The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[+DoofersDad]

 

The Scottish people have freedoms that others would give their right arm for.  You, for instance, are not going to disappear in the middle of the night having called your Government tyrannical and oppressive.

 

What is the point in this statement?

Are you suggesting that this is going to change with a Yes vote and Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night?

Of course you are not - so it's a pointless thing to type.

 

The No campaign is founded on keeping people in fear.  A lot of the Scottish public are starting to realise this and now it's the No camp that is getting the fear.

 

No, it is not a pointless thing to type.  You are right that of course I am not suggesting Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night but equally I am pointing out that it doesn't happen now because we are free people.

 

What independence will give for some is a release, if you like, of the Scottish identitiy within an Independent Scotland.  I understand that for many that will give them a sense, as Dougiedanger says, of "pride, honour and identity" and it also gives a greater level of self determination for Scots, but please, do not confuse that with freedom. 

 

The freedom we currently have is the envy of many and has been hard won.  Many proud Scots have fought and died  to win and protect our freedom over the years.  These basic freedoms are the right to vote, the right to read what you want, say what you want, watch want you want, the right to criticise the Government, the right to go where you want, the right to practice any religion or none etc.  These are the rights that we now all take for granted in this country but which are denied to millions in other parts of the world. We already have our freedom. Independence does not give us freedom, it simply transfers our freedom to an independent state where those who live in Scotland will have a greater level of self determination than at present.

Edited September 1, 2014 by DoofersDad

[+DoofersDad]

KingBeastie provides a very worthwhile reminder that Yes votes are only counted if they include a wee coloured in Saltire. Please share!

 Does it mean that "NO" voters have to draw the Union Flag?  If so, I might vote "YES"

[dougiedanger]

 

The Scottish people have freedoms that others would give their right arm for.  You, for instance, are not going to disappear in the middle of the night having called your Government tyrannical and oppressive.

 

What is the point in this statement?

Are you suggesting that this is going to change with a Yes vote and Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night?

Of course you are not - so it's a pointless thing to type.

 

The No campaign is founded on keeping people in fear.  A lot of the Scottish public are starting to realise this and now it's the No camp that is getting the fear.

 

 

His point was that in their eternal wisdom and grace the British have given us a certain degree of freedom, that we should be happy with what we are given, and how dare we ask for the same freedoms that virtually all independent countries enjoy.

 

It's like when right-wing Americans say to African-Americans that they have more than other black people in the world, and don't get why they are not happy with what they have been given.

[KingBeastie]

of course I am not suggesting Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night

...

it doesn't happen now because we are free people

 

And us being "free people" is not going to change in the event of a Yes vote, so I do still view the original statement as pointless.  And if I did have to attempt to find a point to it it would be as mild doom mongering.

Apologies if you if find that offensive, it's not meant that way.

[KingBeastie]

 

KingBeastie provides a very worthwhile reminder that Yes votes are only counted if they include a wee coloured in Saltire. Please share!

 Does it mean that "NO" voters have to draw the Union Flag?  If so, I might vote "YES"

 

 

Ha ha!!  I can lend you a red crayon if you want.

Or the club might have a few spare, they've clearly not been using theirs when they've been designing the last few kits!

[KingBeastie]

Oh hold on - on second thoughts...

Everybody... Hide ALL the red crayons!  QUICK!

[+DoofersDad]

 

of course I am not suggesting Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night

...

it doesn't happen now because we are free people

 

And us being "free people" is not going to change in the event of a Yes vote, so I do still view the original statement as pointless.  And if I did have to attempt to find a point to it it would be as mild doom mongering.

Apologies if you if find that offensive, it's not meant that way.

 

No offense taken at all.  And apologies if my comments have caused offense to anyone - certainly none intended.

 

But just a final thought.  We are having this referendum because we have the freedom within our current democratic structure to discuss these matters and because the UK Government has respected  the fact that the SNP has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to seek a referendum on independence.  Further, the UK Government has accepted the result will be binding and that only a simple majority of those voting will be necessary.  Of course, the ability for the Scottish people to seek independence through the democratic process has existed as long as we have had a parliamentary democracy.  The fact that we are only voting on the issue now is a reflection that over the years, the majority of Scots have been happy to remain proud Scots within the United Kingdom. 

