# Scottish independence



## gryffindor (Jun 13, 2013)

Forgetting all the minor details like oil rights, currency, defence, border controls etc, what I really want to know is who would get to keep The Open?


----------



## brendy (Jun 13, 2013)

Of course its going to  be Scotland, the English clubs where it has been hosted were invited to join, not the other way round.


----------



## Akie (Jun 13, 2013)

Would Scotland getting its independence change how the venue for The Open is allocated?


----------



## HickoryShaft (Jun 13, 2013)

Maybe we would have a British open somewhere in Wales or England then?


----------



## CMAC (Jun 13, 2013)

Sottish Independence is never going to happen......thank gawd!


----------



## DCB (Jun 13, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			Sottish Independence is never going to happen......thank gawd!
		
Click to expand...

And stop saying British Open.... it's The Open and it always will be


----------



## gryffindor (Jun 13, 2013)

But if Scotland keep The Open then there could also be a British Open


----------



## Val (Jun 13, 2013)

Akie said:



			Would Scotland getting its independence change how the venue for The Open is allocated?
		
Click to expand...

That would be up to the R&A which incidently is in St Andrews, Scotland


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Jun 13, 2013)

gryffindor said:



			But if Scotland keep The Open then there could also be a British (minus Scotland) Open
		
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya  :thup:


----------



## HickoryShaft (Jun 13, 2013)

gryffindor said:



			But if Scotland keep The Open then there could also be a British Open
		
Click to expand...

Yep the point being that Britain would only be Engalnd, Wales and N. Ireland and the R&A dont seen to want to include NI in their plans - maybe it would provoke a re-thought on the incorporation of Royal Portrush??

Or have I misunderstood and the Independent Scotland would still be part of 'Britain'??

I agree that its an important factor in the decision of independence and as the R&A are at St Andrews and its the home of golf I would expect the Open to be in Scotland. Will I need a passport to go and see it?


----------



## CMAC (Jun 13, 2013)

DCB said:



			And stop saying British Open.... it's The Open and it always will be 

Click to expand...

I didn't


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

HickoryShaft said:



			Yep the point being that Britain would only be Engalnd, Wales and N. Ireland ?
		
Click to expand...

Northern Ireland isn't in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is only in the United Kingdom (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

So would it become: The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 13, 2013)

Of even more importance in the eventuality of 'The Open' being played only north of the border following independence... Will it still be available to watch 'free to air' via the Beeb? Or will we have to divi up some dosh to a Scottish 'satellite' broadcaster?


----------



## HickoryShaft (Jun 13, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Northern Ireland isn't in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is only in the United Kingdom (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

So would it become: The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
		
Click to expand...

Oopsy - apologies to all in NI who will be seething at me now!!

I would still like the schedule to incorporate Royal Portrush. 

Does an Independant Scotland want to  part of the United Kingdom - never thought about it really - maybe they don't which would mean we couldn't really used 'United' Kingdom as a title. And does that mean we cannot call Andy Murray British if he does well at a tournament any more?


----------



## Stuey01 (Jun 13, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Northern Ireland isn't in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is only in the United Kingdom (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

So would it become: The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, no it wouldn't. Britain is not a country, it is the island, so Scotland still part of Britain the island.

The remaining nation would be something like United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 13, 2013)

Stuey01 said:



			Sorry, no it wouldn't. Britain is not a country, it is the island, so Scotland still part of Britain the island.

The remaining nation would be something like United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh, I didn't know that about Britain being the island, thank you!

That makes more sense. I wasn't sure what would remain after, and made an innacurate stab in the dark!  So this would potentially remove the word "British" from the common lexicon....


----------



## Stuey01 (Jun 13, 2013)

Its a common misconception. Britain and UK have become virtually synonymous in general usage, both are effectively used as abbreviations of the full title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
GB consists England, Wales, Scotland.


----------



## Five&One (Jun 13, 2013)

Stuey01 said:



			Sorry, no it wouldn't. Britain is not a country, it is the island, so Scotland still part of Britain the island.
		
Click to expand...

Not true. Mr Salmond is building a large hacksaw and commissioning a fleet of tugs. As soon as independence is confirmed we will be detached from the rest of the island using the hacksaw and towed by tugboat to just off the coast of Tenerife.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 13, 2013)

Five&One said:



			Not true. Mr Salmond is building a large hacksaw and commissioning a fleet of tugs. As soon as independence is confirmed we will be detached from the rest of the island using the hacksaw and *towed by tugboat to just off the coast of Tenerife*.
		
Click to expand...

Lol! He's promised everything else but THAT might just get my vote!


----------



## Stuey01 (Jun 13, 2013)

Five&One said:



			Not true. Mr Salmond is building a large hacksaw and commissioning a fleet of tugs. As soon as independence is confirmed we will be detached from the rest of the island using the hacksaw and towed by tugboat to just off the coast of Tenerife.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh, the Scottish in the blazing sunshine, can you say lobster?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

I think geographically Great Britain is the big island of the two - but I wouldn't want to suggest we refer to Ireland as Little Britain  - no the two main islands of the British Isles are the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland.


----------



## Foxholer (Jun 13, 2013)

Wow!

As a foreigner, I'm amazed how many wrong descriptions there are here!


----------



## SAPCOR1 (Jun 13, 2013)

No need to worry as it won't happen


----------



## Sharktooth (Jun 13, 2013)

SAPCOR1 said:



			No need to worry as it won't happen
		
Click to expand...

Hope you are right. The only punters voting for it have only ever been as far afield as Blackpool. Non passport holding, narrow minded, tumshie munchers...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

Sharktooth said:



			Hope you are right. The only punters voting for it have only ever been as far afield as Blackpool. Non passport holding, narrow minded, tumshie munchers...
		
Click to expand...

which some could deem offensive


----------



## SAPCOR1 (Jun 13, 2013)

Well I'm not offended!

Mind you I'd rather have the weather of Chang Mai!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 13, 2013)

SAPCOR1 said:



			Well I'm not offended!

Mind you I'd rather have the weather of Chang Mai!
		
Click to expand...

..and I'm getting no say in the future of *my *country when any rag, tag and bob-tail who just happens to be in Scotland at the time and a qualifying resident will get a say.   Wee Eck's got it wrong there.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 13, 2013)

IFFFFFFFFFF???

The newly created British Open would not be a major and would probably vanish without trace like the many attempts to hold an English Open.
Sad that Scotland, Wales and Ireland can host a national Open but England can't.
Mind you looking at some of the courses who attempted to host it, small wonder.

PS 
Independence is a dead duck and always has been.
Seen as a way to DevoMax which nearly everyone wants.


----------



## bladeplayer (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I think geographically Great Britain is the big island of the two - but I wouldn't want to suggest we refer to Ireland as Little Britain  - no the two main islands of the British Isles are the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland.
		
Click to expand...


Eh settle will ya its too early to be on the sauce


----------



## Driven2Distraction (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..and I'm getting no say in the future of *my *country when any rag, tag and bob-tail who just happens to be in Scotland at the time and a qualifying resident will get a say.   Wee Eck's got it wrong there.
		
Click to expand...

Eh?.... Who then should in your opinion be allowed to vote if not those people who choose to live and work here and whose everyday lives will be impacted??!?


----------



## painterboy (Jun 13, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..and I'm getting no say in the future of *my *country when any rag, tag and bob-tail who just happens to be in Scotland at the time and a qualifying resident will get a say.   Wee Eck's got it wrong there.
		
Click to expand...


If I'm reading this post correctly you're a Scot living in leafy Surrey and wants a vote on the Independence of Scotland while 'foreigners' who have decided to live and work there and whose lives would be affected by a Yes or No vote not get a chance to have a say?


----------



## Andy808 (Jun 13, 2013)

Being married to a Scot and having several trips up there it has been interesting to hear the views of her family on this subject.
Although they like the idea of independence they know it's pretty untenable. 
As for The Open why is it just for Scotland?
There is already the Scottish Open so surely The Open is a British thing. If you Google The British Open the it gives you The Open at Muirfield. Wouldn't the R&A stamp on this especially when one of the websites is Muirfield2013open.com.


----------



## williamalex1 (Jun 13, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Lol! He's promised everything else but THAT might just get my vote!
		
Click to expand...

 Yip i'll change my vote if that could happen, as much chance as the other promises.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 14, 2013)

Calm down dear.  It's only a golf competition !!


----------



## munro007 (Jun 14, 2013)

Sharktooth said:



			Hope you are right. The only punters voting for it have only ever been as far afield as Blackpool. Non passport holding, narrow minded, tumshie munchers...
		
Click to expand...

PMSL i will be voting Yes, we have one chance to make it on our own. In for a penny and all that  Oh and i don't fit your stereotype


----------



## Sharktooth (Jun 14, 2013)

So, if you truly want it, shouldn't you also have your own currency which is not linked to the Engish pound and your own passport? Have you ever tried using Clydesdale bank money outside the UK? I am Scottish, but travel and work internationally on one of the strongest passports on the planet, a BRITISH passport.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 14, 2013)

We have our own currency, same as you, it is called the pound.
Remember Scots own about 11% of the Bank of England.
If the remains of the UK wish to keep the pound to themselves then that 11% would have to be payed back to Scotland.
Oh and BTW the Bank of England was founded by a Scotsman.


----------



## patricks148 (Jun 14, 2013)

South of the boarder shouldnâ€™t get all excited, after all England canâ€™t even get backing and sponsorship for  a National open, without the open there would be one event in England and The PGA at Wentworth is only due to BMW, without them I donâ€™t think that even would happen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 14, 2013)

Driven2Distraction said:



			Eh?.... Who then should in your opinion be allowed to vote if not those people who choose to live and work here and whose everyday lives will be impacted??!?
		
Click to expand...

Just because I had to move away from Scotland for work does not make me any less Scottish.  The referendum isn't just ANY old referendum vote - this vote is about the very status and future of the country.  We're not just talking about whether it would be good for someone economically over the coming 2, 5, 10, 25 years - this referendum is basically for good.  Whenever I raise this I getting swatted away with 'well you don't live here - it won't affect you - why should you get a vote'  This is such a short-sighted and blinkered view.  Of COURSE it affects me - I'm Scottish.  

Do you not think that because I live in England I don't CARE about Scotland anymore - and that my everyday life WON'T be affected?  Of course I will be affected.  All of my family live in Scotland, I may move back - and besides I do actually care about Scotland.  Explain to me how someone - let's say a Pole - currently living in Scotland to make enough money to return to THEIR home in a few years time somehow has a greater interest in the LONG TERM future of my country than me - it's not their country - do they really care?  Some might - but really?  

And yet - because I - like many, many Scots before me - have chosen (through necessity in my case) to move away from Scotland to seek our fortune (not yet found in my case) - we are deemed 2nd class Scots - because that  is what it feels like.  And yet Scots are the very first to strut around chests puffed out declaring how we Scots made the empire and look at what we invented blah blah blah - how great and well know and respected Scots are the world over.  I wonder - how many of our 'greatest sons and daughters' became great by staying in Scotland and where that respect we have has come from.

I'm not saying which way I'd vote if I had a vote - but I think it insulting that I am not deemed worthy of a vote in deciding the future of my country.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 14, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			<impassioned plea snipped>

I'm not saying which way I'd vote if I had a vote - but I think it insulting that I am not deemed worthy of a vote in deciding the future of my country.
		
Click to expand...

Must admit I've been pretty ambivalent on this point and it definitely affects those of us who live here more immediately than those who don't. However, you've convinced me - if I lived away I'm sure I'd want a vote too.


----------



## Akie (Jun 14, 2013)

Valentino said:



			That would be up to the R&A which incidently is in St Andrews, Scotland 

Click to expand...

I just meant it wasn't automatic if Scotland got its independence.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 14, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Must admit I've been pretty ambivalent on this point and it definitely affects those of us who live here more immediately than those who don't. However, you've convinced me - if I lived away I'm sure I'd want a vote too.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously, can us English have a vote too. The break up of the Union will affect everyone one way or another and I'd quite like to have a say.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 14, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			Seriously, can us English have a vote too. The break up of the Union will affect everyone one way or another and I'd quite like to have a say.
		
Click to expand...

No.

But you do have a point. Maybe you should have a referendum to see whether English politicians should campaign for the union or not.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 14, 2013)

Hobbit.....that is the problem.....you already have far too much of a say.
The Tories will probably be the main party in the UK for the next 20 years.
There is one Tory MP in Scotland  [Repeat ONE]
The Scottish Tories have a lesbian kick boxer as a leader and many in the party wanted to change their name to disassociate them form the Tory party.

That is part of the reason why the UK's wealth is based in SE England.
We just want a fair bite of the cherry.
For me DevoMax would work well, as near to independence as possible without breaking up the Union.
Many folk in Scotland feel as I do but we have no say in the matter as the English will always vote for what is best England and not the Union.


----------



## USER1999 (Jun 14, 2013)

I think that for the English, devo max would be the worst outcome. Stay or go, but no cherry picking.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 14, 2013)

Anyway - even if I moved back to Scotland today I'm not sure I'd qualify as I won't have been resident for long enough.  

And so I am resigned to not getting a vote.  TBH - I really don't understand why there seems to be such opposition in Scotland to giving a referendum vote to folks such as I - borne in Scotland and therefore Scottish.  Does someone somehow know how we'd be likely to vote?  Have their been any opinion polls looking at this.  I haven't seen any,


----------



## Stuey01 (Jun 14, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:
			
		


			That is part of the reason why the UK's wealth is based in SE England.
We just want a fair bite of the cherry.
For me DevoMax would work well, as near to independence as possible without breaking up the Union.
Many folk in Scotland feel as I do but we have no say in the matter as the English will always vote for what is best England and not the Union.
		
Click to expand...

You could just as easily level the accusation that the Scottish will vote for what they think is best for Scotland, not the union.
And what about the welsh, they should have a say, and the northern Irish.
Strikes me the only fair way to decide on a break up of the union is to give everyone affected a vote, and that would be everyone in the union, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and yes, English.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 14, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Anyway - even if I moved back to Scotland today I'm not sure I'd qualify as I won't have been resident for long enough.  

And so I am resigned to not getting a vote.  TBH - I really don't understand why there seems to be such opposition in Scotland to giving a referendum vote to folks such as I - borne in Scotland and therefore Scottish.  Does someone somehow know how we'd be likely to vote?  Have their been any opinion polls looking at this.  I haven't seen any,
		
Click to expand...

My guess is that the SNP reckon most of you would vote against independence, what with living in the UK but outside Scotland. Much like they think the majority of 16 and 17 year olds will go for independence.


----------



## Val (Jun 14, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			My guess is that the SNP reckon most of you would vote against independence, what with living in the UK but outside Scotland. Much like they think the majority of 16 and 17 year olds will go for independence.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on I reckon.


----------



## stevie_r (Jun 14, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Anyway - even if I moved back to Scotland today I'm not sure I'd qualify as I won't have been resident for long enough.  

And so I am resigned to not getting a vote.  TBH - I really don't understand why there seems to be such opposition in Scotland to giving a referendum vote to folks such as I - borne in Scotland and therefore Scottish.  Does someone somehow know how we'd be likely to vote?  Have their been any opinion polls looking at this.  I haven't seen any,
		
Click to expand...

Why should you have any right to help determine the future of a country that you left and presumably have no intention of returning to (to be habitually resident) in the near future?  A country that, in the unlikely event of the yes vote winning, you would be contributing nothing to.  No, you should not get a vote.

It's akin to the expat workers in Libya when the revolution kicked off; they were there for their own financial gain, contributed nothing to the UK economy and yet expected HMG to come and rescue them.


----------



## stevie_r (Jun 14, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hobbit.....that is the problem.....you already have far too much of a say.
The Tories will probably be the main party in the UK for the next 20 years.
There is one Tory MP in Scotland  [Repeat ONE]
The Scottish Tories have a lesbian kick boxer as a leader and many in the party wanted to change their name to disassociate them form the Tory party.

*That is part of the reason why the UK's wealth is based in SE England.*
We just want a fair bite of the cherry.
For me DevoMax would work well, as near to independence as possible without breaking up the Union.
Many folk in Scotland feel as I do but we have no say in the matter as the English will always vote for what is best England and not the Union.
		
Click to expand...

What is?


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 14, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hobbit.....that is the problem.....you already have far too much of a say.
		
Click to expand...

lol - do you honestly believe any member of the public influences any party once they're in power? 

Anyway, we want your oil money...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

and so after a week in the land of my birth but a land which does not value me sufficient to give me a vote in the referendum - I come away with the overriding impression of everything the YES campaign saying being rebutted by the BT campaign with much "whataboutery".  Whilst at the same time when asked about what happens after a NO voter - the BT campaign clam up.  Moves towards a devo max and additional powers? - what'll these moves and powers be and when?  Silence.  

Is that the choice - YES or no change.  My impression is that 'no change' is not what the BT team are saying - but ask what change and when and nothing is forthcoming - absoultely nothing.   So how can the voters in the referendum make a straight choice.  Aspirational if rather undefined stuff from the YES campain - with panic and uncertainty being spread by BT around a YES vote along with obfuscation on their alternative if it is not 'no change'.  

Do the voters want no change - or will they vote NO trusting the coalition to deliver something that at present BT and the Coalition can't or won't define.  What actually is the choice?  Never mind after a YES then what? who is answering the question 'after a NO then what?'


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2013)

I think that  Devo Max is exactly what the majority of the country want but they are not being allowed to express their preference.
If they get loads of Devo Max spoiled papers in the ballot box what next?

There is no doubt that the SNP are doing a good job running the country and I hope that they will continue to be a party if the No Vote is successful. 

The Tories and Lib/Dems are now dead ducks and Labour is an even bigger shambles than when it was in power.

The only hope for the future is that Tories change their name to a Scottish Unionist Party and the Scottish Liberals re invent themselves as a separate Scottish party and New Labour start representing the workers rather than those not in work.

SNP and Devo Max seems like the best way forward to me.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 19, 2013)

Seems it's a given that a no vote = devo max. 

The real disenfranchised are the "no change" or the "undo devolution" voters.


----------



## CMAC (Aug 19, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			and so after a week in *the land of my birth but a land which does not value me sufficient to give me a vote in the referendum* - I come away with the overriding impression of everything the YES campaign saying being rebutted by the BT campaign with much "whataboutery".  Whilst at the same time when asked about what happens after a NO voter - the BT campaign clam up.  Moves towards a devo max and additional powers? - what'll these moves and powers be and when?  Silence.  

Is that the choice - YES or no change.  My impression is that 'no change' is not what the BT team are saying - but ask what change and when and nothing is forthcoming - absoultely nothing.   So how can the voters in the referendum make a straight choice.  Aspirational if rather undefined stuff from the YES campain - with panic and uncertainty being spread by BT around a YES vote along with obfuscation on their alternative if it is not 'no change'.  

Do the voters want no change - or will they vote NO trusting the coalition to deliver something that at present BT and the Coalition can't or won't define.  What actually is the choice?  Never mind after a YES then what? who is answering the question 'after a NO then what?'
		
Click to expand...

you don't value it either or you would still be here! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your choice to leave, that's your choice, but theres no point in moaning about something that really doesnt affect your life at all.

P.S Whats British Telecom got to do with it


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2013)

BT= Better Together. [for listeners in England and Wales] = Naw


----------



## CMAC (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			BT= Better Together. [for listeners in England and Wales] = Naw
		
Click to expand...

cheers Doon :thup:


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			BT= Better Together. [for listeners in England and Wales] = Naw
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, i too was wondering what British Telecom had to do with it


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 19, 2013)

DarthVega said:



*you don't value it either or you would still be here!* I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your choice to leave, that's your choice, but theres no point in moaning about something that really doesnt affect your life at all.
		
Click to expand...

There's a couple of ridiculously insular statements in there imo, particularly the bold bit.

Unless you know SiLH well, the 1st and 3rd statements are pure speculation.


----------



## rosecott (Aug 19, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			Thanks, i too was wondering what British Telecom had to do with it

Click to expand...

I was composing a rant about BT fannying about in politics when my broadband still needs sorting.


----------



## CMAC (Aug 19, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			There's a couple of ridiculously insular statements in there imo, particularly the bold bit.

Unless you know SiLH well, the 1st and 3rd statements are pure speculation.
		
Click to expand...

eh?

is this a 5 minute argument or the full half hour? :rofl:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2013)

Anyway...........whit's this got to do with the OP's point.

I think we should keep The Open in Scotland as this year has definitely proved that Scotland has better summer weather than England.


----------



## CMAC (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Anyway...........whit's this got to do with the OP's point.

I think we should keep The Open in Scotland as this year has definitely proved that Scotland has better summer weather than England.
		
Click to expand...

going up to 27* 28* doon sooth this week, I've had to put my heating on up here


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think that  Devo Max is exactly what the majority of the country want but they are not being allowed to express their preference.
If they get loads of Devo Max spoiled papers in the ballot box what next?

SNP and Devo Max seems like the best way forward to me.
		
Click to expand...

Which may well be the case - but the Coalition government knocked that one on the head by only permitting a yes/no on independence.  This leaves the likes of yourself asking 'what powers and when' on the road to devo max.  And for that I could glean little information (even although some might think it odd that I should express an interest in tghe debate even although I have disenfranchised myself by 'chosing' to not return to Scotland - yet).


BTW - my mother (82 yrs this year) tells me that she's not that bothered whether it's Yes or No as at her age it won't really affect her.   Interestingly (to me anyway) -  with me being her eldest son and my dad passed away - and with my immediate and all my very wide extended family still all living in Scotland, my mother is clear that the outcome of the vote is of more relevance to me than her - and so she thinks I should be able to vote - in whatever way that vote is incorporated in the decision making process.  So much for the argument restricting the vote to domiciles as only domiciles will be affected - well not all domicile Scots see it that way.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

...and I'll add - will a 49/51 split be an acceptable outcome either way?  Maybe in such ciurcumstances a Scots born non-domiciles vote could then be incorporated in a weighted manner to take the broader view and maybe get confirmation one way or the other.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2013)

It is a dead duck now Hogan.
Has been since Soapy showed his busted flush over NATO and the Euro.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is a dead duck now Hogan.
Has been since Soapy showed his busted flush over NATO and the Euro.
		
Click to expand...

Well I hope it isn't close one way or the other.

BTW - what will happen after a NO vote?  Does anyone know?  Status quo or trust in Cameron and his Westminster buddies to offer devo max powers after the deed is done?  What about reforms to the Barnett Formula that will inevitably come about once the threat of independence is seen off - anyone on the BT front telling Scots what's going to happen to that?  Hmmm - thought not.


----------



## williamalex1 (Aug 19, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well I hope it isn't close one way or the other.

BTW - what will happen after a NO vote?  Does anyone know?  Status quo or trust in Cameron and his Westminster buddies to offer devo max powers after the deed is done?  What about reforms to the Barnett Formula that will inevitably come about once the threat of independence is seen off - anyone on the BT front telling Scots what's going to happen to that?  Hmmm - thought not.
		
Click to expand...

After the no vote,  1966 will keep getting mentioned on STV.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2013)

Devo max would be OK with most people but if it means England has to bankroll it then the English should also have a vote.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 19, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Devo max would be OK with most people
		
Click to expand...

Seems to be the de facto position of all politicians. Not necessarily true, however, so should not be assumed!


----------



## Driven2Distraction (Aug 19, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Devo max would be OK with most people but if it means England has to bankroll it then the English should also have a vote.
		
Click to expand...

What???!!!! Surely you don't expect us to pay for it ourselves!!!?? Alex Salmond promised that it would be free........... along with free further education, more nurses, policemen, firemen, jobs, World Cup wins etc etc etc.... The new Alba will be just like Iceland, Oh - hang on a sec, Ireland.... or was it Spain... or Greece, no - Norway! thats it! Now give us us our oil money back! :thup: 

....... and if you want a vote you'll need to form an orderly queue behind the 16 yr olds and non-domiciles....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

So if the majority of Scots do not want the status quo and want devo max then how is that going to happen.  Ruth Davidson promising some form of transfer, of some sorts of powers, at some point in the future along with some change in the Barnett formula to pay for it.  So that's what a NO vote will bring then is it?  And you trust a Westminster government to deliver that - whatever it may or might not be?

Absolutely clear to me then - the BT campaign have nothing to say to the voter other than fear of the unknown around a YES vote when they cannot themselves define the unknown around a NO vote.  If my reading of the situation is wrong and that BT are clear about what will change for Scotland after a NO vote then please tell me - as I didn't spot it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2013)

I'll take your Devo Max and raise it HS2.

HS2 Nobody wants it.
It stops at Birmingham
It will cost Â£80 BILLION
And Scots have to pay for it.
Fantastic.

At least we paid oor ain money for the Edinburgh Trams fiasco.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I'll take your Devo Max and raise it HS2.

HS2 Nobody wants it.
It stops at Birmingham
It will cost Â£80 BILLION
And Scots have to pay for it.
Fantastic.

At least we paid oor ain money for the Edinburgh Trams fiasco.
		
Click to expand...

Except where did that money come from - Westminster?  Holyrood may have decided to spend the money on the Embra trams but Holyrood didn't raise the money...


----------



## Sweep (Aug 19, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			No.

But you do have a point. Maybe you should have a referendum to see whether English politicians should campaign for the union or not.
		
Click to expand...

We should have a vote on whether we want to keep Scotland in the union.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 20, 2013)

Sweep said:



			We should have a vote on whether we want to keep Scotland in the union.
		
Click to expand...

Don't think you can do that. You could have a vote if you want to leave the union, that would be fair.


----------



## Driven2Distraction (Aug 20, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So if the majority of Scots do not want the status quo and *want devo max*

Click to expand...

There's two problems with this....
1) according to a leading Scottish publication - although most Scots "want" devo max, the vast majority of those that want it don't actually understand what it is..... are we as a nation really that desperate to "govern" ourselves that we're prepared to vote for ANYTHING, even if we don't actually know what it is, other than the status quo?!!?
2) devo max is a SHAM.... it's having our cake & eating it... it says, we'll have all of the best bits, but not the messy and/or expensive bits... it gives us more "power", yet leaves the SNP and it's supporters free to whinge for the next 20 years about Westminster.......

C'mon folks - we've either got the cajones to stand on our own and accept ALL that entails (one things for sure - it won't be the panacea that the SNP have us believe), or we don't.  Why go for a halfway house?




			Ruth Davidson promising some form of transfer, of some sorts of powers, at some point in the future along with some change in the Barnett formula to pay for it.  So that's what a NO vote will bring then is it?  And you trust a Westminster government to deliver that - whatever it may or might not be?
		
Click to expand...

This is good - so let me get this straight..... you don't trust Westminster but you'd trust the SNP who have *no plan whatsoever* for the practicalities of independence or the affordability of all of their promises?... merely the word of Alex Salmond and his band of merry men/women that things will be just super, and let's not worry about such trivialities??!!?:rofl:


I have nothing against independence...... but *surely* we need the full facts, warts'n'all, in front of us before we go rushing to a YES vote.  Anything else is really troubling...... after all - poor planning only gets you to one place in life, nomatter the situation


----------



## Sweep (Aug 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Don't think you can do that. You could have a vote if you want to leave the union, that would be fair.
		
Click to expand...

My point was a bit tongue in cheek  But the issue is Scotland leaving the Union, so we should all get a vote. If the Scots thought everyone else was going to kick them out of the Union, Salmonella and his cronies would soon shut up. There is a big difference between deciding to leave and being sacked!
BTW my reference to Salmonella was unintentional. It was predictive text that came up with that one. I just decided to leave it in. Modern technology is amazing, isn't it?


----------



## Jack_bfc (Aug 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I'll take your Devo Max and raise it HS2.

HS2 Nobody wants it.
It stops at Birmingham
It will cost Â£80 BILLION
And Scots have to pay for it.
Fantastic.

At least we paid oor ain money for the Edinburgh Trams fiasco.
		
Click to expand...


HS2 doesnt stop at Brum. It goes to Manchester and has a spur onto the WCML at Wigan...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 20, 2013)

Driven2Distraction said:



			There's two problems with this....
1) according to a leading Scottish publication - although most Scots "want" devo max, the vast majority of those that want it don't actually understand what it is..... are we as a nation really that desperate to "govern" ourselves that we're prepared to vote for ANYTHING, even if we don't actually know what it is, other than the status quo?!!?
2) devo max is a SHAM.... it's having our cake & eating it... it says, we'll have all of the best bits, but not the messy and/or expensive bits... it gives us more "power", yet leaves the SNP and it's supporters free to whinge for the next 20 years about Westminster.......

