The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Ayeseetee]

A wee video of yessers in inverness yesterday

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alwLk4t4xtA#t=12

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Scarlet Pimple]

And remember ...Faint heart ne'er won fair lady. (or laddy if you are of the opposite persuasion).  

[starchief]

When are you selling up and moving back to Scotland to put your money where your mouth is, SP?  Seems a bit 'plastic paddy' otherwise.

[Sneckboy]

A wee video of yessers in inverness yesterday

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alwLk4t4xtA#t=12

'wee video! indeed! There are only about 200 folk there max! There are almost more countable bodies when the camera quiuckly panned left to capture the bewildered (but) happy unionists chuckling at this inconvenient sideshow!

Never mind trhe 1000's of NO voters who don't give a monkeys about this distraction, you block the town centre, costing businesses trade.

Us NO's have more forethought and intelligence -  and are happily going about our Unionist inspired lives! I thank you!

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

If you want scotland to be independent vote yes if not vote no because neither side has been able to prove if we would be £500 better or worse off and it's come to this!

 

 

 

 

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way.

 

However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say.  Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons.

 

Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know.  As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no.  If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,.

 

Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable.  Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands.  But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course.  And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. 

 

It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland.  What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for.  That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place!  A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for.  I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc.  Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation.  The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer.  But that might not always be the case.

 

A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse.  A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future.  I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests.  Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

[Ayeseetee]

 

 

 

If you want scotland to be independent vote yes if not vote no because neither side has been able to prove if we would be £500 better or worse off and it's come to this!

 

 

 

 

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way.

 

However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say.  Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons.

 

Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know.  As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no.  If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,.

 

Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable.  Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands.  But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course.  And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. 

 

It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland.  What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for.  That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place!  A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for.  I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc.  Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation.  The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer.  But that might not always be the case.

 

A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse.  A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future.  I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests.  Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

 

 

 

typical UKIP / BNP unionist drivel... eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!

 

( I can bring party politics into this aswell )

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[Scarlet Pimple]

 Starchief.... good point.! But very hurtful--to the quick.  What's the matter dearie, are you afraid of  his opinions?

S. P. may be in absentia but he still can voice his opinion can't he?  It's a free country isn't it?-----oops I'm sorry, I'd forgotten,  it's not free yet until the yessers win. Set and match.

Give me a vote and I will be on the first plane.  
 

[+DoofersDad]

Doofers Dad -your post 1370. You say this is a Referendum, not an Election.---------------Correct!

Except that it will be the first that Scotland has been allowed to hold by Westminster in 300 years, I do believe. And if the "no" vote succeeds it will in all likelihood be the last.  This is show-time, or showdown-time, ladies and gentlemen. 

If you do not vote "yes" you could  live with regret for the rest of your lives because there will be no second chance as Westminster tightens it's grip on your life -- and your pocketbook. It will be same old, same old, after the dust settles and they realize thatb nthey have won and escaped doom and gloom. 

Did they let William Wallace off the hook with a slap on the wrist after they caught him after a 7 year-hunt? Not only did they kill him they physically ripped him to shreds in vengeance for his rebellious spirit to let the populace know who was the boss.

 

 

Dougie Danger: Post # 1372. ...." The whole idea of British fair play has been exposed as a myth. The British elite are the most conniving, serf-interested group that you could imagine."

Now, you and I are about 6,000 miles apart so clearly there is no collusion between us as to what we think or want to post.but isn't that almost exactly what I said in my thread about the expat pensioners based on my own experience and observations. 

The fact that British Justice and fair play is a myth.

 

Folks,  it always has been about greed, money or power. It's only about fair play when it serves their interest or agendas.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence.  But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low.  Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing.

 

It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change.  Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes!   We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum.  In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote.

 

I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have   ).  Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution.  The better together camp is of the view that we are better together.  That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union  is better off for Scotland being in it.  Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire.

 

As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

[Yngwie]

 

Then you are bound to be able to explain, in that case, how Lidl and Aldi can sell stuff just as good as the big supermarkets......but a lot cheaper, right now, given they are bound to have as much, if not more, costs in getting their goods from where they are made to the warehouses in England and then up to the shops in Scotland where they are sold, (given I've never heard of most of their brands and can't pronounce a lot of them, I kinda assume they are not all UK produced goods).