[Oddquine]

 

 

Of course Britain has a colonial past and much of what happened then is considered outrageous by modern day standards, but to call the British Government a tyrannical oppressor today is totally absurd.  You refer to the Empire in the past tense and that is the clue here.  The Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth where former colonies, most of which are now independent democratic states, choose, of their own free will, to participate as part of the Commonwealth because they know that it is in their interests to maintain a partnership with the old colonial power.  As a result, most of these countries are relatively prosperous.

 

This post colonial policy of supporting democratic freedom within the world has continued through two world wars, a strong line against the spread of the undemocratic communist oppression of the Soviet empire and onto taking a stand against Muslim fundamentalists who, as you read this are butchering folk who refuse to sign up to a highly oppressive creed which removes any semblance of freedom.

 

Is it to Britain's own advantage to do these things?  You bet your life it is!  It is in our interests to have a world of democratic nations where people have the basic freedoms that we tend to take for granted and where those nations respect the rights of other countries, trade with them and co-operate on issues of mutual interest (e.g.environmental treaties). Of course Britain picks and chooses where it gets involved based on the nature of the oppression being inflicted and the more immediate impact the issue has on Britain's security and economic interests.  One may argue with some justification that it doesn't always get the balance right, but that does not take away from the principle that the UK is prepared to make a stand in promoting and protecting the democratic rights of folk throughout the world. 

That'll be why we leave the Israeli's to oppress. Lets just turn a blind eye to that one because Palestine has nothing to offer and the sons of Israel are the financial blood of the good old US of A. Britian has been involved in conflict in Afghanistan since Hannibal was a boy. Dont you think maybe the threats from the fundamentalists there may have something to do with that? Britian took near riots in the streets before becoming involved in Syria. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in central and southern Africa. We denounced the Angolan people in their fight for Independence from Portugal. Britian ignored many of the conflicts in South America. If the oil and mineral wealth of those nations was known about then as it is now I think our stand would have been a helluva lot different.

Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people.

 

But Britain doesn't just leave the Israeli's to oppress.  Britain has been very strong in it's condemnation of Israel's latest actions.  Just what do you expect them to do?  This dispute is incredibly difficult and whilst one can be rightly critical of Israel's attitude to the Palestinians, it should not be forgotten that the Palestinian Government denies the right for a Jewish state to exist in the first place.  Despite this, Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is far less oppressive than the Taliban's oppression of its own poeple in  Afghanistan or Saddam's oppression of his own people in Iraq.

 

You say "Sometimes I think that Britians involvement in much of what goes on in the Islamic world has more to do with continuing the christian crusades of the middle ages and imposing our ideals and beliefs on other people." Really?  if that was the case, would the Government provide the freedoms and support given to the Muslim communities in Britain?  The picture I get is one of trying to encourage ethnic and racial respect and integration. 

 

They condemn Israel.......while selling them arms to continue oppressing.......and you think that level of hypocrisy is acceptable? 

 

What I'd expect them to do is cancel all arms sales, embargo all imports from Israel which are produced in the Occupied Territories, recall our foreign ambassadors and support the formation of a Palestinian state within the 1948 borders in the UN.  That would be the moral way to behave in order to remedy a situation they had deliberately set up and have condoned for decades..but Westminster doesn't do moral, I'm afraid.

[dougiedanger]

 

 

of course I am not suggesting Salmond's secret polis will huckle people off in the night

...

it doesn't happen now because we are free people

 

And us being "free people" is not going to change in the event of a Yes vote, so I do still view the original statement as pointless.  And if I did have to attempt to find a point to it it would be as mild doom mongering.

Apologies if you if find that offensive, it's not meant that way.

 

No offense taken at all.  And apologies if my comments have caused offense to anyone - certainly none intended.