C'mon folks - we've either got the cajones to stand on our own and accept ALL that entails (one things for sure - it won't be the panacea that the SNP have us believe), or we don't.  Why go for a halfway house?



I have nothing against independence...... but *surely* we need the full facts, warts'n'all, in front of us before we go rushing to a YES vote.  Anything else is really troubling...... after all - poor planning only gets you to one place in life, nomatter the situation

This is good - so let me get this straight..... you don't trust Westminster but you'd trust the SNP who have *no plan whatsoever* for the practicalities of independence or the affordability of all of their promises?... merely the word of Alex Salmond and his band of merry men/women that things will be just super, and let's not worry about such trivialities??!!?:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I actually agree with all of the above.  My point about RD and the BT campaign is that there seems to be an assumption that a NO will not result in the status quo but additional powers - towards devo max (whatever that is).  

At the moment voters seem to be faced with a YES campaign unclear about consequences and "whatabouteries" and a NO campaign unwilling or unable to answer "whattheneries".  

The YES campaign will not be willing or able to answer all questions about what will happen after a YES - but they have to be honest on that and can only ask for a big bit of self-belief and faith.  The BT campaign likewise will not define what will happen next after a NO - but if they can't promise anything new then just say that and promise the status quo.  Problem is for BT I'm guessing that the status quo will be under pressure from voters in England re the Barnett formula and the West Lothian question.


----------



## Sweep (Aug 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I'll take your Devo Max and raise it HS2.

HS2 Nobody wants it.
It stops at Birmingham
It will cost Â£80 BILLION
And Scots have to pay for it.
Fantastic.

At least we paid oor ain money for the Edinburgh Trams fiasco.
		
Click to expand...

It's the same if you live in Manchester. 
However, I am glad you got your trams. Our system was supposed to be extended 15 years ago and it's just being done now. Why? because after buying up all the land, houses etc needed to extend the system, Alistair Darling decided the money was needed for the London Crossrail project, which was a cornerstone of the London Olympic bid.
In the end, it's all part of being a nation. Let's face it, London makes a load of cash for us all and I wouldn't live there for a gold pig.
If you want to cut yourself off from that kind of cash and want to leave the nation, go ahead and vote for independence. But it's a massive leap of faith in some very dodgy arithmetic IMO.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 20, 2013)

Sweep said:



			...go ahead and vote for independence. But it's a massive leap of faith in some very dodgy arithmetic IMO.
		
Click to expand...

which is true - but for many it is not simply about bawbees.  I find it sad, though understandable, that the independence debate largely seems to come to down to whether or not the individual would be financially better or worse off in the short term (let's say up to 10yrs).  

The independence vote isn't for the short term and the decision won't easily be reversable or changed - certainly not in the short term.  Unlike most referendum or votes this isn't one that can be revisited in 5, 10 or 20 yrs time.  Either way the decision is for most of us pretty much for good - one reason why I believe the broader non-dom Scots community should have some say in the decision.


----------



## Sweep (Aug 20, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			which is true - but for many it is not simply about bawbees.  I find it sad, though understandable, that the independence debate largely seems to come to down to whether or not the individual would be financially better or worse off in the short term (let's say up to 10yrs).  

The independence vote isn't for the short term and the decision won't easily be reversable or changed - certainly not in the short term.  Unlike most referendum or votes this isn't one that can be revisited in 5, 10 or 20 yrs time.  Either way the decision is for most of us pretty much for good - one reason why I believe the broader non-dom Scots community should have some say in the decision.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I was rather thinking would _Scotland_ be better off? Personally I doubt it and as I say would take a massive leap of faith by the Scottish people, especially considering, as you say, it's for good. Now, would _England _&#8203;be better of if Scotland voted to leave the Union? Therein lies an interesting question!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 20, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Absolutely agree. I was rather thinking would _Scotland_ be better off? Personally I doubt it and as I say would take a massive leap of faith by the Scottish people, especially considering, as you say, it's for good. Now, would _England _&#8203;be better of if Scotland voted to leave the Union? Therein lies an interesting question!
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - and I'll add that you can ask about a nation or indeed an individual being _better off_ in more contexts other than money.  

The truth is that I suspect that few if any have any real idea whether somene living in Scotland will be better off financially in say 5 or 10yrs time.  And once the deed is done either way it will not be possible to make that assessment - all will be hypothetical because there will be only one truth or actual state of affairs and nothing real to compare it with.  So you might as well just vote on the basis of things other than financial predictions of how better or worse off you'll be - because you'll never know.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

And so Radio 5Live debate on independence.  I have to say that the debate seems to revolve around the YES campaign trying to rebut claims from BT of lack of clarity about what will happen following a YES vote, and the BT campaign being unable or unwilling to define what will happen following a NO vote.

The point of that observation is that  the majority of Scots seem to want some form of change from the current situation.  For voters to make an informed decision I think they need to know what will happen and change after the vote.  The YES campaign need to try and firm up as best they can around what they are saying will change; the BT campaign need to do better than tell the voters that they'll come up with their proposals before the referendum on what will happen after a NO vote.  At the moment BT are offering nothing - so there is nothing to debate other than what the YES campaign is offering - is this cunning or cynical?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 16, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The point of that observation is that  the majority of Scots seem to want some form of change from the current situation.
		
Click to expand...

This is currently the most irritating thing about the whole "debate" for me. Every time the referendum is discussed it seems to be take as "given" that most scots want either independence or more devolution. Maybe that is the majority view, but nothing is ever given to back up that assumption....

Personally, I'd roll the whole thing back and do away with the Scottish parliament! It seems those with my viewpoint are disenfranchised....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2013)

I see that the BBC has been accused of biased national attitudes towards the independence vote.
That is no real shock there but you would think that the British government would ensure an open and honest debate.
No surprise that a lot of BBC programming has been switched to Scotland in the last couple of years. Finally giving us a few crumbs to feed off.
The timing of the Royal Mail sell off also appears to be politically motivated to cause as much confusion as possible. Surely that could have been delayed until after the vote.

From what I gather there has been practically no media debate on the issue outside of Scotland. 
As a fully independent Scotland would have a big impact on the rest of the UK, I find that disturbing.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			This is currently the most irritating thing about the whole "debate" for me. Every time the referendum is discussed it seems to be take as "given" that most scots want either independence or more devolution. Maybe that is the majority view, but nothing is ever given to back up that assumption....
		
Click to expand...

On basis of polls showing a liking for the notion of Devo Max I assume.




			Personally, I'd roll the whole thing back and do away with the Scottish parliament! It seems those with my viewpoint are disenfranchised....
		
Click to expand...

Which cannot happen.  So your 2nd preference?  (you don't need to answer that - just that your 1st preference is a non-starter, in fact doesn't even qualify for consideration)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			From what I gather there has been practically no media debate on the issue outside of Scotland. 
As a fully independent Scotland would have a big impact on the rest of the UK, I find that disturbing.
		
Click to expand...

Correct - why I listened to the debate on national radio this morning.

BTW I wrote to my constituency MP (Jeremy Hunt) and both the MSP (Ken Macintosh) and the Westmister MP (Jim Murphy) for my 'home' Glasgow constituency opn ther voting franchise not covering non-doms.  Interestingly the latter two (for non-Scots on here both Labour) seemed to assume that as a non-dom I would have voted NO and in their replies were critical to varying degrees of the decision to not allow me to vote - but stated that the matter was settled.

Jeremy of course, understandably wished success for the BT (NO) campaign.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 16, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Which cannot happen.  So your 2nd preference?  (you don't need to answer that - just that your 1st preference is a non-starter, in fact doesn't even qualify for consideration)
		
Click to expand...

Obviously isn't going to happen but my real "issue" is that the status quo appears to not be an option. We're slipping even further down the devolution road without even asking if it's what people want.

I'd be interested to see any polls that asked a fair choice between status quo/devo max/independence just to see how out of step I am with popular opinion.   Got any links?

I think a lot of people favour devo max as a way to appease the independence supporters.


----------



## mikee247 (Sep 16, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			lol - do you honestly believe any member of the public influences any party once they're in power? 

Anyway, we want your oil money...
		
Click to expand...

"your oil money"? dont you mean  "Our oil money?"    We dont want your benefit drain though thanks.... you can keep that. And that weird bag pipe thingy..... No ta.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2013)

mikee247 said:



			"your oil money"? dont you mean  "Our oil money?"    We dont want your benefit drain though thanks.... you can keep that. And that weird bag pipe thingy..... No ta.
		
Click to expand...

I think the housing benefit paid to the SE of England would be a far greater sum than the oil revenues to the national account.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2013)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...to-reject-independence-re-elect-snp-1-3082139

Good indication to the rest of the UK as to where Scotland stands


----------



## Shaunmg (Sep 16, 2013)

If Scotland go independent;  I suggest us Northerners  vote to become part of Scotland. The southerners are welcome to have England all by themselves. 

Us Jocks can then still play the open at Birkdale, Lytham and Royal Liverpool.

Sorted!


----------



## Coatsy79 (Sep 16, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



*I think the housing benefit paid to the SE of England* would be a far greater sum than the oil revenues to the national account.
		
Click to expand...

Your probably right, but apparently it's in-human to ask anyone who relies on housing benefit in London to move somewhere cheaper


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Obviously isn't going to happen but my real "issue" is that the status quo appears to not be an option. We're slipping even further down the devolution road without even asking if it's what people want.

I'd be interested to see any polls that asked a fair choice between status quo/devo max/independence just to see how out of step I am with popular opinion.   Got any links?

I think a lot of people favour devo max as a way to appease the independence supporters.
		
Click to expand...

Well if there is no appetite for any change then the BT campaign seem on course to provide that.  If the vote is then NO there will be an election - and if any party then campaigns on a status quo then if that is the will of the people that party will form a government.  If, following a NO, rthere is a swell of opinion for some change then you can be sure the SNP will be in there campaigning on that basis - as may also might Scottish Labour.  So I wouldn't worry about whether or not there is a 'we want some change' majoprity.

But I should caution voters who may seek some move towards devo max.  It seems to me that a NO vote without commitment from the BT to deliver will result in no change.  And once you have no change you will be stuck with it and will have to operate within whatever future financial, market, economic and international environment Westminster determines for the UK.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 16, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well if there is no appetite for any change then the BT campaign seem on course to provide that.  If the vote is then NO there will be an election - and if any party then campaigns on a status quo then if that is the will of the people that party will form a government.  If, following a NO, rthere is a swell of opinion for some change then you can be sure the SNP will be in there campaigning on that basis - as may also might Scottish Labour.  So I wouldn't worry about whether or not there is a 'we want some change' majoprity.
		
Click to expand...

I'd be quite happy with that. However, with all the parties talking about some sort of increased devolution (without getting into specifics, as per usual for politicians) I fear nobody will seek a "no change" mandate. Perhaps that really is the overwhelming mood in the country, I'd just like to see that discussed rather than accepted as a fait accompli.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'd be quite happy with that. However, with all the parties talking about some sort of increased devolution (without getting into specifics, as per usual for politicians) I fear nobody will seek a "no change" mandate. Perhaps that really is the overwhelming mood in the country, I'd just like to see that discussed rather than accepted as a fait accompli.
		
Click to expand...

Quite agree with you there FD.

Interesting that in the Hootsmon [Scotsman] poll most felt that devo max would lead to greater taxes.
10,000 interviews give a pretty fair response.
I thought the Eton Mess made some kind of heart hearted promise towards devo max a few months ago.
Scottish Labour are totally lost with this they seem to be trying to agree with everyone...a bit like Blair before he was elected!!


----------



## mikee247 (Sep 16, 2013)

Coatsy79 said:



			Your probably right, but apparently it's in-human to ask anyone who relies on housing benefit in London to move somewhere cheaper 

Click to expand...

Is it really? lol  thats just typical of modern day politically correctness. Maybe we could sell it to them... hey guys move somewhere cheaper, its got lots of space, nice big hills and its own Major golf competition!! Maybe you can get a real job... as a caddy


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting that in the Hootsmon [Scotsman] poll most felt that devo max would lead to greater taxes.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed it might - as might no change also lead to greater taxes.  After all who is to stop a government Westminster increasing taxes and the Burnett formula being revised - especially with Scottish representation at Westminster reduced.  All of which become more likely once the threat of independence has gone and if devo max (whatever that might be) withers on the vine - with English voters screaming their heads off about *their *plight.

Scots might vote for no change in the referendum and subsequent Holyrood and Westminster elections - but that won't stop Westminster applying and imposing change on Scotland.  If I were a voter in Scotland I'd be worried about a post NO environment.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2013)

SWL
Independence is a total dead duck.
The percentage of Scots wanting it has never been lower [26%].

Is it not notable down south that most items on the UK national news now start with 'In England and Wales'.
That is because so much of the infrastructure in Scotland is now 'self governed' eg Law, Education, Health, Police, Envoirnment. That only leaves Defence and Finance and ?????
 I can't see that ever returning to where it was before devolution because it has been a great success.

There is very little at Westminster now to involve Scottish MP's. We might as well make them part time as there influence is waining every day.
Some form of additional independence is what is required while keeping Scotland in the UK.
If that involves tax control and it fails miserably....what then?


----------



## Stuart_C (Sep 16, 2013)

The sooner Scotland gets its independence the better.

Build a massive wall at the border and keep them all locked in.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 16, 2013)

Stuart_C said:



			The sooner Scotland gets its independence the better.

Build a massive wall at the border and keep them all locked in.
		
Click to expand...

Or us locked out


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			There is very little at Westminster now to involve Scottish MP's. We might as well make them part time as there influence is waining every day.
Some form of additional independence is what is required while keeping Scotland in the UK.
If that involves tax control and it fails miserably....what then?
		
Click to expand...

A strong NO vote will tell English voters that they will have to put up with Scotland as part of the union pretty much for good.  There will therefore be huge pressure from voters in England on their MPs to change things relating to Scotland.  And because of that there will be a reduction in number of Scottish constituency MPs at Westminster and because of that will come a reduction in the influence of Scots MPs on non-devolved matters; matters than can affect the budget available to Scotland under the Barnett formula; reduction in influence over defence matters including Trident (on the 'Clyde'); and the structure of the Barnett formula itself.  

England won't start to be out of the financial mire it is in for well after the referendum.  The pressure from English voters for change will not be able to be resisted and the views of Scottish voters will hardly count.  The view of some here of south of the border backs up this notion.  Scots should not underestimate or ignore the bad feeling that exists in many English towards aspects of public service funding and provision in Scotland compared with England.  The status quo for Scotland in a continued UK is not an option for voters in England.

This is one possible scenario of a NO vote and maybe why the BT campaign is not being very forthcoming with any guarantees about the 'what after a NO' question.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2013)

Stuart_C said:



			The sooner Scotland gets its independence the better.

Build a massive wall at the border and keep them all locked in.
		
Click to expand...

What about the English border folk who choose to use Scottish schools and doctors.
I think Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall would be much better off in Scotland.
Newcastle would also be guaranteed European football every year


----------



## Wildrover (Sep 17, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			What about the English border folk who choose to use Scottish schools and doctors.
I think Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall would be much better off in Scotland.
Newcastle would also be guaranteed European football every year
		
Click to expand...

I think you need to look an atlas if you think Cornwall is in the border country, border with Devon yes.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2013)

Wildrover said:



			I think you need to look an atlas if you think Cornwall is in the border country, border with Devon yes.
		
Click to expand...

It shares a sea border that used to be used quite a lot, will that do.
I just included Cornwall as they are quite like us.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Whilst I have no issue with regions of England wishing for their own devolution or independence (Cornwall, North East etc) - it seems to me that bringing them up in any discussion on independence for Scotland is frankly missing the point (deliberately or not) as they are irrelevant to the debate - indeed they are quite separate debates to be had.  The independence referendum debate is not about setting precedents - it is a debate about the future status of a country.  

Similarly jokes about erecting walls etc actually have a serious core as they both indicate a lack of understanding of the seriousness and importance to Scots of the referendum in Scotland to, and also the 'somewhat' negative attitude of many English towards the Scots.  In every joke there is a kernal of truth.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

I think the mood for independence is growing*, simply because Scotland can remove the Conservative party from our political process overnight.I know alot of English folk wish they could do the same.

*I realise polls don't reflect this, but they do show the undecideds growing at the expense of the No vote

People are also starting to see The NEW Labour party for what they are, perfectly displayed by Anas Sarwar last week.Oh for a Scottish Labour party going back to it's roots instead of this Democrat/Republican brutality we see in Westminster with the three main parties carbon copies of each other.

And if you don't cast your vote in Scotland, why do you think you should be entitled to do so on this special occasion?If a person leaves Scotland, it doesn't make them any less Scottish, but it makes your opinion invalid (unless yer dear auld ma lets you use her vote) I value the opinion of the Pole,Pakistani,Chinese or Spanish tax payer and resident in Scotland more than some ex-pat Jock proclaiming their love for Scotland more than yours.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			And if you don't cast your vote in Scotland, why do you think you should be entitled to do so on this special occasion?If a person leaves Scotland, it doesn't make them any less Scottish, but it makes your opinion invalid (unless yer dear auld ma lets you use her vote) I value the opinion of the Pole,Pakistani,Chinese or Spanish tax payer and resident in Scotland more than some ex-pat Jock proclaiming their love for Scotland more than yours.
		
Click to expand...

Have I not said that I have to accept that the voting franchise is now set and I will not get a vote.  That does not stop me commenting - or would you wish I shut up about that as the vote will not affect me and so I shouldn't even be commenting and taking part in the debate.

Actually having reread your post you DONT think I should comment




			If a person leaves Scotland, it doesn't make them any less Scottish, but it makes your opinion invalid
		
Click to expand...

and as far as this...




			I value the opinion of the Pole,Pakistani,Chinese or Spanish tax payer and resident in Scotland more than some ex-pat Jock proclaiming their love for Scotland more than yours
		
Click to expand...

Honest to god - I will not rise to this...

Because I can't believe that you actually mean wjhat you have written


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Have I not said that I have to accept that the voting franchise is now set and I will not get a vote.  That does not stop me commenting - or would you wish I shut up about that as the vote will not affect me and so I shouldn't even be commenting and taking part in the debate.

Actually having reread your post you DONT think I should comment



and as far as this...



Honest to god - I will not rise to this...

Because I can't believe that you actually mean wjhat you have written
		
Click to expand...

Of course I mean what I've written.

You chose to remove yourself from Scotland, for whatever reason, whether it's financial,personal or legal...you made that choice.When you made that choice, you presumably registered to vote/pay tax/use the services of the region/country you decided offered you superior options to those in Scotland.Those were all decisions that required a degree of thought, I'd guess.

So now the people who have decided to stay in Scotland (or move to Scotland) are being asked how the country they live in will be ran.It's only fair that those people (and not adios Andy) decide one way or another.

you can have an opinion on Scottish affairs on an online forum,pub,golf course or work place, but becuase all of those places are not in Scotland ( because of a choice you made) your opinion, when it comes to it, is invalid/unimportant/irrelevant 

you must see this as correct?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2013)

Who deserves the vote.
My Scottish nephew who moved to Hong Kong 10 years ago or my English born daughter who moved to Scotland 10 years ago.

Anyone who lives in Scotland is fine by me.


----------



## Dodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Of course I mean what I've written.

You chose to remove yourself from Scotland, for whatever reason, whether it's financial,personal or legal...you made that choice.When you made that choice, you presumably registered to vote/pay tax/use the services of the region/country you decided offered you superior options to those in Scotland.Those were all decisions that required a degree of thought, I'd guess.

So now the people who have decided to stay in Scotland (or move to Scotland) are being asked how the country they live in will be ran.It's only fair that those people (and not adios Andy) decide one way or another.

you can have an opinion on Scottish affairs on an online forum,pub,golf course or work place, but becuase all of those places are not in Scotland ( because of a choice you made) your opinion, when it comes to it, is invalid/unimportant/irrelevant 

you must see this as correct?
		
Click to expand...


Post of the week.


----------



## CMAC (Sep 17, 2013)

Stuart_C said:



			The sooner Scotland gets its independence the better.

Build a massive wall at the border and keep them all locked in.
		
Click to expand...

Leave a gate open though for all us normal people that would leave if that catastrophe ever materialised.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

DarthVega said:



			Leave a gate open though for all us normal people that would leave if that catastrophe ever materialised.
		
Click to expand...

Never knew Anas Sarwar posted on here.

Can you specifically tell me how it would be a catastrophe please?

Do you mean financially?It would be a catastrophe because all the money raised in Scotland would stay in Scotland?

Do you mean with reference to the military?The majority of Scottish people want trident subs removed from our country and oppose the wars Westminster seem determined to continue to lead The UK into.

Do you mean because you agree with The Barnett Formula?As the tory/labour/lib dem govts continue to privatise The NHS in rUK, the calculation used to decide the block grant means our grant gets reduced.Thats a catastrophe.

Do you mean because you're happy that Westminster re-drew maritime borders so when you're playing golf in St.Andrews and you look out over the North Sea, you're looking at English waters.The border used to be where you'd expect it to be.Wonder why they did that?

It would be a catastrophe if Scotland became the first ever country, in the history of countries, to be laden with natural resources and become poorer.

If you could give me a specific reason why it would be a catastrophe, I'd be surprised and you should go speak to Darling, darling as he refuses.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 17, 2013)

As people of the world we should be coming together, not pulling apart. That's why I'm voting no.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			As people of the world we should be coming together, not pulling apart. That's why I'm voting no.
		
Click to expand...

That's seriously why you are voting no?Will you be driving to the voting station in your hover car or riding on your unicorn?

Although, in fairness, you'd have the same representation in a galactic empire that you have currently in Westminster


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			That's seriously why you are voting no?Will you be driving to the voting station in your hover car or riding on your unicorn?

Although, in fairness, you'd have the same representation in a galactic empire that you have currently in Westminster
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm philosophically opposed to it. Couldn't care less if independence makes me better or worse off economically. 

Ridicule that if you like it's certainly better than those who will vote yes purely out of anti-English hatred.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Ridicule that if you like it's certainly better than those who will vote yes purely out of anti-English hatred.
		
Click to expand...


I'd ridicule them too, mibbe even a wee bit more than those who are taking a Michael Jackson 'we are the world' approach to it.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I'd ridicule them too, mibbe even a wee bit more than those who are taking a Michael Jackson 'we are the world' approach to it.
		
Click to expand...

We can make a better day, adi. Just you and me.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi, if you want change, you've only really got to look at the man in the mirror.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Of course I mean what I've written.

You chose to remove yourself from Scotland, for whatever reason, whether it's financial,personal or legal...you made that choice.When you made that choice, you presumably registered to vote/pay tax/use the services of the region/country you decided offered you superior options to those in Scotland.Those were all decisions that required a degree of thought, I'd guess.

So now the people who have decided to stay in Scotland (or move to Scotland) are being asked how the country they live in will be ran.It's only fair that those people (and not adios Andy) decide one way or another.

you can have an opinion on Scottish affairs on an online forum,pub,golf course or work place, but becuase all of those places are not in Scotland ( because of a choice you made) your opinion, when it comes to it, is invalid/unimportant/irrelevant 

you must see this as correct?
		
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here.  

First I chose to 'remove' myself from Scotland because there was no work for me - I got on my bike to get work rather than sit on my backside drawing the dole.

In the past I have argued why I thought it appropriate that I shold get a vote but I have already said that I now absolutely accept (with disappointment) that I will not get a vote in the referendum.  I also noted that both the Labour Westminster MP and the Labour Holyrood MSP for my *HOME* constituency both agreed that it was disappinting for non-dom Scots - putting it down to an SNP ploy to exclude non-dom Scots as we would be more likely to vote NO.

I don't at all understand or accept for one moment your argument about my opinion.  Are you telling me that as I am non-domicile and don't get a vote then I should keep my nose out of such Scottish affairs as the referendum that aren't my business - and hence that I should not come to Scotland and campaign for a YES or NO.  

Are you seriously telling me that if I thought that a vote YES or NO might significantly affect in a negative way the wellbeing of my mother, brother, sister, nephews, nieces etc in Scotland then that's just tough - it's got nothing to do with me.  So I should keep my anglo-centric and tainted thoughts to myself and in England where they belong?  I am not welcome to go to Scotland to campaign on the referendum as I do not live there?  

REALLY?  Because that is how I read your views and I would get an infraction and probably an outright ban if I expressed what I thought of such views and anyone expressing them.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Dodger said:



			Post of the week.
		
Click to expand...

You are kidding...I believe


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yeah, I'm philosophically opposed to it. Couldn't care less if independence makes me better or worse off economically.
		
Click to expand...

On that all I'd say is that Scotland would be moving from a semi-detached position within the EU - being attached to the EU only through Westminster and even then attached in the manner Westminster decides (and that could soon become DE-tached) to an position directly attached to the EU in a manner decided by Holyrood.  

So it strikes me that as your philosophy is to be part of the greater whole, then the best chance of that being the case would be in the context of an independent Scotland as a member of the EU.  By staying in the UK you risk being a part of a fragmentation as England detaches the UK from the EU.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			On that all I'd say is that Scotland would be moving from a semi-detached position within the EU - being attached to the EU only through Westminster and even then attached in the manner Westminster decides (and that could soon become DE-tached) to an position directly attached to the EU in a manner decided by Holyrood.  

So it strikes me that as your philosophy is to be part of the greater whole, then the best chance of that being the case would be in the context of an independent Scotland as a member of the EU.  By staying in the UK you risk being a part of a fragmentation as England detaches the UK from the EU.
		
Click to expand...

That indeed is a risk but its by no means certain that the uk will quit Europe. I'd go so far as to say its unlikely although, what would I know, politicians frequently surprise me.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			That indeed is a risk but its by no means certain that the uk will quit Europe. I'd go so far as to say its unlikely although, what would I know, politicians frequently surprise me.
		
Click to expand...

You need to find out about what folk in England think about staying in the EU and the support for UKIP...

If Scotland stays in the union and the UK does leave the EU then you are in a pickle - philosophically - as you have effectively voted for the scenario that has ended up with exactly the opposite effect to what your sole intention in voting was to achieve.  At least were you to vote YES then you are voting for the position most likely to have Scotland in Europe/EU in the long term.

So if 'in EU or out of EU' in the long term was my sole criteria for how I voted, I know how I'd vote.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But if Scotland stays in the union and the UK does leave the EU then you are in a pickle - philosophically - as you have effectively voted for the scenario that has ended up with exactly the opposite effect to what your sole intention in voting was to achieve.  At least were you to vote YES then you are voting for the position most likely to have Scotland in Europe/EU in the long term.

So if 'in EU or out of EU' in the long term was my sole criteria for how I voted, I know how I'd vote.
		
Click to expand...

You can't vote against your principles in one referendum just because you fear the next one might go against you. I'll vote Scotland to stay in uk then uk to stay in Europe. Hopefully, both will go my way.

Anyway, one school of thought is that a newly independent Scotland would find itself outside the eu anyway. Impossible of course for the ordinary voter to know the truth of that against the smokescreen put up by both side in the debate.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*Am I missing something here. * 

First I chose to 'remove' myself from Scotland because there was no work for me - I got on my bike to get work rather than sit on my backside drawing the dole.

I also noted that both the Labour Westminster MP and the Labour Holyrood MSP for my *HOME* constituency both agreed that it was disappinting for non-dom Scots - putting it down to an SNP ploy to exclude non-dom Scots as we would be more likely to vote NO.

I don't at all understand or accept for one moment your argument about my opinion.  Are you telling me that as I am non-domicile and don't get a vote then I should keep my nose out of such Scottish affairs as the referendum that aren't my business - and hence that I should not come to Scotland and campaign for a YES or NO.  

Are you seriously telling me that if I thought that a vote YES or NO might significantly affect in a negative way the wellbeing of my mother, brother, sister, nephews, nieces etc in Scotland then that's just tough - it's got nothing to do with me.  So I should keep my anglo-centric and tainted thoughts to myself and in England where they belong?  I am not welcome to go to Scotland to campaign on the referendum as I do not live there?  

REALLY?  Because that is how I read your views and I would get an infraction and probably an outright ban if I expressed what I thought of such views and anyone expressing them.

Click to expand...

*
No, you seem to have caught the gist of it.*

Less of the Tebbit-ism's please, this is a family forum

There are no MSP's in England so this cannot be possible.And anything that annoys the utter bawbags at New Labour must be a good thing for every man,woman and child on this wonderful island of ours

Tough if you don't accept it, but those are the facts, based on a decision YOU made.Come and visit us anytime you like, campaign for either side.Bit weird if you ask me, considering you can't vote, but each to their own in gods own country.

