The Org Scottish Referendum

[MisterTommyH]

Because we don't all get a vote....

vote here.

[SoulKiss]

Definately.

Wasn't paying that much attention but for Westminster to only announce plans/ideas to make it better a week before the vote, with things looking close, that lack of respect deserves being told "Stick it where the Sun Don;t Shine" (no, not "most of Scotland")

[Biker Biggles]

Keith d ?

[MisterTommyH]

Keith d ?

Mods required in voting booth C!

[fizzwheel]

Mods required in voting booth C!

You called ? :D

[Spank86]

Definately.

Wasn't paying that much attention but for Westminster to only announce plans/ideas to make it better a week before the vote, with things looking close, that lack of respect deserves being told "Stick it where the Sun Don;t Shine" (no, not "most of Scotland")

Well they never give any of the rest of us things to "make it better", so to be honest the scots are pretty lucky they have a "country" they can use as leverage.

[Wideboy]

Not bothered TBH. Some of Wales, Scotland and Ireland are so anti-English, I say let them have their cake.

I do however think they're voting for independence spearheaded by the very wrong person. Smoked salmon has nothing other than his own power, greed and wealth in mind, not the Scottish people's interests.

[SoulKiss]

Not bothered TBH. Some of Wales, Scotland and Ireland are so anti-English, I say let them have their cake.

I do however think they're voting for independence spearheaded by the very wrong person. Smoked salmon has nothing other than his own power, greed and wealth in mind, not the Scottish people's interests.

Theres a good chance the 1st thing an independant Scotland will do is vote him out...

[Wideboy]

maybe so but who says that what he and his band of merry plebs have set up can be undone put right?

[Bibio]

Not bothered TBH. Some of Wales, Scotland and Ireland are so anti-English, I say let them have their cake.

you could not be more wrong. the Scots dont mind the English and to see this all you do is have to go north of the scottish central belt region and see that a very large majority of small business are run by English people who are fed up with the way England is going and want a more relaxed way of life, almost every petrol station, cafe or hotel i walked into while on holiday 'up north' was being run by an English person.

the Scots dont hate the English we hate being told what to do by Westminster and having to come begging for our money to look after our affairs but after watching a program on the tv the other night i fear that there is a big hatred of the Scots by the English population who think that we are scroungers when in fact it's not the case, its the endless spending of Westminster that has got the UK into so much debt that the cost of living is getting out of hand.

Scotland asked to stay in the UK but look after our own taxation, duty and monies but still pay into the UK funds such as the forces etc,etc and were refused so the only logical solution was independence.

do you think for one tiny second that if Scotland were costing Westminster more money that they were getting out there would be so much fuss about the coming vote... ermmm no they would be cheering us on.

there is a looooot more at stake in the independence of Scotland than meets the eye but one of them might just be the devaluation of the GBP due to the BOE possibly dropping down the credit rating ladder.

if the United Kingdom really was united why do we still have a BOE dictating out currency and not a Bank of the United Kingdom with a United Kingdom currency...

[ethariel]

Absolute NO

[JulesW]

I'm English and love Scotland and Wales. For reasons I can't identify I would prefer the Union to remain intact (sentimentality probably). But as an Englishman my opinion is completely irrelevant.

Scotland becoming independent has a degree of risk for Scots people but if independence becomes a reality I sincerely hope that Scotland and it's people end up much better off.

[MisterTommyH]

Scotland becoming independent has a degree of risk for the whole of the UK

Corrected for you.

[Spank86]

Corrected for you.

A far larger degree for Scotland than the rest.

Yes loss of oil revenues would be a little disruptive in the short term but only a little and after a few years could easily be compensated for. In raw numbers they're big but not compared to the budget as a whole.

Scotland on the other hand has a whole host of financial issues depending on exactly what happens with currency, the military, Europe, and universities.

[MisterTommyH]

Why would the only risk to the rest of the UK be the loss of North Sea Oil?

The currency, national debt & military are all items which hold risk for the remainder of us.

I would certainly like to know whether the Act of Union is based on liabilities being Joint, Several, or Joint and Several (!)

[Red Herring]

This is the problem with living in a democracy. There are a few very knowledgeable and well informed individuals who understand all of the advantages, disadvantages and implications of splitting up the UK and it should be to them that our politicians should be turning to for advice on what to do. Running our country was after all what we elected them to do. It really annoys me that as soon as they actually have to make an important decision about the future of our country they defer it to the general population who know nothing whatsoever about the real consequences of their decision. It's going to be a complete disaster and I for one am going to make sure I've got some alternative options.

[JulesW]

I doubt that even the ost knowledgeable and well informed have the foresight to really know how the chips will fall both north and south of the border should Scotland go it alone. Strikes me that it is a very complex situation and one brain just isn't enough to make an accurate evaluation. Perhaps the 'collective mind' effect of democracy is the best way.

[dizzyblonde]

I very much doubt Scotland will get the yes vote. I'd be exceptionally surprised if it did.
If people honestly think their imaginary vote in the political world will count, they are like mushrooms fed in the dark. It is far too complicated and not in political interest for it to be independent.


Simple as that really.

[Spank86]

Why would the only risk to the rest of the UK be the loss of North Sea Oil?

The currency, national debt & military are all items which hold risk for the remainder of us.

I would certainly like to know whether the Act of Union is based on liabilities being Joint, Several, or Joint and Several (!)

Because we represent approximately 90% of the population and wealth of the Whole UK.

A 10% drop at a time when were cutting back on the military anyway and when the leaving 10% WILL be taking their portion of the debt with them is not a big issue... It would have been a bigger issue if it had happened at the start of the financial crisis but not now.

[Bibio]

what debt? national debt? then if so i'm afraid to say that Scotland has not run up any of it.

a lot of people forget that Scotland is already Devolved from the rest of the UK so we have been looking after our own budget for yeeeeaaaars. we get £xx from Westminster so we cant over spend and we have seen no extra money from this so called National debt. if you want to play the 'but what about the military etc.etc' then again Scotland pays its tax for such things. it was not Hollyrood that took us into military action against other country's it was Westminster but because Scotland is part of the UK we pay towards the upkeep of the forces via out tax.

now if Scotland were to have seen extra money over and above out budget than yes we would indeed owe towards the National Debt. but we haven't. as someone says Scotland is only 10% of the UK population so even if we are forced to pay back some of this so called debt then we only owe 10%.

if Scotland does get the yes vote then hard times are ahead for both nations.

i personally will be voting Yes but not for me but for the future of generations to come be it good or bad.

i would rather this was not happening but it is. i would rather see a proper United Kingdom where there are no separate country's, one united people with a united currency and all working for the greater good.

[DJ123]

i personally will be voting Yes but not for me but for the future of generations to come be it good or bad.

i would rather this was not happening but it is. i would rather see a proper United Kingdom where there are no separate country's, one united people with a united currency and all working for the greater good.



So you are voting yes for independence, yet you want to see a proper UK where no country is separate? With the best will in the world that's a major contradiction.