 

But just a final thought.  We are having this referendum because we have the freedom within our current democratic structure to discuss these matters and because the UK Government has respected  the fact that the SNP has been elected to the Scottish Parliament with a mandate to seek a referendum on independence.  Further, the UK Government has accepted the result will be binding and that only a simple majority of those voting will be necessary.  Of course, the ability for the Scottish people to seek independence through the democratic process has existed as long as we have had a parliamentary democracy.  The fact that we are only voting on the issue now is a reflection that over the years, the majority of Scots have been happy to remain proud Scots within the United Kingdom. 

 

 

Huzzah for the Brits!

 

Latest yougov poll, No 53%, Yes, 47%.   

 

http://youtu.be/aQtaqgW6MXg 

[KingBeastie]

DD, I certainly agree that when you look at how we may gain our independence compared to some other countries it is indeed a democratic process.  Thankfully.

I won't dispute that.

My reasons for voting Yes are that the system as it is is broken and very, very corrupt with Scotland and it's people not being cared for in the way it should.  There is nobody better to do what is best for all of Scotland than a government elected by the Scots for the Scots.

[KingBeastie]

BTW - I cast my vote this morning.

It felt great!

 

[Oddquine]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

 

Jings.........George Monbiot agrees with me about the currency...and I agree with him about other bits of his article.the last part of which I quote.........

 

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

 

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

 

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

 

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

[dougiedanger]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland

 

Jings.........George Monbiot agrees with me about the currency...and I agree with him about other bits of his article.the last part of which I quote.........

 

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

 

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

 

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

 

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

 

Great piece that, was just going to post it. In fact, here is the full thing:

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...gland-scotland

England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?

By George Monbiot -  Tuesday 2 September 2014 19.06 BST

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent? That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens, uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

System justification is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work, which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows. As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.

Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving. England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September. The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit, which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations. It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt, dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative. To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom. 

[Ayeseetee]

Tonight twitter got a bit nasty because the debate last night was on itv aswell... here are a few corkers I managed to screencap

 

 

 

 

[Ayeseetee]

Luckily that is just the loud minority most people voting yes or no have been really good sports   

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

Jings.........George Monbiot agrees with me about the currency...and I agree with him about other bits of his article.the last part of which I quote.........

 

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

 

 

 

Folk will be wondering who George Monbiot is.  Is he some eminent economist?  No.  George Monbiot is a zoologist by training who used to be a member of pussycat George Galloway's "Respect" party and who now earns a living writing controversial articles for the Guardian.  He's not exactly someone whose opinion should influence us in making the momentous decision of whether or not we want to end a 300 year old political union.

 

But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that.  Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city."  Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries?

 

Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control?

 

 We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy.

[dougiedanger]

Why would anyone choose to give up their sovereignty and wealth to be governed by the hereditary, corrupt of elite another country with one of the most unequal, divided societies in the developed world?

[IBM]

That's mine done and ready for the post, Yes   :scotland:    

[Yngwie]

 

But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that.  Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city."  Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries?

 

Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control?

 

 We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy.

 

 

Salmond's desperation to keep the pound is all the more interesting when you consider that years ago the very same Salmond said "the UK pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck"! 

 

Mind you, until 2 years ago he was also vehemently opposed to NATO.

 

I know this debate isn't really about Salmond himself, but he's the chief architect.......and the foundations seem a bit too pliable to build a detached house on.

[dougiedanger]

Sometimes you just need to man up and do the right thing.

[Oddquine]

 

 

But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that.  Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city."  Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries?

 

Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control?

 

 We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy.

 

 

Salmond's desperation to keep the pound is all the more interesting when you consider that years ago the very same Salmond said "the UK pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck"! 

 

Mind you, until 2 years ago he was also vehemently opposed to NATO.

 

I know this debate isn't really about Salmond himself, but he's the chief architect.......and the foundations seem a bit too pliable to build a detached house on.

 

 Ah, but Salmond listens to the people, unlike Westminster politicians.   

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

Jings.........George Monbiot agrees with me about the currency...and I agree with him about other bits of his article.the last part of which I quote.........