Calm down,dear...between this and Syria your blood pressure must be a touch high.But, aye, it's got nowt to do with you now.You can be upset by things that affect your family, but because you cannot  affect the political process, all you can do is sit back, watch and try not to combust.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2013)

I always smile when I hear that Scotland is being propped up by English funding.

Population of Scotland 5.25 million
Population of England 4 million [that is those who are unemployed or claiming jobseekers allowance.
[Then factor in the SE England housing benefit of Â£85 trillion]






I was joking about the last bit!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			You can't vote against your principles in one referendum just because you fear the next one might go against you. I'll vote Scotland to stay in uk then uk to stay in Europe. Hopefully, both will go my way.

Anyway, one school of thought is that a newly independent Scotland would find itself outside the eu anyway. Impossible of course for the ordinary voter to know the truth of that against the smokescreen put up by both side in the debate.
		
Click to expand...

Except the Scottish voice in a UK referendum is noisy but of little consequence if English sentiment continues on the route it is currently going in respect of the EU.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2013)

I wonder if in the next election UKIP will gain enough seats to form a coalition with the Tories?
That should set the cat amongst the pigeons.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



*
No, you seem to have caught the gist of it.*

Less of the Tebbit-ism's please, this is a family forum

Click to expand...

All right then - I got off my backside to get work and that meant I had to travel to England - and I went by train - that OK?




There are no MSP's in England so this cannot be possible.And anything that annoys the utter bawbags at New Labour must be a good thing for every man,woman and child on this wonderful island of ours

Click to expand...

I didn't say there were. You have made an incorrect assumption.  My HOME constinuencies as far as I am concerned are in the south side of Glasgow.  I stay in England. 




Tough if you don't accept it, but those are the facts, based on a decision YOU made.Come and visit us anytime you like, campaign for either side.Bit weird if you ask me, considering you can't vote, but each to their own in gods own country.

Click to expand...

LOL You honestly think that if I thought something might be detrimental to my family in Scotland that I'd just say - ah well - nothing I can do about it?  Well you might - I wouldn't.  The facts are that I can 't vote.  That does not mean I can't argiue or indeed campaign one way or the other - either on here or in Glasgow.  And btw I would bother because I care about Scotland - maybe I shouldn't given some of the idiots who live there and the views that some hold.  And pray tell where is gods own country?




Calm down,dear...between this and Syria your blood pressure must be a touch high.But, aye, it's got nowt to do with you now.You can be upset by things that affect your family, but because you cannot  affect the political process, all you can do is sit back, watch and try not to combust.

Click to expand...

I can affect it by more than those who have a vote but can't be bothered.   You also have no idea whether I'd vote YES or NO in the referendum had I a vote or who I'd campaign for - I suspect your assumption is quite wrong.  And you actually have no idea of whether I'd support a strike against Syrian regime given the conditions and evidence that would be presented as justification.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I can affect it by more than those who have a vote but can't be bothered.   You also have no idea whether I'd vote YES or NO in the referendum had I a vote or who I'd campaign for - I suspect your assumption is quite wrong.  And you actually have no idea of whether I'd support a strike against Syrian regime given the conditions and evidence that would be presented as justification.
		
Click to expand...

I'd take a wild guess at you voting yes.But you cannae so I don't really care.And my wee nod to Syria was over the way you totally misread the entire political nuance that everyone else seemed to get on that particular thread.It almost gave you an aneurysm by the looks of things.

You really are a drama queen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I'd take a wild guess at you voting yes.But you cannae so I don't really care.And my wee nod to Syria was over the way you totally misread the entire political nuance that everyone else seemed to get on that particular thread.It almost gave you an aneurysm by the looks of things.

You really are a drama queen.
		
Click to expand...

I did not misread the situation.  My point about Syria was that I thought it wrong for parliament to completely rule out military intervention regardless of any evidence that might be provided.  At no point did I advocate intervention based upon the evidence that was available a few weeks ago.  In fact I actually considered rebels forces being the source of the chemical weapn attack.

..and you should actually try reading and understanding what folks view is rather than make logical leaps.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 17, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I did not misread the situation.  *My point about Syria was that I thought it wrong for parliament to completely rule out military intervention regardless of any evidence that might be provided. * At no point did I advocate intervention based upon the evidence that was available a few weeks ago.  In fact I actually considered rebels forces being the source of the chemical weapn attack.

..and you should actually try reading and understanding what folks view is rather than make logical leaps.
		
Click to expand...

Bloody hell you're still doing it.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 17, 2013)

Gentleman , maybe this is one you just agree to disagree on

Either way can we calm down please

Thanks


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 18, 2013)

FWIW.

My view is that those born in Scotland and resident in UK should be eligible to vote.

I suspect eligibility criteria was based at least as much on perceived voting patterns as any other reasons.

Btw. I agree with SiLH wrt Syria. Sensible to not approve military action at the time, but daft to exclude anything in the future.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 18, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			FWIW.

My view is that those born in Scotland and resident in UK should be eligible to vote.

I suspect eligibility criteria was based at least as much on perceived voting patterns as any other reasons.

Btw. I agree with SiLH wrt Syria. Sensible to not approve military action at the time, but daft to exclude anything in the future.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Foxholer - nice to know I'm not alone, mad or a blood-thirsty warmonger.

I don't quite get what @Adi2Dassler is on about with the referendum thing.  All I'm saying is that though I do not have a vote (and I now accept that as being the case and that cannot be changed) - I have an opinion and can express it if I want.  And also if I wanted I would go to Scotland and campaign for YES or BT - and I have every right to do that. That's it.  That's all I'm saying. And if anyone is swayed one way or the other by my arguments - then I have done my bit to affect the outcome almost as much as if I had had a vote.

Anyway - I can't actually say anymore than that - other than to reiterate what I started out by asking (neutrally I thought).

> I am not hearing very much clarity from the BT campaign on 'what happens next' towards any form of devo-max following a NO vote
> How Scottish interests and views on non-devolved matters would be protected and promoted given a most likely lessened Scottish constuiency MP presence in Wesminster.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2013)

Woman on Radio Scotland this morning says

When I listen to the No's, it makes me want to vote Yes and when I listen to the Yes's I want to vote NO.

Politicians ehh!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 18, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Woman on Radio Scotland this morning says

When I listen to the No's, it makes me want to vote Yes and when I listen to the Yes's I want to vote NO.

Politicians ehh!
		
Click to expand...

Taking a detached and impartial view  the Yes campaign are vague about *risks *and *outcomes *associated with changes following a YES; BT are vague about the changes that might or *will *happen (both further devolved powers and Wesminster changes) following a NO


----------



## ger147 (Sep 18, 2013)

Getting back on topic, I'm not really sure what will happen to the Open if the Scots vote for independence but I'm sure it'll be top of the list of topics to be discussed if/when it happens.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2013)

Or more importantly, what will happen to the National Lottery.


----------



## drawboy (Sep 18, 2013)

I cannot believe this is being discussed it isn't important to us in England just get yourselves off and be done with it, job done, good luck in the future.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2013)

drawboy said:



			I cannot believe this is being discussed it isn't important to us in England just get yourselves off and be done with it, job done, good luck in the future.

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point that 74% of Scots don't want it.

Imagine if it was 26% of English folk wanted to leave the European Council if that makes it easier.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 18, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You seem to be missing the point that 74% of Scots don't want it.

Imagine if it was 26% of English folk wanted to leave the European Council if that makes it easier.
		
Click to expand...

Just my own random mind, but IF Scotland do gain independence, does anyone think it will affect Northern Ireland? Is it just me thinking that certain factions over there might push even harder for their own seperation? Or not?


----------



## Jdb2005 (Sep 18, 2013)

Say no to independance


----------



## Dodger (Sep 18, 2013)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Gentleman , maybe this is one you just agree to disagree on

Either way can we calm down please

Thanks
		
Click to expand...

I am struggling to see what warrants this Phil.

All I can see are two people passionately fighting their corner and to be honest it seems that anyone willing to put their head above the parapet and fight the 'Yes' corner get's kicked down as some sort of mad man that needs the help of a straight jacket.......on the other side anyone who fights the 'No' corner also gets kicked down too but to a lesser extent.

Politics eh?

We have a further year to go so you Mods best get prepared......:thup:


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 18, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Or more importantly, what will happen to the National Lottery.
		
Click to expand...

I DON'T GIVE A JOT ABOUT THE LOTTERY, WHEN THE PRICE DOUBLES COME OCTOBER I'M STOPPING FOR GOOD, AND SO IS THE SYNDICATE IVE BEEN IN SINCE THE FIRST DRAW. PURE GREED.:angry:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 18, 2013)

williamalex1 said:



			I DON'T GIVE A JOT ABOUT THE LOTTERY, WHEN THE PRICE DOUBLES COME OCTOBER I'M STOPPING FOR GOOD, AND SO IS THE SYNDICATE IVE BEEN IN SINCE THE FIRST DRAW. PURE GREED.:angry:
		
Click to expand...

Well that increases my chances of winning!  






(Statistics never were my strong point.....)


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 18, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well that increases my chances of winning!  






(Statistics never were my strong point.....)
		
Click to expand...

Best of luck FD, I hope you remember who increased your odds.:thup:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 18, 2013)

williamalex1 said:



			Best of luck FD, I hope you remember who increased your odds.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

I do agree with you though - sheer greed.

But.... I need to win!!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 18, 2013)

Dodger said:



			I am struggling to see what warrants this Phil.

All I can see are two people passionately fighting their corner and to be honest it seems that anyone willing to put their head above the parapet and fight the 'Yes' corner get's kicked down as some sort of mad man that needs the help of a straight jacket.......on the other side anyone who fights the 'No' corner also gets kicked down too but to a lesser extent.

Politics eh?

We have a further year to go so you Mods best get prepared......:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the words of encouragement Sir 

As it happens I haven't been arguing one way or the other - just raising questions that I think Scots (sorry - voters in Scotland) need to answer or have answered.  BT are rightly demanding answers from the YES campaign about RISKS that BT have come up with - and at the same time BT are being less than forthcoming about Scotland after a NO.  

At the moment it doesn't seem that either side is willing or able to tell the complete story on life after referendum.  But this doesn't surprise me as I'm thinking that actually it is just NOT POSSIBLE for either YES or BT campaigns to be absolutely clear about life after the referendum - YES or NO.  If the electors want certainty of that then they are going to be disappointed.  

It strikes me that BT have the easier job as they stand for the status quo - but of course a NO vote will not mean the current situation is maintained - maybe in the short term but not for good.  

I have heard (today and many times) a BT campaigner state that Scotland can have the best of both worlds - nice idea - but the English *just will not stand for that* and Scots better believe it.  Note - I believe I am qualified to make this observation as I live in England (did you know that) and have done for 30yrs - so I know how a lot of how the English think - which is more than Scots in Scotland do.   Because of that I don't believe that NO equates to No Change - but I don't know what it does equate to and BT don't seem keen on telling the voters.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2013)

Dodger said:



			I am struggling to see what warrants this Phil.

All I can see are two people passionately fighting their corner and to be honest it seems that anyone willing to put their head above the parapet and fight the 'Yes' corner get's kicked down as some sort of mad man that needs the help of a straight jacket.......on the other side anyone who fights the 'No' corner also gets kicked down too but to a lesser extent.

Politics eh?

We have a further year to go so you Mods best get prepared......:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Yes...well said Dodger.
Decent debate in my view.

PS 
It is spending the lottery grants i was thinking about.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 18, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well that increases my chances of winning!  






(Statistics never were my strong point.....)
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't - what it does is reduce the prize pot if you win but your odds of winning remain the same.


----------



## williamalex1 (Sep 18, 2013)

ger147 said:



			It doesn't - what it does is reduce the prize pot if you win but your odds of winning remain the same. 

Click to expand...

I was trying to cheer her up 147.More chance of a lotto win than a 147 I would imagine.:lol:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 18, 2013)

ger147 said:



			It doesn't - what it does is reduce the prize pot if you win but your odds of winning remain the same. 

Click to expand...

Yeah, as per the statistics not being my strong point comment... (I lied)


----------



## Andy808 (Sep 18, 2013)

Well it must be a done deal now that Scotland could have it's own team for the next Olympics. That's got to get the 74% who don't want it at the moment voting for independence now.

Politicians really do need a reality check at times, it's as bad as letting 16-18 year olds vote just to try their hardest to force through a vote they know they won't win.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2013)

Just had our first televised debate up here.

Interesting that the one guy who showed any vision and clarity was the leader of the Scottish Greens.


----------



## DCB (Sep 18, 2013)

A whole year of this to go.... unbelievable....... there were more tv vans outside the parliament today on my way home than there were after King Ecks last election win.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 18, 2013)

Not sure if I have enough DVD's to last till the end of Sept 2014 :mmm:


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 19, 2013)

Wow!

Thanks to this thread, and the questions it raises I've just read the detail for the Barnett Formula...

Scotland receives approx. Â£1,500 per head more than England. And bearing in mind, free prescriptions, free uni tuition etc you can understand why some English get a little anti... However, saying spending is based on need really doesn't justify the free 'bits' that conversely the ordinary (English) man in the street has to pay for. Also, when you dig down into the per head spending you find that England's figure also includes uni tuition fees, which in reality isn't public spending, but they're a loan to individuals that are paid back - the difference in the amount spent per head in England is actually greater. And certainly parts of the northeast and northwest of England could do with some decent spending.

Scotland's GDP per head is marginally lower than England's BUT that doesn't include oil & gas revenue. Include oil & gas and the GDP per head is almost Â£5k higher than England's - sounds like sound economic sense for Scotland to breakaway. But there's another "however." You'd then have to deduct the City of London's financial sector contribution, which even in the current economic climate is actually not far behind the oil & gas revenue - gob smacked me how much the C o L contribution is.

So, in truth, the financial arguments almost negate each other.

But surely desire for independence and self determination shouldn't be about money. It should be at a more base level...


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You seem to be missing the point that *74% of Scots don't want it.*

Imagine if it was 26% of English folk wanted to leave the European Council if that makes it easier.
		
Click to expand...




Andy808 said:



			Well it must be a done deal now that Scotland could have it's own team for the next Olympics. That's got to get *the 74% who don't want it at the moment *voting for independence now.

Politicians really do need a reality check at times, it's as bad as letting 16-18 year olds vote just to try their hardest to force through a vote they know they won't win.
		
Click to expand...


Show me one poll that confirms this please.Not only is it totally inaccurate, it perpetuates the myth the Conservatives and NEW Labour want.It's completely wrong.The No vote is winning right now and all the work has to be done by the yes campaign, but the same numbers were appearing about a year before the last national election in Scotland, look what happened there.There is also a suggestions that the undecideds are growing, and at the expense of the no vote, whilst the yes vote is pretty solid.

so if we're going to start throwing %'s about, please make sure they're backed up with actual factual data.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...-in-Scottish-referendum-voting-intention.aspx


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 19, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			Wow!

Thanks to this thread, and the questions it raises I've just read the detail for the Barnett Formula...

Scotland receives approx. Â£1,500 per head more than England. And bearing in mind, free prescriptions, free uni tuition etc you can understand why some English get a little anti... However, saying spending is based on need really doesn't justify the free 'bits' that conversely the ordinary (English) man in the street has to pay for. Also, when you dig down into the per head spending you find that England's figure also includes uni tuition fees, which in reality isn't public spending, but they're a loan to individuals that are paid back - the difference in the amount spent per head in England is actually greater. And certainly parts of the northeast and northwest of England could do with some decent spending.

Scotland's GDP per head is marginally lower than England's BUT that doesn't include oil & gas revenue. Include oil & gas and the GDP per head is almost Â£5k higher than England's - sounds like sound economic sense for Scotland to breakaway. But there's another "however." You'd then have to deduct the City of London's financial sector contribution, which even in the current economic climate is actually not far behind the oil & gas revenue - gob smacked me how much the C o L contribution is.

So, in truth, the financial arguments almost negate each other.

But surely desire for independence and self determination shouldn't be about money. It should be at a more base level...
		
Click to expand...

I find the Barnett formula strange.A block grant based % wise on what England/Wales spends on public services.So Scotland's grant is decided by how much whatever govt decides to spend on health etc...so the current privatisation of the NHS in England directly affects the amount of money Holyrood gets to spend on NHS Scotland.There are clear differences in direction with both, but we're going to be unable to continue to offer the services we want to because Cameron/Clegg are selling off bits of the NHS down south.

I agree with you it's not about money, but more about self determination, a voice on an international stage, the right to choose where to monger war and whether we want weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 19, 2013)

This will get nods of approval from many on here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...st-fortune-says-provocative-SIMON-HEFFER.html


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			This will get nods of approval from many on here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...st-fortune-says-provocative-SIMON-HEFFER.html

Click to expand...

Yes indeedee......The Daily Mail, says it all.

Adi I was quoting about the Scotsman poll which interviewed 10,000 citizens.
For vote was 26%
Which means 74 % are either undecided or No's
40% said that they would vote SNP at the next Holyrood election.

The SNP independence vote has stood pretty consistently at around 33% for the past 60 years.
You would have expected it to rise towards 2014 but it appears to be falling.

Agree that polls are not a great means of judgment but that was a big one 10,000 folk.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes indeedee......The Daily Mail, says it all.

Adi I was quoting about the Scotsman poll which interviewed 10,000 citizens.
For vote was 26%
Which means 74 % are either undecided or No's
40% said that they would vote SNP at the next Holyrood election.

The SNP independence vote has stood pretty consistently at around 33% for the past 60 years.
You would have expected it to rise towards 2014 but it appears to be falling.

Agree that polls are not a great means of judgment but that was a big one 10,000 folk.
		
Click to expand...

aye, but you cannae lump undecideds in with the no's man, that's just not cricket!

The SNP are a funny lot...I know a couple of SNP'ers who will vote No next year!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			Wow!

Thanks to this thread, and the questions it raises I've just read the detail for the Barnett Formula...
.
.
.
But surely desire for independence and self determination shouldn't be about money. It should be at a more base level...
		
Click to expand...

Hobbit - you get it - both sides.  

1) About English feeling on the status quo, as epitomised by the Barnett formula funding, when there is a NO and the union is safe - for ever?

2) That the debate and referendum shouldn't really be around arguments about the mostly short term financial impact on the individual and the family.  That is general election stuff.  This referendum is about a much greater thing - the future status of a country (and at least on that @Adi2Dassler and I are in complete agreement )  And yet for me to raise such is deemed by some and the BT/NO campaign - actually more so the opponents of YES - as emotional and tartan-covered clap-trap.  But seeing it as 'a bigger thing' is why I argued that I as a non-dom but passionate Scot (again emotional clap-trap) should be able to cast a vote.  A vote that would be counted in some way (maybe not on an equal basis as those cast in Scotland) and why I am disappointed that I don't get a vote on the grounds that I'm not (financially) affected - in the short term - or at least as long as I don't live in Scotland.

So to go back to your discovery on Barnett formula funding - I am sure that you will be more than happy for a NO vote to result in the status quo and Scotland having the 'best of both worlds'


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			This will get nods of approval from many on here...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...st-fortune-says-provocative-SIMON-HEFFER.html

Click to expand...

Just clicked on the link LOL 

And if they DON'T - will Mr Heffer just zip-it - I doubt it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			aye, but you cannae lump undecideds in with the no's man, that's just not cricket!

The SNP are a funny lot...I know a couple of SNP'ers who will vote No next year!
		
Click to expand...

Agrree, I was using lazy ignorant responses to the lazy ignorant posts on here from some of our neighbours who think everyone in Scotland want's independence. Sorry.

And quite a few Labour and Tory MSP will vote for independence.
Last nights debate was farcical at times. Goldie [former Scots Tory leader] was talking as if it was a given that the SNP will rule for the next 20 years. A labour/tory/liberal/green alliance could well be our next government


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 19, 2013)

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/bizforscotland-destroys-the-no-campaigns-bank-bail-out-lies/


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 19, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Hobbit - you get it - both sides.  

1) About English feeling on the status quo, as epitomised by the Barnett formula funding, when there is a NO and the union is safe - for ever?

2) That the debate and referendum shouldn't really be around arguments about the mostly short term financial impact on the individual and the family.  That is general election stuff.  This referendum is about a much greater thing - the future status of a country (and at least on that @Adi2Dassler and I are in complete agreement )  And yet for me to raise such is deemed by some and the BT/NO campaign - actually more so the opponents of YES - as emotional and tartan-covered clap-trap.  But seeing it as 'a bigger thing' is why I argued that I as a non-dom but passionate Scot (again emotional clap-trap) should be able to cast a vote.  A vote that would be counted in some way (maybe not on an equal basis as those cast in Scotland) and why I am disappointed that I don't get a vote on the grounds that I'm not (financially) affected - in the short term - or at least as long as I don't live in Scotland.

So to go back to your discovery on Barnett formula funding - I am sure that you will be more than happy for a NO vote to result in the status quo and Scotland having the 'best of both worlds'
		
Click to expand...

I'll be happy with a NO vote, but it has nothing to do with money. I was born in England, and proud to be so. But I'm British and see the Union as an equal partnership of all the countries in the Union. I feel we are better for that Union, both as an inward looking, single entity and in our standing in Europe.

On the one hand I'd like vote in this because it is the potential break up of our partnership, but that's like the husband who doesn't want his wife to leave. At the end of the day if someone wants to walk away, good luck.

As for Westminster doing x,y,z to the Scottish people. They are doing the exact same thing to ALL the people in the UK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			I'll be happy with a NO vote, but it has nothing to do with money. I was born in England, and proud to be so. But I'm British and see the Union as an equal partnership of all the countries in the Union. I feel we are better for that Union, both as an inward looking, single entity and in our standing in Europe.

On the one hand I'd like vote in this because it is the potential break up of our partnership, but that's like the husband who doesn't want his wife to leave. At the end of the day if someone wants to walk away, good luck.

As for Westminster doing x,y,z to the Scottish people. They are doing the exact same thing to ALL the people in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

All true but as to *this*, the bottom line is that the Scottish electorate has a 'once in many lifetimes' opportunity to change things if it wants.  If it doesn't, then any subsequent moaning about Westminster, London and the SE England might fall on rather deaf ears.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2013)

I find it very patronising that BT, in effect Labour Tories and the Lib Dems, all seem to hint at some form of Devo Max for a No vote.
It is a bit like you old Aunt saying 'you behave yourself and you might get a bar of chocolate'.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I find it very patronising that BT, in effect Labour Tories and the Lib Dems, all seem to hint at some form of Devo Max for a No vote.
It is a bit like you old Aunt saying 'you behave yourself and you might get a bar of chocolate'.
		
Click to expand...

They are hinting but not coming up with anything concrete at all at the moment - though Cameron has indicated that the government will put something forward before the referndum - how very decent of them.   I would suggest that anyone voting NO in expectation of a move towards devo max may be disappointed.  BTW - if the Westminster government changes at the next general election I suspect that new government could ignore or cancel any 'promises' made by the previous government in respect of devo max.  Apart from anything else the next GE is in and so not very long at all after the referendum for anything substantive to have been put in place in respect of change in teh event of a NO.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I find it very patronising that BT, in effect Labour Tories and the Lib Dems, all seem to hint at some form of Devo Max for a No vote.
It is a bit like you old Aunt saying 'you behave yourself and you might get a bar of chocolate'.
		
Click to expand...

They said the same in the 70's, then lumbered Scotland with Thatcher....not the most popular person up here.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			They said the same in the 70's, then lumbered Scotland with Thatcher....not the most popular person up here.
		
Click to expand...

...and so I wish BT would be clearer about what would happen - or NOT happen - after a NO vote.  In 5months time we have the European elections - and if UKIP do well I wait with interest to see what BT tell you all about risk asociated with UK position in Europe.  And then if UKIP in a few years time 'replace' Lib Dems as UK 3rd party and take their position in a future coalition government with the Tories.  Hmmm - not feeling a huge amount of synergy between Tory/UKIP coalition and Scots


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 20, 2013)

Am I right to assume that UKIP are basically an English National Party.
Like the Tories they only have support in England.
If Labour and the Lib/Dems lose ground to UKIP/Tories in England I would see that as a total disaster for Scotland.
The Tories have around 14 MP's outside of England and UKIP have no support outside England.

This leaves the rest of the UK outside of England lumbered with a right wing alliance no matter how they vote.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Am I right to assume that UKIP are basically an English National Party.
Like the Tories they only have support in England.
If Labour and the Lib/Dems lose ground to UKIP/Tories in England I would see that as *a total disaster for Scotland*.
The Tories have around 14 MP's outside of England and UKIP have no support outside England.

This leaves the rest of the UK outside of England lumbered with a right wing alliance no matter how they vote.
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly comment on *this *- just an observation from an interested bystander.   I think there may be some UKIP presence in Scotland - Nigel Farange was heckled and harrassed when on a visit a few months back to Edinburgh to assess UKIP strength north of the border.  

I do hope the Scots electorate are thinking beyond their purses and wallets, and actually also how the UK political situation itself may change over the coming years given that they will have little or no say in the nature of that change.  I wonder how many of those Farange hecklers will vote NO.

I'll note that this sort of stuff is the equivalent of the BTs 'fear' campain around a YES vote - but somehow expressing concern about what the impact of a Tory/UKIP coalition government could have on Scotland is dismissed as 'scaremongering', 'exaggeration' and 'itsnevergoingtohappenery'  - never going to happen?  Well not my risk to take.  Were that coalition to come about following the next UK/rUK General Election in 2015 - well Scotland would have decided whether that mattered to them or not - anyone got a crystal ball?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 20, 2013)

It is just more scaremongering though. 

This vote is about our identity as a nation - in the UK, or not. Far more important, IMO, than short term economics or concerns about what the next UK government may or may not do.

Post a "No" vote, as a Scot I will have as much say in the makeup of the next UK government as any other individual in England. If my view doesn't hold sway and a different government is elected, it's just democracy.

What happens post a "Yes" vote if part of Scotland disagrees with the majority view? A free state of Leith? Where does it end? Lets come together instead of pushing apart!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			It is just more scaremongering though. 

This vote is about our identity as a nation - in the UK, or not. Far more important, IMO, than short term economics or concerns about what the next UK government may or may not do.

Post a "No" vote, as a Scot I will have as much say in the makeup of the next UK government as any other individual in England. If my view doesn't hold sway and a different government is elected, it's just democracy.

*What happens post a "Yes" vote if part of Scotland disagrees with the majority view? A free state of Leith? Where does it end? Lets come together instead of pushing apart!*

Click to expand...

IMO you are showing a bit of blind faith in what a Wesminster governmetn may chose to do following a NO vote and I struggle to see why it is any more scaremongering than the BT campaign - which seems from where I watch - to be no more than scaremongering.

And on *this* the answer is easy - the Scottish electorate accepts the decision and then votes for the government it wants in the next Scottish General Election.  At least it has *that *control in it's own hand,s as opposed to not a lot of control and empathy over and with a Wesminster Tory/UKIP coalition government.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Sep 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			It is just more scaremongering though. 

This vote is about our identity as a nation - in the UK, or not. Far more important, IMO, than short term economics or concerns about what the next UK government may or may not do.

Post a "No" vote, as a Scot I will have as much say in the makeup of the next UK government as any other individual in England. If my view doesn't hold sway and a different government is elected, it's just democracy.

What happens post a "Yes" vote if part of Scotland disagrees with the majority view? A free state of Leith? Where does it end? Lets come together instead of pushing apart!
		
Click to expand...

Already exists, sign up forms available in the volley,tam o shanter,central and ladbrokes.

Regular meeting at the benches at the kirkgate, bring your own don revie, I'll buy you a hotdog


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 20, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			IMO you are showing a bit of blind faith in what a Wesminster governmetn may chose to do following a NO vote and I struggle to see why it is any more scaremongering than the BT campaign - which seems from where I watch - to be no more than scaremongering.

And on *this* the answer is easy - the Scottish electorate accepts the decision and then votes for the government it wants in the next Scottish General Election.  At least it has *that *control in it's own hand,s as opposed to not a lot of control and empathy over and with a Wesminster Tory/UKIP coalition government.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not showing any faith in what a westminster or scottish government will do. IMO it's just not relevant in this referendum. 

You're right - both sides are scaremongering. Don't assume that because I'll be voting "no" that I admire the BT campaign. 

You're assuming (scaremongering) a Tory/UKIP coalition... it may or may not happen and simply isn't relevant to any decision about Scottish independence. People need to see through the crap and make a decision for what it is not for any perceived SHORT TERM pain or gain.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 20, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Already exists, sign up forms available in the volley,tam o shanter,central and ladbrokes.

Regular meeting at the benches at the kirkgate, bring your own don revie, I'll buy you a hotdog
		
Click to expand...