 

Basically Aldi/Lidl operate a low cost model, from start to finish, top to bottom, with a small product range, basic stores, low staffing and relatively little marketing. A fair amount of their stuff, especially chilled, is sourced locally in Scotland/UK. But an awful lot of their stock is procured abroad through massive contracts that supply all of their European stores, with major economies of scale. Moreover, the brands you've never heard of aren't actually brands at all, it is just Aldi/Lidl own label, dressed up to be a brand. So they are paying a relative pittance for the goods. And they are damn good at what they do. They will always be cheaper than Tesco etc, but like any retailer they set different prices for each country they operate in.

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

 

 

If you want scotland to be independent vote yes if not vote no because neither side has been able to prove if we would be £500 better or worse off and it's come to this!

 

 

 

 

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way.

 

However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say.  Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons.

 

Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know.  As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no.  If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,.

 

Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable.  Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands.  But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course.  And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. 

 

It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland.  What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for.  That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place!  A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for.  I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc.  Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation.  The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer.  But that might not always be the case.

 

A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse.  A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future.  I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests.  Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

 

 

 

typical UKIP / BNP unionist drivel... eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!

 

( I can bring party politics into this aswell )

 

   

 

Another typical cogently argued post from the YES camp.

 

UKIP! BNP! Eurosceptic!  Where do get this nonsense from?

 

You state "eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!"  It is just as well then that the 3 major parties in the UK parliament all support Britain's membership of the EU.  I appreciate it was a while ago, but when the UK voted to join the UK, 67% voted to join but for Scotland the figure was only 58%.   On those figures you are more likely to remain in the EU by staying in the UK then becoming independent.  Surely if the Scots are voting for independence because they want to have control of their own destiny, they are not going to vote to join the EU - a union whose laws take primacy and in which Scotland's handful of MEPs would have next to no influence.

[dougiedanger]

 

Doofers Dad -your post 1370. You say this is a Referendum, not an Election.---------------Correct!

Except that it will be the first that Scotland has been allowed to hold by Westminster in 300 years, I do believe. And if the "no" vote succeeds it will in all likelihood be the last.  This is show-time, or showdown-time, ladies and gentlemen. 

If you do not vote "yes" you could  live with regret for the rest of your lives because there will be no second chance as Westminster tightens it's grip on your life -- and your pocketbook. It will be same old, same old, after the dust settles and they realize thatb nthey have won and escaped doom and gloom. 

Did they let William Wallace off the hook with a slap on the wrist after they caught him after a 7 year-hunt? Not only did they kill him they physically ripped him to shreds in vengeance for his rebellious spirit to let the populace know who was the boss.

 

 

Dougie Danger: Post # 1372. ...." The whole idea of British fair play has been exposed as a myth. The British elite are the most conniving, serf-interested group that you could imagine."

Now, you and I are about 6,000 miles apart so clearly there is no collusion between us as to what we think or want to post.but isn't that almost exactly what I said in my thread about the expat pensioners based on my own experience and observations. 

The fact that British Justice and fair play is a myth.

 

Folks,  it always has been about greed, money or power. It's only about fair play when it serves their interest or agendas.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence.  But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low.  Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing.

 

It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change.  Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes!   We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum.  In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote.

 

I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have   ).  Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution.  The better together camp is of the view that we are better together.  That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union  is better off for Scotland being in it.  Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire.

 

As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

 

 

Uh-oh, mask slipping again.  The inner Nigel. 

[Ayeseetee]

 

 

 

 

 

If you want scotland to be independent vote yes if not vote no because neither side has been able to prove if we would be £500 better or worse off and it's come to this!

 

 

 

 

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way.

 

However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say.  Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons.

 

Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know.  As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no.  If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,.

 

Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable.  Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands.  But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course.  And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. 

 

It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland.  What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for.  That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place!  A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for.  I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc.  Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation.  The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer.  But that might not always be the case.