[Spank86]

what debt? national debt? then if so i'm afraid to say that Scotland has not run up any of it.
scotlands run up 10% of it, thats what being in a union means, and aside from a couple of years spending on Scotland by Holyrood and Westminster combined has meant that scotland's deficit is on a par with the rest of the Uk, even taking into account 90% of the oil revenues.



a lot of people forget that Scotland is already Devolved from the rest of the UK so we have been looking after our own budget for yeeeeaaaars. we get £xx from Westminster so we cant over spend and we have seen no extra money from this so called National debt. if you want to play the 'but what about the military etc.etc' then again Scotland pays its tax for such things. it was not Hollyrood that took us into military action against other country's it was Westminster but because Scotland is part of the UK we pay towards the upkeep of the forces via out tax.
you're not fully devolved, not all monies spent in Scotland are spent by the scottish parliament and yes the military counts because the government in Westminster is the government for great Britain.


now if Scotland were to have seen extra money over and above out budget than yes we would indeed owe towards the National Debt. but we haven't. as someone says Scotland is only 10% of the UK population so even if we are forced to pay back some of this so called debt then we only owe 10%. exactly right, roughly 10% which leaves the rest of the UK in exactly the same position as now debt wise and leaves Scottish individuals with the same national debt per capita but of course you now have a new government with that debt.

I wonder what will happen if Scotland winds up either using the Euro or it's own currency, anyone with a private debt will still have that debt in sterling, and sterling is a little weak at the moment, likelyhood is a new currency would devalue and the £ stands a fair chance of rising against the euro in the coming years so a fair number of scots could wind up out of pocket there.

[NTECUK]

Natural evolution of devolition.
I think they will be happy if they are truly left to address there own issues out.

[SoulKiss]

The whole "you cant use the pound/will have to change x or y" arguments are rubbish.

The fact there is a No Campaign shows that Westminster values the Status Quo on these things.

Am I missing something or in the days after a Yes vote, wouldnt the 2 governments be able to sit down and write a new treaty covering things like a free border between the countries, that things wont change on currency beyons what legally HAS to happen.

The reason that everything is so vague is because up intil the last few weeksd Westminster couldnt be bothered to try and figure it out.

Oh and Spank, on the plus side you could soon have some fine Nuclear Missles parked down the road next to the P&O Cruises terminal.

Oh and probably a CND camp

[Bibio]

that and all the decommissioned nuclear subs that are sitting in Rosyth, the half built ships sitting on the Clyde etc.etc as they don't belong to Scotland they belong to the UK and since Scotland will be independant then they cant be finished due to the UK not allowing any other country to build their navy.

ooohhh wait i forgot about Belfast, Westminster will probably dump everything there.

TBH i personally cant see Scotland getting the Yes vote but it would be nice just to watch the fireworks for the next 20+ years :-)

[Jayneflakes]

If the yes vote is passed, I would love to visit and have a visitors visa in my passport.

I must be honest, I know very little about the politics, but I have seen some Scottish friends campaigning on both sides. What ever happens, I wish my friends, both in the real and on line the very best and I hope that the outcome brings you all safety and stability.

PS, if you do get independence, you can keep the Duke of Edinburgh. He is a right C**t! :D

[MisterTommyH]

Because we represent approximately 90% of the population and wealth of the Whole UK.

A 10% drop at a time when were cutting back on the military anyway and when the leaving 10% WILL be taking their portion of the debt with them is not a big issue... It would have been a bigger issue if it had happened at the start of the financial crisis but not now.

And yet fiscal uncertainty could have a catastrophic effect on the UK economy. It's not just about 10% this way, 90% that. Its about all the arguments, the tit for tat, the fact that no one knows what will happen at the end of all the bartering. It prevents investment. We're just coming out of a time of massive fiscal problems. Already it's been predicted that a yes vote will alter the (remainder of) the UKs recovery from 2.7% to 2.0%. Anything but a No vote introduces uncertainty and risk to both sides.

As far a military risk - its not just about troop numbers. All of our nuclear deterrents are based in Scotland. As is our ability to build new ships (are we really going to build them in a foreign country). Also a large proportion of our long range search and rescue assets. With a Yes vote there will have to be a discussion of whether we somehow have a joint military (difficult given the differing opinions of nuclear deterrents) if not the S&R needs to be moved south of the border - is the infrastructure still there? Will the reduction in range severely effect operations?

what debt? national debt? then if so i'm afraid to say that Scotland has not run up any of it.

a lot of people forget that Scotland is already Devolved from the rest of the UK so we have been looking after our own budget for yeeeeaaaars. we get £xx from Westminster so we cant over spend and we have seen no extra money from this so called National debt. if you want to play the 'but what about the military etc.etc' then again Scotland pays its tax for such things. it was not Hollyrood that took us into military action against other country's it was Westminster but because Scotland is part of the UK we pay towards the upkeep of the forces via out tax.

now if Scotland were to have seen extra money over and above out budget than yes we would indeed owe towards the National Debt. but we haven't. as someone says Scotland is only 10% of the UK population so even if we are forced to pay back some of this so called debt then we only owe 10%.



Firstly, I agree with what you are saying about Scotland only being liable for a pro-rata population share. That seems logical to me.

As for you have no national debt? National debt has been around for far longer than the current banking crisis, global economies work on nearly all countries being in debt and a lot of the existing debt (thats still being paid off) dates back to before devolution. And even if you don't agree with that - Scotlands 'allowance' can't be viewed as a simple X amount in, Y amount out in splendid isolation from the UK and the rest of the worlds economies. Mr Salmond may get votes by his belligerent 'we owe nothing' attitude, but it's the people who we (collectively) owe who will ultimately have a say and have the power to affect both countries credit ratings (and don't believe that Scotland can existing without credit). Again - risk for both countries.

The whole "you cant use the pound/will have to change x or y" arguments are rubbish.

The fact there is a No Campaign shows that Westminster values the Status Quo on these things.

Am I missing something or in the days after a Yes vote, wouldnt the 2 governments be able to sit down and write a new treaty covering things like a free border between the countries, that things wont change on currency beyons what legally HAS to happen.


Yes they would, but I don't believe that the argument is that a new Scotland couldn't use the pound. They could quite happily use it without a say in the fiscal policy - similar to the way that Russians used to use the USD as their currency was unstable, but could not affect any US policy. What is being said is that a new Scotland could not use the pound and expect to have a say on interest rates, or any actions such a quantitative easing. This would put us in financial union. The UK has specifically opted out of the Euro to avoid a financial union. Surely the rest of the UK should be given a vote to determine if we want to enter into a financial union.

That aside, financial unions don't work. Look at how many powers european countries (Greece, Spain etc) are having to ceed to (in effect) Germany. They don't control their own taxation. One of the main arguments used by the Yes campaign is that they want to change the way tax works, the way the NHS works, the way university tuition works etc - how two countries (read governments) using the same currency with such different attitudes towards taxation and public funding get together and agree a fiscal policy has simply not been explained by Mr Salmond - does he expect the BOE to kow-tow to a new Scottish policy? Do they move 10% of the way towards what Scotland wants based on population? Ultimately neither side will get a policy that suits them and again their is risk for both sides.

You may have guessed I'm in favour of No, but if a Yes it is then I believe in Scotland right to independence. I don't believe that they have strong (or capable) leadership and I also believe that any items that start to affect the rest of the UK (such as a financial/currency union) should be put to a vote but all affected by them.