Aye, I didn't make it up! :thup:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 20, 2013)

And I hear The Proclaimers are making a film about it, looks interesting.

Did Leith not go for City status a couple of years ago? That would have been interesting co-joined Cities in Scotland.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'm not showing any faith in what a westminster or scottish government will do. IMO it's just not relevant in this referendum. 

You're right - both sides are scaremongering. Don't assume that because I'll be voting "no" that I admire the BT campaign. 

You're assuming (scaremongering) a Tory/UKIP coalition... it may or may not happen and simply isn't relevant to any decision about Scottish independence. People need to see through the crap and make a decision for what it is not for any perceived SHORT TERM pain or gain.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not actually assuming anything - I'm pointing out a possibility - just as the BT campain are pointing out what are only possibilities about Scotland post a YES vote (though they make those possibilities sounds ''nailed on' likelihood).   As far as I can see BT are using that scaremongering as the basis of their NO campaign whilst wilfully ignoring the uncertainties associated with a YES vote.  Why are BT not telling you all the benefits that will come from staying together? The only plus I hear is backward lookinig - 'look at what a united kingdomn has achieved for Scotland *in the past*'  Oh yes - let's have a look back the last 40yrs and examine what it has done for Scotland.  Whilst interesting - as an argument for maintaining the union it doesn't get you very far.  After all - 10yrs ago coalition Westminster government? No chance...and today?  The past is the past and things change.  You are voting NO to maintain the union - when unfortunately you (and I to whom it doesn't matter) don't actually know what the nature of that union will be one year after a NO vote.  

And in the EU in 10 yrs? - being part of the greater rather than the lesser that you wish for - well who knows.  My bet wouldn't suit your hopes I'm afraid.  As previously pointed out - a YES vote would have Scotland as part of the greater EU whole almost certainly - the EU is by nature inclusive and would not reject an economically developed country like Scotland.  At least that way you know your sole criteria would be fulfilled - whereas the otehr way offers increasing uncertainty and increased possibility of withdrawel in some way from the EU.  I'm only saying - and it's only my opinion. But as it is your sole criteria...


----------



## chrisd (Sep 20, 2013)

I haven't read every posting in depth but enough to get a feel for the arguments, plus I was at Gleneagles a few weeks ago and spoke to one or two about the issue and definitely came away with the view that most in Scotland don't hate the English and I know that vice versa that to be true too.

I cant for one minute understand, other than for political gain, why every born Scot doesn't have the right to a vote. Surely that is a given right on such a major issue. To deny a person the vote because they currently reside in England and therefore are more likely to say NO is as outrageous as actually having a voting slip with NO removed as an option. If they want to rig the vote then they couldn't have planned it better.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I cant for one minute understand, other than for political gain, why every born Scot doesn't have the right to a vote. Surely that is a given right on such a major issue. To deny a person the vote because they currently reside in England and therefore are more likely to say NO is as outrageous as actually having a voting slip with NO removed as an option. If they want to rig the vote then they couldn't have planned it better.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Chris - you have just made me laugh so much - hysterical laughing btw which will make sense if you know my view on that matter


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 20, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I cant for one minute understand, other than for political gain, why every born Scot doesn't have the right to a vote. Surely that is a given right on such a major issue. To deny a person the vote because they currently reside in England and therefore are more likely to say NO is as outrageous as actually having a voting slip with NO removed as an option. If they want to rig the vote then they couldn't have planned it better.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a strong view on this one and can genuinely understand both sides of the argument. I'm sure if I was an ex-pat I'd want a vote but since I'm not it doesn't greatly bother me. I do believe those of us that live here have more invested and should take priority but I don't agree that those who have left should have no interest.

However, I'm actually prepared to cut Salmond some slack for once..... Perhaps it's just too difficult/expensive to give a vote to everyone born here who has subsequently left?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Perhaps it's just too difficult/expensive to give a vote to everyone born here who has subsequently left?
		
Click to expand...

Not really - I'm on the Register of Births & Deaths - and it will be held electronically (and not just scanned).  If I want a vote I register for one (Scotland doesn't need to go chasing me) and my details are checked against the database.  I'm confirmed as having been born in Scotland so I get sent information for a postal or on-line (if such exists) vote and my vote is subsequently handled accordingly. It's not as if there hasn't been plenty of time between the referendum announcement and voting day to have coped with requests.

Whether my vote would have only counted if the YES/NO margin was within a small tolerance (say 5%) and then/or  would have been weighted say 0.1 against a domicile vote of 0.9 - who knows.  I wouldn't have *expected *voting 'equality' with domicile voters but a say would have been nice.  However all that is neither here nor there as I'm not getting a vote.  And I've stopped arguing my case for one.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 20, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not really - I'm on the Register of Births & Deaths - and it will be held electronically (and not just scanned).  If I want a vote I register for one (Scotland doesn't need to go chasing me) and my details are checked against the database.  I'm confirmed as having been born in Scotland so I get sent information for a postal or on-line (if such exists) vote and my vote is handled accordingly.
		
Click to expand...

But how do they verify your identity? Especially if you've left the UK?

I don't know.... maybe it would be straightforward but seems open to abuse.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 20, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I haven't read every posting in depth but enough to get a feel for the arguments, plus I was at Gleneagles a few weeks ago and spoke to one or two about the issue and definitely came away with the view that most in Scotland don't hate the English and I know that vice versa that to be true too.

I cant for one minute understand, other than for political gain, why every born Scot doesn't have the right to a vote. Surely that is a given right on such a major issue. To deny a person the vote because they currently reside in England and therefore are more likely to say NO is as outrageous as actually having a voting slip with NO removed as an option. If they want to rig the vote then they couldn't have planned it better.
		
Click to expand...

Should they remove the vote from people not  born in Scotland that reside there?

Will they want their Eggs and Oats back?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 20, 2013)

It's the voters roll...........simples.
When I lived in England I cast a vote for an English MP even though I was Scottish.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			But how do they verify your identity? Especially if you've left the UK?

I don't know.... maybe it would be straightforward but seems open to abuse.
		
Click to expand...

Actually all you'd need to provide would be your passport number or birth certificate number - anyway - it's not going to happen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 20, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It's the voters roll...........simples.
When I lived in England I cast a vote for an English MP even though I was Scottish.
		
Click to expand...

Mind you there will be plenty of folk who have lived out of Scotland for up to 15yrs who will get a vote (I guess if they haven't registered elsewhere in the UK) - now they are not the most likely to bve affected.  ANYWAY - it doesn't matter as the franchise is set.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 9, 2013)

Jack Wilshire on a hiding to nothing suggesting that a Belgian of Kosova-Albanian parents should not have a say in the future of England even though he could through residency.  Come on Jack - don't you know that in Scotland any old Belgian Kosovan-Albanian with residency has a right to determine the future of Scotland so get real.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 9, 2013)

The SNP have just nationalised Prestwick Airport.......Pure deid brilliant. [That is their current naff advertising slogan for readers in England]


----------



## USER1999 (Oct 9, 2013)

If the Scottish get independence, does that mean us southerners can stay on summer time all year? If so, I'm suddenly in favour.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Jack Wilshire on a hiding to nothing suggesting that a Belgian of Kosova-Albanian parents should not have a say in the future of England even though he could through residency.  Come on Jack - don't you know that in Scotland any old Belgian Kosovan-Albanian with residency has a right to determine the future of Scotland so get real. 

Click to expand...

I was surprised to learn this morning that it seems you only need to reside in a country for 5 years to become eligible to play for that country. Whilst I would like the kid to play for England, let's face it, he is never going to be English. It does seem to make a mockery of the whole international football thing.
I wonder if the same thing applied if you were born in England and a month later your parents moved to Rio before moving back home when you were 6. You never go back, but it turns out you are pretty good at booting a ball. Suddenly, when you are 28 you get a call from some mate of Pele and the next thing you know you are part of a World Cup winning team for a country you can hardly remember living in. Hmmm.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2013)

...Or....
maybe we should bring in an international transfer window! That way only the richest countries could win.
Who is your money on to win the World Cup Final in Qatar? It's China v Qatar. The hosts have home advantage, but China have Ronaldo and Messi.
And the scots could use all that fictitious oil money to buy themselves a decent goalie.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 9, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			If the Scottish get independence, does that mean us southerners can stay on summer time all year? If so, I'm suddenly in favour.
		
Click to expand...

Good call. I could do with an extra hour of sun a day.

That's how it works, right?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 9, 2013)

Sweep said:



			And the scots could use all that fictitious oil money to buy themselves a decent goalie. 

Click to expand...

It's not us that struggle for decent goalies nowadays! :whoo:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 9, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Good call. I could do with an extra hour of sun a day.

That's how it works, right?
		
Click to expand...

Goodness England are going to have a 25 hour day............How does that work.

As for goalies.......bet you wished you had not posted that one now.......soooooooo yesterday.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 9, 2013)

Sweep said:



			And the scots could use all that fictitious oil money to buy themselves a decent goalie. 

Click to expand...

Oi! I'm a goalie!!! oh yes...

Actually our keepers aren't that bad - Jo Hart for basketball anyone


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 9, 2013)

The best England goalie plays in Scotland so he has nae chance of being picked.
He saved three cert goals against Barca.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Goodness England are going to have a 25 hour day............How does that work.

As for goalies.......bet you wished you had not posted that one now.......soooooooo yesterday.
		
Click to expand...

It was one for us oldies.
We still have Gordon Banks :whoo:


----------



## Sweep (Oct 9, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			If the Scottish get independence, does that mean us southerners can stay on summer time all year? If so, I'm suddenly in favour.
		
Click to expand...

I'd vote for that!
I seem to remember they experimented with it when I was a kid. It was brilliant.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 10, 2013)

Soapy was being interviewed on the One Show holding the Queens Baton and describing that the hand written message from Oor Lizzie was sealed inside.
'Have you any idea what the script says' asks the dopey Welsh interviewer.
'I think it may be something to do with the opening the Commonwealth Games' replies smart Alex.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 10, 2013)

Sweep said:



			I'd vote for that!
I seem to remember they experimented with it when I was a kid. It was brilliant.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - so do I - going to school in the dark - having to wear reflective arms bands - it was weird.  But I forgot that the experiment was from 1968-71.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 10, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Soapy was being interviewed on the One Show holding the Queens Baton and describing that the hand written message from Oor Lizzie was sealed inside.
'Have you any idea what the script says' asks the dopey Welsh interviewer.
'I think it may be something to do with the opening the Commonwealth Games' replies smart Alex.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe her Maj's message she is going to read is something like 

"Aw ra best for the referendum Eck - hope youse scoosh it - looking forward to retiring to my holiday home up Dee side and getting masel' and Phil season tickets for the Dons"


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 16, 2013)

And so - smiling and delighted with Scotland's win over Croatia last night my wife quipped "don't know why you're bothered - they won't even let you vote on Scotland - you might as well support England from now on" Oh how I laughed.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

Cunning ploy with referendum coming around - close Portsmouth ship building and keep it in Glasgow.  Look how dependent Scotland is on 'the UK' for work - so a 'boost' for BT?

But another way of looking at this is that BAESystems think that the best shipbuilding facilities and expertise are in Glasgow - so why would such facilities not be able to compete for rUK defence work if an independent Scotland came about.  After all there wouldn't be any such facility or expertise in England - so where would rUK MoD go?  Surely BAESystems Glasgow would be the prime candidate.

So the BAESystems decision could be seen as a massive vote of confidence in Scottish industry and it's ability to thrive in an independent Scotland.

And if there is a NO vote? I await the guarantee from BT and the UK government that the work won't be reallocated from Glasgow to an English yard following the vote - it's job of getting the NO vote having been done.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

Already demands that if a YES vote then work is taken from Glasgow/Rosyth and given to Portsmouth.

This is interesting as it could also be reallocated from Glasgow/Rosyth to Portsmouth following a NO vote if the decision is simply a short term political ploy to support BT campaign.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 6, 2013)

this thread still rumbling on with conjecture and supposition


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 6, 2013)

CMAC said:



			this thread still rumbling on with conjecture and supposition

Click to expand...

Well, that's the only thing that's possible until next year!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Well, that's the only thing that's possible until next year!
		
Click to expand...

Quite.  The BT campaign is all about projecting about the doom and gloom scenarios; the YES campain is visioning on a new future.  This shipbuilding announcement is interesting from a Scottish political perspective and how it plays with those eligible to vote in the referendum.  Is it in itself a good thing or a bad thing for nationalists (the Yes Team (YT) is not just the SNP btw though clearly primarily it id).  It could be read two ways: 

1) Bad news from the YT perhaps in that it demonstrates a key industrial dependence upon UK MoD spending that could vanish if there is a YES vote.  

2) Good news for the YT in that they can highlight the attractiveness of Scottish industrial capabaility and expertise and it's ability to win business from what could become 'foreign' i.e. rUK customers.

And vice-versa for the BT campaign. 1) being good news for the BT campaign; 2) being bad.

Will the BT campaign be guaranteeing that this works stays in Scotland if there is a NO vote.  Can the YT guarantee that the work will stay in Scotland if there is a YES vote.

For me this news is interesting in the context of the referendum.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 6, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Well, that's the only thing that's possible until next year!
		
Click to expand...

isnt there a white paper published this month with........some answers?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 6, 2013)

CMAC said:



			isnt there a white paper published this month with........some lies, half truths and innuendos?
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you....


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 6, 2013)

Dont they build ships in Belfast any more?  i'm sure they would be happy to get some more orders in the future.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

CMAC said:



			isnt there a white paper published this month with........some answers?
		
Click to expand...

Who is publishing the White Paper? the YT.  The BT team will keep their mouths shut about what may or may not happen following a NO vote.   Because things *will *change, but BTdon't want voters to know that.  The English electorate are rightly or wrongly completely pee'd off with funding diffrences and such as free prescriptions, university fee etc that Scots get.  With a NO vote the risk of separation will have gone, but folks living in Scotland should IMO not be under the misconception that the current situation will remain as it is re Westminster representation, Westminster funding of Holyrood etc.   It won't.  There will be huge pressure for things to change and if I were a betting man I would bet that those living in Scotland will find they are in for some nasty surprises following a NO vote.

Unless, that is, BT publish a White Paper defining *what will not change* following a NO.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*Who is publishing the White Paper?* the YT.  The BT team will keep their mouths shut about what may or may not happen following a NO vote.   Because things *will *change, but BTdon't want voters to know that.  The English electorate are rightly or wrongly completely pee'd off with funding diffrences and such as free prescriptions, university fee etc that Scots get.  With a NO vote the risk of separation will have gone, but folks living in Scotland should IMO not be under the misconception that the current situation will remain as it is re Westminster representation, Westminster funding of Holyrood etc.   It won't.  There will be huge pressure for things to change and if I were a betting man I would bet that those living in Scotland will find they are in for some nasty surprises following a NO vote.

Unless, that is, BT publish a White Paper defining what will not change following a NO.
		
Click to expand...

Alex Salmond's govts white paper on Independence

he's spending a further Â£800,000 apparently of tax payers money to help 'sell' it :mmm:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 6, 2013)

Govan has higher skill levels and cheaper wages than Portsmouth.

Simples.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

CMAC said:



			Alex Salmond's govts white paper on Independence

he's spending a further Â£800,000 apparently of tax payers money to help 'sell' it :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

No surprise there then - I didn't expect BT to be publishing anything about Scotland post a NO.  You listen to angry Portsmouth shipyard workers and they will be looking for their pound of flesh from a post-NO Scotland.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 6, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Govan has higher skill levels and cheaper wages than Portsmouth.

Simples.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe - but that's not what a lot of English are saying and more are thinking.  They are furious and are thinking that this is simply a political ploy by Westminster to influence the referendum vote.  So Alex Salmond's Â£800,000 White Paper cited by CMAC is peanuts compared with what Westminster is spending in support of BT.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 7, 2013)

i'm just tired with the whole debacle.    I just want the Scots to make their mind up, stay with us or go away.  I would prefer them with us but I just cant be fussed with all this political wrangling.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 7, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Maybe - but that's not what a lot of English are saying and more are thinking.  They are furious and are thinking that this is simply a political ploy by Westminster to influence the referendum vote.  So Alex Salmond's Â£800,000 White Paper cited by CMAC is peanuts compared with what Westminster is spending in support of BT.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty depressed that just about everything at the moment turns into a Scotland v England debate. Hundreds of people are losing their jobs, on both sides of the border and people are arguing about whether it's a ploy or not. Let's get the damn referendum over with and then we can move on.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 7, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			i'm just tired with the whole debacle.    I just want the Scots to make their mind up, stay with us or go away.  I would prefer them with us but I just cant be fussed with all this political wrangling.
		
Click to expand...

It's not a debacle - and by describing the referendum vote and debate as 'a debacle' is exactly the sort of stuff that plays into the hands of the YES campaign as it just screams of ignorance around how Scots view themselves and their place in the world.  

I'm afraid to say your observation may well be held by many who don't actually understand what this is actually all about.  This isn't a piddling little media-driven 'plebgate' type debate that drags on and on for no real or obvious purpose - other than to sate the appetite of Westminster journo's and politico's.  So just because you are 'bored' of it (because you feekl it has notthing to do with you), it is insulting to refer to the referendum debate as a debacle.

And btw 'Scots' are not making their minds up - it is those living in Scotland or otherwise eligible to vote who are making their minds up


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 7, 2013)

I read a quote from a Govan worker last night and his interpretation of the threat of removing the work post any Yes victory next year...something like 'we'll remove the knife from the wound and release the blood if you vote yes'

I think the obvious threat is crass and disgraceful, and sycophantic politicians spewing 'regret' over 1800 job losses makes me feel sick.I honestly believe these Eton/Harrow scum running our country don't give a monkeys about what happens outside the M25.



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Can the YT guarantee that the work will stay in Scotland if there is a YES vote.
		
Click to expand...

No, because the rUK govt claim they'll never build a warship outside the UK, we've all heard the claim, made by many coalition reps this passed 48 hrs, haven't we?...but hold on a minute-

http://wingsoverscotland.com/spread-around-town/

or what about the 4 tankers given to Korea over both Portsmouth and the Clyde?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488


So The MoD gives contracts to BAE ( a ftse 100 company) and they decide where to put the work (I'm not getting into who's better/cheaper in relation to govan/Portsmouth, I bet they're all brilliant shipbuilders and honest decent workers) BAE are told by Westminster to use only UK yards, so post YES The Clyde will be out the box.

But any indy Scotland will need ships, too,yes?We'll need to build ships, so Holyrood tells BAE that we'll give you the contract, but only use Rosyth/Clyde where you've invested heavily in people/infrastructure already.Plus why be so reliant on MoD contracts?It's a very narrow view, isn't it?Our pals across the North Sea built over 100 ships last year, and not one for our awfully benevolent MoD
http://www.shipbuildingnorway.com/volume-17/ships-delivered-in-2012-2/

I'm struggling to understand how/why people take such a narrow,negative point of view, whether it's about The UK or Scotland alone.With investment our skilled workers beat anyone imo but the current agenda does it no good.It's needs rethought, we need re-tooled in our industries and moved away from financial phone monkeys and university for all to study English lit. Get a trade, employ kids,create consumers/tax payers.

vote AYE 



FairwayDodger said:



			I'm pretty depressed that just about everything at the moment turns into a Scotland v England debate. Hundreds of people are losing their jobs, on both sides of the border and people are arguing about whether it's a ploy or not. Let's get the damn referendum over with and then we can move on.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 7, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I read a quote from a Govan worker last night and his interpretation of the threat of removing the work post any Yes victory next year...something like 'we'll remove the knife from the wound and release the blood if you vote yes'

I think the obvious threat is crass and disgraceful, and sycophantic politicians spewing 'regret' over 1800 job losses makes me feel sick.I honestly believe these Eton/Harrow scum running our country don't give a monkeys about what happens outside the M25.



No, because the rUK govt claim they'll never build a warship outside the UK, we've all heard the claim, made by many coalition reps this passed 48 hrs, haven't we?...but hold on a minute-

http://wingsoverscotland.com/spread-around-town/

or what about the 4 tankers given to Korea over both Portsmouth and the Clyde?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17127488


So The MoD gives contracts to BAE ( a ftse 100 company) and they decide where to put the work (I'm not getting into who's better/cheaper in relation to govan/Portsmouth, I bet they're all brilliant shipbuilders and honest decent workers) BAE are told by Westminster to use only UK yards, so post YES The Clyde will be out the box.

But any indy Scotland will need ships, too,yes?We'll need to build ships, so Holyrood tells BAE that we'll give you the contract, but only use Rosyth/Clyde where you've invested heavily in people/infrastructure already.Plus why be so reliant on MoD contracts?It's a very narrow view, isn't it?Our pals across the North Sea built over 100 ships last year, and not one for our awfully benevolent MoD
http://www.shipbuildingnorway.com/volume-17/ships-delivered-in-2012-2/

I'm struggling to understand how/why people take such a narrow,negative point of view, whether it's about The UK or Scotland alone.With investment our skilled workers beat anyone imo but the current agenda does it no good.It's needs rethought, we need re-tooled in our industries and moved away from financial phone monkeys and university for all to study English lit. Get a trade, employ kids,create consumers/tax payers.

vote AYE 

Click to expand...

If contracts were withdrawn following a YES vote - would that be breach of European or Contractual law?  Are the contracts for the Type 26 frigates going to include a get out clause that allows the contract to be cancelled if Scotland votes YES - hmmm.  BAE Systems will accept that...

And in any case would it not be the case that BAE Systems could, with yards in an independent Scotland, bid for rUK defence shipbuilding contracts - what would stop them?  I would have thought that under European Law and SMART procurement they would *have *to be allowed to bid for the work.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 7, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If contracts were withdrawn following a YES vote - would that be breach of European or Contractual law?  Are the contracts for the Type 26 frigates going to include a get out clause that allows the contract to be cancelled if Scotland votes YES - hmmm.  BAE Systems will accept that...

And in any case would it not be the case that BAE Systems could, with yards in an independent Scotland, bid for rUK defence shipbuilding contracts - what would stop them?  I would have thought that under European Law and SMART procurement they would *have *to be allowed to bid for the work.
		
Click to expand...

I think the planned timetable is such that the frigate contracts won't actually be signed until after the referendum anyway (but before any ensuing breakup takes place, so that'll be fun).

There is an exemption for defence contracts in EU law that allows countries to restrict them to domestic suppliers. Interestingly, that would work against an independent Scotland bidding for UK defence work. They'd either be barred completely (as per other foreign nations) or they'd have to compete on cost against all-comers.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 7, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think the planned timetable is such that the frigate contracts won't actually be signed until after the referendum anyway (but before any ensuing breakup takes place, so that'll be fun).

There is an exemption for defence contracts in EU law that allows countries to restrict them to domestic suppliers. Interestingly, that would work against an independent Scotland bidding for UK defence work. They'd either be barred completely (as per other foreign nations) or they'd have to compete on cost against all-comers.
		
Click to expand...

But a new Scottish Navy would require ships, thus allowing Holyrood to use Scottish shipbuilders.If we needed tankers we could offer them to The Clyde...might cost a few more million compared to Samsung in Korea, but we'd be keeping jobs,creating new ones, thus creating tax payers/consumers.

And anyone who thinks that rUK govt is going to build 15 new type 26 ships is mental...that'll be scaled back quick smart, all at the expense of muggins in Glasgow/Portsmouth.

I like the way SAAB do business...your government wants warplanes?We'll sell you warplanes and as a thankyou, we'll invest in your country.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 7, 2013)

What many forget is that an 800 job loss in Scotland has the same impact as an 8,000 job loss in England.
The headlines in all the Scottish papers make very dour reading.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 7, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			But a new Scottish Navy would require ships, thus allowing Holyrood to use Scottish shipbuilders.If we needed tankers we could offer them to The Clyde...might cost a few more million compared to Samsung in Korea, but we'd be keeping jobs,creating new ones, thus creating tax payers/consumers.

And anyone who thinks that rUK govt is going to build 15 new type 26 ships is mental...that'll be scaled back quick smart, all at the expense of muggins in Glasgow/Portsmouth.

I like the way SAAB do business...your government wants warplanes?We'll sell you warplanes and as a thankyou, we'll invest in your country.
		
Click to expand...

That's how most major defence companies work - including BAE Systems.  

If you wonder how diddy country X can afford to buy nice new jet fighters - well they often don't buy them outright.  The defence company invests in building such as major hotel and leisure complexes in the country; manages them; and takes all the profit for so many years.  Then once the profit has paid for the aircraft the complexes are sold off or ownership transferred to the country.  Meanwhile the UK government agrees an export guarantee to cover the cost of the aircraft in case something goes awry in diddy country X and the defence company cannot take out the profits as planned.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 8, 2013)

Good old rammy on this subject last night on QT.  Is the 'promise' to the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards (and hence to Glasgow and Scotland) of a post referendum contract to build the Type 26 frigates a bribe or blackmail?


----------



## chrisd (Nov 8, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Good old rammy on this subject last night on QT.  Is the 'promise' to the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards (and hence to Glasgow and Scotland) of a post referendum contract to build the Type 26 frigates a bribe or blackmail?
		
Click to expand...


Couldn't quite get QT last night. Everyone clapped everything, everyone wanted Nigel to be hung drawn and quartered but agreed with him and the eejit Tory said that no ships were being built in Korea to Nigel, but refused to elaborate on the supply ships that are being built there!

Crazy place Boston!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 8, 2013)

chrisd said:



			...and the eejit Tory said ... blah
		
Click to expand...

She really fancied herself as a bit of a straight talker - but I have great suspeiciions of anyone - even politicians - who put on that fake 'quizzical' look when pretending that a statement made by another or a question posed to her is completely incomprehensible.  Her on the ships - yup - does she not see that her very narrow and pedantic view on 'naval vessels' when making her arguments is so easily seen through and is riseable.

And on Farage - yes there seemed to be a fair amount of supporting his point of view in teh audience except when they were asked more specifically to support his point of view.  'I'll oppose him when he is expressing his pov- but I'll applaud others who are broadly supportive of his pov' hmm.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 8, 2013)

chrisd said:



			Couldn't quite get QT last night. Everyone clapped everything,
		
Click to expand...

More or less the same every week... 




			everyone wanted Nigel to be hung drawn and quartered but agreed with him
		
Click to expand...

More or less the same every time he's on the panel.. 

Not exactly Mr Popular but he says a lot of what many are thinking...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 8, 2013)

The latest information regarding figures that state immigrants contribute more to the exchequer than the locals tends to blow Farage's party out of the water.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 8, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The latest information regarding figures that state immigrants contribute more to the exchequer than the locals tends to blow Farage's party out of the water.
		
Click to expand...

So I guess its OK for people to live off the state while Immigrants do the jobs they are too lazy to do?   If we deduct the cost of keeping bone idle Brits at home it all goes a bit pear shape.    We hear a constant drone on the rising costs of the ageing population but these new entries will grow old add to these costs.    I also read that the population of the UK is set to rise to over 75 Million over the next 25 years, how on earth will we be able to support these numbers.

I despair with the argument that immigration is a blessing.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So I guess its OK for people to live off the state while Immigrants do the jobs they are too lazy to do?   If we deduct the cost of keeping bone idle Brits at home it all goes a bit pear shape.    We hear a constant drone on the rising costs of the ageing population but these new entries will grow old add to these costs.    I also read that the population of the UK is set to rise to over 75 Million over the next 25 years, how on earth will we be able to support these numbers.

I despair with the argument that immigration is a blessing.
		
Click to expand...

It is to Scotland. Our population is set to rise to 6.5 million a figure that our infrastructure could easily cope with.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 9, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The latest information regarding figures that state immigrants contribute more to the exchequer than the locals tends to blow Farage's party out of the water.
		
Click to expand...


"lies, damned lies and statistics" ... Comes to mind...


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 9, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is to Scotland. Our population is set to rise to 6.5 million a figure that our infrastructure could easily cope with.
		
Click to expand...

Ah!  So that makes it all OK then, I never looked at it that way.   Must be nice to live in a country without unemployment, plenty of nice houses for everyone and under used schools and hospitals.


----------



## Sweep (Nov 9, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is to Scotland. Our population is set to rise to 6.5 million a figure that our infrastructure could easily cope with.
		
Click to expand...

There you go then. That's the answer! Only accept immigrants if they go to Scotland. TBH it all getting a bit overcrowded down here.


----------



## Sharktooth (Nov 9, 2013)

Seems to be an independence of convenience. We want independence but errrrm yeah we will keep British passports, oh and the currency as well. Joke


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

...and so to this morning - and on Radio a representative of the Local Government Association tells listeners that they will be looking for Barnett funding arrangements to be 'pulled' following a Scottish independence NO vote - as the 'regions' - that's the parts of the UK not England - get more than their fair share and things must change.