 

A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse.  A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future.  I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests.  Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

 

 

 

typical UKIP / BNP unionist drivel... eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!

 

( I can bring party politics into this aswell )

 

   

 

Another typical cogently argued post from the YES camp.

 

UKIP! BNP! Eurosceptic!  Where do get this nonsense from?

 

You state "eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!"  It is just as well then that the 3 major parties in the UK parliament all support Britain's membership of the EU.  I appreciate it was a while ago, but when the UK voted to join the UK, 67% voted to join but for Scotland the figure was only 58%.   On those figures you are more likely to remain in the EU by staying in the UK then becoming independent.  Surely if the Scots are voting for independence because they want to have control of their own destiny, they are not going to vote to join the EU - a union whose laws take primacy and in which Scotland's handful of MEPs would have next to no influence.

 

 

You made it about party politics when you kept mentioning your secret crush, but I was just reminding you of the parties supporting your cause and the horrible racists who bully and are aggressive towards people from another country that are just looking for a better life and that they agree with the no camp and are on your side... and that's before I even mention the Tories   

 

 

 

But fire on make it a popularity contest between Salmond and Cameron and see who wins!

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[+DoofersDad]

 

 

Doofers Dad -your post 1370. You say this is a Referendum, not an Election.---------------Correct!

Except that it will be the first that Scotland has been allowed to hold by Westminster in 300 years, I do believe. And if the "no" vote succeeds it will in all likelihood be the last.  This is show-time, or showdown-time, ladies and gentlemen. 

If you do not vote "yes" you could  live with regret for the rest of your lives because there will be no second chance as Westminster tightens it's grip on your life -- and your pocketbook. It will be same old, same old, after the dust settles and they realize thatb nthey have won and escaped doom and gloom. 

Did they let William Wallace off the hook with a slap on the wrist after they caught him after a 7 year-hunt? Not only did they kill him they physically ripped him to shreds in vengeance for his rebellious spirit to let the populace know who was the boss.

 

 

Dougie Danger: Post # 1372. ...." The whole idea of British fair play has been exposed as a myth. The British elite are the most conniving, serf-interested group that you could imagine."

Now, you and I are about 6,000 miles apart so clearly there is no collusion between us as to what we think or want to post.but isn't that almost exactly what I said in my thread about the expat pensioners based on my own experience and observations. 

The fact that British Justice and fair play is a myth.

 

Folks,  it always has been about greed, money or power. It's only about fair play when it serves their interest or agendas.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence.  But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low.  Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing.

 

It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change.  Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes!   We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum.  In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote.

 

I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have   ).  Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution.  The better together camp is of the view that we are better together.  That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union  is better off for Scotland being in it.  Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire.

 

As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

 

 

Uh-oh, mask slipping again.  The inner Nigel. 

 

 

[Ayeseetee]

 

 

 

Doofers Dad -your post 1370. You say this is a Referendum, not an Election.---------------Correct!

Except that it will be the first that Scotland has been allowed to hold by Westminster in 300 years, I do believe. And if the "no" vote succeeds it will in all likelihood be the last.  This is show-time, or showdown-time, ladies and gentlemen. 

If you do not vote "yes" you could  live with regret for the rest of your lives because there will be no second chance as Westminster tightens it's grip on your life -- and your pocketbook. It will be same old, same old, after the dust settles and they realize thatb nthey have won and escaped doom and gloom. 

Did they let William Wallace off the hook with a slap on the wrist after they caught him after a 7 year-hunt? Not only did they kill him they physically ripped him to shreds in vengeance for his rebellious spirit to let the populace know who was the boss.

 

 

Dougie Danger: Post # 1372. ...." The whole idea of British fair play has been exposed as a myth. The British elite are the most conniving, serf-interested group that you could imagine."

Now, you and I are about 6,000 miles apart so clearly there is no collusion between us as to what we think or want to post.but isn't that almost exactly what I said in my thread about the expat pensioners based on my own experience and observations. 

The fact that British Justice and fair play is a myth.

 

Folks,  it always has been about greed, money or power. It's only about fair play when it serves their interest or agendas.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence.  But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low.  Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing.