[Bibio]

i could be wrong about this but its not up to Westminster whether Scotland joins the GBP or not. its up to the BOE if they still want to keep the Scottish banks as clients. if i'm not mistaken Westminster gave up the right to meddle in the BOE affairs and now the BOE is a separate entity and its just that Westminster keeps the public purse in the BOE. the BOE are responsible for setting interest rates not Westminster.

so if i'm right its up to the BOE if they want to keep Scotland's banks as clients and if so then nothing will change currency wise. the question is if Scotland get independence which bank will Holyrood use to keep the purse in or will Scotland end up with a new bank for such purpose. and if Scotland end up with a bank solely to keep the purse in then what 'note' will the said purse be in or will Holyrood dictate that the 3 note producing banks start producing a single note.

at the moment there are 3 note producing banks in Scotland. each one of these banks have to keep a retainer in the BOE to make the notes they produce have value.

now if the BOE say no to the Scottish banks then the BOE owe the three note producing banks of Scotland the retainer that each one of the three have to keep in the BOE to give value to Scottish notes. the 3 Scottish notes will become legal tender but only in Scotland. this will cause a massive problem in stability of each note due to the financial status of each bank. this is where Holyrood should step in with a unified note and to use said note would be just like how Scottish banks use the BOE at the moment and take a retainer to make the note have value. as Scotland economy grows or falls then this will dictate what the currency will be worth throughout the global banking market.

[timwilky]

Now from my perspective, I would love the Scots to vote yes, simply because it will remove 30 MPs who have no right to be voting on things that effects us in England. that is why liebour is bricking it over independence, their numbers in Westminster will be decimated.. A Scottish MP is responsible for near on bankrupting this country. Why risk the same mistake ever happening again.

[NTECUK]

If this goes through. What's going to happen with the Scottish MP s currently sitting in parliment?

[Spank86]

The whole "you cant use the pound/will have to change x or y" arguments are rubbish.
They're not rubbish at all, it's just that the specific arguments hinge on exactly what your leaders want to do and they're being very cagey about that. Westminster has an interest in the NO vote because it believes it's best for all it's voters, if Scotland votes yes you cease to be one of those and decisions have to be made that will be best for the rest.



Am I missing something or in the days after a Yes vote, wouldnt the 2 governments be able to sit down and write a new treaty covering things like a free border between the countries, that things wont change on currency beyons what legally HAS to happen.
you're not missing anything but the UK would have to write that treaty with an eye to both it's own prosperity and it's other agreements. For example Scotlands designs on EU membership would affect possible border controls.




Oh and Spank, on the plus side you could soon have some fine Nuclear Missles parked down the road next to the P&O Cruises terminal.

Oh and probably a CND camp

Good, jobs for Portsmouth. I'd rather that than a power plant. when was the last time a Nuclear missile melted down?


And yet fiscal uncertainty could have a catastrophic effect on the UK economy. It's not just about 10% this way, 90% that. Its about all the arguments, the tit for tat, the fact that no one knows what will happen at the end of all the bartering. It prevents investment. We're just coming out of a time of massive fiscal problems. Already it's been predicted that a yes vote will alter the (remainder of) the UKs recovery from 2.7% to 2.0%. Anything but a No vote introduces uncertainty and risk to both sides.
But the UK without Scotland is still perfectly capable of servicing it's debts and continuing even in a worst case scenario at the end of the bartering and the rest of the world knows this. The uncertainty is there but not nearly so much, at worst it's a short term wobble. The very fact that we ARE coming out of massive fiscal problems is good because it may dampen down the recovery but the recovery will go on.


As far a military risk - its not just about troop numbers. All of our nuclear deterrents are based in Scotland. As is our ability to build new ships (are we really going to build them in a foreign country). Also a large proportion of our long range search and rescue assets. With a Yes vote there will have to be a discussion of whether we somehow have a joint military (difficult given the differing opinions of nuclear deterrents) if not the S&R needs to be moved south of the border - is the infrastructure still there? Will the reduction in range severely effect operations?

Yes, that's gonna be expensive... an expensive capital project that will bring thousands of jobs from Scotland to England. Short term it's annoying but long term it's brilliant for wherever those jobs move to. No, we're not gonna keep building ships in Scotland, not beyond whatever commitments we currently have and it would be costly to be released from so shipbuilding in the rest of the Uk would be the only alternative.


Firstly, I agree with what you are saying about Scotland only being liable for a pro-rata population share. That seems logical to me.

As for you have no national debt? National debt has been around for far longer than the current banking crisis, global economies work on nearly all countries being in debt and a lot of the existing debt (thats still being paid off) dates back to before devolution. And even if you don't agree with that - Scotlands 'allowance' can't be viewed as a simple X amount in, Y amount out in splendid isolation from the UK and the rest of the worlds economies. Mr Salmond may get votes by his belligerent 'we owe nothing' attitude, but it's the people who we (collectively) owe who will ultimately have a say and have the power to affect both countries credit ratings (and don't believe that Scotland can existing without credit). Again - risk for both countries.

[Spank86]

... the 3 Scottish notes will become legal tender but only in Scotland..
Only if you guys pass a law to make it so. That would be a good thing, you guys could use something that's legal tender, unlike now.

[Wideboy]

I'm not a hot shot fancy nuclear scientist but I'm fairly sure there's a large amount of nuclear weapons, decaying reactors and even a nuclear weapons factory on English soil already, one of which isn't far from Westminster if it were to explode. That is a daily mail style argument that the SNP have concocted to try and say "look they're disrespecting us by using our land as a nuclear dumping ground".

[Fordward]

LOL Bibio, nice try but you don't actually believe that one mate.

When a couple gets divorced, the wife can't absolve herself of any mortgage liability, by saying, "but I don't have any debt, because I only spent the housekeeping money my husband gave me".

The UK's entire finances are in the red, so when Westminster gives Scotland a pot of money, it's borrowed money.

[Spank86]

Strictly speaking the current Debt will remain the property and wholly backed by the UK.

In practice what will happen is that the Scottish government will agree to a level of debt to be owed directly to the UK government which will be less per capita than that of the rest of the UK but still significant.

The Scottish government could then default on that debt however they would find it exceedingly difficult to get money off anyone else in that case and they will need money.


Likely hood is that the new debt owed to the UK government would be repayable over 15-20 years and all things being equal Scotland ought to pay more in interest rates to the UK than we are currently paying on it's debt since Scotland alone will be a riskier proposition to the market than the UK as a whole although it may be politically expedient to only charge Scotland the amount the UK is paying.

[Red Herring]

Look on the bright side, there will be plenty of work for brickies rebuilding Hadrian's Wall!

[SvNewbie]

if the United Kingdom really was united why do we still have a BOE dictating out currency and not a Bank of the United Kingdom with a United Kingdom currency...

Because there has been no impetus to rename an organisation which has existed since the 17th century and literally created the modern financial system?

I don't understand why people keep bringing the Scottish issued notes into the discussion. Yes a number of Scottish banks retain the right to print money, yes these are backed by money deposited at the Bank of England. What this has to do with the Scottish Government's finances I have no idea.

The money in the Bank of England either belongs to the relevant bank, or held on behalf of their customers. It is there to give a similar level of protection to the bearer as would be given from a note issues by the Bank of England.

Also, no, Scottish notes aren't technically legal tender, though this is a very narrowly defined term which means nothing in practical terms when exchanging notes for goods or services.

[pegasus]

For those that would like to know, as of today 11/09/2014 :-

Scotland has only 8.3% of the population of the UK...

but also has...