I hope that voters north of border are asking for a rebuttal of that from BT - and if that rebuttal is not forthcoming what the impact of a new funding arrangement will be.  Lots of 'benefits' enjoyed at the moment by Scottish residents not enjoyed by rUK are clearly at risk if the arrangements are changed.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

Too busy at the moment trying to confirm what will happen to Eastenders if there is a Yes vote.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't suppose for one second that the folk south of the border give any thought to the fact that the Scottish government just might be managing their equal share of the UK's money pot better than they are.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I don't suppose for one second that the folk south of the border give any thought to the fact that the Scottish government just might be managing their equal share of the UK's money pot better than they are.
		
Click to expand...

Nope - they don't - I suggest to them that that might just be the case - but they are deaf-eared to that sort of logic.  They just think that residents of Scotland get all those 'benefits' because they get more than their fair share from Westminster.  And not only is that not fair - it is not sustainable - so following a NO vote there will be HUGE pressure on the Westminster government to pull Burnett funding arrangements and come up with a new arrangement that voters in England deem to be fair to England and the English regions.  

If I had a vote I'd be trying very hard to find out what the h**l is going to happen post-NO - because 'carry on as before' is not going to be allowed to happen.   Scots voters really need to understand the resentment down here - and to be honest I don't think they do.  We ALL feel screwed at the moment - and Scots getting free this and that - well...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

I would imagine the SE England housing benefit and London weighting on salaries is a vast sum of money that the UK's budget carries.
For what........to have a very false inflated housing market in SE England.
Who benefits from that.........Landlords and property developers.

If the Barratt formula is to be re-visited I would imagine that the other regions will want a level playing field to start with. So scrap the London weighting and spread the wealth throughout the country.

Is it only me who is annoyed that the proposed minimum living wage will be about Â£2 more in the London area.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would imagine the SE England housing benefit and London weighting on salaries is a vast sum of money that the UK's budget carries.
For what........to have a very false inflated housing market in SE England.
Who benefits from that.........Landlords and property developers.

If the Barratt formula is to be re-visited I would imagine that the other regions will want a level playing field to start with. So scrap the London weighting and spread the wealth throughout the country.

Is it only me who is annoyed that the proposed minimum living wage will be about Â£2 more in the London area.
		
Click to expand...

What has finance got to do with self determination? Sounds like its a marriage of (financial) convenience to the Scots, just as it was when Scotland formed the Union with England. If you want self determination and independance, at least have the decency to want it for the right reasons rather than the "what's in it for me" attitude.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			What has finance got to do with self determination? Sounds like its a marriage of (financial) convenience to the Scots, just as it was when Scotland formed the Union with England. If you want self determination and independance, at least have the decency to want it for the right reasons rather than the "what's in it for me" attitude.
		
Click to expand...

It does indeed seem to have been reduced to such a debate - after all that is why non-dom Scots are not getting a vote - we are not affected - apparently.  What would an Easter European really know or care about Scottish culture, identity and aspirations.  Well they don't need to know or care anything as the vote will simply be on whether or not a voter feels they will be better or worse off in the short term.  Indeed the referendum to many will be more akin to being able to vote directly on a budget - nothing to do with nationality - all to do with short term consideration of money in pockets.

And that sort of debate is encouraged by BT on a basis of 'better the devil you know' - look at the risks to the Â£ in your pocket.  And so it is. But I would like to hear from BT what they think what the reduction in the block grant will be following a NO vote - and how they think that such a cut could be accommodated without impacting services and Scottish life in general.  Because if their argument is largely based upon fiscal and spending considerations - then we have to know the likely impact of new funding arrangements post-NO, post-Barnett.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 21, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			What has finance got to do with self determination? Sounds like its a marriage of (financial) convenience to the Scots, just as it was when Scotland formed the Union with England. If you want self determination and independance, at least have the decency to want it for the right reasons rather than the "what's in it for me" attitude.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post. 

The whole debate has boiled down to the for and against camps both lying about what will happen financially depending on the outcome of the vote. They either don't want to tell us the truth or (more likely) they really don't know. Each side puts the best possible spin on their preference and the worst possible on the other side. It's pathetic and it's embarrassing.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 21, 2013)

just jumping in and out this thread, which I find quite enlightening.

Wasn't there a white paper being published by Shrek and his friends with answers this month?


There is one absolute undeniable outcome that will happen if Scotland decide to be alone, my family will be moving down south and some extended family and their business will as well


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It does indeed seem to have been reduced to such a debate - after all that is why non-dom Scots are not getting a vote - we are not affected - apparently.  What would an Easter European really know or care about Scottish culture, identity and aspirations.  Well they don't need to know or care anything as the vote will simply be on whether or not a voter feels they will be better or worse off in the short term.  Indeed the referendum to many will be more akin to being able to vote directly on a budget - nothing to do with nationality - all to do with short term consideration of money in pockets.

And that sort of debate is encouraged by BT on a basis of 'better the devil you know' - look at the risks to the Â£ in your pocket.  And so it is. But I would like to hear from BT what they think what the reduction in the block grant will be following a NO vote - and how they think that such a cut could be accommodated without impacting services and Scottish life in general.  Because if their argument is largely based upon fiscal and spending considerations - then we have to know the likely impact of new funding arrangements post-NO, post-Barnett.
		
Click to expand...

There will be no cut in the block grant in this parliament. The 2014 Queens Speech is in May 2014 and to include any such legislation would be a disaster for the BT camp. May 2015 is a general election so it's impossible for anyone to say what will happen post No to the grant as no-one knows who the Westminster government will be in 2015.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

ger147 said:



			There will be not cut in the block grant in this parliament. The 2014 Queens Speech is in May 2014 and to include any such legislation would be a disaster for the BT camp. May 2015 is a general election so it's impossible for anyone to say what will happen post No to the grant as no-one knows who the Westminster government will be in 2015.
		
Click to expand...

But the grant WILL be cut - 2015 or whenever.  I have absolutely no doubt on that regardless of whoever is in power in Westminster following the 2015 general election.  The pressure from the English electorate will be too high in the lead up to the election.  Labour, Tories and LibDem manifestos will have to include something about a review of the Barnett funding arrangements - whether or not they explicitly state they will cut funding that is what the English electorate will be expecting.  

And we will be expecting a SIGNIFICANT cut - so for instance voters down here will not accept a level of funding that enables Holyrood to continue to fund Scottish universities to the current level that means are no student fees.

After all, what is the risk to the party in government in Westminster of cutting the block grant post a NO vote and post a 2015 general election.  The risk of independence will have gone; Labour would gain seats in England what they would lose in Scotland; Tories have (and post a 2015 gen election would still have) nothing to lose in Scotland.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

CMAC said:



			just jumping in and out this thread, which I find quite enlightening.

Wasn't there a white paper being published by Shrek and his friends with answers this month?


There is one absolute undeniable outcome that will happen if Scotland decide to be alone, my family will be moving down south and some extended family and their business will as well

Click to expand...

You think things are better down here do you?  Rather typical of the Scottish delusion that is prevalent over the 'good life' available to all down here.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But the grant WILL be cut - 2015 or whenever.  I have absolutely no doubt on that regardless of whoever is in power in Westminster following the 2015 general election.  The pressure from the English electorate will be too high in the lead up to the election.  Labour, Tories and LibDem manifestos will have to include something about a review of the Barnett funding arrangements - whether or not they explicitly state they will cut funding that is what the English electorate will be expecting.  

And we will be expecting a SIGNIFICANT cut - so for instance voters down here will not accept a level of funding that enables Holyrood to continue to fund Scottish universities to the current level that means are no student fees.

After all, what is the risk to the party in government in Westminster of cutting the block grant post a NO vote and post a 2015 general election.  The risk of independence will have gone; Labour would gain seats in England what they would lose in Scotland; Tories have (and post a 2015 gen election would still have) nothing to lose in Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your beliefs or personal predictions for the future, but they are just that and have absolutely no basis in fact at the moment.  You can believe the grant will be cut in the future but you categorically cannot KNOW that it will be cut as no-one does.

What I would be very interested in finding out is on what mandate you speak for the English electorate?


----------



## StuartD (Nov 21, 2013)

Hobbit said:



			What has finance got to do with self determination? Sounds like its a marriage of (financial) convenience to the Scots, just as it was when Scotland formed the Union with England. If you want self determination and independance, at least have the decency to want it for the right reasons rather than the "what's in it for me" attitude.
		
Click to expand...

Finances are all that matters to me. 
I am a fiercely proud Scot but whether itâ€™s a Scotland as part of a union or not is all about how secure I would feel.

I have voted SNP before and have had some members at my door asking how I intended to vote. I informed them that I would be voting â€œNoâ€ as I work in the defence industry and our employers have given no guarantees on what may happen and that the SNP defence policy was ropey at best I was then informed by the 2 party members at my door that I needed to â€œlook at the bigger pictureâ€, its all about our identity as a nation, self-determination and be in control of our own destiny etc. and other romantic stuff, which is all rather nice I admit.

I told them that my â€œonly big pictureâ€ was looking after my family, keeping a roof over their head and putting food on the table for them and I would feel much more secure doing this as part of the union.

Does that make me part of â€œwhatâ€™s in it for meâ€ brigade and voting for the wrong reasons?

Maybe, but I donâ€™t believe anyone would look at it any differently.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

ger147 said:



			I can't argue with your beliefs or personal predictions for the future, but they are just that and have absolutely no basis in fact at the moment.  You can believe the grant will be cut in the future but you categorically cannot KNOW that it will be cut as no-one does.

What I would be very interested in finding out is on what mandate you speak for the English electorate?
		
Click to expand...

But what *has* basis of fact - almost EVERYTHING about Scotland's finances is predicated upon assumptions about what will or will not be post a YES or a NO.  So you or I do not KNOW whether things will be better or worse post a YES.  What I do know is the strength of feeling in England about free prescriptions, uni places etc in Scotland - and that feeling is ACTUAL and not estimated.  

Scots are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think English electorate will allow the current position to continue post a NO vote.  The vast majority (I'd guess) of English voters are finding things very tough at the moment - and seeing Scots getting this, that and the other for free on the back of Westminster funding does not go down well.  

And the BT Campaign telling the Scottish electorate that they can have the _best of both worlds_ by voting NO only serves to wind up folk in England even more.  In the run-up to a 2015 general election and following a NO vote the political parties will not be able to ignore calls from English voters for a new funding arrangement and cuts of the Scottish block grant - and there will be nothing Scotland will be able to do about it.  I think you have a right to know what's in store for you post NO.

I have no mandate to speak on behalf of anyone but myself - but I live, work and play with English voters and I hear what many say.  But you are quite right - it's got nothing at all to do with me as I don't have a vote.  Even although when my mum get's older it will probably be me who will have to come to Scotland to sort out that she is OK in her home or elsewhere, and getting the support she needs from the state.  But I'm not affected...so that's me put in my place.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Nov 21, 2013)

Just to try and help clarify the myth that everything is glorious down in prosperous London. Whilst this may be true for those who have owned property for a long while, the rest of us aren't in such a rosy position.

The average first time buyer down here is now almost 40, with average house prices in June 2013 being Â£475,000 that means having to save up a hell of a lot of money to put down a 10-20% deposit.

Furthermore, whilst admittedly some of those in the city earn silly money, in all reality this isn't the case for 75% of people living here. Someone like myself who moved here to work in an industry which doesn't exist outside of London is competing in a fiercely competitive job market and as such, wages are much lower than you'd expect without looking into it. After 2 1/2 years down here my monthly take home after tax is around Â£1,200 - with rent and bills being around Â£700 and travel another Â£100 there's not an awful lot left over to pay for other outgoings such as food and beer!

I appreciate that *some* Londoners are doing well, but on the whole these are people that have been down here and settled for a while, not young people getting on to the job and housing ladders for the first time. Put simply, the cost of living down here is too high, and without someone stepping in and knocking Â£200,000 off the value of each house, the London living wage needs to be higher to ensure fairness for those that want to try and make a living here - particularly in industries and roles which do not exist outside of the capital.

Just my 2p


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

CMAC said:



			just jumping in and out this thread, which I find quite enlightening.

Wasn't there a white paper being published by Shrek and his friends with answers this month?


There is one absolute undeniable outcome that will happen if Scotland decide to be alone, my family will be moving down south and some extended family and their business will as well

Click to expand...

Hope you can afford the housing!
Â£240k for a one bedroom flat with tiny kitchen and bathroom in Tottenham.
In Scotland you would probably be able to buy something like that for Â£24k in an area similar to Tottenham.


----------



## Rooter (Nov 21, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			Just my 2p 

Click to expand...

Can you spare that?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

StuartD said:



			Finances are all that matters to me. 
I am a fiercely proud Scot but whether itâ€™s a Scotland as part of a union or not is all about how secure I would feel.

I have voted SNP before and have had some members at my door asking how I intended to vote. I informed them that I would be voting â€œNoâ€ as I work in the defence industry and our employers have given no guarantees on what may happen and that the SNP defence policy was ropey at best I was then informed by the 2 party members at my door that I needed to â€œlook at the bigger pictureâ€, its all about our identity as a nation, self-determination and be in control of our own destiny etc. and other romantic stuff, which is all rather nice I admit.

I told them that my â€œonly big pictureâ€ was looking after my family, keeping a roof over their head and putting food on the table for them and I would feel much more secure doing this as part of the union.

Does that make me part of â€œwhatâ€™s in it for meâ€ brigade and voting for the wrong reasons?

Maybe, but I donâ€™t believe anyone would look at it any differently.
		
Click to expand...

Which is an absolutely incontestable view - though if your children don't have a vote have you asked them what they think?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But what *has* basis of fact - almost EVERYTHING about Scotland's finances is predicated upon assumptions about what will or will not be post a YES or a NO.  So you or I do not KNOW whether things will be better or worse post a YES.  What I do know is the strength of feeling in England about free prescriptions, uni places etc in Scotland - and that feeling is ACTUAL and not estimated.  

Scots are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think English electorate will allow the current position to continue post a NO vote.  The vast majority (I'd guess) of English voters are finding things very tough at the moment - and seeing Scots getting this, that and the other for free on the back of Westminster funding does not go down well.  

And the BT Campaign telling the Scottish electorate that they can have the _best of both worlds_ by voting NO only serves to wind up folk in England even more.  In the run-up to a 2015 general election and following a NO vote the political parties will not be able to ignore calls from English voters for a new funding arrangement and cuts of the Scottish block grant - and there will be nothing Scotland will be able to do about it.  I think you have a right to know what's in store for you post NO.
		
Click to expand...

Glad we have established you don't know and are just guessing.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hope you can afford the housing!
Â£240k for a one bedroom flat with tiny kitchen and bathroom in Tottenham.
In Scotland you would probably be able to buy something like that for Â£24k in an area similar to Tottenham.
		
Click to expand...

You got Â£500,000 to spend you can have this in an OK part of town

http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=fee3c3e153879aa61785f4b8b90f77c3

Welcome to housing in the South East of England.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Nov 21, 2013)

Rooter said:



			Can you spare that? 

Click to expand...

Nah, actually, can I have it back


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Glad we have established you don't know and are just guessing.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't everyone?

Look - all I hear down here are *predictions *of doom and gloom from the BT Campaign if Scotland votes YES - so just ask them whether or not the Westminster block grant will be protected and for how long following a NO vote.  They should be able to get an answer on that question from their Westminster friends without too much difficulty.  Except they won't tell you because the answer will be that it won't be protected - and they don't want to tell you that.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hope you can afford the housing!
Â£240k for a one bedroom flat with tiny kitchen and bathroom in Tottenham.
In Scotland you would probably be able to buy something like that for Â£24k in an area similar to Tottenham.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.williamsonandhenry.com/propertyby-town.asp?Town=Kirkcudbright

Want to see what Â£240K buys you just over the border.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Isn't everyone?

Look - all I hear down here are *predictions *of doom and gloom from the BT Campaign if Scotland votes YES - so just ask them whether or not the Westminster block grant will be protected and for how long following a NO vote.
		
Click to expand...

BT are not the government just now and will not be the government post-2015 so they can't possibly answer that question honestly and accurately, and if they DID try to answer they would just be guessing...

If YOU want to know, YOU ask them...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

This is weird Jimbob and Hogan seem to be inside my brain!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.williamsonandhenry.com/propertyby-town.asp?Town=Kirkcudbright

Want to see what Â£240K buys you just over the border.
		
Click to expand...

I'm selling up.  Could retire on my equity (maybe - would have to consult with @richart first though )


----------



## CMAC (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You think things are better down here do you?  Rather typical of the Scottish delusion that is prevalent over the 'good life' available to all down here.
		
Click to expand...

you have an unfortunate response attitude that paints everyone with the same brush......and you 'make up' what you don't appear to understand.
Calm down dear!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

ger147 said:



			BT are not the government just now and will not be the government post-2015 so they can't possibly answer that question honestly and accurately, and if they DID try to answer they would just be guessing...

If YOU want to know, YOU ask them...
		
Click to expand...

Don't YOU want to know?  I'd have thought that the status of the block grant would have been at the forefront of voters thoughts as it is surely key to the finances of a Scotland post a NO vote.  Guess you are willing to take a punt on it.  But I'll be surprised if it goes up.

Maybe I'll ask my mother's MP and MSP as I have already written to them about not getting a vote  and they replied - both implied that maybe I should have got a vote - and the fact that I don't is an SNP strategy.  But of course as this would be a tricky question they might this time choose not to reply as I am not one of their constituents.

So I'll ask my MP as well.


----------



## GreiginFife (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You got Â£500,000 to spend you can have this in an OK part of town

http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=fee3c3e153879aa61785f4b8b90f77c3

Welcome to housing in the South East of England.
		
Click to expand...

Not that much different to this http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=e99bfa8e7343de8f669309352772181e


----------



## ger147 (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't YOU want to know?  I'd have thought that the status of the block grant would have been at the forefront of voters thoughts as it is surely key to the finances of a Scotland post a NO vote.  Guess you are willing to take a punt on it.  But I'll be surprised if it goes up.

Maybe I'll ask my mother's MP and MSP as I have already written to them about not getting a vote  and they replied - both implied that maybe I should have got a vote - and the fact that I don't is an SNP strategy.  But of course as this would be a tricky question they might this time choose not to reply as I am not one of their constituents.

So I'll ask my MP as well.
		
Click to expand...

If I do want to know I'd have as much chance of an accurate answer from the guy on Brighton Pier doing Tarot cards for Â£10 a throw as I would asking Alistair Darling.  Asking politicians what they intend to do if they win a vote/election rarely results in truthful and accurate answers.  See the Lib Dems and their pledge on tuition fees for a recent example.


----------



## IanG (Nov 21, 2013)

Sadly those of us who will get a vote in this poll will not have enough trustworthy 'facts' to base a rational decision on. This is partly due to the genuine complexity and partly due  to politically engineered uncertainties. Both sides will spin their perspective of what might or might not happen and appeal to both our nobler and our baser instincts in a bid to secure our vote.  

Things will be different after the vote whatever the outcome - better or worse I frankly have no idea. Personally I think we had a pretty good settlement with devolution and I'd have been happy to stick with that and remain integrated into the UK - it has at least some and perhaps many benefits. Few if any of us are visionary enough to envisage what will come after the poll. 

So how will Scotland's residents decide, well there will be some Bravehearts saying Aye , some small c conservatives  saying no (but thanks for asking) and the great unwashed on the middle who will be swayed by vagaries of the campaign. 

So long as the Tory's manage to keep quiet I think the no's might just scrape home, but if  a whiff of 'we know better' emerges from them the pitch will be queered and we might all be queuing up for a new passport.

At the moment I'll be voting No, not because Scotland can't be independent (it can) but because I'm not persuaded the tenuous benefits outweigh the nebulous costs.

Ian


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Not that much different to this http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=e99bfa8e7343de8f669309352772181e



Click to expand...

Quite a bit different sort of property though.  Your one would be Â£750,000+ down here maybe a Â£1,000,000 if in a nice rural location - like this sort of thing on edge of town.  That's the problem down here - start looking for a nice (not big) place in a nice location and prices rocket and are completley unaffordable to the majority of us.

http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=76b07eaf06489dd13e87f6c54251c191

Moving from a town 3 bed-semi to a town detached 4 bed you are going from maybe Â£375,000 to Â£600,000


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't YOU want to know?  I'd have thought that the status of the block grant would have been at the forefront of voters thoughts as it is surely key to the finances of a Scotland post a NO vote.  Guess you are willing to take a punt on it.  But I'll be surprised if it goes up.

Maybe I'll ask my mother's MP and MSP as I have already written to them about not getting a vote  and they replied - both implied that maybe I should have got a vote - and the fact that I don't is an SNP strategy.  But of course as this would be a tricky question they might this time choose not to reply as I am not one of their constituents.

So I'll ask my MP as well.
		
Click to expand...

Hogan, out of interest do you think Sir Sean Connery should have a vote, he is a strong financial SNP supporter even though he chooses to live outside Scotland in tax exile.

How about the 100 year old Canadian who left Scotland as a baby.
It is just simple to have it as residents only.
You live in England and vote for an English MP and an English local Councillor to represent you.


----------



## GreiginFife (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite a bit different sort of property though.  Your one would be Â£750,000+ down here maybe a Â£1,000,000 if in a nice rural location.
		
Click to expand...

Nice rural location? Ah you must mean like this http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=ce552a55ae9d53007e7dbdfa8f83b076

:thup:

Edit to add; This is my hoose if I win the lottery. Stunning location (right next to my club as well).


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hogan, out of interest do you think Sir Sean Connery should have a vote, he is a strong financial SNP supporter even though he chooses to live outside Scotland in tax exile.

How about the 100 year old Canadian who left Scotland as a baby.
It is just simple to have it as residents only.
You live in England and vote for an English MP and an English local Councillor to represent you.
		
Click to expand...

PS If that is your hoose in the photo that lawn is a disgrace!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 21, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Nice rural location? Ah you must mean like this http://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...h_identifier=ce552a55ae9d53007e7dbdfa8f83b076

:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Wow.......That probably equates in price to a 3 bedroom ex council house in Clapham.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 21, 2013)

CMAC said:



			j
There is one absolute undeniable outcome that will happen if Scotland decide to be alone, my family will be moving down south and some extended family and their business will as well

Click to expand...

Are you Michelle Mone? Why would you consider moving your family and business?

And if you did move your business, that would surely open up an opportunity for someone who is looking to improve their life/Scotland, so everyone wins...you get to move ( for reasons I can't fathom) and we get an aspiring business person looking to invest in Scotland.

Can you move this month?


----------



## StuartD (Nov 21, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Which is an absolutely incontestable view - though if your children don't have a vote have you asked them what they think?
		
Click to expand...

Thay are aged 3 and 5. All that matters to them is what Santa is bringing them next month :rofl:. If they were older and able to understand it would be discussed with them


----------



## GreiginFife (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wow.......That probably equates in price to a 3 bedroom ex council house in Clapham.
		
Click to expand...

She's a beaut isn't she  from the front looks like a traditional 3 bed cottage... from the rear - phwaor! 

I like big butts and I cannot lie...


----------



## CMAC (Nov 21, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Are you Michelle Mone? *Why would you consider moving your family* and business?

And if you did move your business, that would surely open up an opportunity for someone who is looking to improve their life/Scotland, so everyone wins...*you get to move ( for reasons I can't fathom)* and we get an aspiring business person looking to invest in Scotland.

Can you move this month?
		
Click to expand...

seriously! you want to stay in a separated country run by idiots? 

Dont see how you figure when one leaves that creates a space for someone else to move in, don't think you're fully understanding this 'country' thing. You'll find nearly all business's in Scotland are against the idea, plus inward investors are cautious too based on what might happen.

Oh and I'm not Michelle Mone but I do know her


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 21, 2013)

CMAC said:



			seriously! you want to stay in a separated country run by idiots? 

Dont see how you figure when one leaves that creates a space for someone else to move in, don't think you're fully understanding this 'country' thing. You'll find nearly all business's in Scotland are against the idea, plus inward investors are cautious too based on what might happen.

Oh and I'm not Michelle Mone but I do know her
		
Click to expand...

I'm not in favour of independence, for reasons I've tried to explain previously, but you're wrong about businesses.... My employer, a multinational IT company, sees lots of potential opportunity in an independent Scotland and definitely wouldn't be scared off......


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 21, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hogan, out of interest do you think Sir Sean Connery should have a vote, he is a strong financial SNP supporter even though he chooses to live outside Scotland in tax exile.

How about the 100 year old Canadian who left Scotland as a baby.
It is just simple to have it as residents only.
You live in England and vote for an English MP and an English local Councillor to represent you.
		
Click to expand...

I'd have given a say to anyone who has their birth registered in Scotland - in a weighted manner - and maybe only if the vote of the domicile electorate was close.  

If simplicity was the key then how difficult would it have been for a request from me for a vote to be cross-checked against the register of births and deaths.  It would have been easy.  Anyway - it's not going to happen.

Bottom line is that is the decision on the electorate was made on the assumption that the referendum debate would focus on short term 'wallet' considerations - either that or on the assumption/fear that the majority of non-doms would vote No - or would that have been YES - I'm not sure.

And what have my local and governmental representatives got to do with the referendum - they don't have any say either.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 22, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			I'm not in favour of independence, for reasons I've tried to explain previously, *but you're wrong about businesses..*.. My employer, a multinational IT company, sees lots of potential opportunity in an independent Scotland and definitely wouldn't be scared off......
		
Click to expand...

am I? care to share your findings? the owners of your multinational IT company might have said to you they wont be scared off, but that is a far cry from not wanting separation...

I did say nearly all and that point I'll grant you is wrong, its only 72%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...of-businesses-oppose-Scottish-separation.html


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 22, 2013)

CMAC said:



			seriously! you want to stay in a separated country run by idiots? 

Dont see how you figure when one leaves that creates a space for someone else to move in, don't think you're fully understanding this 'country' thing. You'll find nearly all business's in Scotland are against the idea, plus inward investors are cautious too based on what might happen.

Oh and I'm not Michelle Mone but I do know her
		
Click to expand...

Whereas Westminster is full of genius?

I own my own business, turnover last year was seven figures, so not significant, but its folk like me who count.We can all claim to know people with money who'll vote no, but so what?Their vote carries the same value as the janitor or office worker.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/


----------



## Snelly (Nov 22, 2013)

From today's Telegraph.....


"The average Scot now enjoys Â£1,623 more in state spending than their neighbours south of the Border, up from Â£1,600 last year. 

North Sea oil and gas means that Scotland also contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average, but revenues have dropped off recently and are projected to continue falling. 

The figures are likely to further infuriate the English and lead to renewed calls for an overhaul of the Barnett formula, which allocates money to Scotland based on population share rather than need. 

Their publication came as the Local Government Association, which represents councils south of the Border, said the system means Englandâ€™s communities are being â€œshort-changedâ€ by Â£4.1 billion a year." 



I would love to see Scotland gain it's independence and stand on its own two feet.   It cannot happen soon enough for me.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2013)

A bit selective there Snelly.
Can you also tell us what is the per head cost of the average Scot in additional tax revenue to the UK exchequer.
I would imagine it is around Â£1.6k a head as Scotland has a higher rate of taxpayers than England. [as well as the gas & oil revenues]


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 22, 2013)

Snelly said:



			From today's Telegraph.....


"The average Scot now enjoys Â£1,623 more in state spending than their neighbours south of the Border, up from Â£1,600 last year. 

North Sea oil and gas means that Scotland also contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average, but revenues have dropped off recently and are projected to continue falling. 

The figures are likely to further infuriate the English and lead to renewed calls for an overhaul of the Barnett formula, which allocates money to Scotland based on population share rather than need. 

Their publication came as the Local Government Association, which represents councils south of the Border, said the system means Englandâ€™s communities are being â€œshort-changedâ€ by Â£4.1 billion a year." 



I would love to see Scotland gain it's independence and stand on its own two feet.   It cannot happen soon enough for me.
		
Click to expand...

Show me one remotely + news article from The Telegraph for the Yes campaign, I'll even provide a link to their Scotland page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/

It's not a newspaper, it's a propaganda machine for The Union, along with The BBC.


----------



## Snelly (Nov 22, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			A bit selective there Snelly.
Can you also tell us what is the per head cost of the average Scot in additional tax revenue to the UK exchequer.
I would imagine it is around Â£1.6k a head as Scotland has a higher rate of taxpayers than England. [as well as the gas & oil revenues]
		
Click to expand...