 

It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change.  Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes!   We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum.  In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote.

 

I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have   ).  Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution.  The better together camp is of the view that we are better together.  That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union  is better off for Scotland being in it.  Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire.

 

*As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

 

 

Uh-oh, mask slipping again.  The inner Nigel. 

 

 

 

 

*We put in £1600 in tax per head

[starchief]

It's a nice picture to paint but there's little difference between England & Wales v Scotland views on immigration, with a large rejection of more immigration on both sides:

[Kingsmills]

 

 

 

If you want scotland to be independent vote yes if not vote no because neither side has been able to prove if we would be £500 better or worse off and it's come to this!

 

 

 

 

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way.

 

However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say.  Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons.

 

Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know.  As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no.  If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,.

 

Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable.  Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands.  But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course.  And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. 

 

It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland.  What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for.  That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place!  A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for.  I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc.  Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation.  The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer.  But that might not always be the case.

 

A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse.  A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future.  I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests.  Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

 

 

Personally I think it is pretty clear that we will be better off under independence but that is not the main reason for voting in favour.

[Ayeseetee]

You can't just take a snapshot of one poll without knowing the how many took part and from what area's or even the means of participation was it online / phone / knocking at doors?

[Yngwie]

Interesting that only 10% of Scots want more immigration.  Are many Yes voters actually aware that Salmond proposes a massive increase in immigration to generate enough people to spread the massive new costs over? In one of the debates heard the figure of 450,000 new immigrants quoted, I don't know if that is accurate but it wasn't refuted by the SNP person. OK, that's fine, but where are they going to come from, where will they live, what will they do, and have we factored in the the cost of extra schools and hospitals? As usual, there are no answers.
 

Edited September 14, 2014 by Yngwie

[dougiedanger]

 

 

 

Doofers Dad -your post 1370. You say this is a Referendum, not an Election.---------------Correct!

Except that it will be the first that Scotland has been allowed to hold by Westminster in 300 years, I do believe. And if the "no" vote succeeds it will in all likelihood be the last.  This is show-time, or showdown-time, ladies and gentlemen. 

If you do not vote "yes" you could  live with regret for the rest of your lives because there will be no second chance as Westminster tightens it's grip on your life -- and your pocketbook. It will be same old, same old, after the dust settles and they realize thatb nthey have won and escaped doom and gloom. 

Did they let William Wallace off the hook with a slap on the wrist after they caught him after a 7 year-hunt? Not only did they kill him they physically ripped him to shreds in vengeance for his rebellious spirit to let the populace know who was the boss.

 

 

Dougie Danger: Post # 1372. ...." The whole idea of British fair play has been exposed as a myth. The British elite are the most conniving, serf-interested group that you could imagine."

Now, you and I are about 6,000 miles apart so clearly there is no collusion between us as to what we think or want to post.but isn't that almost exactly what I said in my thread about the expat pensioners based on my own experience and observations. 

The fact that British Justice and fair play is a myth.

 

Folks,  it always has been about greed, money or power. It's only about fair play when it serves their interest or agendas.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence.  But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low.  Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing.

 

It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change.  Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes!   We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum.  In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote.

 

I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have   ).  Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution.  The better together camp is of the view that we are better together.  That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union  is better off for Scotland being in it.  Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire.

 

As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

 

 

Uh-oh, mask slipping again.  The inner Nigel. 

 

 

 

 

Ah, feigned ignorance following a veiled threat, a classic British move.

 

As are most of yours, so fair play.

 

It starts out all jolly japes and what-oh chaps, but as soon as the natives start to pipe up and dare think for themselves, the mask slips and the congenital inability to consider an alternative viewpoint kicks in. My way or the highway.

 

Next step: the threats, in your case the "bugger off back across the border" and the UKIP/Daily Mail nonsense about the subsidized Scots and withdrawing the handouts.

 

Thank you for being too witless or arrogant to even try to hide the classic paternalism and we-know-best attitude of the British, and for providing a timely reminder of exactly why we must and will free ourselves for good from the little Englander attitude that you so amply demonstrate.