32% of the land area
61% of the sea area
90% of the fresh water
65% of Natural Gas production
96.5% crude oil production
47% open cast coal production
81% untapped coal reserves
62% timber production
46% total forest area
92% hydro electric production
40% wind wave & solar energy production
60% fish landings
30% beef herds
20% sheep flocks
100% whisky production

as well as

17 billion construction industry
13 billion food & drink industry
10 billion service industry
9.3 billion chemical services industry
9.3 billion tourist industry
7 billion financial services
5 billion aero service industry
4.5 billion whisky export industry
3.1 billion life sciences industry
350 million textile exports

also

25% of Europe's wind & wave energy potential
1.5 trillion oil & gas reserves

not bad for 8.3% of the UK

Good luck Scotland, I think you will be fine.

P

[Fordward]

65% of Natural Gas production
96.5% crude oil production
47% open cast coal production
81% untapped coal reserves
92% hydro electric production
40% wind wave & solar energy production


None of this belongs to Scotland, it belongs to the companies who have invested in the infrastructure to tap the natural resource, almost none of which are Scottish companies, so the profits go straight back to the shareholders. The countries where these organisations are based are the likes of England (BP, Scottish & Southern Electric), Netherlands (Shell), Germany (E.ON), Spain (Iberdrola which owns Scottish Power), USA (Chevron, ConocoPhilips, etc), and so on goes the list....

The yes campaign keeps drawing parallels with Norway which is absolute nonsense, since Norway's oil company StatOil (State Oil) was set up by and is 67% owed by the state, so it's the state that's the major shareholder and reaps the profits.

The only thing Scotland can hope for is what the UK government gets at the moment, which is the tax revenue. North sea oil and gas paid £4.7bn to the UK in tax revenue in 2013/2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323371/140620_UK_oil_and_gas_tables_for_publication_in_Ju ne_2014.pdf

Hardly chump change you might think, but to put that figure in perspective £4.8bn was wiped of the share value of Scottish companies on Monday in a bit of a stock market jitter over the possibility of a Yes vote, though by the end of the day it had recovered back to a 2.6bn drop. Current infrastructure projects in Scotland like the new Forth Bridge, M8/M74 upgrades, Aberdeen Bypass, and Rail upgrades for the borders and Central Belt, are costing £7.5bn. Scotland spends about £150bn per year.

Scottish people are being lied to and led to believe they are rich because of their natural resources, and any comparison to Norway is propaganda.

[Fordward]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323371/140620_UK_oil_and_gas_tables_for_publication_in_Ju ne_2014.pdf

Also have a read of the first few pages of this and see how badly tax revenues have declined in past years.

[pegasus]

The only thing Scotland can hope for is what the UK government gets at the moment, which is the tax revenue. North sea oil and gas paid £4.7bn to the UK in tax revenue in 2013/2014.


Agreed, and quite rightly the shareholders, should reap the benefits, but don't dismiss the employment potential this would bring to the people of Scotland.

P

[Bibio]

tax or duty?

dont forget the fuel duty after that as well.

[Bibio]

speaking of duty, if Scotland do become independent would that mean the the rest of the UK could nip across the border and buy duty free goods?

[Spank86]

speaking of duty, if Scotland do become independent would that mean the the rest of the UK could nip across the border and buy duty free goods?

only if Scottish duty was less than English.

Which I can't see happening, not to any significant extent.

[Bibio]

i'm confused with that statement. would it not just be like any other country when you go abroad and buy duty free?

[MisterTommyH]

Immigration is also a consideration - it's been a long time since we had a land border!

Edit: actually that could work in our favour!

[Bibio]

Immigration is also a consideration - it's been a long time since we had a land border!

Edit: actually that could work in our favour!

heheheee i can see it now.. another Berlin wall :D

[Spank86]

i'm confused with that statement. would it not just be like any other country when you go abroad and buy duty free?
Yes, just like any other country you could buy stuff in scottish shops and pay the countries duty, or if you're flying or going by boat or whatever you can use the duty free shops that exist there assuming the country in question isn't in Europe.

[Heorot]

Bibio,

“the Scots don/t hate the English”

That is not my experience. I lived in Sighthill, Edinburgh and worked as an IT contractor at RBS for two years so I lived among the uneducated and worked with highly educated people. The only difference in their attitude (i.e. hatred) towards the English was that the educated were less obvious about it but the undercurrent was almost always there.

There was one occasion when my partner, (also an IT contractor and working for Scottish Widows) was told by a work colleague that she, as an Englishwoman, should have been barred from buying a property in Edinburgh. She was told that, in her opinion, only non-English should be allowed to buy. She had no problem with the South Africans working at Scottish Widows buying property, just not the English. I know this was the most extreme example but it just underlines the attitude of too many Scots that I met in Edinburgh.

Having said all that, when travelling in the Highlands, I rarely encountered the hatred. Either Highland Scots are more polite or the hatred is more a Lowland thing.

[Bibio]

you were in Sighthill enough said. you will encounter a loathing of the English in any 'Schemey' area. yes you are correct the further north you go the nicer people are, this is due to having to get along with your neighbours or its a very lonely place. may i take this opportunity to apologise for the obnoxious attitude of some of my fellow Scots.

you could also say the same for some places in England about the Scots.

there is lowlife everywhere who dont understand that we are all the same.

[JulesW]

On my recent visit to Scotland I was blown away by the hospitality of the Scots.

[Heorot]

Actually, Bibio, our neighbours opposite in Sighthill were the only Scots that were willing to be helpful and be with us on a social basis. We spent one Hogmanay with them and I got gloriously drunk, a real rarity for me. The snooty ones at Standard Life, RBS and Scottish Widows wanted none of us outside work.

I ironically, I have worked and socialised with many Scots in England over the last 45 years and they have almost all been nice and friendly. Perhaps it's the social environment north of the border or the Central Belt that's the problem.

[timwilky]

My brother whilst working in Edinburgh was accosted one night after work in a pub along the lines of ferking sassenach barsteward coming taking our jobs. When in jumped the lads he was working with with the reply we had no jobs until this sassenach barsteward gave us one. When he left scotland, he left behind a team in Scotland trained in tunneling and capable of executing new contracts. Yes some Scots do hate the English. but others realise we are all the same, just without the accent (and ginger hair)

[Heorot]

On a political note, what hasn't been overtly stated is that if Scotland did become an independent country, that more or less guarantees that the rest of the UK won't see a labour government for a generation at least. Labour would lose their 40+ MP's from Scottish Constituencies. That's why over 100 labour MP's are campaigning for a NO vote in Scotland today.

[JulesW]

If Scotland go it alone the North of England should follow ;)

[Spank86]

On a political note, what hasn't been overtly stated is that if Scotland did become an independent country, that more or less guarantees that the rest of the UK won't see a labour government for a generation at least. Labour would lose their 40+ MP's from Scottish Constituencies. That's why over 100 labour MP's are campaigning for a NO vote in Scotland today.
The last election was the only one for a very long time that Scotland's Labour vote was enough to adjust the end result

[andrewsmith]

I think the vote is good (way the voting has been done ain't), its bringing a lot things to a head in the North East. In short its: Oi!!! What the **** about us in the North East!

