Scottish Referendum question(s)

Ianb62

The saddest part of this is the bitterness that's now rising up, on both sides, I am English (though stuck in the Middle east) - I come from a Lancashire mining village, both grandfathers were miners,father is an electrician and I would say I have 100% more in common with 90% of people north of the border than I do with 90% of the population south of Watford gap - but I'm starting to feel like some sort of colonial oppressor the way the debate is going.
Personally I think we will both be weaker for it, certainly poorer, and will a Scotsman feel anymore Scots in the brave new world, if the answer is yes, well then I suppose its worth it
The other sad fact is that if asked what my nationality is I would probably say English, and 5 years ago I would have said British.

thomasross20

Fact is facts are lacking on both sides, but given the monumental change a yes would bring that's scary. I can see why some disenfranchised would vote yes - lack of faith in Westminster, expenses, paedophile rings, blah blah - any change must be better they must think, the current lot are pretty crap (I'm not anti-Tory.. if anything I thought Labour were awful). I think it'd be a shame. Plus, leaving but keeping the pound (or God help us, the Euro) isn't real independence... and it doesn't make sense if prior to all this you wanted to leave the EU because SNP clearly want to stay a part of it. I'm major fence sitter, one of those who'll swing either way ;D

ICBM

It is slightly scary, but I'm still voting Yes.

I'm just fed up with UK governments and policies, of all parties. Trident, foreign wars, privatisation of everything, the so-called war on terror, loss of civil liberties, excessive defence spending on things like huge aircraft carriers, anti-Europeanism, blindly following US policy, fracking, tuition fees (and more)… you're pretty much certain to get all these things in the UK whoever you vote for. Especially as there is little hope of electoral reform now, at least for many years.

Given how desperate the London parties are to keep Scotland in the Union, once the initial spite has worn off I think there is a strong case for an independent Scotland forming close, formal ties with rUK - a 'new Union', if you like - but more of a partnership of mutual agreement rather than dominance of one by the other. I'd be happy for Scotland and rUK to form a defence alliance for example - as long as Scotland gets a say in what it's used for.

If countries the size of Denmark, Finland, Norway and New Zealand can make their way in the world independently, so can Scotland.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

once the initial spite has worn off I think there is a strong case for an independent Scotland forming close, formal ties with rUK - a 'new Union', if you like - but more of a partnership of mutual agreement rather than dominance of one by the other.

Don't think that'll happen - the negotiations will be painful which will poison the relationship. Salmond still thinks the Royal Navy will build ships in Scotland. Won't happen. Could have a Faroe islands issue ..

crunchman

Fretwired said:

musicegbdf said:

Can't copy the link, but it is Dan Hodges blog today.
If like me you are ignorant of some of the key points this will educate you,like it did for me.
I really feel there is anger building south of the border, not at the Scots but at our politicians playing games with all of our futures

I'm hearing Cameron's finished - he'll face a massive rebellion of Tory MPs and it is conceivable that the three wise monkey's promises will be voted down as there are some unhappy Labour MPs as well. Farage must think Christmas has come early.


Dan Hodges blog:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100286555/the-english-want-scotland-to-remain-part-of-the-union-but-not-at-any-price/


This is an interesting admission of failure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100400/My-funding-formula-for-Scotland-is-a-terrible-mistake-Lord-Barnett-admits.html

And a sad state of affairs in Scotland .. David Sole is a Scottish legend ..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11099705/Scotland-rugby-legend-reveals-abuse-over-Scottish-independence-No-statement.html

We're in for years of pain no matter what happens.

With all three of the main parties agreeing to continue the Barnett formula, I'd agree they are playing into the hands of Farage.  I know the population is more rural etc, and there are costs to that, but that applies to places like Devon and Cornwall as well and I don't know that they get any extra funding.

To me it's fundamentally wrong that the Scots automatically get 19% more funding per head than the rest of the UK.

I don't really want them to go, but at the same time Cameron, Milibrain and Clegg are selling the rest of us down the river in an attempt to get them to stay at any cost, and it's wrong. People like Farage will play on that.

sweepy

Areas like Pembroke get extra funding from the EU because they are seen as deprived areas, will Scotland ?  if they vote for independence, surely they need to re-apply to the EU

Drew_TNBD

wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no

Fretwired

sweepy said:

Areas like Pembroke get extra funding from the EU because they are seen as deprived areas, will Scotland ?  if they vote for independence, surely they need to re-apply to the EU

That's what they've been told by the people who run the EU but Salmond just says their talking bollocks. I think he'll get a shock if the vote is yes as to how hostile many countries in the EU will become.