A bit selective does not mean a bit wrong though does it?  

Scotland gets a great deal from the Barnett formula - that is a fact.  


When are you all going to vote and then move on?


----------



## CMAC (Nov 22, 2013)

Snelly said:



			A bit selective does not mean a bit wrong though does it?  

Scotland gets a great deal from the Barnett formula - that is a fact.  


When are you all going to vote and then move on?
		
Click to expand...

I'll vote now...NO!


Whatever the decision next year your lives in England will change not one jot! You'll still be dancing round poles wearing bells, waving streamers and dealing with travellers, so I dont see why you are all so interested


----------



## CMAC (Nov 22, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Whereas Westminster is full of genius?

I own my own business, turnover last year was seven figures, so not significant, but its folk like me who count.*We can all claim to know people with money who'll vote no, but so what?*Their vote carries the same value as the janitor or office worker.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/

Click to expand...

Just to be clear I do not speak for nor know the decision of 'people with money' as your post eludes that I do, not sure how you made that leap but just want to be clear!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wow.......That probably equates in price to a 3 bedroom ex council house in Clapham.
		
Click to expand...

V Nice property - Â£675,000 for that pile is actually quite funny (in a wry smile sort of way) viewed from down here.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 22, 2013)

Snelly said:



			Scotland gets a great deal from the Barnett formula - that is a fact.
		
Click to expand...

Care to show how, not using BBC etc, but actual figures as i'm sure you're not one to believe what your told without verification


----------



## Snelly (Nov 22, 2013)

CMAC said:



			so I dont see why you are all so interested
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps because we want to stop giving you loads of cash with nothing in return apart from thinly veiled anti-English sentiment?


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 22, 2013)

CMAC said:



			Just to be clear I do not speak for nor know the decision of 'people with money' as your post eludes that I do, not sure how you made that leap but just want to be clear!
		
Click to expand...

Ms Mone,someone you know, is a well kent No.I realise you don't have authority to speak on her behalf, but I'm sure you are aware of her pov.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2013)

Snelly said:



			From today's Telegraph.....


"The average Scot now enjoys Â£1,623 more in state spending than their neighbours south of the Border, up from Â£1,600 last year. 

North Sea oil and gas means that Scotland also contributes more per head in taxation than the UK average, but revenues have dropped off recently and are projected to continue falling. 

The figures are likely to further infuriate the English and lead to renewed calls for an overhaul of the Barnett formula, which allocates money to Scotland based on population share rather than need. 

Their publication came as the Local Government Association, which represents councils south of the Border, said the system means Englandâ€™s communities are being â€œshort-changedâ€ by Â£4.1 billion a year." 



I would love to see Scotland gain it's independence and stand on its own two feet.   It cannot happen soon enough for me.
		
Click to expand...

At least I am not alone then on my predictions on the Barnett formula post a NO vote.  It really is one great big 'Elephant in the room' for the BT Campaign.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 22, 2013)

Snelly said:



			Perhaps because we want to stop *giving you loads of cash with nothing in return* apart from thinly veiled anti-English sentiment? 

Click to expand...

:rofl:

:blah:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			A bit selective there Snelly.
Can you also tell us what is the per head cost of the average Scot in additional tax revenue to the UK exchequer.
I would imagine it is around Â£1.6k a head as Scotland has a higher rate of taxpayers than England. [as well as the gas & oil revenues]
		
Click to expand...

You may be correct DfT - but snelly simply atriculates what I hear a lot down here - supported by the evidence presented by the Telegraph.  Tell you what - 37,000 in my town and locality - multiply by Â£1600 and that's a lot of extra money coming to the area - circa Â£56m  That's the sort of sums folk do.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 22, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Ms Mone,someone you know, is a well kent No.I realise you don't have authority to speak on her behalf, but I'm sure you are aware of her pov.
		
Click to expand...

I couldnt have been more clear that I don't.........obviously I didnt

Can I also add that I have no interest nor care


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			It's not a newspaper, it's a propaganda machine for The Union, along with The BBC.
		
Click to expand...

I was thinking this not ten minutes ago when in a trailer for some R5L prog on the referendum included words to the effect 
_
'..the vote that will put the future of the UK at risk'_

To me that has a distinct implied negativity about a YES vote.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 25, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427

BBC article from today along this theme


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 25, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035427

BBC article from today along this theme
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out the piece - will have a read later.  

On Saturday in clubhouse a group of guys started discussing the referendum vote with me - with their opening remark to me being a jovial 

"the sooner you Scots vote for independence and b****r off the better" 

I updated them on the voting franchise and noted that I did not have a vote. They found that somewhat amusing - me not getting a vote.  In general their view was indeed that if Scotland wanted to remain part of the UK then the per head grant to Scotland should be the same as that spent per head in England - so Â£1600/year/head less than current level.  As for the BT Campaigns "why change?  Stay as we are and we get best of both worlds - the bun and the penny"  Not a chance - was their retort.

And over the weekend I read of the shambles the Tories are in 'philosophically' - as in what DO they want or stand for in respect of immigration and Europe.  And so on the politics of England, the Tories and Europe - what odds the 2015 election is hung and that with Lib-Dems a busted flush (other than in Scotland) the coalition is Tory-UKIP.  And who would bet against that pairing holding a referendum to leave Europe - except I think that's happening anyway - and with 'floods' of Romanians and Bulgarians coming in from next year what chance UK then leaving Europe.  All to the good if that's what is best for Scotland and what Scots would want post a NO vote.  

So post a NO vote and post the 2015 Gen Election Scotland should I believe not expect 'more of the same' because things they will be a-changing.  So let's hear more of those changes from BT and how they'll affect Scotland - we hear plenty from them on the potential changes following a YES vote.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 25, 2013)

Many Scots service personnel are not happy that they have been excluded from the vote. I just look at it as a good way to ditch the pipes and drums


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 25, 2013)

Big day tomorrow.
The devil will be in the detail.
Will Lord Soapy pull a rabbit out of his top hat and send England and Wales into decades of Tory/UKIP rule.
.......or will it be a damp squib.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 25, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Will Lord Soapy pull a rabbit out of his top hat and send England and Wales into decades of Tory/UKIP rule.
.
		
Click to expand...

There is a risk that England will head that way whatever Scotland does.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 25, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			There is a risk that England will head that way whatever Scotland does.
		
Click to expand...

Good


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 25, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Good 

Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 25, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Show me one remotely + news article from The Telegraph for the Yes campaign, I'll even provide a link to their Scotland page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/

It's not a newspaper, it's a propaganda machine for The Union, along with The BBC.
		
Click to expand...

So thats the Telegraph and Mail off the shelves.  Maybe we will all be better comrades if we kept it to the Guardian, Socialist Worker and Morning Star.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Good 

Click to expand...

So you want to leave Europe then?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

Anyone watching Dale Maily in 'The Revolution will be Televised' very funny and like true satire more than a pinch of the truth.
A modern Secret Policeman's Ball.

Now I don't know what made me think of that on this thread....honest!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So thats the Telegraph and Mail off the shelves.  Maybe we will all be better comrades if we kept it to the Guardian, Socialist Worker and Morning Star.
		
Click to expand...

The Herald, Daily Record and the Hootsmon seem to have been left off your list.
You are probably unaware of those Scottish papers.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			So you want to leave Europe then?
		
Click to expand...

A risk there for the BT Campaign to counter - unless that is the residents of Scotland want to get out of Europe as well in which case no risk.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 26, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			So you want to leave Europe then?
		
Click to expand...


Why not?

As an average man on the street I can only see the downsides far outweighing the upsides... And I don't believe I am alone in those thoughts... Doubt though, despite all the promises, I'll actually get to vote on it in my lifetime...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

Historically the Scots have been close allies of many European countries and I think that they would be quite happy to stay in Europe.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

Trident to go
Tax to remain the same.
Pound to stay within Sterling 'band'
30 hours childcare for 3-4 year olds.
Bedroom tax to go.

Seems a bit thin on detail so far.


Good news for Hogan...he can choose to remain a Scots citizen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Trident to go
Tax to remain the same.
Pound to stay within Sterling 'band'
30 hours childcare for 3-4 year olds.
Bedroom tax to go.

Seems a bit thin on detail so far.


Good news for Hogan...he can choose to remain a Scots citizen.
		
Click to expand...

 What was the alternative - I automatically became English??


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

You would become stateless and have to apply for immigration into England.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 26, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What was the alternative - I automatically became English?? 

Click to expand...

You already are!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

ger147 said:



			You already are!! 

Click to expand...

Oi!!!! How very dare you....


----------



## ger147 (Nov 26, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oi!!!! How very dare you....

Click to expand...

You know us Glaswegians, the only thing worse than being a serial killer is going to live down THERE!!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 26, 2013)

Oh dear that includes me then......and I'm taking my grandson to Parkheed tonight, will I be safe. I don't think I speak English style.... actually.





Old boy.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

ger147 said:



			You know us Glaswegians, the only thing worse than being a serial killer is going to live down THERE!! 

Click to expand...

I know you Glaswegians well - I spent my formative years living in Mt Florida - a stones throw from Hampden Park - Somerville Drive side.  Went to Mt Florida Primary school.  So yes - I know Glaswegians - as I am one


----------



## ger147 (Nov 26, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I know you Glaswegians well - I spent my formative years living in Mt Florida - a stones throw from Hampden Park - Somerville Drive side.  Went to Mt Florida Primary school.  So yes - I know Glaswegians - as I am one 

Click to expand...

Saves me asking what school you went to !!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Oh dear that includes me then......and I'm taking my grandson to Parkheed tonight, will I be safe. I don't think I speak English style.... actually.

Old boy.
		
Click to expand...


You'll be safe - but don't expect any great level of hi-flootin cultural debate with the locals  Nonetheless I think that you'll find that they are rather quaint and have some interesting behavioural traits.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Saves me asking what school you went to !! 

Click to expand...

I guess so - I didn't go to school Toryglen side if that's what you mean 

Otherwise I'd have been in the same class as Jim Kerr as he is same age as me and he lived not far away (prob less than a mile)  - but might as well have  been other side of the moon in some respects.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 26, 2013)

anyone care to summarise the gazillion pages they wrote in their white paper?
News seems to be saying all the essential answers are missing as they don't have any.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

CMAC said:



			anyone care to summarise the gazillion pages they wrote in their white paper?
News seems to be saying all the essential answers are missing as they don't have any.
		
Click to expand...

You mean Wee Eck and Daphne weren't able to tell us what the world will be like in 2016? - poor show!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 26, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You mean Wee Eck and Daphne weren't able to tell us what the world will be like in 2016? - poor show!
		
Click to expand...

Yes they did!!   Utopia in an independent Scotland, Purgatory in a UK one.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 26, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes they did!!   Utopia in an independent Scotland, Purgatory in a UK one.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't listened or seem - but I suspect they did more towards the 'utopia' out of UK than bother too much about 'purgatory'  if still in.  

I await with no little interest the BT Campaign response outlining why 'utopia' if still in, rather than them just focus on their view of why 'purgatory' if out.  I bet though we'll hear a lot of the latter and not much on the former.  The BT problem is that they don't have a clue what the UK will look like in 2016, post a Scottish No vote and a 2015 UK general election - and in that context *they* have difficulties putting forward economic or European absolutes for Scotland as well.


----------



## harpo_72 (Nov 26, 2013)

Apparently they want the BBC still and the pound... Independence is independence, you do it your self,you do your own dirty laundry as well. 

By the way, why are the English not casting a vote on this, after all it is our possession  ... I'll get my coat now.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 26, 2013)

harpo_72 said:



			Apparently they want the BBC still and the pound... Independence is independence, you do it your self,you do your own dirty laundry as well. 

By the way, why are the English not casting a vote on this, after all it is our possession  ... I'll get my coat now.
		
Click to expand...

They have been told the pound is out and they will have to find their own scheckle.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 26, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			They have been told the pound is out and they will have to find their own scheckle.
		
Click to expand...

I believe Salmond said that if an independent Scotland cannot have the Pound then they wont share the National Debt.


----------



## harpo_72 (Nov 26, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I believe Salmond said that if an independent Scotland cannot have the Pound then they wont share the National Debt.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm I suspect the accounts will show that its all Scottish ...


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 26, 2013)

Sorry, I cannot take any political party run by a pair of fish serious. :lol:


----------



## BROOKIE (Nov 26, 2013)

Does this mean more wind turbines or less,and where is Mel when you want him?


----------



## lobthewedge (Nov 26, 2013)

CMAC said:



			anyone care to summarise the gazillion pages they wrote in their white paper?
News seems to be saying all the essential answers are missing as they don't have any.
		
Click to expand...

Vote yes and Scotland will magically transform into a land flowing with milk and honey, Wee fat Eck and his Poison Pixie will sort the whole thing out, don't worry about the details, it will all work out fine in the end.

The man lives in cloud cuckoo land!


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 26, 2013)

I personally hope Scotland stays as part of the union, I believe in Britain, the good and the bad. I haven't read up enough on the subject enough to form opinions on finances etc, but I would be interested to know if Scotland gained independence, how do you think the Scottish political landscape will be?


I dont like the tories as much as the next man, and I know they rarely win any seats in Scottish constituencies, which I think is one of the reasons behind feeling, you have no voice in the UK parliament, as it is not representative of your voting patterns.


I believe the SNP is left leaning, the liberals (well), the tories are virtually non-existent, and the Labour party more than holds its own.


If Scotland gained independence, 20 years down the line will you have had 20 years of labour governments? Will the SNP no longer exist, as their overall remit has been delivered. Will marginal parties come to the fore. Will the Liberal and right wing voters club together and form right leaning coalition governmants, especially if the first 10 years dont go well, and a cost-cutting "bailing out" options are seen to be needed, even by the masses.


Thoughts?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

harpo_72 said:



			Apparently they want the BBC still and the pound... Independence is independence, you do it your self,you do your own dirty laundry as well. 

By the way, why are the English not casting a vote on this, after all it is our possession  ... I'll get my coat now.
		
Click to expand...

That would be 8.3% our BBC transferred into Scotland's SBS. [you may keep Eastenders if you can still afford to make it]
OOR pound as well as yours. You keep the pound and you keep our share of the debt.
Are you aware that we own 8.3% of British assets which will have to be negotiated away.
That is Buckingham Palace/MI5/World Embassies/Portsmouth dockyard etc etc etc etc.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

Missed out a couple of the more popular ones yesterday.
50% reduction in airport landing fees and re-nationalise the Royal Mail.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Missed out a couple of the more popular ones
		
Click to expand...

And MPs in Great Britian taking yet another week off during the vote.

And if it comes to pass, Scotland is no longer a part of the EU does it mean that those who wish to remain in England require a visa.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be 8.3% our BBC transferred into Scotland's SBS. [you may keep Eastenders if you can still afford to make it]
OOR pound as well as yours. You keep the pound and you keep our share of the debt.
Are you aware that we own 8.3% of British assets which will have to be negotiated away.
That is Buckingham Palace/MI5/World Embassies/Portsmouth dockyard etc etc etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

North Sea oil ?? 

A few things i can't quite fathom.
Mr. Salmond says he wants to keep the pound, yet the EU says all new members must adopt the Euro.
Mr. Salmond also wants to be a member of Nato, a nuclear alliance, yet wants nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Can anyone shed some light please?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			North Sea oil ?? 

A few things i can't quite fathom.
Mr. Salmond says he wants to keep the pound, yet the EU says all new members must adopt the Euro.
Mr. Salmond also wants to be a member of Nato, a nuclear alliance, yet wants nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Can anyone shed some light please?
		
Click to expand...

Foe NATO think Swedish!

North Sea Oil........not much owned by the British......piplines and.....
Europe/Euro thing seems to have been straightened out.....


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

Most NATO countries have no nuclear capability.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

I realise that most NATO countries have no nuclear capability, but, god forbid, there is ever a war, what happens if Nato need scottish airfields/ports to move nuclear ordanance, refuel nuclear bombers, resuply submarines etc?? Surely if your in, your in ?

I heard on the news last night from some EU bloke, that the matter of the Euro was still to be negotiated, as Scotland didn't have indipendance yet so nothing had actually gone through the EU Parliament.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			I realise that most NATO countries have no nuclear capability, but, god forbid, there is ever a war, what happens if Nato need scottish airfields/ports to move nuclear ordanance, refuel nuclear bombers, resuply submarines etc?? Surely if your in, your in ?

I heard on the news last night from some EU bloke, that the matter of the Euro was still to be negotiated, as Scotland didn't have indipendance yet so nothing had actually gone through the EU Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

You will note that the EU representative was carefully referring to *new* members of the EU.  You could say that Scotland is an *existing *member - admitted as part of the UK admission process.  

On the NATO front - I think that it is reasonable to expect total flexibility on the part of a Scottish government in the event of a nuclear escalation or conflict that puts Scotland or it's interests at risk and that makes Scotland strategically crucial (i.e. with Russia - and risk of that being disappearingly small I suggest).


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 27, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Foe NATO think Swedish!

North Sea Oil........not much owned by the British......piplines and.....
Europe/Euro thing seems to have been straightened out.....
		
Click to expand...

Why? Sweden aren't in NATO.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 27, 2013)

Did I see you getting a comment posted on the BBC website during the live feed yesterday, Mr Hogan?

Or is there another outraged disenfranchised ex-pat Scot in Farnham?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Did I see you getting a comment posted on the BBC website during the live feed yesterday, Mr Hogan?

Or is there another outraged disenfranchised ex-pat Scot in Farnham? 

Click to expand...

Wisnae me - there's another is there?

Did I earlier hear Cameron tell the HoC that - never mind uncertainties around NATO, EU, Sterling etc - independence would result in an increase in taxation of Scots and other residents of Scotland of Â£1000 per head a year.  REALLY - did I mishear?  Is that all?

Because given that the per head grant is currently Â£1600 per head per year greater than that for England - then as I have suggested a NO will result in a significant cut in that grant. And if grant cut is such that Scots get only Â£600 per head greater than England - then to maintain current level of services in Scotland that effectively would require a Â£1000 increase in tax due to a NO vote.  So either way - YES or NO - Scots might face a Â£1000 increase in tax to maintain current levels of services.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Why? Sweden aren't in NATO.
		
Click to expand...

Is that not the point.  Sweden has a sophisticated armed forces - and would an independent nuclear free Scotland be more at risk from nuclear attack than Sweden?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Wisnae me - there's another is there?
		
Click to expand...

Found it......!




			Robert Rutherford from Farnham, England emails: I was born in Scotland but have lived in England for almost 50 years. I do not want to be regarded as a Scottish citizen if the independence vote is yes; unless I've had a chance to vote in this referendum. Of course I am not being offered that opportunity but I would vote no to this stupid and self aggrandising initiative from Salmond
		
Click to expand...

It did surprise me...... I have you down as a "yes"


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

It's not exactly equal across England as a whole either - some interesting figures...

Although not subject to the Barnett formula, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England:


North East Â£8,177 â€“ 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
North West Â£7,798 â€“ 106%
Yorkshire and Humberside Â£7,188 â€“ 98%
East Midlands Â£6,491 â€“ 88%
West Midlands Â£7,065 â€“ 96%
Eastern Â£6,144 â€“ 83%
London Â£8,404 â€“ 114%
South East Â£6,304 â€“ 86%
South West Â£6,677 â€“ 91%


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Found it......!



It did surprise me...... I have you down as a "yes" 

Click to expand...

I like to think of myself as closer to Robert Redford than Robert Rutherford


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			It's not exactly equal across England as a whole either - some interesting figures...

Although not subject to the Barnett formula, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England:


North East Â£8,177 â€“ 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
North West Â£7,798 â€“ 106%
Yorkshire and Humberside Â£7,188 â€“ 98%
East Midlands Â£6,491 â€“ 88%
West Midlands Â£7,065 â€“ 96%
Eastern Â£6,144 â€“ 83%
London Â£8,404 â€“ 114%
South East Â£6,304 â€“ 86%
South West Â£6,677 â€“ 91%


Click to expand...


And so how very useful for levelling up these figures will be that cut in the Scottish grant!


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Is that not the point.  Sweden has a sophisticated armed forces - and would an independent nuclear free Scotland be more at risk from nuclear attack than Sweden?
		
Click to expand...


I don't think that was the point Doon was trying to make TBH & the answer to your question is that no one can answer it, it would be a guess.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I don't think that was the point Doon was trying to make TBH & the answer to your question is that no one can answer it, it would be a guess.
		
Click to expand...

Just about everything is a best guess.  There is very little *actual *that can be said today about an independent Scotland as Scotland is not independent.  The BT Campaign say everything in the White Paper is an assertion - well of course everything is an assertion - what else could it be?  *Nobody *knows what the world is going to be like in 2016, so why should I be surprised that Wee Eck and Daphne were unable to provide me with any absolute certainties about Scotland in 2016.  After all for instance - rUK might have decided to leave the EU by then


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so how very useful for levelling up these figures will be that cut in the Scottish grant!
		
Click to expand...

Scotland and London get about the same, NI get more than anyone at over Â£9k.

My point is that I don't think you will ever spend the same per capita in every area of the UK.  Some areas get more, some get less based on how the calculation is done and the areas are defined.

As for the argument about whether the Barnett formula is fair or not, in my own personal opinion if it is clearly demonstrated that it is not fair and there is a fairer alternative, I would not be opposed to it being changed for something else.

At the moment, there is no political consensus even within individual parties that it is either unfair or what an alternative could be.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Scotland and London get about the same, NI get more than anyone at over Â£9k.

My point is that I don't think you will ever spend the same per capita in every area of the UK.  Some areas get more, some get less based on how the calculation is done and the areas are defined.

As for the argument about whether the Barnett formula is fair or not, in my own personal opinion if it is clearly demonstrated that it is not fair and there is a fairer alternative, I would not be opposed to it being changed for something else.

At the moment, there is no political consensus even within individual parties that it is either unfair or what an alternative could be.
		
Click to expand...

believe me - down here it doesn't matter whether or not there is political consensus on this matter at the moment.  Following a NO vote the English electorate will *demand *a cut in the Barnett formula grant to Scotland - whether that is actually fair or not - it is very strongly perceived as by *unfair*.  I'd like someone to tell me that the grant won't be cut - I'd rather it wasn't as I have plenty of relatives in remote places and that otherwise rely on the state - and a cut will affect them.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			believe me - down here it doesn't matter whether or not there is political consensus on this matter at the moment.  Following a NO vote the English electorate will *demand *a cut in the Barnett formula grant to Scotland - whether that is actually fair or not - it is very strongly perceived as by *unfair*.  I'd like someone to tell me that the grant won't be cut - I'd rather it wasn't as I have plenty of relatives in remote places and that otherwise rely on the state - and a cut will affect them.
		
Click to expand...

Then why hasn't it been cut already?

It's not actually subject to legislation or parliamentary approval, it's simply a convention that is adhered to by the Treasury.

The current government has stated that it will continue to use the Barnett formula as the basis for allocating funds to the 3 devolved governments of Wales, NI and Scotland.

And as I've said elsewhere, we don't know who the post-2015 government will be so we don't know what will happen after that.

P.S. How will the English electorate demand a cut?  If for example Labour gets in and then refuse to change the formula, what will the English electorate do about it?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

Start of the climb down

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/alex-salmond-snp-stance-nato-nuclear-weapons


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Start of the climb down

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/alex-salmond-snp-stance-nato-nuclear-weapons

Click to expand...

or a move to a pragmatic approach


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Then why hasn't it been cut already?

It's not actually subject to legislation or parliamentary approval, it's simply a convention that is adhered to by the Treasury.

The current government has stated that it will continue to use the Barnett formula as the basis for allocating funds to the 3 devolved governments of Wales, NI and Scotland.

And as I've said elsewhere, we don't know who the post-2015 government will be so we don't know what will happen after that.

P.S. How will the English electorate demand a cut?  If for example Labour gets in and then refuse to change the formula, what will the English electorate do about it?
		
Click to expand...

Because there hasn't been the political will given serious public outcry - and Labour needed the Scottish seats.  Post a NO folk in England will say 

'OK - you are part of the UK for good now - so if the current grant arrangements mean free prescriptions, no uni fees etc then that grant should be cut because that higher level of funding should not enable these things to be free in Scotland when they are not free in England - you want to be part of the UK - you can get a more equivalent level of funding'

I don't know that this will happen - so it's an assertion - but in truth I'm just relating what I hear being said around me in the clubhouse and elsewhere.

...and absolutely you you don't know who will be in government post 2015; and you have no idea what will be in the party manifesto's for that election; and you don't know what the heck would happen if we ended up with a Tory-UKIP coalition.  But a NO vote will mean that you can't complain about Westminster making decisions that don't reflect the Scottish view and Scottish wishes; and no longer will you be able to hold as a trump card the threat of leaving the union.  So be it.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Because there hasn't been the political will given serious public outcry - and Labour needed the Scottish seats.  Post a NO folk in England will say 

'OK - you are part of the UK for good now - so if the current grant arrangements mean free prescriptions, no uni fees etc then that grant should be cut because that higher level of funding should not enable these things to be free in Scotland when they are not free in England - you want to be part of the UK - you can get a more equivalent level of funding'

I don't know that this will happen - so it's an assertion - but in truth I'm just relating what I hear being said around me in the clubhouse and elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

You do know that while the SNP have been quite successful at dishing out the high-profile vote-grabbing policies like free prescriptions these have been funded by cuts elsewhere. For example, you are far better off if you live south of the border following a cancer diagnosis......


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			or a move to a pragmatic approach
		
Click to expand...

Or as it appears it was in the white paper reading the piece in the paper, saying one thing and meaning another.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You will note that the EU representative was carefully referring to *new* members of the EU.  You could say that Scotland is an *existing *member - admitted as part of the UK admission process.
		
Click to expand...

Well, we are at the moment anyway. 
The same bloke mentioned something about a Shengen Agreement?
Didn't hear the end of it, so have just done a bit of reading. I bet the tory's and Ukip are over the moon about the possibility that Scotland may have to sign up to this agreement. 
Passport control anyone? Perhaps Wimpy's could put a quote in for finishing that wall.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Because there hasn't been the political will given serious public outcry - and Labour needed the Scottish seats.  Post a NO folk in England will say 

'OK - you are part of the UK for good now - so if the current grant arrangements mean free prescriptions, no uni fees etc then that grant should be cut because that higher level of funding should not enable these things to be free in Scotland when they are not free in England - you want to be part of the UK - you can get a more equivalent level of funding'

I don't know that this will happen - so it's an assertion - but in truth I'm just relating what I hear being said around me in the clubhouse and elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

The last election was only in 2010 and all of these things were the case back then, and there was no great groundswell of public opinion that the parties contesting the election had to address this issue in their manifestos when seeking election/re-election - and they didn't.

So on that basis, MY assertion is that nothing will change next time around either.  The Conservatives have stated they will continue to use Barnett and Labour have been silent on this topic so there is no change to the political will to look at this from 2010.

I have also heard this said by some people for many years as much as I have heard the other side which is per capita income per head in Scotland is higher than England, but nothing has been done about it before and IMO I don't see it changing any time soon, unless of course there is a Yes vote in Scotland next year.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Because there hasn't been the political will given serious public outcry - and Labour needed the Scottish seats.  Post a NO folk in England will say 

'OK - you are part of the UK for good now - so if the current grant arrangements mean free prescriptions, no uni fees etc then that grant should be cut because that higher level of funding should not enable these things to be free in Scotland when they are not free in England - you want to be part of the UK - you can get a more equivalent level of funding'

I don't know that this will happen - so it's an assertion - but in truth I'm just relating what I hear being said around me in the clubhouse and elsewhere.

...and absolutely you you don't know who will be in government post 2015; and you have no idea what will be in the party manifesto's for that election; and you don't know what the heck would happen if we ended up with a Tory-UKIP coalition.  But a NO vote will mean that you can't complain about Westminster making decisions that don't reflect the Scottish view and Scottish wishes; and no longer will you be able to hold as a trump card the threat of leaving the union.  So be it.
		
Click to expand...

Just me personally, but I really can't see a big major outcry for this from the electorate, if a NO vote was successful.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			Well, we are at the moment anyway. 
The same bloke mentioned something about a Shengen Agreement?
Didn't hear the end of it, so have just done a bit of reading. I bet the tory's and Ukip are over the moon about the possibility that Scotland may have to sign up to this agreement. 
Passport control anyone? Perhaps Wimpy's could put a quote in for finishing that wall. 

Click to expand...

I understood the Shengen Agreement was about no passport controls. Something we a Ireland refused to sign up to which is why other EU members are subject to less controls than us.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I understood the Shengen Agreement was about no passport controls. Something we a Ireland refused to sign up to which is why other EU members are subject to less controls than us.
		
