is safe in Tory hands."

The Scottish Labour Party’s 2010 General Election Broadcast makes clear that a Westminster Tory government has and would cut Scotland’s health spending and that this is a ‘risk’ that Scotland faces. The broadcast states:

    "They [the Tories] starved our schools and hospitals of funding and there’s a real risk they’d do the same again."

    "They wouldn’t fight for the NHS, they call it a 60 year mistake."

    "The Tories would . . . slash funding for schools and hospitals . . . The Tories haven’t changed."

The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotland’s schools and hospitals from Westminster Tory policies, including the ongoing privatisation of the English NHS.

Commenting, Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling has been caught out saying two very different things in two campaigns. He was elected on the back of the claim that a Westminster Tory government poses a threat to Scotland’s NHS, and now leads a campaign that is trying to argue the exact opposite.

"Of course, Mr Darling was right back in 2010 when he warned that Westminster Tory cuts could damage Scotland’s schools and hospitals.

"Elsewhere in the UK, the Labour Party is warning that the privatisation of the NHS in England could mean cuts. This would have a direct and automatic impact on Scottish spending as a result of the Barnett formula.

"Given that Mr Darling’s party identified the threat to Scotland’s NHS in 2010 and his colleagues, including the Welsh Health Minister, are repeating that warning today, it is simply not credible for the No campaign to continue with their assertion that Tory health privatisation won’t have a damaging impact on Scotland’s NHS.

"The NHS is Scotland’s most valued public service. We simply can’t risk any knock-on damage to our health service in the future from the Westminster government’s privatisation agenda. Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes."

 

 

 

Having suffered a pounding on the pound, Alex Salmond will now look to breathe new life into the Yes campaign by exploiting the public's support  for the NHS.  Oddquine is quite right that Alistair Darling has got some explaining to do on this one and the next televised debate may well see him having some awkward questions to answer.  The NHS will surely become a hot topic in the next few weeks.

 

But voting in the referendum should not be based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother.  As far as the NHS is concerned, the issue is about whether or not independence will make a radical difference to the quality of healthcare in Scotland.  No doubt pledges that the NHS will be safe in an independent Scotland will be bandied about but it will be interesting to see whether there is a debate about the real issues rather than the usual shallow sloganising.  There must be few things which attract so much ill informed comment as the NHS.

 

We hear people saying we need Independence to keep privatisation out of the NHS.  Nonsense!  It's here already and it always has been.  Do you go to a GP?  Do you get NHS prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy? Do you get NHS dental treatment or NHS eye tests at an optician?  If so 99% of the staff who provide those services either are or are employed by private contractors.  A variety of other services are contracted out to private contractors and that trend will continue in an independent Scotland.

 

It is true that more services are privatised in England than in Scotland but that is largely due to the fact that the per capita spend on the NHS is higher here and the NHS in England is forced to explore private service provision because it is cheaper.

 

Whether the NHS provides the service itself or whether a private sector contractor provides it, the NHS in England pays for it. 

 

Whether you like it or not, healthcare costs are going to rise massively and these rising costs are putting pressure on the service both North and South of the Border.  More radical steps to address these pressures have been taken in England than in Scotland because of the more generous public funding in Scotland.  But the extra funding and, indeed, any further funding which might come into Scottish public funding as a result of independence, will only delay the inevitable.  The fact is the NHS is a victim of its own success and people live much longer only to go on and develop other more expensive conditions.  In addition, treatments become more sophisticated and ever more expensive.  Any debate on the NHS needs to address how it is going to tackle these massive cost pressures. 

 

It is very easy for people to say, as Oddquine concludes by saying "Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes", but what does that actually mean?  If it means that the NHS needs to continue to be fully funded by the state then there are two choices for the electorate.  Either we need to continue year on year to pour an ever increasing percentage of the public purse into the service (and therefore increase taxes and/or cut other public spending to pay for it) or we limit what the NHS provides so that it stays affordable.