Salmond accused of lying again .. there's a theme emerging ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100406/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-lying-over-EU-talks.html

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Salmond still thinks the Royal Navy will build ships in Scotland. Won't happen.

No, it won't. But Scotland will need to build a small navy of the sort it actually needs - fisheries protection, mine layers/sweepers, fast patrol boats - instead of things like the white elephants currently sitting at Rosyth, so I think on balance it could be beneficial, rather than always having to compete for a few large ships and being in serious trouble if they don't get them.

sweepy said:

Areas like Pembroke get extra funding from the EU because they are seen as deprived areas, will Scotland ?  if they vote for independence, surely they need to re-apply to the EU

Yes, probably. The exact rules are unknown though - an EU member state has never split before.

thomasross20

ICBM said:

I'm just fed up with UK governments and policies, of all parties. Trident, foreign wars, privatisation of everything, the so-called war on terror, loss of civil liberties, excessive defence spending on things like huge aircraft carriers, anti-Europeanism, blindly following US policy, fracking, tuition fees (and more)… you're pretty much certain to get all these things in the UK whoever you vote for. Especially as there is little hope of electoral reform now, at least for many years.

Part of the reason I'm fence-sitting!

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Salmond still thinks the Royal Navy will build ships in Scotland. Won't happen.

No, it won't. But Scotland will need to build a small navy of the sort it actually needs - fisheries protection, mine layers/sweepers, fast patrol boats - instead of things like the white elephants currently sitting at Rosyth, so I think on balance it could be beneficial, rather than always having to compete for a few large ships and being in serious trouble if they don't get them.

sweepy said:

Areas like Pembroke get extra funding from the EU because they are seen as deprived areas, will Scotland ?  if they vote for independence, surely they need to re-apply to the EU

Yes, probably. The exact rules are unknown though - an EU member state has never split before.

Scotland will get a share of the Royal Navy's assets - it's unlikely they'd want an expensive air defence frigate or a sub so no doubt will go for fishery protection vessels [rUK won't need these any more] fast patrol boats and mine sweepers. Either way they are small and don't take long to build. Nothing like building a couple of carriers. And Scotland will be excluded from EU contracts until they join the EU.

And the EU rules have been stated by senior EU officials and reiterated at the weekend by José Manuel Barroso and Jean-Claude Juncker. Scotland will have to reapply for membership and will have to adopt the Euro from day one.

VimFuego

I don't think it'll be a problem with Scotland adopting the euro. Years ago I adopted a tiger and was worried it might be a lot of hassle but it was very simple really. I paid up a chq once a year and got a card at xmas from the tiger (TBH I don't think it really was the tiger, but it was a nice thought) so no effort at all. And that's with a fuck off big killing machine, something as simple as a few bits of paper should be ever so easy.

Clarky

ICBM said:

It is slightly scary, but I'm still voting Yes.

I'm just fed up with UK governments and policies, of all parties. Trident, foreign wars, privatisation of everything, the so-called war on terror, loss of civil liberties, excessive defence spending on things like huge aircraft carriers, anti-Europeanism, blindly following US policy, fracking, tuition fees (and more)… you're pretty much certain to get all these things in the UK whoever you vote for. Especially as there is little hope of electoral reform now, at least for many years.

Given how desperate the London parties are to keep Scotland in the Union, once the initial spite has worn off I think there is a strong case for an independent Scotland forming close, formal ties with rUK - a 'new Union', if you like - but more of a partnership of mutual agreement rather than dominance of one by the other. I'd be happy for Scotland and rUK to form a defence alliance for example - as long as Scotland gets a say in what it's used for.

If countries the size of Denmark, Finland, Norway and New Zealand can make their way in the world independently, so can Scotland.

has it never occurred to you that some of us are fed up with exactly the same stuff???

maybe England should vote for independence from Westminster

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

I don't think it'll be a problem with Scotland adopting the euro.

Not what's on offer though is it.

Salmond: We'll keep the pound, have a currency union with rUK, use the Bank of England and remain in the EU from day one.

At best it's wishful thinking at worst it's one big fat lie. And to take on the Euro you need a well financed central bank - as one BoE guy put it Scotland may need an interim currency to get a central bank. This smells as made up on the back of a postcard.

thomasross20

It's going to be a no, all price in with the bookies ;D

ICBM

Clarky said:

has it never occurred to you that some of us are fed up with exactly the same stuff???

Of course it has - in fact, many of those things are reasons I came to live in Scotland, because it seemed like the part of the UK that would try to resist what I disliked about Thatcher's Britain. But when all the parties in London are now following essentially the same philosophy, how do you change it?