Click to expand...

This is what i understand also. So if Scotland have to sign up to it, doesn't that effectivly mean we do also?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			This is what i understand also. So if Scotland have to sign up to it, doesn't that effectivly mean we do also?
		
Click to expand...

Why would Scotland HAVE to sign up to it if Ireland were able to refuse?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Because there hasn't been the political will given serious public outcry - and Labour needed the Scottish seats.  Post a NO folk in England will say 

'OK - you are part of the UK for good now - so if the current grant arrangements mean free prescriptions, no uni fees etc then that grant should be cut because that higher level of funding should not enable these things to be free in Scotland when they are not free in England - you want to be part of the UK - you can get a more equivalent level of funding'

I don't know that this will happen - so it's an assertion - but in truth I'm just relating what I hear being said around me in the clubhouse and elsewhere.

...and absolutely you you don't know who will be in government post 2015; and you have no idea what will be in the party manifesto's for that election; and you don't know what the heck would happen if we ended up with a Tory-UKIP coalition.  But a NO vote will mean that you can't complain about Westminster making decisions that don't reflect the Scottish view and Scottish wishes; and no longer will you be able to hold as a trump card the threat of leaving the union.  So be it.
		
Click to expand...

One additional point as you edited your post after I replied:

To my knowledge, a majority of the people of Scotland have never been in favour of or threatened to leave the union.  It's the SNP's raison d'etre but not the view or will of the majority of Scots.  And I have a feeling that will be confirmed next September.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Why would Scotland HAVE to sign up to it if Ireland were able to refuse?
		
Click to expand...

No idea mate, just asking a question myself. This EU bloke was going on about what any new members were expected to sign up to.
I guess if Slh is correct then no worries, but if things change in the near future, ie we leave, where does that leave things?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			No idea mate, just asking a question myself. This EU bloke was going on about what any new members were expected to sign up to.
I guess if Slh is correct then no worries, but if things change in the near future, ie we leave, where does that leave things? 

Click to expand...

If there is a Yes vote that is when the negotiations would begin, and like most negotiations there would be trade offs etc.

But these negotiations will not take place unless there is a Yes vote so if/until that happens, no-one knows...


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			If there is a Yes vote that is when the negotiations would begin, and like most negotiations there would be trade offs etc.

But these negotiations will not take place unless there is a Yes vote so if/until that happens, no-one knows...
		
Click to expand...

Very true. :thup:
Interesting though.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

I have never met a Scot in favour, however as they all live this side of the wall I am not sure how valid their opinion is.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			You do know that while the SNP have been quite successful at dishing out the high-profile vote-grabbing policies like free prescriptions these have been funded by cuts elsewhere. For example, you are far better off if you live south of the border following a cancer diagnosis......
		
Click to expand...

No I didn't know that (though I have heard it said) - and neither will most English.  Unfortunately that sort of sensible rationale will fall on the deaf ears of many.  All we see is that Scotland has FREE Prescriptions, FREE university; FREE elderly care - and HIGHER per head public funding.  These are all highly contentious issues in their own right and seeing Scots getting them FREE goes down like a bucket of...

This is how it is.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			To my knowledge, a majority of the people of Scotland have never been in favour of or threatened to leave the union.  It's the SNP's raison d'etre but not the view or will of the majority of Scots.  And I have a feeling that will be confirmed next September.
		
Click to expand...

No - but it's been a perception down south that Scotland might well do - and to that many have said hurrah - but they've let wait and see what happens.  Maybe Scots need to ask themselves why so many English would vote for Scotland to leave 

I suspect you are correct and the vote will be NO.  I'd just like to understand more about the 'what then?'


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No I didn't know that (though I have heard it said) - and neither will most English.  Unfortunately that sort of sensible rationale will fall on the deaf ears of many.  All we see is that Scotland has FREE Prescriptions, FREE university; FREE elderly care - and HIGHER per head public funding.  These are all highly contentious issues in their own right and seeing Scots getting them FREE goes down like a bucket of...

This is how it is.
		
Click to expand...

How did you think they were being paid for?

As the formula hasn't changed for decades, Scotland has had less money to spend these past few years but we can't borrow extra to make up any shortfall so cuts have resulted. The NHS in Scotland has been particularly hard hit in recent years.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			This is what i understand also. So if Scotland have to sign up to it, doesn't that effectivly mean we do also?
		
Click to expand...

An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU so would not be able to sign up to any treaties.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 27, 2013)

What sticks in many English craws are things like all EU countries students being able to get free Tuition Fees at Scottish Universities except the English who fund it.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU so would not be able to sign up to any treaties.
		
Click to expand...

If Scotland vote Yes, they do not immediately become independent.  They will still be a part of the UK and therefore an EU member when all of these negotiations will take place.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			What sticks in many English craws are things like all EU countries students being able to get free Tuition Fees at Scottish Universities except the English who fund it.
		
Click to expand...

That particular issue could be very interesting post a Yes vote, as in theory English, Welsh and NI students would essentially be from another EU country and therefore entitled to free university education in Scotland as well.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			That particular issue could be very interesting post a Yes vote, as in theory English, Welsh and NI students would essentially be from another EU country and therefore entitled to free university education in Scotland as well.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the White Paper excludes English Students.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I believe the White Paper excludes English Students.
		
Click to expand...

Doing so is against current EU legislation and other countries who have challenged it have all lost to date...


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU so would not be able to sign up to any treaties.
		
Click to expand...

This is of course true Socket, but Mr Salmond has expressed his intention to join the EU.
If he gets a mandate to do so from any future SP, then the questions become valid, and concern us down here and the island of Ireland.
Its all supposition though at the moment, and some may claim scaremongering.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave..." I guess both sides should take note from Mr.Scott.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 27, 2013)

I shall be voting "Yes" And leave England to having a Tory Gov for the next 60 years.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

Most folk I know would prefer Scotland to remain part of GB put with the poor representation from those leading the No vote, using scaremongering tactics instead of giving the facts and the pontificating of the SNP they are getting highly feed up of the hole mish mash.

With a tin foil hat on just perhaps those political boys south of the boarder are secretly hoping for a Yes vote.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			I shall be voting "Yes" And leave England to having a Tory Gov for the next 60 years.
		
Click to expand...

Could be worse, you can go labour then and become another Greece.  That's if you get into the EU.


----------



## patricks148 (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I believe the White Paper excludes English Students.
		
Click to expand...

and many scottish students too. Its not all how you have been lead to believe!


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			I shall be voting "Yes" And leave England to having a Tory Gov for the next 60 years.
		
Click to expand...

If this happens i've already told me aunty i'am moving in with her.
Needless to say she's already going round encouraging everyone who'l listen to vote no.
Charmin..


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I have never met a Scot in favour, however as they all live this side of the wall I am not sure how valid their opinion is.
		
Click to expand...

The Anglo Scots probably have more to lose than the Scots so would favour a no vote.

At Central Station Glasgow [Pre Celtic match] last night there were hoards of bright young folk handing out YES leaflets and happily explaining to passers bye the benefits of an independent Scotland.
Historically 30% of Scots support Independence.
I think Lord Soapy played quite a strong card with the white paper up here, so at the moment I think the vote will be close.
Radio Phone ins etc seem to support a 50-50 split.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I believe the White Paper excludes English Students.[/QUOTE

Utter rubbish.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

The latest poll (from 3 days ago so pre-white paper) was 47% No, 38% Yes and 15% Don't Know.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			How did you think they were being paid for?
		
Click to expand...

Don't ask me - I don't live in Scotland.  All I know is what I see and what I am told.  I see all that stuff FREE - and I am told that Scotland gets Â£1600/head more in government funding than England.  The logic then is clearly that the extra funding is therefore paying for all that FREE stuff - and that is what many believe.  The truth is what the people believe.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The Anglo Scots probably have more to lose than the Scots so would favour a no vote.

At Central Station Glasgow [Pre Celtic match] last night there were hoards of bright young folk handing out YES leaflets and happily explaining to passers bye the benefits of an independent Scotland.
Historically 30% of Scots support Independence.
I think Lord Soapy played quite a strong card with the white paper up here, so at the moment I think the vote will be close.
Radio Phone ins etc seem to support a 50-50 split.
		
Click to expand...

As the silly man was allowed to say who can and cannot vote it was always heading for a close affair. Yet still no mention of the Elephant in the Room.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			What sticks in many English craws are things like all EU countries students being able to get free Tuition Fees at Scottish Universities except the English who fund it.
		
Click to expand...

Ah but dear SocketRocket - you are sorely mistaken - see elsewhere on this thread. The FREE uni education is funded by Scots being frugal in other areas and nothing at all to do with English taxpayers funding it.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't ask me - I don't live in Scotland.  All I know is what I see and what I am told.  I see all that stuff FREE - and I am told that Scotland gets Â£1600/head more in government funding than England.  The logic then is clearly that the extra funding is therefore paying for all that FREE stuff - and that is what many believe.  The truth is what the people believe.
		
Click to expand...

The truth is the truth, what people believe is up to them.

Incidentally, UK average GDP per person is Â£22,336.  The Scottish figure is Â£26,424.  That's Â£4,058 more per person in Scotland than the UK average.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			This is of course true Socket, but Mr Salmond has expressed his intention to join the EU.
		
Click to expand...

...and on what earthly grounds would the EU refuse to admit Scotland - even if Scotland had to apply for membership their admission is surely certain.  The EU wants to be inclusive.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and on what earthly grounds would the EU refuse to admit Scotland - even if Scotland had to apply for membership their admission is surely certain.  The EU wants to be inclusive.
		
Click to expand...

I believe to be a member, there must be a Yes vote from all members and guess who might vote no.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			The truth is the truth, what people believe is up to them.

Incidentally, UK average GDP per person is Â£22,336.  The Scottish figure is Â£26,424.  That's Â£4,058 more per person in Scotland than the UK average.
		
Click to expand...

And if they believe something is evidentially wrong, they will want it righted.

As for GDP - honestly - all good words and figures - but many down here will not be listening.  Many down here will say in response "well if your GDP/head is so healthy and so much better than the rest of the UK - then vote YES and go your own way"


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			As the silly man was allowed to say who can and cannot vote it was always heading for a close affair. Yet still no mention of the Elephant in the Room.
		
Click to expand...

which elephant is that?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I believe to be a member, there must be a Yes vote from all members and guess who might vote no.
		
Click to expand...

Not a chance of England voting NO if it were to come to it.  Maybe a fanciful assertion that the BT campaign will make but not something that anyone could honestly see happening.  More chance of England leaving the EU before Scotland applied to join - so no problem.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And if they believe something is evidentially wrong, they will want it righted.

As for GDP - honestly - all good words and figures - but many down here will not be listening.  Many down here will say in response "well if your GDP/head is so healthy and so much better than the rest of the UK - then vote YES and go your own way"
		
Click to expand...

The point should be obvious - the spending per head is higher but so is the income per head.  In a SENSIBLE discussion, you can't use one as a stick to beat someone with while totally ignoring the other.  They are the 2 sides of the same coin.

Here are some figures if anyone is interested...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not a chance of England voting NO if it were to come to it.  Maybe a fanciful assertion that the BT campaign will make but not something that anyone could honestly see happening.  More chance of England leaving the EU before Scotland applied to join - so no problem.
		
Click to expand...

England would 100% not vote No as England don't get a vote...


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			England would 100% not vote No as England don't get a vote...
		
Click to expand...

I know we don't get much say in what happens in the EU but I'm sure we get a vote on who can or cannot enter.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I know we don't get much say in what happens in the EU but I'm sure we get a vote on who can or cannot enter.
		
Click to expand...

The UK does, England does not..


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			which elephant is that?
		
Click to expand...

Cannot mention it as one more infraction and I'm out. Someone might be brave enough.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			The UK does, England does not..
		
Click to expand...

slip of the finger


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			The truth is the truth, what people believe is up to them.

Incidentally, UK average GDP per person is Â£22,336.  The Scottish figure is Â£26,424.  That's Â£4,058 more per person in Scotland than the UK average.
		
Click to expand...

Only if you include oil& gas revenues (fast running out) and the development of which was not funded by Scottish companies or the Scottish people.

Sorry but the Yes campaign would be making a great mistake if they base projections of future wealth upon the continuance of the (Shetlanders) oil revenues.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Only if you include oil& gas revenues (fast running out) and the development of which was not funded by Scottish companies or the Scottish people.

Sorry but the Yes campaign would be making a great mistake if they base projections of future wealth upon the continuance of the (Shetlanders) oil revenues.
		
Click to expand...

Fast running out? Even conservative estimates (not the party) have us about halfway through the oil cash so several generations worth left at worst.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			(Shetlanders) oil revenues.
		
Click to expand...

They could go for independence.


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and on what earthly grounds would the EU refuse to admit Scotland - even if Scotland had to apply for membership their admission is surely certain.  The EU wants to be inclusive.
		
Click to expand...

I never said they would!! 
On the other hand nowts certain.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			They could go for independence. 

Click to expand...

Maybe London should too...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Fast running out? Even conservative estimates (not the party) have us about halfway through the oil cash so several generations worth left at worst.
		
Click to expand...

Halfway through is a generous estimate but even if correct would leave probably less than 40 years of revenues based upon increasing worldwide demand for carbon fuels.

Is that really sufficient for a nation to make long term plans? Perhaps, I don't know but it is surely a consideration.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Maybe London should too...
		
Click to expand...

In their own mind, they become independent decades ago....


----------



## ger147 (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Halfway through is a generous estimate but even if correct would leave probably less than 40 years of revenues based upon increasing worldwide demand for carbon fuels.

Is that really sufficient for a nation to make long term plans? Perhaps, I don't know but it is surely a consideration.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating using it to base a decision on, just pointing out the other half of the spend is higher in Scotland per person coin. So is income.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

ger147 said:



			England would 100% not vote No as England don't get a vote...
		
Click to expand...

touche  OK rUK


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Only if you include oil& gas revenues (fast running out) and the development of which was not funded by Scottish companies or the Scottish people.

Sorry but the Yes campaign would be making a great mistake if they base projections of future wealth upon the continuance of the (Shetlanders) oil revenues.
		
Click to expand...

And the BT Campaign is effectively doing the same - look how healthy Scotland is as part of the UK


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Halfway through is a generous estimate but even if correct would leave probably less than 40 years of revenues based upon increasing worldwide demand for carbon fuels.

Is that really sufficient for a nation to make long term plans? Perhaps, I don't know but it is surely a consideration.
		
Click to expand...

Scotland self-sufficient in and exporting power from wind, wave etc sometime in the future?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Scotland self-sufficient in and exporting power from wind, wave etc sometime in the future?
		
Click to expand...

Would any government anywhere want to base their planning upon renewable energy where the technology is still very much under development and to which there seems to be so much opposition. It does not appear to matter, for instance, whether wind farms are on or off shore, nobody seems to want them.

Also are there not concerns over the proportion of the workforce employed by the public sector. Higher, I believe, in Scotland than most of the UK.

BTW I am not opposed to Scottish independence, just interested in the debate and the fact that neither side is prepared to honestly discuss the issues.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 27, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Would any government anywhere want to base their planning upon renewable energy where the technology is still very much under development and to which there seems to be so much opposition. It does not appear to matter, for instance, whether wind farms are on or off shore, nobody seems to want them.

Also are there not concerns over the proportion of the workforce employed by the public sector. Higher, I believe, in Scotland than most of the UK.

BTW I am not opposed to Scottish independence, just interested in the debate and the fact that neither side is prepared to honestly discuss the issues.
		
Click to expand...

The situation would only be needing to be addressed 25yrs down the line - so plenty of time.  And if things not going well - time to build a new nuclear power station or two.  Plenty of empty space in Scotland where nimbyism wouldn't be an issue - nice earner for Scotland exporting power to England where space for new power stations is rather limited and controversial.  Or maybe Scotland could say - trade you our power for your defence.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2013)

Tell you what I wish we could sell our skies.
I saw the most amazing symmetrical herring bone cloud formation at North Berwick this afternoon, followed by a beautiful sunset over Aberlady Bay.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 27, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The situation would only be needing to be addressed 25yrs down the line - so plenty of time.  And if things not going well - time to build a new nuclear power station or two.  Plenty of empty space in Scotland where nimbyism wouldn't be an issue - nice earner for Scotland exporting power to England where space for new power stations is rather limited and controversial.  Or maybe Scotland could say - trade you our power for your defence.
		
Click to expand...

In macro-economics 25 years is not plenty of time.

Also plenty of space in England for nuclear power stations which are going to be built anyway. If you truly think that development of these stations on the Scottish coastline is likely to be any less controversial I would suggest that you have perhaps been away a little too long from your native land.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:





SocketRocket said:



			I believe the White Paper excludes English Students.[/QUOTE

Utter rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

The paper stated that an independent Scotland would charge students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not other EU countries.

Please justify your unqualified quote.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

SocketRocket said:





Doon frae Troon said:



			The paper stated that an independent Scotland would charge students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not other EU countries.

Please justify your unqualified quote.
		
Click to expand...

You gave the impression that only England would be charged and not.....The rest of the UK....see earlier post!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 28, 2013)

Some astoundingly ignorant posting on this thread, so congratulations.



SocketRocket said:



			An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU so would not be able to sign up to any treaties.
		
Click to expand...

Scotland would send The EU a wee email, something like this-

Dear friends in Brussels, we'd love to continue being part of The EU, we're not prepared (like some Eastern Bloc countries) to adopt the Euro, but lets face it, it's on it's last legs anyway and we're only interested in freedom of movement and access to the significant trading bloc.We've got loads and loads of Oil,some gas,more renewables than pretty much all of you put together, we're inclusive and welcome our people moving, as well as your coming here, plus we've got some of the best fishing in Europe...oh, did we mention all the oil out to our West we're not allowed to talk about because of those pesky subs use it as an access point, we reckon there is more on that side than there is in the North sea?Don't worry, give us a few years and we'll be able to start extracting that. 

All that, and it'll give you an excuse to cut that payment Maggie somehow managed to get you to agree to.

See ya soon,

Scotland.



MetalMickie said:



			Only if you include oil& gas revenues (fast running out) and the development of which was not funded by Scottish companies or the Scottish people.

Sorry but the Yes campaign would be making a great mistake if they base projections of future wealth upon the continuance of the (Shetlanders) oil revenues.
		
Click to expand...

Shetland owns zero/nowt/zilch oil...even if it became independent, it would have nothing.And oil is not fast running out, they reckon there is Â£1.5 TRILLION in the north sea left, and more than that in the west.


I think that folk are seriously failing to grasp how important Scotland is to The UK,whether that's because of Coulport (forget Faslane, that's a red herring) or because of Oil or because we help the south east prop up the rest of The UK, we're essential and rUK will be in a pickle if we leave.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Cannot mention it as one more infraction and I'm out. Someone might be brave enough.
		
Click to expand...

Could that be the Clyde oilfields that the British MOD blocked development of 25 years ago.

Hmmmmmmmm what if there is no British MOD. and a fit for purpose Scottish Navy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:





SocketRocket said:



			You gave the impression that only England would be charged and not.....The rest of the UK....see earlier post!
		
Click to expand...

I didnt mention the rest of the UK but never implied it was exclusive.   So I guess you will retract your 'Utter rubbish' quote?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 28, 2013)

Grant Scotland their independence. They will be cheerful for 5 minutes before becoming their usual dour selves. 
Only happy when they are unhappy. 

"Hello Mr Cheek", said Mr Tongue


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 28, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			Grant Scotland their independence. They will be cheerful for 5 minutes before becoming their usual dour selves. 
Only happy when they are unhappy. 

"Hello Mr Cheek", said Mr Tongue
		
Click to expand...

Tongue in cheek maybe, but 'grant Scotland their independence' is the root of all the ABE stuff.


----------



## londonlewis (Nov 28, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Tongue in cheek maybe, but 'grant Scotland their independence' is the root of all the ABE stuff.
		
Click to expand...

ABE stuff??? What does ABE stand for?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 28, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			ABE stuff??? What does ABE stand for?
		
Click to expand...


Anyone but England???? Although I may be wrong as I am really not trawling through every post.  This is an interesting article on the subject than makes some good nuanced points http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...dent-scotland-to-have-a-jacuzzi-2013112681467


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 28, 2013)

londonlewis said:



			ABE stuff??? What does ABE stand for?
		
Click to expand...

Yep, Anyone But England.A pretty lame attitude some folk have, brought on, in part by English folk 'granting' stuff to other parts of The UK.It's not unique to Scotland, and can be seen in both Wales & NI too.

It's not a pov I have btw, my dad is English and I actually, unlike the wee tyke Rory, want England to beat the aussies in the ashes.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I like to think of myself as closer to Robert Redford than Robert Rutherford 

Click to expand...

But more in the age bracket of Robert the Bruce


----------



## chrisd (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I saw the most amazing symmetrical herring bone cloud formation at North Berwick this afternoon, followed by a beautiful sunset over Aberlady Bay.
		
Click to expand...


You really should stop this Scottish custom of drinking at lunchtime!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

SocketRocket said:





Doon frae Troon said:



			I didnt mention the rest of the UK but never implied it was exclusive.   So I guess you will retract your 'Utter rubbish' quote?
		
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if it mentions England, Wales and NI in the white paper....just the rest of the UK.
Tell me the page and I will gladly retract.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

Interesting discussion the other night when a chap said 'Just for one minute imagine that Edinburgh was London and London was Edinburgh.
England would be basically ruled by a huge army of civil servants, politicians and institutions based in a Scottish city 400 miles away with a population of 8 million who received many financial advantages.

Do you think that they would be happy?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 28, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I think that folk are seriously failing to grasp how important Scotland is to The UK,whether that's because of Coulport (forget Faslane, that's a red herring) or because of Oil or because we help the south east prop up the rest of The UK, we're essential and rUK will be in a pickle if we leave.
		
Click to expand...

I would be interested to know if you feel this is just a one way stretch.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I think that folk are seriously failing to grasp how important Scotland is to The UK,whether that's because of Coulport (forget Faslane, that's a red herring) or because of Oil or because we help the south east prop up the rest of The UK, we're essential and rUK will be in a pickle if we leave.
		
Click to expand...

What folk are you referring to - those having a vote or those not having a vote?

Those having a vote may not care if your assertions are true - those not having a vote - well - they don't have a vote.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

I listened to an neutral finance expert the other night who said that the worst possible result for the rest of the UK would be for Scotland to move to the Euro.
Scotland's treasury would basically take 8.3% out of sterling and convert it to Euro's.
Can you imagine the run on the pound that an 8% drop in sterling would cause.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

chrisd said:



			But more in the age bracket of Robert the Bruce  

Click to expand...

..and as lissome as Margaret Rutherford


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting discussion the other night when a chap said 'Just for one minute imagine that Edinburgh was London and London was Edinburgh.
England would be basically ruled by a huge army of civil servants, politicians and institutions based in a Scottish city 400 miles away with a population of 8 million who received many financial advantages.

Do you think that they would be happy?
		
Click to expand...

And see what happened in 1977 when MoD proposed moving from London to Glasgow. And the swines demolished St Enoch station to make way. Now that would have made the independence debate even more interesting - UK MoD in Glasgow


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And see what happened in 1977 when MoD proposed moving from London to Glasgow. And the swines demolished St Enoch station to make way. Now that would have made the independence debate even more interesting - UK MoD in Glasgow 

Click to expand...

The Army Personnel Centre, a fairly significant and sizeable organisation is in Glasgow.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			The Army Personnel Centre, a fairly significant and sizeable organisation is in Glasgow.
		
Click to expand...

And a fair few other depts - wonder where they'll relocate to   Push in 1977 was to have the majority of the MoD move.  I'm guessing that this would have been in part to the rise of the SNP in 1974 and the Margo effect.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And see what happened in 1977 when MoD proposed moving from London to Glasgow. And the swines demolished St Enoch station to make way. Now that would have made the independence debate even more interesting - UK MoD in Glasgow 

Click to expand...

And the reasons for scrapping the move made sound sense [not].
Massive savings for the services but the generals, air chiefs, admirals and army of hanger on's did not wish to move from London.


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And a fair few other depts - wonder where they'll relocate to   Push in 1977 was to have the majority of the MoD move.  I'm guessing that this would have been in part to the rise of the SNP in 1974 and the Margo effect.
		
Click to expand...

Really? The only one of any significance I'm aware of is the APC, that and a number of TA units.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Really? The only one of any significance I'm aware of is the APC, that and a number of TA units.
		
Click to expand...

Kentigern House was one I was thinking of that jumped to mind.  But that may also be APC.  As Doonie said - folks from MoD London brought up to Glasgow back then and taken around Glasgow in bus tours etc.  Nope - they didn't fancy Glasgow so wouldn't move.  Did they not build the first fancy riverside flats down Lancefield Quay way for the MoD staff - largely to show them the sort of City Centre properties that would be available to rent and buy?  I may be imagineering that.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

I remember one old bodger trying to explain that one reason for not selecting Glasgow was the shortage of suitable public schools in Scotland for the children of officers.
The interviewer then said that he thought The Duke of Edinburgh was rather impressed with the education Prince Charles received at Gordonston.


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Kentigern House was one I was thinking of that jumped to mind.  But that may also be APC.  As Doonie said - folks from MoD London brought up to Glasgow back then and taken around Glasgow in bus tours etc.  Nope - they didn't fancy Glasgow so wouldn't move.  Did they not build the first fancy riverside flats down Lancefield Quay way for the MoD staff - largely to show them the sort of City Centre properties that would be available to rent and buy?  I may be imagineering that.
		
Click to expand...

Kentigern House in Brown St IS the APC.  

With regards to the housing of military personnel based in Glasgow, married accompanied personnel live in Service Families Accomodation (married quarters), which are small groupings of properties in various areas of the city; nothing like the sprawling estates elsewhere.  Mine for example was one of about 20 in Giffnock.

There is no single soldiers barrack accommodation in Glasgow.  Singlies live in private flats, provided by numerous landlords but managed by a private agency.  Once single towards the end of my time I had a superb trendy flat in the renovated old Co Op building in Morrison St.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Kentigern House in Brown St IS the APC.  

With regards to the housing of military personnel based in Glasgow, married accompanied personnel live in Service Families Accomodation (married quarters), which are small groupings of properties in various areas of the city; nothing like the sprawling estates elsewhere.  Mine for example was one of about 20 in Giffnock.

There is no single soldiers barrack accommodation in Glasgow.  Singlies live in private flats, provided by numerous landlords but managed by a private agency.  Once single towards the end of my time I had a superb trendy flat in the renovated old Co Op building in Morrison St.
		
Click to expand...

OK - APC - check.

And as far as accommodation was concerned - the flats I mention down on Lancefield Quay were built (I think) to show MoD staff (who might relocate to Glasgow if the MoD relocated) alternative 'city' accommodation to our ubiquitous tenement flats - Glasgow tenements not being understood by outsiders.  But I guess they weren't impressed.


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 28, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			OK - APC - check.

And as far as accommodation was concerned - the flats I mention down on Lancefield Quay were built (I think) to show MoD staff (who might relocate to Glasgow if the MoD relocated) alternative 'city' accommodation to our ubiquitous tenement flats - Glasgow tenements not being understood by outsiders.  But I guess they weren't impressed.
		
Click to expand...

I take it you mean Civilian MOD staff?

Lancefield quay is ok - given the choice between that and being 3 up in a tenement in tollcross where would you choose?


----------



## JCW (Nov 28, 2013)

DCB said:



			And stop saying British Open.... it's The Open and it always will be 

Click to expand...


Well said , that means no change with where the open is played , with regards to the other , if that's what they want then vote for it but its going to cost the scots extra in taxes ...........grass always looks better next door but is it , if its not   broke , don't fix it .................................EYG


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

There is a small village of fairly decent empty MOD houses at Prestwick.
The local council have been trying to adopt them for years but...... computer says no


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I remember one old bodger trying to explain that one reason for not selecting Glasgow was the shortage of suitable public schools in Scotland for the children of officers.
The interviewer then said that he thought The Duke of Edinburgh was rather impressed with the education Prince Charles received at Gordonston.
		
Click to expand...

Little evidence that the education to which you refer was impressive or perhaps it was just the pupil.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Little evidence that the education to which you refer was impressive or perhaps it was just the pupil.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the 'controversial' issues that Charles has raised have proved to have merit.


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I remember one old bodger trying to explain that one reason for not selecting Glasgow was the shortage of suitable public schools in Scotland for the children of officers.
at Gordonston.
		
Click to expand...

That will be the reason then


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Most of the 'controversial' issues that Charles has raised have proved to have merit.
		