[Oddquine]

Interesting that only 10% of Scots want more immigration.  Are many Yes voters actually aware that Salmond proposes a massive increase in immigration to generate enough people to spread the massive new costs over? In one of the debates heard the figure of 450,000 new immigrants quoted, I don't know if that is accurate but it wasn't refuted by the SNP person. OK, that's fine, but where are they going to come from, where will they live, what will they do, and have we factored in the the cost of extra schools and hospitals? As usual, there are no answers.

 

 

The increase of immigration to Scotland would consist of 2,000 more immigrants annually than we already have on average, because the figure quoted by the BT liars was the required amount, as if we had no immigration at all in any year, extrapolated over 20 years.  How thick are some people that they believe anything from the NO campaign without checking further for themselves?

[dougiedanger]

 

Interesting that only 10% of Scots want more immigration.  Are many Yes voters actually aware that Salmond proposes a massive increase in immigration to generate enough people to spread the massive new costs over? In one of the debates heard the figure of 450,000 new immigrants quoted, I don't know if that is accurate but it wasn't refuted by the SNP person. OK, that's fine, but where are they going to come from, where will they live, what will they do, and have we factored in the the cost of extra schools and hospitals? As usual, there are no answers.

 

 

The increase of immigration to Scotland would consist of 2,000 more immigrants annually than we already have on average, because the figure quoted by the BT liars was the required amount, as if we had no immigration at all in any year, extrapolated over 20 years.  How thick are some people that they believe anything from the NO campaign without checking further for themselves?

 

Yngwie will believe anything his London masters tell him.

[Scarlet Pimple]

1. The last Quebec referendum on Sovereignty and leaving Canada, like ours now, came down to the wire and the vote was no by a narrow margin. But I wanted a yes vote for separation because I thought that the "French" in Quebec were pandered to by the Government and got more handouts than the rest of the provinces in Canada to keep them happy, contented and in the club.  

But there has been talk about another referendum again which , from my perspective, I don't really see the main bulk of the populace wanting it at all in Quebec.  The issues are different, however, and it seems to be unlikely to happen again. And people are tired of the upset that it can bring. Meaning you have one chance to make a change for the better in your lives.

 

The No voters in Scotland want the status quo because they see a yes vote as jumping into the unknown.

DD you seem to expect all the I's to be dotted and the T's to be crossed before you are prepared to take that leap of faith. How can that ever happen? C'mon, a yes vote is about taking the opportunity to seize the nettle,not about safety and security.

If you want that then pick up the telephone tomorrow and order your pipe and slippers form Amazon.

Gotta be a mover and shaker to make changes Doofers dad!

 

Look at this way, David Livingstone didn't  get certainties when he started out  on his journeto Africa up the Zambezi river did he. Yet his name is now a household word in Scotland. In America, Merriweather Lewis and  his buddy Clark didn't know what they had to face on their stupendous exploration west to discover the Columbia river exiting at the Pacific Ocean in the USA yet, despite incredible odds, adversities  and disagreements between them en route, they finally made it and opened up the West.

Then came Alexander Fraser whose mighty trek down the 1200 mile river from the North of British Columbia to the sea at Vancouver was another magnificent triumph of exploration over adversity. What these guys went through daily was something else -- and an easy life and security was not what they were seeking but the big prize and they had the determination and spirit to  persevere and achieve their goals. Reading the accounts of what they endured I don't know how on earth they managed to keep going!Thank goodness for them and that.

 

We have only some 35 million souls in this country but  we are a dominant player on the world stage and are a very dynamic country on all levels.  Remember, if  you vote yes and it doesn't work to your benefit you can always emigrate to Canada --if you have an established profession, of course, or have a sponsor such as I had in the Toronto Dominion Bank.

 

Emigration from Scotland to anywhere, including Canada, is also a leap of faith.It's a scary and carries with it no certainty of success. But, once I had made the decision to go to Canada I never re-considered that decision and I never looked back.

I could see that opportunities here in Canada (only 150 years old  this year) were much wider and available on many levels to a degree that the STIFLING  old- boy system in Britain could never offer a restless, ambitious person, who just wanted to do his best and grow. That system was solely designed to keep me in my place rather than acknowledging that I could be the next "likely lad" instead and it affronted me and horrified me when I was forced to wake up and saw what harm it does--AND what a waste of good and available talent that it also propagated.