 

That latter option may sound draconian but actually we do it already.  There are, for instance, a lot of alternative therapies not available on the NHS or you can get better hearing aids etc if you go privately.  Indeed, just in terms of general care and advice or screening for early diagnosis, the NHS could do far more than it does now if it had more money.  We therefore currently limit what the NHS provides and if individuals feel that is not enough for them, they have the option of getting private treatment if they can afford it.  That is true in Scotland today as the existence of various private hospitals and clinics and the number of folk with private healthcare insurance demonstrates.   

 

In Scotland, we already have extensive private health care provision funded by the National Health Service and we already have people paying for a variety of treatments, equipment and health services where NHS services don't meet their needs.  With the spiraling costs of healthcare associated with an aging population and the development of ever more expensive treatments we are now seeing a shift in England towards greater input from the private sector and greater private purchase of healthcare.  That shift is also happening here but is not yet so developed.  What we need to hear from the "Yes" campaign is how these challenges will be addressed in an independent Scotland.  Cheap sloganising will simply not do.

 

 

Having suffered a pounding on the pound? In your dreams, DD...we are creeping up in the polls (if you believe them), since that debate....and even Mark Carney said that "It's never a good idea to talk about contingency plans in public"..so if it is sauce for the Westminster goose, it is as much sauce for the Holyrood gander.     (and anyway, plan B is the pound....you know it, and I know it..and Alistair Darling knows it.) Funnily enough, in the YES shop, we have had hardly any queries about the currency, and far far more about the effect of Westminster privatisation on the NHS, about fracking, about Trident, about defence, about disability benefits, about the EU etc.

Voting on the referendum is not based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother....don't be daft.....but it does illustrate what the MSM(and NO voters) refuse to acknowledge....that  Westminster politicians will open their mouths and let their bellies rumble regardless of the facts of any matter.

Whereas England takes a market-led approach, encouraging private sector involvement, Scotland does not. It has continued with an integrated system without competition or a split between providers and commissioners. For example, Scotland's local health boards are responsible for both commissioning and delivery of services for their local area. The Scottish health boards are strategic and operational bodies. They have commissioned primary care from community health partnerships and secondary care from hospitals, for which they are also responsible. Health boards and health and social care partnerships are the main provider organisations. (so says Wellards Academy, which trains pharma and meditech salesmen to the NHS in the UK.and they would know their customer base.)

"Privatisation" and the rules underpinning it, re non-clinical dentistry, non-clinical opticians and pharmacies, and the PFI hospitals which cost us a heckuva lot of money in payments annually and will for years yet, but involve no clinical input, predate the current Scottish Government starting with Thatcher, and employs about 12000 employees out of 160,000 NHS staff. However, only the PFI hospitals are under fixed long term immovable contracts, the others are paid on a more piece work basis according to how much and what work they do for the NHS..... and they do not bid against other dentists, opticians and pharmacies for contracts. England is now privatising  clinical interventions,

The following links illustrate privatisation and the consequences as is happening in England now.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/26/nhs-privatisation-fears-deepen-deal

http://http://www.nhsca.org.uk/docs/cliveprivate.pdf

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/allyson-pollock/end-to-bevan%E2%80%99s-dream-of-free-healthcare-for-all-britons

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/health-act-means-death-of-nhs

http://www.badmed.net/bad-medicine-blog/2011/03/secret-nail-nhs-coffin.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/nhs-taken-over-wall-street-cameron-health-service-privatisation

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Thousands-Derbyshire-patients-lose-doctor/story-20840118-detail/story.html

http://http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/seventeen-gp-surgeries-at-risk-of-closure-from-nightmare-cuts-9266965.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/21/nhs-control-given-away-tory-minister

http://www.buzzfeed.com/anotherangryvoice/12-things-you-should-know-about-the-tories-and-the-wyf2

And the prospects of a NO vote for the Scottish NHS over and above the implications of the previous links

http://www.holyrood.com/2013/09/burnham-sets-out-vision-for-whole-person-service/

A quote from one of the above links (the 4th one I think) The experience of the NHS with the private sector so far – whether through private finance initiative (PFI) hospitals, treatment centres or the corporate takeover of out of hours care – has been disastrous. The marketisation of the NHS has driven up costs and produced worse results. The track records of some private providers now entering the NHS, such as UnitedHealth Group, are not impressive.

and

Competitive tendering fragments healthcare. Patients with chronic diseases will be looked after by multiple providers.