 

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy committee is based in London and bows to the banks. "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

 

 

 

Folk will be wondering who George Monbiot is.  Is he some eminent economist?  No.  George Monbiot is a zoologist by training who used to be a member of pussycat George Galloway's "Respect" party and who now earns a living writing controversial articles for the Guardian.  He's not exactly someone whose opinion should influence us in making the momentous decision of whether or not we want to end a 300 year old political union.

 

But given that Oddquine has jumped on his views on the currency as supporting her position, it is worth looking at what he says on that.  Oddquine quotes Monbiot saying "The pound’s strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the city."  Why then, is the "YES" campaign hell bent on insisting that an independent Scotland will use a currency which allegedly harms Scotland's manufacturing industries?

 

Elsewhere in his article Monbiot identifies that there are other small countries who have their own currency, so why does the YES campaign not have the confidence and belief in the strength of their own economy to prosper with their own currency under their own control?

 

 We hear all this scaremongering nonsense about how corrupt the British Government and financial institutions are, but the truth of the matter is that the Scottish Government's desparation to use the pound post independence is because they know that whether they have any control over it or not, the strength of the British pound and the way it is managed, far from damaging manufacturing in Scotland, is the best way to support the Scottish economy.

 

 

It's not my position, it was my logical conclusion from all the currency options, if a Plan B was necessary.  A lot of economists think the same..but I linked to Monbiot, because of his whole article, which I notice you do not challenge, apart from the currency part.

 

The UK is the 14th most corrupt country of 177, America being the 19th (but we are catching the USA up) and with the least corrupt being Denmark, Sweden, Norway and New Zealand, all small and closer to their population, and all with written constitutions.

 

There was an article in the Grauniad in June last year, (and nothing much has changed since then). It finished by saying.....

 

City directorships in opposition used to be a Tory preserve. But after New Labour embraced corporate power it became a cross-party affair. Blair is in a class of his own, of course, raking in £20m a year from banks and autocratic governments; but he is followed closely by dozens of New Labour ministers who moved out of government into lucrative corporate jobs, often for firms hustling for contracts from their former departments.

It defies rationality to believe that the prospect of far better paid jobs in the private sector doesn't influence the decisions of ministers and officials – or isn't used by corporations to shape policy. Who can seriously doubt that politicians were encouraged to champion light touch regulation before the crash by the lure and lobbying of the banks, as well as by an overweening ideology?

Britain is now an increasingly corrupt country at its highest levels – not in the sense of directly bribing officials, of course, and it's almost entirely legal. But our public life and democracy is now profoundly compromised by its colonisation. Corporate and financial power have merged into the state.

 

And that is just the politicians, with the House of Lords being corruption writ large and blatant, with jobs for the political boys, and rewards for political donors.  Cameron's own election advisor is a lobbyist for tobacco, alcohol, oil and gas companies.  Top civil servants also move from Government activities to big businesses..... from HMRC to accountancy firms, to design tax loopholes, from the MOD to provide influence for arms manufacturers, from the DOH to top jobs in private Healthcare companies.

 

Interesting reading... and being legal doesn't mean it isn't corruption......it just means it is "acceptable" corruption, in the view of our sovereign Parliament, if you believe there is any such thing as acceptable corruption.

.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/corporate-britain-corrupt-lobbying-revolving-door

 

[Yngwie]

 

The UK is the 14th most corrupt country

 

Aye OK, presumably you are excluding all of Africa, Asia and South America!

 

Regarding the things in your second last para, some of it stinks but it happens everywhere and will happen in Scotland too, unless you restrict people's freedom to move jobs which would of course be illegal.

[KingBeastie]

Ah, but Salmond listens to the people, unlike Westminster politicians.

Voting Yes seems to be the only way to get politicians to listen to the people again.

[KingBeastie]

Sometimes you just need to man up and do the right thing.

Ultimately when you do boil it down it is, I feel, just that - a choice between wrong and right.

That's just my opinion/feeling, I know the no brigade will take offence to that, it's not meant to cause offence.

Besides my vote's already cast - maybe I should keep out of it!