If it happens we'll become England's Inverness (and Berwick will be Thurso)

But as Lance has rightly pointed out, national debt is with Westminster (Gordon Brown cleared a significant amount it in 1997 and Scotland took control of their finances in 1998). The main credit line provider to govt. and the banks is; Bank of England.
Once you look at the finances of Scotland and the arrangement Scotland is given a pot of money to run its affairs (Its everything except the Military and a few centralised departments) its the same in Wales. The financial numbers that Salmond and co quote are good (Scotland see's very little of the tax off North Sea crude and the whiskey which has £8 & £10 of duty per bottle)


I think its good as its making a point and the rapidly being rushed white paper shows how scared Westminster is about losing 5.5 million tax payers and all the money from the Scotland Exports.


The final point I'll make is: If they do vote yes in Scotland it won't be a fast process it'll be at least a decade before full independence happens (a lot of people think of East Timor in Indonesia who got independence in 3 years, but the UN controlled the island for over a decade to allow it to split back into two)

[andrewsmith]

On a political note, what hasn't been overtly stated is that if Scotland did become an independent country, that more or less guarantees that the rest of the UK won't see a labour government for a generation at least. Labour would lose their 40+ MP's from Scottish Constituencies. That's why over 100 labour MP's are campaigning for a NO vote in Scotland today.

Working on the last figures yes.
Scotland is a Labour Nation in the most part. As a challenge name the Labour areas in England then think about the way the areas are arranged.

If it does happen the Tories will have less on an issue getting into power.

[Spank86]

But as Lance has rightly pointed out, national debt is with Westminster (Gordon Brown cleared it in 1997 and Scotland took control of their finances in 1998.)

What?

Care to run that by me again?

Are you honestly suggesting Gordon brown cleared our national debt entirely or am I reading you wrong?

[SvNewbie]

Confusing debt and deficit?

[andrewsmith]

What?

Care to run that by me again?

Are you honestly suggesting Gordon brown cleared our national debt entirely or am I reading you wrong?
Bloody computers! I'm going to edit that now. It should have read, cleared a big chunk. The amount cleared with gold alone was enough to drop the price of gold

[Spank86]

Bloody computers! I'm going to edit that now. It should have read, cleared a big chunk. The amount cleared with gold alone was enough to drop the price of gold

Actually not so much, It was about 3.5billion on the gold front and it was done in 1999 after Scotland took control of their finances. Most of the deficit reduction aside from the bloody awful sale of gold can actually be traced back to the policies of Kenneth Clarke the former Chancellor. Whilst Brown was continuing his policies it was all fine, when He struck out alone that surplus vanished and we bounced back into deficit.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5246/5260056945_dd16442ec1_z.jpg

[BanannaMan]

Too close to call.
The media puts the no's ahead slightly but they seem to be no biased.
Hope things work out for the best for all.

[TamSV]

If Cameron had allowed the option of increased powers within the union to be included in the referendum it would have been a landslide and then you've got a good basis to proceed. It's what most people would happily settle for including, I suspect, Alex Salmond.

As it is, it looks like a close vote, which is going to be pretty unsatisfactory either way for an issue as big as this.

If it's a no followed by more devolution, then most Scots will be quite content. It's not the end of the matter though. It won't be long before Wales and NI will want a similar deal and then we've still got an issue of the unfairness to the English in the current set up.

Many in the North of England want their own devolved assembly now so maybe a federal UK of regions will be the way forward. I'm not sure how much appetite there is for "more politics" in the rest of the UK.

If it's a Yes....I'm making no predictions :)

[Spank86]

I reckon a fully devolved uk is the best way to go if Scotland stays.

I think the lack of powers devolved to regions of England are actually making the situation worse since Westminster has to try to counter the powers devolved elsewhere and so seems to favour England.

Plus England's so damn big in population compared to the rest.

[Amadeus]

Agreed, and quite rightly the shareholders, should reap the benefits, but don't dismiss the employment potential this would bring to the people of Scotland.



P


What employment potential? Presumably these companies currently have x employees, are you suggesting after a yes vote either they'd suddenly need to employ a lot more people (why?) or they'd sack the English people and replace them with Scots? :confused:

[Heorot]

Ex-pat Scots living outside Scotland don't get a vote, yet there are 500,000 non-Scot EU citizens currently living in Scotland that do get a vote. Is that equitable? I was listening to a Pole living in Scotland being interviewed on the radio today. He intends to vote yes in the referendum and at last count it has been estimated that around 55% of Poles eligible to vote intend to vote yes too,

[Bibio]

the thing there is 'ex-pat living outside Scotland'. the referendum is for the people who live in Scotland and nothing to do with the nationality of individuals. the vote is about the future of a nation and not about being Scottish.

[Heorot]

I have known Scots in England who were only there temporarily for work. The still considered Scotland their homeland and fully intended to return. Yet the don't get a vote. And poles intending to return to Poland do. Just as I lived in Scotland for work but kept a home in England with the full intention of returning when the work dried up. Which happened after 2 years and I then returned to England.

[Bibio]

how would you like it to work. only those who have Scottish nationality on their birth certificate to be the only ones that have a vote?

there are millions of ex-pats living all over the world who have a Scottish birth certificate but have no desire to ever return to Scotland so should they get a vote.. ermm no.

if it was a vote for Scottish born individuals only then that would not be fair on the rest of the residents of the Scottish population migrant workers or not. if you are a resident of Scotland and are on the voters role come the 18th of September then you get your say no matter what nationality. doing anything else would be classed as racism. even students who only live in Scotland during term times get a vote due to being on the voters role. jeezz come to think of it the royal family might even qualify to have the right to vote if they so desired.

its a referendum for a country to become independent from the rest of the UK, its not about a vote of nationality.

even if Scotland does vote in favour of the split it will take a minimum of 20 years before Scotland does become truly independent, its not like there will be a big fence built the day after. there are faaaaar to many things to be sorted out by each side before the 'keys' are handed over.

now here is something really funny, if Scotland do vote yes to independence there will still be MSP's sitting in Westminster for the next 18 months and due to this come the next UK Election the population of Scotland who are on the voters role will still get a vote in the UK Election. now how does that make you feel?

[Fordward]

I care about my country and its people and especially my family. If Scotland gets independance, then the Scottish government says I will be able to apply for citizenship. So I could be a Scottish citizen, but because I live in England I can't vote.
What should have happened is those not living in Scotland should have had to apply for the right to vote. Make them fill in forms, go to the post office, and pay for certified copies of proof of elegibility, and only those who genuinely cared would have applied. They then should have stuck in the same system for non-Scottish nationals living in Scotland, but the acceptance criteria should simply have been whether they were on the voters role, no need to prove eligibility if you live in Scotland, your just checked against the list. Again only those Poles who intend to live out thier years in Scotland would have bothered.

The vote hasnt used the Scottish electoral role because it was the right way, it's used it because it was the cheap and easy way.

Voting in next Westminster election is pretty much unavoidable, but upon completing independance the seats in Westminster will be disolved. That's actually the way it should work as while Scotland is in the UK it should have a vote in Westminster.

They way it shouldn't work is Scotland using a currency where economic policy is set in Westminster, when they've removed all their MP's from Westminster, so have absolutely no powers to influence that economic policy. Thats not independance, thats bending over and taking it up the **** from Westminster each time the Bank of England takes a decision on the pound.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[EssexDave]

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-11/in-the-fight-over-scotlands-independence-cash-is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

[dizzyblonde]

They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from


This is an important factor that people just don't really understand.
Scotland won't be getting the EU to rewrite certain clauses in membership to suit them having automatic right to carry on as before. It has a lot of bearing on other countries memberships that aren't exactly clearly defined. Plus one or two that have been kept out of joining will then be attempting to get the EU to bend rules for them too. Dire consequences there in.