The Scottish system is not comparable with the current situation in England yet, however you try to spin it, DD, but it will get like that here with continuing cuts. Currently we in Scotland still have basically an internal and integrated market, while England is moving more and more towards an external competitive one..and an external competiitive market is privatisation. The Health and Social Care Bill 2012 effectively repealed the 1947 act which Bevin brought forward, guaranteeing universal medical care, free at the point of service, even down to removing any ministerial duty to provide health services, and giving the National Commissioning Board and Monitor powers to commercialise and marketise healthcare.

What you appear not to be able to accept is that  pocket money will only go so far. Currently, the Scottish government has ring-fenced the NHS budget and increased it in real terms, but as Barnett is reduced.....and possibly even scrapped completely, the ability of the Scottish Government to maintain the Scottish NHS at the level it is now, far less improve it, while also meeting all their other obligations, will be reduced..and that may well force privatisation on the same lines as in happening in England now.  

 

Can you explain to me why the Scottish NHS will be Better Together in the Union, when post 2015, we will have only the option of reducing the input to free education, free prescriptions etc or reducing the input to the NHS......or alternatively becoming the highest taxed "region" in the UK? Can you explain to me why we should pay more from our personal incomes when we already have enough income per head, with or without oil, to meet our needs, if we were allowed control of it ourselves and had the ability to decide our own priorities, rather than paying for the lifestyles of 1350 legislators and maintenance and replacement of WMDs, transport links for London etc, for example.  

 

http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/

Also from the already quoted link...Aneurin Bevan was once asked how long the NHS would survive. He replied: "As long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it."  England is losing the fight, despite the large numbers of people with faith who are fighting, as Scotland in the Union eventually will in our turn, if we stay.  Scotland, with Independence, will not, as the NHS will be protected in our Constitution.

The threat to the Scottish Health Service within the Union is the way the English Health Service is going.....which is down to political policy. Interesting article here.....

http://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/At-what-cost-paying-the-price-for-the-market-in-the-English-NHS-by-Calum-Paton.pdf

 

<Edited to add another link. >

 

Edited August 19, 2014 by Oddquine

[dougiedanger]

I think that's what you call "owned".

[skifreak]

Besides, Health is already a devolved power, the Scottish government can allocated as much or as little of its resources to it as it wants, and if it doesn't think it has enough money it also has the power to raise the rate of income tax.

Health is devolved, setting Scottish Government budgets is not - and that is the longer term issue. Did anyone see £9000 tuition fees coming in England pre May 2010? Any future changes not yet envisaged could drastically reduce Scottish Government funding in direct response to policy decisions taken for England for the same reason via negative Barnett Consequentials. 

 

In that regard the Scottish Parliament can only act as a drag on policy implemented at UK level, because the Scottish Government can not go on mitigating the policies of the UK government from a Block Grant that is being diminished by those very policies. Health provision will only be the full responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, if Holyrood controls both sides of the budget, not just the spending.

Edited August 19, 2014 by skifreak

[IBM]

You are right skifreak but a lot of think it will be ok simply because it is devolved!

[+DoofersDad]

Oddquine's lengthy post is testement to her passion for the subject and the time she puts into these things but it contains much that is factually wrong, much that is irrelevant and nothing which seriously addresses the major point I was making.  I will just pick up on a few points here.

 

Lets start with the NHS as it now is in Scotland and the reality that much of it is provided by the private sector.  Oddquine satates ""Privatisation" and the rules underpinning it, re non-clinical dentistry, non-clinical opticians and pharmacies, and the PFI hospitals which cost us a heckuva lot of money in payments annually and will for years yet, but involve no clinical input, predate the current Scottish Government starting with Thatcher, and employs about 12000 employees out of 160,000 NHS staff. However, only the PFI hospitals are under fixed long term immovable contracts, the others are paid on a more piece work basis according to how much and what work they do for the NHS..... and they do not bid against other dentists, opticians and pharmacies for contracts. England is now privatising clinical interventions."  This is just packed with errors!

 

She refers to "non-clinical dentistry" etc, but these helathcare professionals all provide clinical interventions.  She choses to omit the biggest group of private sector employees off the list (the GPs) presumably because she realises that even she simply couldn't get away with pretending that GPs' work was "non-clinical".