You can't blame Scots for wanting to seize the chance by a different route.

Clarky said:

maybe England should vote for independence from Westminster

I hope so. I've always thought so - remember, I'm English - and if it had been done properly in the first place, we wouldn't even be where we are now because the UK would already be a federation of four nations each with its own parliament, with a separate overall UK parliament.

This goes to the heart of the fundamental problem with the UK up to now - that the UK and England are not the same thing, but that has not been the reality of the way it's governed.

Clarky

one of the things I've never understood about Salmond and his wingmen..

every time a major institution says "if yes, we'll relocate south" or "if yes, we will no long xyz"..

then he always replies somethnig like "no they won't" or "that's not true"

thing is.. those major institutions are the EU, Bank of England, other major banks and manufaturers... if that info was speculated by some consultancy / think tank type, then ok, he could argue back and say that he does not believe that would be the outcome.. but it's not.. it's that institution itself saying exactly what it intends to do.. that being the case, if they've just told him that's that they want to do, how can he say that's not true and to ignore it..?? does he believe that 100% of these institutions are just bluffing just to secure the no vote?

ICBM

It certainly wasn't true when many of them said similar things before devolution. I'm not sure it isn't now, or even that Salmond believes it - but he has to say so or it will undermine his case.

I'm sure some of the threats are not bluffs and some of it will happen, and Scotland may be poorer for it in the short term. But in the longer term, business will either come back or be home-grown to fill the gap - as with any other nation.

If similar-sized nations with similar or in many cases fewer natural resources can be successful, there is no reason Scotland can't - it's just a question of making it happen.

For me it's about Scotland's place in the world and the type of society I want to live in, not about the money. I used to think it was about the money as well, but I was wrong.

RaymondLin

ICBM said:

It is slightly scary, but I'm still voting Yes.

I'm just fed up with UK governments and policies, of all parties. Trident, foreign wars, privatisation of everything, the so-called war on terror, loss of civil liberties, excessive defence spending on things like huge aircraft carriers, anti-Europeanism, blindly following US policy, fracking, tuition fees (and more)… you're pretty much certain to get all these things in the UK whoever you vote for. Especially as there is little hope of electoral reform now, at least for many years.

Given how desperate the London parties are to keep Scotland in the Union, once the initial spite has worn off I think there is a strong case for an independent Scotland forming close, formal ties with rUK - a 'new Union', if you like - but more of a partnership of mutual agreement rather than dominance of one by the other. I'd be happy for Scotland and rUK to form a defence alliance for example - as long as Scotland gets a say in what it's used for.

If countries the size of Denmark, Finland, Norway and New Zealand can make their way in the world independently, so can Scotland.

Whilst I can sympathise with that feeling, but what you are saying is that "it's okay if the UK continue to do it, just not in my name because it no longer in my country so I don't care what they do, it's not my problem anymore".

That is opposed to staying within the UK, and next time vote for someone who agree with your stance and perhaps make a difference. So instead of having that power of a vote to change something that can influence the world, you are basically turning a blind eye to it.

That is how that come across.

As much as you dislike the UK standing side by side with the US on world issues, and even I agree that invade Iraq like that was a bad idea, on the whole (in their brief history) they have done lot of good things in the world. Without them we all would be speaking Germans right now I expect. Well I'd be speaking Japanese, my grandmother had first-hand experience of Japanese occupation.

ICBM

RaymondLin said:

Whilst I can sympathise with that feeling, but what you are saying is that "it's okay if the UK continue to do it, just not in my name because it no longer in my country so I don't care what they do, it's not my problem anymore".

I understand where you're coming from, but that's not quite it. I actually think that as the UK would be "weakened" as claimed by not having Scotland a part of it, some or all of this may stop. If not, then yes you're right.

I agree that we should side with America when we think America is right, just as I agree that an independent Scotland should side with the UK when the UK is right. But it should be *our* decision. Not long ago, the UK parliament took a decision not to go to war in Syria, despite pressure from the government and indirectly the US. Now it looks like Cameron may start military action anyway, without the approval of parliament.

RaymondLin said:

That is opposed to staying within the UK, and next time vote for someone who agree with your stance and perhaps make a difference.

The problem with that is that all three main parties are essentially the same on this issue. Only minor parties who under the current system have no hope of influencing anything could make a real change. I've been voting for UK parties since the mid-80s and only twice have I ever got the government I voted for - Labour in '97, and the Lib Dems in 2010. Neither of those turned out exactly as they promised, did they...

Thus the only hope of *real* change will come from the break-up of the UK and a potential new form of union.