[pegasus]

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-11/in-the-fight-over-scotlands-independence-cash-is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

[MisterTommyH]

Are we talking about the debt of the financial collapse or the deficit of in public spending?

I thought the comments were regarding the deficit, therefore nothing to do with the banks?

[Bibio]

i'm enjoying this thread :-)

its nice to see the views of other people.

[The Guru]

...The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there...

Peak production was long before that.

[Spank86]

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

Iceland hasn't refused, it's simply refused to do it on terms dictated by foreign governments. The debts are being repaid and in time will all be repaid, the argument was over the timescale of repayment.

[SvNewbie]

Dave, why does the debt of the bank need to be repaid by the public?

Iceland, has refused to repay the debt that the national banks incurred, and carries on regardless....maybe we should take note...?

Iceland allowed its national banks to fail, as in go bankrupt. The savers who put their money in these banks were covered under a guarantee scheme much the same as in we have in the UK. The receivers of the bank were then forced to sell off the assets of these banks to repay the government for the money which it paid out.

We chose a different path where by we partially nationalised the big banks at a cost of £123bn, giving them a big cash injection allowing them to continue to function as banks and saving us from having to pay out for the money for people's savings. For the UK this was a better deal given that so much of our economy is driven by the financial sector.

Try to keep in mind that we haven't given them the money for free, we took ownership of large fractions of these banks, as the economy continues to recover then we will be able to re-privatise our holding in these banks, by all accounts we are expected to make a reasonable profit from the deal. Also, the banks are paying fee's and interest which as to now has covered the interest on this debt.

[TamSV]

I've stayed relatively quiet on this matter for quite a while, and I don't want to go into too many details, but my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote. (And agreed with here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-11/in-the-fight-over-scotlands-independence-cash-is-what-counts )

Now, economically, Scotland will be worse off for years. People may want to argue this point, but it is true. They will not automatically be in the EU, and they will be unable to arrange many of the opt-outs the UK currently benefits from.

I also see an issue with many of the banks currently in Scotland that would have to leave, and even if they stay, it will be with significantly reduced operations for the reasons set out in the article above.

The next issue is the media/politicians misquoting figures about oil reserves and revenue production. It would be very difficult for Scotland to maintain the whole state on the oil sales. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/ )

The other issue relates to the deficit. Ignoring oil revenues, in 2012-13 the deficit in Scotland was £14 billion. Now, people can say, ah yes but we have all this oil!

The peak production year was 2008-9 with an amount of £12.4 billion. Not far off you say, but in 2012-13 the amount produced was £6.5 billion. There's a pretty hefty shortfall there.

There are so many other issues surrounding borrowing from investors as a government (giving the instability and uncertainty that would arise), which would increase borrowing costs. Also look at the lack of investment given the unknown surrounding what regulatory regime will be in practice and how strictly it will be enforced, whether Scotland could afford to bail out it's bank if needs be.

From an ideological point of view, I understand, but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

With a different set of equally reasonable assumptions you could come to an entirely different conclusion but, as it's based on assumptions, it probably wouldn't be a useful argument to have.

Which is why I think the following is wrong...

my opinion is that for the majority, economics is the factor that decides how they vote....but from an economics one, it just does not add up.

If both of those statements were true then the polls wouldn't be so close.

[flymo]

I haven't met a single person who is willing to be persuaded that the 'other' option is better, no matter what their current preference. Which leads me to think that this isn't worth me arguing the point over.

Personally, I believe that no matter who ends up in charge and no matter where the borders lie, there will be some greedy politician(s) and party trying to milk it. Better the devil you know in my view.

Many of my family are Scots and I really hope that we remain as a single union.

[Bibio]

it's all politics nothing more nothing less and until the vote is cast then nobody can say for sure the future of Scotland. nobody has a crystal ball to see whats going to happen in 20 years from now and for all scotland knows Westminster might just drag them into one of the biggest financial breakdowns in history or not. the cost of living at the moment in the UK is ridiculous and if it continues going the way its going it's not going to be a nice place to stay. domestic fuel bills are sky high, the cost of a basket of shopping is going up each week, the housing market prices are starting to rise again but peoples wages are not being raised to cover the extra costs so what does out smart Government do... give people free cash out of the public purse in the form of working tax credits. where do these working tax credits come from... the public purse so to be able to pay these tax credits then other things such as services and so fourth have been cut.

someone mentioned that the banks that are in public hands are making a profit so why not keep them when the debt is paid to raise revenue for the UK purse instead of allowing private enterprise making the profit.

why are the UK's basic utility companies in foreign hands that allow escalating domestic fuel pricing?

what happens when the revenue from the North Sea runs out are Westminster going to cut the Scottish budget?

most of the population is thinking of the NOW and not the future. an independent Scotland might work it might not and its up to the residents of Scotland to vote how they vote be it yes or no on the FUTURE of Scotland as an independent nation.

[TamSV]

I haven't met a single person who is willing to be persuaded that the 'other' option is better, no matter what their current preference. Which leads me to think that this isn't worth me arguing the point over.

It's true in general but never more true than in this debate.

I think we all probably have a tendency to take any new information and adapt it to reinforce the view of the world that we've already formed.

[pegasus]

Island allowed its national banks to fail, as in go bankrupt. The savers who put their money in these banks were covered under a guarantee scheme much the same as in we have in the UK. The receivers of the bank were then forced to sell off the assets of these banks to repay the government for the money which it paid out.

We chose a different path where by we partially nationalised the big banks at a cost of £123bn, giving them a big cash injection allowing them to continue to function as banks and saving us from having to pay out for the money for people's savings. For the UK this was a better deal given that so much of our economy is driven by the financial sector.

Try to keep in mind that we haven't given them the money for free, we took ownership of large fractions of these banks, as the economy continues to recover then we will be able to re-privatise our holding in these banks, by all accounts we are expected to make a reasonable profit from the deal. Also, the banks are paying fee's and interest which as to now has covered the interest on this debt.

Thank you for taking the time to type out this response,

my turn...

You have used the term "we" a few times, I don't remember ever being offered a choice to bail the banks, please correct me if I am wrong, I don't know of anyone being offered a choice. Therefore this was done without my approval. Had I been given the choice, I would have written my own terms and conditions. When "we" make a reasonable profit, how will I be able to claim my reward?, and how long must I be expected to contribute to a failing business model?

@ Spank, Thanks for your response, you have provided clarity regarding the banking collapse, however If I am not mistaken, the IMF have injected bailout payments equalling the loan repayments which are due (without austerity measures or profit making), which in essences means that The IMF are actually paying the deficit not Iceland?

Great Thread!!!

P

[SvNewbie]

You have used the term "we" a few times, I don't remember ever being offered a choice to bail the banks, please correct me if I am wrong, I don't know of anyone being offered a choice. Therefore this was done without my approval. Had I been given the choice, I would have written my own terms and conditions. When "we" make a reasonable profit, how will I be able to claim my reward?, and how long must I be expected to contribute to a failing business model?


I'm all for a system that allows us to have near instantaneous referendums on a wide variety of issues. However, it would be an unmitigated disaster given the average Britain's apathy and wilful ignorance on political and economic issues. Anything that can't be distilled into a 500 word doomsday article by the DailyMail isn't worth thinking about.