 

She goes on to say that the arrangements for these private contractor health professionals started with Thatcher.  Wrong.  The arrangements started with the inception of the NHS over 60 years ago.  In order to scare us all she says "England is now privatising clinical interventions" .  But the NHS in Scotland has had privatised clinical interventions since day one!
 

She then refers to the "piece work" contracts these clinicians have as though that is fine because they are not bidding against each other.  These contracts are very complex and GPs in particular can pick and choose what non core service they provide.  This means that some elements of care deemed necessary by the commissioning Health Board don't get done by these contractors.  The nature of the "contract for life" also means that if a contractor is just not very good, there is little the Health Board can do about it.  At least if there was a tendering process, clinicians unwilling to do all that was required or who weren't performing as well wouldn't get the contract.  Better would be to have the professional staff employed by the Boards so poor perfomance could be addressed, but despite several years of Labour and SNP Governments in Scotland, these private contractors are still at liberty to some extent to pick and choose the services they wish to provide.   

 

She is also wrong to say that clinical care is not subject to tendering processes.  Tendering takes place in relation to an increasing range of home care interventions for example.  So don't kid yourself that there is no privatisation of clinical care in the NHS in Scotland, it's always been a part of the NHS - and it is growing in Scotland under left of centre Labour and SNP Governments despite Health being a wholly devolved function.

 

Of course, a greater range of things is going into the private sector in England.  As I have said before, I am pretty horrified by some of the initiatives and trust that Scotland learns from the mistakes the English are making.  England has got itself into a mess for a number of reasons including debts from the PFI fiasco (Thatcher's legacy again) and because the UK Government does not fund public services in England as well as it funds public services in Scotland.  This means the NHS in England has reached crisis point where despite increases in funding in real terms, the NHS cannot meet the demands.  Radical measures have been taken and many of these involve the private sector.  But don't think this is all the doing of rabid right wing Tories.  Much of it is to do with the power of the medical profession.  Allow me to quote from Beven when he was asked how the medical profession agreed to join into the NHS and he said "by stuffing their mouths with gold".  They are still exerting that power and England has GP led commisioning groups because that is what  the medical profession wanted.

 

The funding issue is largely a red herring.  Without going into any detail, if the block grant is reduced in the future it will be as a consequence of a poitical decision to cut public spending.  Increasing public spending means higher taxes.  Higher UK public spending and a higher block grant means higher UK taxes.  A lower level of UK public spending and a lower block grant  mean lower taxes.  If a devolved Scottish Government feels the block grant is insufficient to address the pressures on the NHS or elsewhere then it has the power to raise taxes.  In a devolved Scotland, the Scots have the freedom to raise taxes if they want to increase public spending.

 

So whilst I absolutely agree with you that I don't like the way the problems in the NHS in England are being dealt with, that is simply not the issue.  The issue is, how is the Government of an independent Scotland going to deal with the inevitable ongoing pressures on the Health Service?  There is a spectacular silence on this and instead we get meaningless soundbites such as "the NHS will be protected in our Constitution."  Just what is that supposed to mean?  Do you really think that some constitutional gimmick is going to make all the problems and pressures go away?  Or do you simply protect the NHS by limiting what it provides and expect everyone to go private for the rest?

 

 

[+DoofersDad]

I think that's what you call "owned".

 

 

 

It's what I call a good try - but wrong on so many levels.

[Scarlet Pimple]

....in your opinion DD?

[Alex MacLeod]

We all have our opinions on the subjects of this debate and I would never slate anothers opinion no matter how much against my own it may be. Indeed there are times when I share the opinion of some who oppose that which I believe in. At the end of the day the only real hope for a fair and prosperous Scotland in independence. If the referendum returns a No vote then I despair for the future of this country. There will be no status quo. There will be no free prescriptions. There will be no free higher education. There will be major cuts in everything. There will be increased poverty and there will be an ever increasing gulf between the haves and the have nots.

 

The Telegraph:

“If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that ‘Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.’

By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.”

 

The Scotsman:

“An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum.

Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget.

‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University.