The spectre of failure on some level had to always be a possibility. But what some might view as failure  can also be a blessing in disguise since it depends on how you handle it and what results from it in your life. It's the ability to survive and  re-organize and understand that the future is what you make of it and the vast number of opportuinties that are revealed by failure must be viewed as a blessing in your life...you are then presented with a cornucopia of options any one of which may be your salvation and inspiration. As such it isn't a bad experience, shocking maybe, but it's also a wake-up call presented to you with one hand but  accompanied by the opportunity to experiment in sparkling radiance showing in the other hand.

If you want to grow you have to always dwell on the positive, not the negative. Positivity will re-vitalize you whereas negativity can cause stress and sickness. Life is very short, dearies. Seize the opportunity now and vote "YES".

[culduthel]

A wee video of yessers in inverness yesterday

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alwLk4t4xtA#t=12

 

 

This is a very poor turn out considering there are around 60,000 people in the vicinity of Inverness.  Of all the people that I know in Scotland none of them are voting Yes -  that includes many, many people in Inverness.  I reckon there will be a lot of disappointed Yes voters the day after the Referendum.

[Kingsmills]

I too believe that we Yes voters are likely be disappointed come Friday. On the other hand, by far the majority of the people I know and speak to will be voting Yes and that too includes a fair few people in Inverness. Guess it just depends on who you know and the character and views of the people you speak to.

 

The important thing is that, whoever wins there is no gloating or triuphalism on the part of the victors. Scotland has the potential to win either way if we can work together and build on this unprecedented engagement with politics and democracy and put aside the differences of the campaign and work together to forge a better future for this ancient nation of ours whether that is within or without the confines of the United Kingdom.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Kingsmills

[Oddquine]

 

A wee video of yessers in inverness yesterday

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alwLk4t4xtA#t=12

 

 

This is a very poor turn out considering there are around 60,000 people in the vicinity of Inverness.  Of all the people that I know in Scotland none of them are voting Yes -  that includes many, many people in Inverness.  I reckon there will be a lot of disappointed Yes voters the day after the Referendum.

 

 

And a lot more disappointed NO voters who are voting NO on the strength of a status quo which will only exist until 2015.......or on the strength of the promises of more devolution from Westminster which will, l suspect, if it happens,allow us nothing much more than the little we already have from the Scotland Act 2012. I'd prefer to be able to remove Trident than legislate over airguns, myself.....but that appears to be the level of competence Westminster thinks we can achieve.

 

To be fair, this campaign, if it does end up in a NO vote, has at least shown us exactly what our Westminster masters think of us.....the insulting level of disrespect for this country’s collective intelligence displayed over the course of the campaign has left a sour taste in many mouths, particularly when we are PAYING so many of them to denigrate us.

 

But what really will upset me, as a Scot living in Scotland, if there is a NO vote, is that most of my own people, both those native Scots, like myself and those who have very freely and sensibly chosen to come here to live, think we are too poor, too wee and too fecking stupid.as well, when the reality is that they are too bliddy feart, or too well off in the current set-up, to put the same faith in themselves, and all of us Scots, as they are willing to offer the most incompetent, corrupt, heartless, self-interested set of millionaire liars and fraudsters, of all party colours, it has ever been my misfortune to have in charge of my life.

 

And by the way, Alex Salmond may well have said this is a once in a generation effort......but remember, we have said all along that this is not about Alex Salmond......so he isn't the boss of the Scots!  There have been upwards of thirty efforts over the last 300 years to achieve Home Rule/Independence for Scotland, both peacefully and otherwise......and the aspiration won't be disappearing any time soon.

 

But it sure as hell will be embarrassing, to put it mildly, if we become the only country in the world to say a big NO to Independence, and choose to become a region of greater England on the strength of the disgraceful tactics used by the No Better Together Thanks brigade......because the rest of the world will know that most Scots are exactly what Westminster thinks of them, and are happy to be considered so.