Therefore we elect representatives to make these kind of decisions.

Honestly, other than getting worked up over the way the banks have been run, I'm not sure what you want. Had 'they' allowed the banks to fail we'd still have had a bill to pickup in the form of the government guarantees on savings, on top of that we'd have thousands of unemployed who worked for these banks, and possibly a run on the pound which could have taken the entire British economy down with it. Forcing us to accept money from the IMF as it did in the 1970s.

[Spank86]

@ Spank, Thanks for your response, you have provided clarity regarding the banking collapse, however If I am not mistaken, the IMF have injected bailout payments equalling the loan repayments which are due (without austerity measures or profit making), which in essences means that The IMF are actually paying the deficit not Iceland?

Great Thread!!!

P
Your not mistaken in thinking the IMF have injected money to Iceland however the injected money is intended to be loans which should be paid back by the government, the idea is simply to give them time to pay and not to take more money out of a country already on the verge of bankruptcy in the middle of a financial meltdown but instead to take it out of a future stronger country. In actual fact using the current Icelandic method the majority of the money is being paid out of the assets of the collapsed banks as they're wound up instead of straight out of government or public money.

The reason we don't keep hold of the nationalised and part nationalised banks is that they were bought (or saved) with loaned money and the government needs to pay that money back, current trends mean we're quite likely to break even or make a profit on that as well so In the end no government or people should be out of pocket due to the rescues.




Whether these IMF bail outs do eventually get paid back remains to be seen but since the UK still has Napoleonic war debts outstanding I wouldn't hold your breath if the interest rates on them are low, I certainly think it's unlikely they'll be written off unless they're simply taken over and disposed of by a much more centralised EU in the future.

[SIII]

Scotland is a country. It is not part of England. It should not be governed by another country. Decisions should be made in that country for the best outcome for the people of that country by a government chosen by that country. The country should not be subsidising major building works in a neighbouring country. The taxes raised in that country should stay in that country and not pay for the the debts of their neighbours.


Scotland was forced into a union 300 years ago by a very corrupt English government (Made it illegal to trade with Scotland until a union was formed). It is time that this unhappy couple should divorce and make a better life for both. Unfortunately the No side are telling us that without them we will be failures !!! We cannot possibly make it on our own.


They are using all of their powers to undermine and discredit Scotland and inform us we will fail. The printed media and even worse the BBC are so biased it is disgraceful. I am sorry to say but, if NO win there will be a bitter taste left over. It is shameful how London use all of its power to discredit our wee country and tell us we are going to fail.


Most countries get independence by picking up guns and bombs, Ireland gained independence by this method. Is this what it takes ??? I really hope not. I can't believe we are being offered this chance in many lifetimes but the government of the UK, the 'english' owned media and every dirty trick is being used to undermind this supposedly democratic decision.


People of Scotland - open your eyes and don't let this scaremongering and bullying turn you against independence. We will be better of as an independent nation. Might take a generation to see it, but it will happen.


If it were reversed and we were voting to join rUk. Would we vote to give all our taxes, powers and our right to an elected government away ??? You can argue about pounds, banks, pensions etc all you like. but at the end of the day, Scotland is a separate country and we have the right to decide our future and have decisions on our future made by Scottish politicians in Scotland

[Spank86]

Scotland was forced into a union 300 years ago by a very corrupt English government (Made it illegal to trade with Scotland until a union was formed). It is time that this unhappy couple should divorce and make a better life for both. Unfortunately the No side are telling us that without them we will be failures !!! We cannot possibly make it on our own.


The English Government MAY have been corrupt, but it was the Scottish one that bankrupt their own country and then cried for help.

[carelesschucca]

Don't worry I'm sure Salmond has plans to build bigger and better canals, and this time it'll work.

[SIII]

The English Government MAY have been corrupt, but it was the Scottish one that bankrupt their own country and then cried for help.

The Alien Act was a law passed by the Parliament of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England) in 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Scotland)'s Act of Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Security_1704) of 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701).
The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29) (foreign nationals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_national)), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705#cite_note-1) making inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) much less certain. It also included an embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo) on the import (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import) of Scottish products into England and English colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) – about half of Scotland's trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade), covering goods such as linen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen), cattle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle) and coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705#cite_note-2)
The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme), the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain).

I would say forced than than cried for help !!!

[Spank86]

Just don't try to build one in panama.

It'll be too expensive and rather redundant at this point.

[Spank86]

The Alien Act was a law passed by the Parliament of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England) in 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Scotland)'s Act of Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Security_1704) of 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701).
The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28law%29) (foreign nationals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_national)), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705#cite_note-1) making inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance) much less certain. It also included an embargo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo) on the import (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import) of Scottish products into England and English colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire) – about half of Scotland's trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade), covering goods such as linen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen), cattle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle) and coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Act_1705#cite_note-2)
The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme), the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707) uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain).

Shock horror, England wanted to treat another country as... another country.

You were already on your knees before that and had come begging for help that blatantly wasn't going to be forthcoming, Oddly England was wary of going to war with the Spanish for Scotland's benefit.

[SIII]

This is a pointless argument. Neither of us were around, and we know history is wriiten by the winners !!!

Please reread my post above. I am not attacking England or the English. I just want a fair and just system of government to rule over my country, that has the best interest of that country as a priority, not as an add on to the SE of England.


Scotland has only 8.3% of the UK's population. 8.3%! Remember this important figure... 8.3%

But we DO have...

32% of the land area.
61% of the sea area.
90% of the fresh water.
65% of the natural gas production.
96.5% of the crude oil production.
47% of the open cast coal production
81% of the untapped coal reserves
62% of the timber production
46% of the total forest area
92% of the hydro electric production
40% of the wind wave and solar energy production
60% of the fish landings
30% of the beef herd
20% of the sheep herd
9% of the dairy herd
10% of the pig herd
15% if the cereal holdings
20% of the potato holdings
...obviously 100% of the Scotch Whiskey industry.

We have a...
17 billion pound construction industry
13 billion food and drink industry
10 billion business services industry
9.3 billion chemical services industry
A 9.3 billion tourism industry
7 billion financial services industry
5 billion aeroservice industry
4.5 billion pound whiskey exports industry
3.1 billion pound life sciences industry
Scotland still has 350 million pounds worth of textile exports

We have 25% of Europes wave and wind energy potential.

And finally we are blessed to have 1.5 trillion pound worth of oil and gas reserves.

All of this, yet only 8.3% of The UK's population... Whaow Scotland should be rich!

IGNORANCE...
If you hear anyone saying "I DONT LIKE ALEX SALMOND" or "I DONT LIKE SNP"...
THIS VOTE IS ABOUT SCOTLAND'S RIGHT TO ELECT ITS OWN GOVERNMENT... IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ALEX SALMOND OR THE SNP.
DONT LET POLITICAL IGNORANCE RUIN THIS OPPORTUNITY.

Do you know... This is the UK's legacy of success in our history of being better-together is as follows...

The UK has the 3rd lowest pensions in the 34 OECD countries of the world

The UK has the single most expensive childcare in the European Union

The UK has the second lowest-paid economy in the entire developed world

The UK has the 3rd longest working hours in the EU

The UK has the lowest number of holidays in the EU

The UK has the 8th highest gender inequality pay gap out of the EU's 28 countries

The UK has the highest likelihood of poverty in disablement in the EU

The UK has the highest rail prices in Europe

The UK has the second highest housing cost in Europe

The UK has the highest fuel poverty rates in Europe.