There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’”

It seems safe to say that the lovebombing is over, readers.

The only thing we’re a bit confused about is the £4bn figure. The No campaign has been hammering away for several weeks now on a figure of £1400 “for every man, woman and child” in extra UK spending in Scotland. The population of Scotland is 5.3 million. Multiplied by 1400 that’s £7.42bn, not £4bn.

That’s the £7bn figure we told you about last November, which would be slashed from the Scottish budget were the Barnett Formula (the source of the “higher spending”) to be ended and Scotland made to raise its own tax revenue under new devolved powers proposed by all three Unionist parties – but NOT given control of its oil revenues.

It would be impossible to recoup that vast figure from tax rises, because people would simply flood out of Scotland in their millions. The only way to get it back would be, as noted by Professor Jones, cuts to the Scottish budget of a magnitude unlike anything previously seen under austerity.

Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from responsibility and go crawling to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them viciously in the name of “more devolution”.

We told you nine months ago. Perhaps now the mainstream press has finally caught up with the story, more Scots will face up to the reality of the choice before them.

 

 

 

If NO then prepare for the backlash. YES is the only way!!!

[Yngwie]

It should perhaps be pointed out that the editorial above is actually from Wings over Scotland, not the Scotsman!

[Ayeseetee]

(not to mention an German monarch as head of state). 

 

 

fixed that for you!

[+DoofersDad]

Sadly there is a lot of truth in what Alex says.  Whatever way the vote goes there will be a changed relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK and it will not be for the better.

 

The nub here is that a reason for voting "Yes" is boiling down to the fear that having sought independence and failed, a "No" result would cause a backlash which would threaten the favourable status Scotland enjoys within the UK.  To quote the song - "You don't know what you've got till it's gone".

 

Should Scotland be an independent country or not?  Obviously views are hotly divided on this.  For my part I think that regardless of how the vote goes, we would have been better not asking the question in the first place.

[Ayeseetee]

For my part I think that regardless of how the vote goes, we would have been better not asking the question in the first place.

 

We will be better off when trident sails away and we are no longer a warehouse for nukes and get the goverment we vote for EVERYTIME plus no more illgal wars in our name.

 

2/3rd's of the scottish people were against the iraq war but doofer wanted them to keep quite so he can still live in a world where britian isnt clutching to it's last bit of power on the world stage and making a joke of most of us!

 

So the question has been asked wouldn't it be better just to vote yes now instead of waiting for the inevitable since it will never be the same?

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[dougiedanger]

Better Together? If we vote no we face a backlash, as stated in today's papers. A No vote will be a disaster for Scotland.

 

The Telegraph:

“If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.
The researchers found overwhelming support, with 62 per cent in favour and 12 per cent opposed, for the proposition that ‘Scottish MPs should be prevented on voting on laws that apply only in England.’
By a similarly large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.”

The Scotsman:

“An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum.
Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget.
‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University.
There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’”

[dougiedanger]

It should perhaps be pointed out that the editorial above is actually from Wings over Scotland, not the Scotsman!

 

You don't think there will be backlash against Scotland in the event of a No vote?

[Yngwie]

No I don't, because if there was, there would be a resounding and unstoppable shift of opinion in favour of independence, and that's not what the rest of the UK wants.

[Ayeseetee]

No I don't, because if there was, there would be a resounding and unstoppable shift of opinion in favour of independence, and that's not what the rest of the UK wants.

 

It would be too late because we would have voted to stay and wouldnt have another one so soon after so don't expect another for 25+ years unless something huge happens like the uk leaving europe and even that might not be enough!

Edited August 20, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[dougiedanger]

No I don't, because if there was, there would be a resounding and unstoppable shift of opinion in favour of independence, and that's not what the rest of the UK wants.

Massive risk to take. If people are looking for continuity and security, their best bet is to vote Yes, as there will be massive changes if we vote no, none of them beneficial to Scotland.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Either way it's a fait accompli now. That vote is going ahead, regardless, in a few days time!

 

That's why, when you start a hare running  you had better be pretty certain that that hare will cross the finishing line ahead of the rabbits, foxes, racoons and cockroaches. No offence intended ..just hyperbole.