The UK is the 4th highest country of wealth inequality in the entire planet!

But surely these awful figures cannot be possible when you read the following Scottish statistics...

Now, finally, did you also know that in all of the UK's elections for Westminster ever!... Not one vote cast in SCOTLAND has ever mattered! Because of the Westminster numbers, whatever government England votes for, the UK gets. So we have no democracy here!!! 4 decades of tory rule that we voted against is proof enough, and our defiance was punished by the closure of all the mines; closure of all the steelworks; closure of all the shipyards losing hundreds if thousands of jobs. The term used by Westminster's Thatcher when these industries needed some assistance was "let the markets decide". Funny how when the greedy bankers collapsed everywhere they were bailed out to the tune of over a trillion pounds of our money... Not a mention of "let the markets decide".

FACTS:
Fact: Scotland has an oil boom waiting to happen on the West Coast, but Michael Hesaltine signed a cessation of any form of oil exploration in the entire area in the 80's to make way for nuclear submarines which Scotland doesn't want!

Fact: Scotland has shown its revulsion time and time again to nuclear weapons but they place them here against our countries wishes. A recent contingency report was carried out a out the feasibility of relocating them in Portsmouth. The report stated that it was unfeasible because the detrimental risk to the area of an incident was too high. (Ok for the Clyde though)

Fact: Scotland, with only 1 Tory MP, was forced to take the shocking attack on the poor & disabled called The Bedroom Tax, even though as our nations government, Holyrood voted to utterly reject this awful tax on the poor. Westminster gave us it anyway!

Fact: We are led to believe that the oil in our waters is finished and its a dying industry. Yet 13.5 billion has been invested by oil companies in the last 2 years alone!

Fact: The Clair Oil Field is about to open, and on its own has over 650 million barrels which will be extracted over 20+ years with production reaching a hundred thousand barrels a day!

Fact: Scotland gives more to Westminster than it gets back. Do you really think they'd be so keen to keep us if we were being subsidised like they'd have us believe?

Fact: Westminster has amassed over £1.3 trillion debt and still growing at nearly £6000 a second. Thats another £516 million today alone which YOU will have to pay for.

Fact: Of the 178 countries that have gained their own independence across this planet, not one single one of them has ever asked to reverse this independence, and very few of them have the assets we have.

SCOTLAND, WHAT ARE WE SCARED OF? WE HAVE A CHANCE... WITHOUT A SINGLE BULLET BEING FIRED, WITHOUT A SINGLE DEATH... TO GET OUR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PUT A CROSS IN THE YES BOX.

SCOTLAND, ITS TIME TO STAND UP AS A NATION AND VOTE YES ON THE 18TH OF SEPTEMBER... AND BECOME A FREE AND CARING NATION AGAIN!!!

VOTE YES AND SET OUR COUNTRY FREE!!!!

Y E S ! ! ! Y E S ! ! ! Y E S ! ! !

[Spank86]

Please reread my post above. I am not attacking England or the English. I just want a fair and just system of government to rule over my country, that has the best interest of that country as a priority, not as an add on to the SE of England.
which country, the UK is a country of countries. At the moment you have both representation in the UK's parliament and your own assembly, which is more than I get as an Englishman.

I don't believe a plumber in Aberdeen has more in common with a politician in Holyrood than he does a plumber in Lincoln. Scotland gets greater representation per head than any other 8.3% of the population and all those things that Scotland has (apart from the landmass) have come through the benefits of the Union. Prior to the union Scotland barely even had a navy, If you get independence there will be a fair distribution of Oil wealth based on what your waters should legally be, If the union had never happened I seriously doubt you'd have had that much since England would have had prior claim.


Now, finally, did you also know that in all of the UK's elections for Westminster ever!... Not one vote cast in SCOTLAND has ever mattered! Because of the Westminster numbers, whatever government England votes for, the UK gets

Without Scotland we'd have conservative majority, no coalition. Democracy.

[Wideboy]

I thought none of this was about the English?

[Spank86]

I thought none of this was about the English?

It's all about the English.

Otherwise why split? Scotland pays it's way in the union, no more no less, it's far far more prosperous than it's wildest dreams when it entered the union and it has far better representation both than the equivalent number of English people and than the scots in their own country pre-union. All the stats look like lovely numbers but when you take it down to the bottom line Scottish spending and deficit (as a whole) is about on a par with the rest of the UK.

Scotland is more than capable of being it's own small somewhat successful country on a par with Ireland, I don't think anyone really doubts it, what everyone who sides with better together thinks is that we really are, better together.

[SvNewbie]

Drivel...

Come on SIII, I've only meet you once before but I'd seriously have expected more from you than one of those pointless lists. They could as well be random numbers for all they mean when taken out of context.

For example having 8.3% of the population and 32% of the land area means that it's going to be very expensive to service much of the land mass.

Having 25% of Europe's wave and wind potential energy means nothing (also I'd love to see a source) because firstly, you need the capital to invest in extracting it, you need to accept the environmental damage caused by extracting it and even then who are you going to sell it to? England?

Well there is a limited electrical capacity between Scotland and England at the moment, but lets say you fix that. Well you have to get that energy to the border, as pointed out above, you have a huge landmass to content with (and the beauty of the Scottish highlands to preserve) and the wave and wind power is likely to be distributed widely across it.

Oh, and France for much of the year has a huge Electrical surplus due to their reliance on Nuclear power so don't expect the price to be particularly high.

Many of those resources have been bought by foreign investors so you only get a fraction of the money back in taxes. This is the main reason comparisons with Norway are ridiculous, the Norwegian state owns 67% of Statoil, the national oil company, so gets a much bigger share of the profits.

1.5 Trillion worth of oil reserves, but how much of that is economically extractable? Also, at what price is oil selling at?

If you think independence is worth it for national pride alone then vote Yes. But do it in the knowledge that Salmond is misleading you, the cost of independence will be being paid for a generation. Yes, Scotland can become a successful independent country, but it will be a long and risky road to get there.

[carelesschucca]

But will it actually become a more Caring nation and how will it do that without raising taxes I for one am thinking about this in a material way. Will I be better off in an independent Scotland and I haven't seen anything to convince me. I keep seeing all this stuff about Scotland becoming an almost utopian society which I find hard to believe, I see the scum that my taxes go to support everyday on my way to work is that going to change? Or will it just be a smaller country with just as many issues and less standing in an a world that is becoming more and more globalised?

Now lets be honest both sides in this argument are liars. They're built to be, thats what politics is build on promises and twisting the truth.

I also can't wait a generation for greater prosperity, if its a yes vote next week, I WILL loose my job cause it will be moved to Gosport or Blackpool. I honestly don't fancy living in either places. Especially not Gosport only things good about it are my friends and the ferry to Spain is just round the corner. But then again so is Spank86. :D

[Spank86]

HEY! Put a helmet over my face and rev your bike engine and I'm almost bearable. Just ask the Guildford massive.

[Bibio]

I thought none of this was about the English?

the problem is that Scotland's independence reflects on the rest of the UK's financial stability. the UK's credit rating has already taken a hit over the possibility of a split so imagine what will happen if Scotland does get the yes vote.