Click to expand...

I presume you are not including talking to plants within those 'controversial' issues. Sorry but IMO the man is full of new age twaddle and psycho babble.

Look at the issues surrounding his village in Dorset and Duchy Originals, but then I do have strong republican sympathies.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:





SocketRocket said:



			I would be very surprised if it mentions England, Wales and NI in the white paper....just the rest of the UK.
Tell me the page and I will gladly retract.
		
Click to expand...

Just google it, there are many quotes available on the subject.  If I did quote the text and verse would you be able to look it up in your own copy?   Better still! just forget it, It just has to be 'utter rubbish' that Scotland would rather support all other EU students over the rest of the UK.   How silly of me to even consider it.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I take it you mean Civilian MOD staff?

Lancefield quay is ok - given the choice between that and being 3 up in a tenement in tollcross where would you choose? 

Click to expand...

Yes - civilian.  I'd have a nice tenement apartment in Crown Terrace or Dowanside Rd way

Might even put up with something like this place 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-26400654.html


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

I talk to plants, I told my parsley that it had done really well just the other day. The lavenders got a bit of a pep talk though.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I talk to plants, I told my parsley that it had done really well just the other day. The lavenders got a bit of a pep talk though.
		
Click to expand...

And then I suppose you cut the parsley's head off! That is just cruel.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

SocketRocket said:





Doon frae Troon said:



			Just google it, there are many quotes available on the subject.  If I did quote the text and verse would you be able to look it up in your own copy?   Better still! just forget it, It just has to be 'utter rubbish' that Scotland would rather support all other EU students over the rest of the UK.   How silly of me to even consider it.
		
Click to expand...

In all of this I think you tend to forget that England do charge Scottish students who wish to study at the well funded Oxbridge Uni's. + any other English/Welsh & NI University. I see The Duke of Rothesay had the good sense to save a bob or two by sending his eldest to St Andrews.
Perhaps if the English Uni's did not charge the Scots we could return the favour.
Just call it redistribution of wealth if you like.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			And then I suppose you cut the parsley's head off! That is just cruel.
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, just like you getting a haircut, it grows again.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:





SocketRocket said:



			In all of this I think you tend to forget that England do charge Scottish students who wish to study at the well funded Oxbridge Uni's. + any other English/Welsh & NI University. I see The Duke of Rothesay had the good sense to save a bob or two by sending his eldest to St Andrews.
Perhaps if the English Uni's did not charge the Scots we could return the favour.
Just call it redistribution of wealth if you like.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they do charge but its the same for everyone.   Imagine if they charged double for Scottish undergraduates, I am sure that would go down a hoot!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not at all, just like you getting a haircut, it grows again.
		
Click to expand...

But I don't like to speak to the hairdresser, and if I was a sprig of lavender I'm not certain I would appreciate being bruised and left to dry out. (Oh I don't know though..............)


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

Popcorn time.

Question time on now from Falkirk.


----------



## CMAC (Nov 28, 2013)

saw wee Eck on the news tonight holding up a letter and saying and I paraphrase "I have a letter here from the Spanish prime minister" regarding Scotland and the EU. Turns out the 'letter' was lifted from a website  

I wonder what else he is possibly misleading us on


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 28, 2013)

CMAC said:



			saw wee Eck on the news tonight holding up a letter and saying and I paraphrase "I have a letter here from the Spanish prime minister" regarding Scotland and the EU. Turns out the 'letter' was lifted from a website  

I wonder what else he is possibly misleading us on 

Click to expand...

Sounds like he learned something from Blair & Campbell. Dodgy Dossiers, WMD etc:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 28, 2013)

Jings..... a spaced out Eddie Reader making a total fool of herself on Question time.
She should stick to the singing.

I quite like the sensible wee guy from the Greens. At least he comes across as a professional.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 28, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Jings..... a spaced out Eddie Reader making a total fool of herself on Question time.
She should stick to the singing.

I quite like the sensible wee guy from the Greens. At least he comes across as a professional.
		
Click to expand...

I thought she was fine - very passionate.  And the green guy - yup - he was OK.  Actually found QT watchable tonight - a half decent level of debate for a change.

I must say though that I found the 'tell me the truth' question asked by one of the audience frustrating.  There *can *be no absolute truth about 2016 in 2013 - there can only be assertion, hope and yes - some guessing.  Because today we just don't know what Europe and the world - never mind the UK - will be like in 2016 so why should anyone know what it would be like in Scotland - so why do some keep searching for it?  Eddie Reader did mention this at one point.  Unsure about things after a YES - unsure about things after a NO.


----------



## Fish (Nov 29, 2013)

I thought Eddi Reader came across as a hard faced cow, an ignorant, rude person whom I wouldn't want to share a toilet with.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

You probably didn't understand what she was saying 

btw not sure it is a smart move for Alastair Carmichael (Tory Scottish sec) to remind voters that the referendum isn't like an election vote as once you are independent there is no way back in - though why you'd want back in I'm not so sure.  But this does remind voters that a No is a No for good - or at least for the lifetimes of all voting.  So if it's a NO then no way out.  Some might give *that* prospect some thought.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 29, 2013)

I found the suggestion that if things didn't work out after a yes vote that we might get back together again rather presumptive.

Also that giving extra nursery care was somehow dependent on scrapping Trident when it's clear that the SNP could do that tomorrow if they wanted. 

Arguments about democracy got a bit confused - if everyone in the UK votes at a general election and the Tories win, the Scots can't argue that it's undemocratic because none of them wanted a Tory government and the argument that they didn't vote for an alliance cuts no ice either as none of us voted for it, and I suspect, none of us want it either!

I also fail to understand how Scotland can be a member of the EU without taking the Euro and having new terms imposed on them which potentially makes a vast difference to the voting public and their reading of the white paper.


----------



## lobthewedge (Nov 29, 2013)

Have to agree with the earlier post, I thought Eddie Reader was an absolute embarrassment on QT tonight.  Like many on the YES side of the fence, very passionate but doesn't talk much sense.  Stick to the songs.

I had to laugh at all the talk of how the UK is undemocratic, and how Scotland votes Labour but gets Tory.  I'm afraid these people are a little confused about how democracy works.  There is a big difference between voting and not getting your desired result everytime, to not being able to vote at all.


----------



## lobthewedge (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I found the suggestion that if things didn't work out after a yes vote that we might get back together again rather presumptive.

Also that giving extra nursery care was somehow dependent on scrapping Trident when it's clear that the SNP could do that tomorrow if they wanted. 

Arguments about democracy got a bit confused - if everyone in the UK votes at a general election and the Tories win, the Scots can't argue that it's undemocratic because none of them wanted a Tory government and the argument that they didn't vote for an alliance cuts no ice either as none of us voted for it, and I suspect, none of us want it either!

I also fail to understand how Scotland can be a member of the EU without taking the Euro and having new terms imposed on them which potentially makes a vast difference to the voting public and their reading of the white paper.
		
Click to expand...

Cant disagree with you.

The other big one for me is an independent Scotland keeping the pound.  I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how a country can expect to be financially independent when it has no control over its own currency, interest rates etc.  The YES vote seem to think they will have some level of influence over the Bank of England if we become part of a future currency union.  Have these people not been paying attention to the Euro zone over the past few years - it doesn't seem to be working out to well for the smaller LEFT leaning countries in that particular currency union??


----------



## CliveW (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Alastair Carmichael (Tory Scottish sec)
		
Click to expand...

   Liberal Democrat.


----------



## El Bandito (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd;94942


I also fail to understand how Scotland can be a member of the EU without taking the Euro and having new terms imposed on them which potentially makes a vast difference to the voting public and their reading of the white paper.[/QUOTE said:
			
		


			Membership of the EU does not mandate membership of the Euro. If the Scots elect not to take the Euro then they would to negotiate membership of the pound with the English or even a new currency. Assuming that both Europe and the 'remaining UK' would impose terms not favourable to Scotland, then the politicians might make the argument that their own currency would give them much more flexibility
		
Click to expand...


----------



## chrisd (Nov 29, 2013)

El Bandito said:



			Membership of the EU does not mandate membership of the Euro. If the Scots elect not to take the Euro then they would to negotiate membership of the pound with the English or even a new currency. Assuming that both Europe and the 'remaining UK' would impose terms not favourable to Scotland, then the politicians might make the argument that their own currency would give them much more flexibility
		
Click to expand...

As far as I understand, entry to the EU requires agreement to join the Euro. If Scotland wanted the pound then they wouldn't really be independent as the Bank of England would dictate interest rates and that would apply to Scotland too, except the BoE would, I suspect, put England, Ireland and Wales needs first. So, in dictating interest rate we also decide your mortgage rates and business loan costs and largely dictate most of your fiscal policies. To suggest that you could keep the pound seems to me the same fudging of issues that permeate through the whole of the plan -Scotland have to either go, or stay, there isn't really a halfway house where they stay for the bits that they benefit from. 

As I see it a lot of the decisions as to what happens after a yes vote arnt in the hands of the Scottish Government, entry terms to EU, currency, immigration


----------



## Hacker Khan (Nov 29, 2013)

Fish said:



			I thought Eddi Reader came across as a hard faced cow, an ignorant, rude person whom I wouldn't want to share a toilet with.
		
Click to expand...

Did she sing Patients of Angels?  Not normally a fan of her music but I think this song is lovely.  

[video=youtube;EMRLKtkE38Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMRLKtkE38Q[/video]


----------



## Duckster (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd said:



			As far as I understand, entry to the EU requires agreement to join the Euro. If Scotland wanted the pound then they wouldn't really be independent as the Bank of England would dictate interest rates and that would apply to Scotland too, except the BoE would, I suspect, put England, Ireland and Wales needs first. So, in dictating interest rate we also decide your mortgage rates and business loan costs and largely dictate most of your fiscal policies. *To suggest that you could keep the pound seems to me the same fudging of issues that permeate through the whole of the plan -Scotland have to either go, or stay, there isn't really a halfway house where they stay for the bits that they benefit from. *

As I see it a lot of the decisions as to what happens after a yes vote arnt in the hands of the Scottish Government, entry terms to EU, currency, immigration
		
Click to expand...

Here here!


----------



## DCB (Nov 29, 2013)

Who's actually running the country at the moment ? All the main players from the Scottish Government seem to be so heavily involved in the independence argument that I wonder if anyone is actually bothering to keep a hand on the tiller to get us through this current year and it's own set of problems.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I quite like the sensible wee guy from the Greens. At least he comes across as a professional.
		
Click to expand...

Patrick Harvie is one of the few quality politicians we have (if that's not an oxymoron). His contribution to the recent Equal Marriage debate was fantastic.

Sadly I disagree with him on too many big issues (independence, nuclear power) to vote for him......


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2013)

DCB said:



			Who's actually running the country at the moment ? All the main players from the Scottish Government seem to be so heavily involved in the independence argument that I wonder if anyone is actually bothering to keep a hand on the tiller to get us through this current year and it's own set of problems.
		
Click to expand...

A good question, along with who's paying for all the pro-independence paraphernalia the SNP are churning out?


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 29, 2013)

QT always seems to have a selective audience that reflects the BBC's political agenda.   I noticed that Dimbleby announced it was split 50/50 for and against, not really a true representation of current forecasts.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 29, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			Patrick Harvie is one of the few quality politicians we have (if that's not an oxymoron). His contribution to the recent Equal Marriage debate was fantastic.

Sadly I disagree with him on too many big issues (independence, nuclear power) to vote for him......
		
Click to expand...

He seems to me to be like many 'Greens'.  Far Left Wingers who mask their true colours under an 'Eco Warrior' viel.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

Please can we get two things correct before we start any more posts.
If Elected an independent Scotland will be negotiating with the rest of the UK and NOT England.
And 
The Bank of England is an independent body, free from political control, that represents the UK. Think Bank of UK if that makes it easier. It's sole purpose is to protect the pound. [BTW it was founded by a Scotsman and currently run by a Canadian]


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



   Liberal Democrat.
		
Click to expand...

= we will get slaughtered tonight so we might as well send in the Liberal.

Golding was quite good, she seems to have far too much common sense to be a Tory.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 29, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			QT always seems to have a selective audience that reflects the BBC's political agenda.   I noticed that Dimbleby announced it was split 50/50 for and against, not really a true representation of current forecasts.
		
Click to expand...

Seems almost reasonable to debate a yes/no position? Maybe better split 33/33/33 between yes/no/undecided?


----------



## cleanstrike (Nov 29, 2013)

If the Scots decide to break away ....

Will they revert to being the 'Kingdom of Scotland' or will they declare a republic?

If it's the former, has the search for a living descendent of James VI already begun?

If it's the latter, who will become President - Alex Salmond, perhaps?

And will the clans start asking for their historical lands to be returned to them?


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Please can we get two things correct before we start any more posts.
If Elected an independent Scotland will be negotiating with the rest of the UK and NOT England.
And 
The Bank of England is an independent body, free from political control, that represents the UK. Think Bank of UK if that makes it easier. It's sole purpose is to protect the pound. [BTW it was founded by a Scotsman and currently run by a Canadian]
		
Click to expand...

To state that the Bank of England was founded by a Scot is not entirely accurate Doon.  A plan devised by a Scot and not acted upon until over three years later hardly constitutes the Bank being founded by him IMO.


----------



## Fish (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Golding was quite good, she seems to have far too much common sense to be a Tory.
		
Click to expand...

I noticed she was far more respected when she was speaking than anyone else, hardly anyone interrupted her or tried to shout her down or talk over her.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

One thing that bothers me now that the vote looks like being close.
What is the carrying majority? 
51%-49% would be an awful result.
I think I read somewhere that 51% will carry but that seems to be a bit daft.
Is it 51% of the population or the voters......anyone know?


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I would be interested to know if you feel this is just a one way stretch.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly not.Scotland has to be responsible for any liabilities incurred by The UK whilst we were part of it, whether by population % or whatever.But lets not kid ourselves on here, IF there is a yes vote next year, you'll see a dramatic change in approach from the unionists, they'll need to come to the middle and make pragmatic choices, some they won't want to do, some they'll be happy enough with.Same applies to Scotland.Want the Â£?, fine take your share of the debt.Want us to endorse your NATO application?, give us more time to remove the nukes.Europe?Support us keeping the block grant in its current form.Want to use offices in all the embassies we have around the world?Renounce any right of 'ownership' on overseas territories-that's a biggie btw imo

and so on.



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What folk are you referring to - those having a vote or those not having a vote?

Those having a vote may not care if your assertions are true - those not having a vote - well - they don't have a vote.
		
Click to expand...

more a general point tbh, I think the importance/significance of Scotland as a country, both with its assets and it position isn't given the weight its probably due, from both side of Hadrians wall.The cowering apologetic Jock who refuses to believe we're capable of running our own affairs is as prevalent as the confident English person 'granting' Scotland various things.Both are dafties.



Doon frae Troon said:



			Popcorn time.

Question time on now from Falkirk.
		
Click to expand...

Well I though that was crap. Eddi Reader will watch that back and hopefully cringe, precisely the opposite of what I want from the Yes campaign.To a lesser extent the same could be said for my arch nemesis Maggie Curran.By Sauzee I hate the woman. Annabel Goldie was decent, and Sturgeon and Carmichael were still trying to get over Wednesday.

Star of the show, as predicted, Patrick Harvie.Intelligent,pragmatic,realistic and able to compromise.More Patrick Harvies, please.


----------



## stevie_r (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			One thing that bothers me now that the vote looks like being close.
What is the carrying majority? 
51%-49% would be an awful result.
I think I read somewhere that 51% will carry but that seems to be a bit daft.
Is it 51% of the population or the voters......anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

51% of the votes cast I believe.

edit: Have just read somewhere that it is actually 50% + 1 vote or in other words a simple majority


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I found the suggestion that if things didn't work out after a yes vote that we might get back together again rather presumptive.

Also that giving extra nursery care was somehow dependent on scrapping Trident when it's clear that the SNP could do that tomorrow if they wanted. 

Arguments about democracy got a bit confused - if everyone in the UK votes at a general election and the Tories win, the Scots can't argue that it's undemocratic because none of them wanted a Tory government and the argument that they didn't vote for an alliance cuts no ice either as none of us voted for it, and I suspect, none of us want it either!

I also fail to understand how Scotland can be a member of the EU without taking the Euro and having new terms imposed on them which potentially makes a vast difference to the voting public and their reading of the white paper.
		
Click to expand...

It was the (Westminster) Lib Dem Scottish Secretary who was suggesting that Scotland might want 'back in' to the UK if things didn't go so well - not something the YES campaign would ever suggest would be a possibility or a 'fallback'.  But as AC was doing on behalf of BT - try and 'frighten' Scots by telling them that once they are out of the UK they are out and no way back.  As I said - a NO means no way out of the UK - possibly ever - and *that* might worry some voters.

Take care not to conflate issues English voters have with the democratic process and government in England - that's an affair for England to sort out if Scotland were yes.  Somone on R5L was complaining that with no Scottish Labour MPS England would be stuck with a Tory government - well that may be the case - so something England has to sort out if it's not happy with it.  Nothing to do with Scotland.

And why *should* Scotland not have the same membership conditions as the rUK.  It's easy to *say *that it won't but there is absolutely no *evidence* to back that up - again assertions made by BT (based upon what a Spanish PM says when clearly he is aiming his comments internally to Spain/Catalunia).  The EU will *want* Scotland as a member - Scotland is a relatively wealthy and prosperous country.  Besides as someone said - you can say that this, that and the other won't happen around such as the EU membership and Sterling post a NO vote, but in reality the probability is that Scotland would be in the EU with Sterling as it's currency.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



   Liberal Democrat.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - yes - but he might as well be as Westminster LibDem U turn into the Tories


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Fish said:



			I noticed she was far more respected when she was speaking than anyone else, hardly anyone interrupted her or tried to shout her down or talk over her.
		
Click to expand...

No point in arguing with the Scottish Tory - quietly listen to what they say and then get on debating with folks who matter 

No - that's maybe not fair.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			One thing that bothers me now that the vote looks like being close.
What is the carrying majority? 
51%-49% would be an awful result.
I think I read somewhere that 51% will carry but that seems to be a bit daft.
Is it 51% of the population or the voters......anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

Aha - this is the scenario in which I have suggested that the view of us ex-pats could be taken into account in some way - a very close vote would not be good - especially (IMO) one with a margin of less than the number of non-Scots who voted.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No point in arguing with the Scottish Tory - quietly listen to what they say and then get on debating with folks who matter 

No - that's maybe not fair.
		
Click to expand...

Ruling yourself out of the debate...


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			One thing that bothers me now that the vote looks like being close.
What is the carrying majority? 
51%-49% would be an awful result.
I think I read somewhere that 51% will carry but that seems to be a bit daft.
Is it 51% of the population or the voters......anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

It is a simple majority i.e. 50% + 1 vote of the votes cast.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It was the (Westminster) Lib Dem Scottish Secretary who was suggesting that Scotland might want 'back in' to the UK if things didn't go so well - not something the YES campaign would ever suggest would be a possibility or a 'fallback'.  But as AC was doing on behalf of BT - try and 'frighten' Scots by telling them that once they are out of the UK they are out and no way back.  As I said - a NO means no way out of the UK - possibly ever - and *that* might worry some voters.

Take care not to conflate issues English voters have with the democratic process and government in England - that's an affair for England to sort out if Scotland were yes.  Somone on R5L was complaining that with no Scottish Labour MPS England would be stuck with a Tory government - well that may be the case - so something England has to sort out if it's not happy with it.  Nothing to do with Scotland.

And why *should* Scotland not have the same membership conditions as the rUK.  It's easy to *say *that it won't but there is absolutely no *evidence* to back that up - again assertions made by BT (based upon what a Spanish PM says when clearly he is aiming his comments internally to Spain/Catalunia).  The EU will *want* Scotland as a member - Scotland is a relatively wealthy and prosperous country.  Besides as someone said - you can say that this, that and the other won't happen around such as the EU membership and Sterling post a NO vote, but in reality the probability is that Scotland would be in the EU with Sterling as it's currency.
		
Click to expand...

Trouble is SLH I read that and watched the programme and cant get enthused about whatever Scotland wants. We've got 26 pages of stuff on here concerning independence, yet, I've hardly heard a single conversation here in the, much derided, south east of England talking about the subject, and on the odd occasion that I have, the feeling is largely "why can't we have a vote to get rid" much of the stuff is only about "what's in it for us" it all seems a bit selfish to me. I know that we'd be better in the South East to declare independence from the rest of the country as we would be better off and be able to retain a Tory government and be better off as a result oo:


----------



## PieMan (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			try and 'frighten' Scots by telling them that once they are out of the UK they are out and no way back.   


The EU will *want* Scotland as a member - Scotland is a relatively wealthy and prosperous country.
		
Click to expand...

It was fun being in Edinburgh on Tuesday for work - particularly dealing with those Scottish public sector workers who clearly showed where they stood on the independence issue with a number of anti-Westminster / English barbs in my direction! Very professional I thought, especially as we were in the company of European Commission officials!

Re. your first point, I can't see a problem with saying that a 'Yes' vote probably means out for good. Afterall isn't that the whole point of the independence argument? That Scotland will be better off as an independent nation, forging their own identity in the world? At some point down the line to turn round and say 'you know what, we made a bit of a mistake 'x' years ago, we're not doing as well as we first thought and we'd like to come back please' probably wouldn't be acceptable to the rest of the UK. I would also assume if that scenario ever happened, then it would be put to voters in England, Wales and NI first as to whether to admit Scotland back into the Union.

On the EU question, I would hope that voters in an independent Scotland would actually get a vote on whether to become a member of the EU. Seeing how the EU operates with my job, I cannot see why any nation that has sought independence from one Union would want to join another one that is arguably even more restrictive than the one they were in!

Anyway, very interesting debate to be had between now and next September. Just a shame that the whole process cannot be administered by some independent arbitrator who can give the voters in Scotland the truth on every issue and avoid all the claim and counter claim from the Yes and No camps. In fact, wouldn't that be great for every election! Every party produces their manifesto, then they say and do nothing for a few months until election day!!


----------



## chrisd (Nov 29, 2013)

PieMan said:



			It was fun being in Edinburgh on Tuesday for work - particularly dealing with those Scottish public sector workers who clearly showed where they stood on the independence issue with a number of anti-Westminster / English barbs in my direction! Very professional I thought, especially as we were in the company of European Commission officials!

Re. your first point, I can't see a problem with saying that a 'Yes' vote probably means out for good. Afterall isn't that the whole point of the independence argument? That Scotland will be better off as an independent nation, forging their own identity in the world? At some point down the line to turn round and say 'you know what, we made a bit of a mistake 'x' years ago, we're not doing as well as we first thought and we'd like to come back please' probably wouldn't be acceptable to the rest of the UK. I would also assume if that scenario ever happened, then it would be put to voters in England, Wales and NI first as to whether to admit Scotland back into the Union.

On the EU question, I would hope that voters in an independent Scotland would actually get a vote on whether to become a member of the EU. Seeing how the EU operates with my job, I cannot see why any nation that has sought independence from one Union would want to join another one that is arguably even more restrictive than the one they were in!

Anyway, very interesting debate to be had between now and next September. Just a shame that the whole process cannot be administered by some independent arbitrator who can give the voters in Scotland the truth on every issue and avoid all the claim and counter claim from the Yes and No camps. In fact, wouldn't that be great for every election! Every party produces their manifesto, then they say and do nothing for a few months until election day!!
		
Click to expand...



You want politicians to be exposed to the truth Paul - how radical!


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Please can we get two things correct before we start any more posts.
If Elected an independent Scotland will be negotiating with the rest of the UK and NOT England.
And 
The Bank of England is an independent body, free from political control, that represents the UK. Think Bank of UK if that makes it easier. It's sole purpose is to protect the pound. [BTW it was founded by a Scotsman and currently run by a Canadian]
		
Click to expand...

They will be negotating with Parliament minus Scottish MPs. So mainly English.

The Bank of England is only free from Political control as long as the Government of the day wish it to be so.  One of it's responsibilities is to protect the pound (as you say) and to do that it needs to set interest rates and support the Banking system.  I cant see how the BOE could do that with a Scottish State where the Fiscal policies were managed outside it's influence. Would the BOE be expected to bail out Scottish banks if they were in financial difficulties?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd said:



			You want politicians to be exposed to the truth Paul - how radical!
		
Click to expand...

Politicians HAVE to be exposed to and be fully up to speed with the truth, to ensure they don't mention it when they're speaking...


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Would the BOE be expected to bail out Scottish banks if they were in financial difficulties?
		
Click to expand...

There are no Scottish banks really, is there?Much as there is no English banks.They're multi-national PLC's who operate around the globe, and wherever they create debt to the extent they require bailing out, the country in which they created that debt is responsible for clearing up the mess.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Politicians HAVE to be exposed to and be fully up to speed with the truth, to ensure they don't mention it when they're speaking...
		
Click to expand...

I would copywrite that quote if I were you.....brilliant.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Ruling yourself out of the debate...
		
Click to expand...

LOL - Tory?

Maybe my view matters little - but it matters to the extent that I discuss this stuff with my mother, brother, sister etc and *they* all have a vote.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

chrisd said:



			Trouble is SLH I read that and watched the programme and cant get enthused about whatever Scotland wants. We've got 26 pages of stuff on here concerning independence, yet, I've hardly heard a single conversation here in the, much derided, south east of England talking about the subject, and on the odd occasion that I have, the feeling is largely "why can't we have a vote to get rid" much of the stuff is only about "what's in it for us" it all seems a bit selfish to me. I know that we'd be better in the South East to declare independence from the rest of the country as we would be better off and be able to retain a Tory government and be better off as a result oo:
		
Click to expand...

And many on the YES campaign would use your point of view to support their position.  

I would suggest though that your complaint (?) that Scots voters only seem to care about  "what's in it for us" - well in truth what else would you expect them to be bothered about?  Some might be concerned about short term impact on their pockets; others might be concerned about Scotland's place in Europe and the world - but over the next year considerations about how Scottish independence might impact the rUK are frankly not that important to Scotland.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

PieMan said:



			Re. your first point, I can't see a problem with saying that a 'Yes' vote probably means out for good. Afterall isn't that the whole point of the independence argument? That Scotland will be better off as an independent nation, forging their own identity in the world? At some point down the line to turn round and say 'you know what, we made a bit of a mistake 'x' years ago, we're not doing as well as we first thought and we'd like to come back please' probably wouldn't be acceptable to the rest of the UK. I would also assume if that scenario ever happened, then it would be put to voters in England, Wales and NI first as to whether to admit Scotland back into the Union.
		
Click to expand...

Quite!  I agree. This *'when you are out - you are out for good'* point was made my the (Westminster) Scottish Secretary - I'm not sure that the BT Campaign making a big thing about the permanence of the vote next year is such a clever idea.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Politicians HAVE to be exposed to and be fully up to speed with the truth, to ensure they don't mention it when they're speaking...
		
Click to expand...

A bigger cynic than I might suggest that politicians have to know the truth to be able to spin around it.


----------



## CliveW (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			If the Scots decide to break away ....

 has the search for a living descendent of James VI already begun?
		
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last English monarch replaced by a Scottish one in 1606 leading to the United Kingdom?


----------



## delc (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last English monarch replaced by a Scottish one in 1606 leading to the United Kingdom?
		
Click to expand...

Correct.  James VI of Scotland was invited to become James I of England, as he was nearest in line for the succession. The Union of England and Scotland into the United Kingdom followed on from that. It would be a pity to break it up again.


----------



## cleanstrike (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



			Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last English monarch replaced by a Scottish one in 1606 leading to the United Kingdom?
		
Click to expand...

True, but then the Scottish monarchy effectively ceased to exist and we've had more than one diversion since then. The Hanovarians we've got running the show in England now probably wouldn't qualify as legitimate and direct descendents of the last true Scottish king.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			True, but then the Scottish monarchy effectively ceased to exist and we've had more than one diversion since then. The Hanovarians we've got running the show in England now probably wouldn't qualify as legitimate and direct descendents of the last true Scottish king.
		
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to the Comyns?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			LOL - Tory?

Maybe my view matters little - but it matters to the extent that I discuss this stuff with my mother, brother, sister etc and *they* all have a vote.
		
Click to expand...

Was that the Lib Dem you thought was a Tory?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Was that the Lib Dem you thought was a Tory?
		
Click to expand...

Problem with living in England is that these days LibDems and Tories are part and parcel of the same 'coalition' thing - so the fact the the coalition Scottish Secretary is a LibDem would easily evade me.  Until I heard that he was the Orkney MP - so then knew he couldn't be the Tory.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Problem with living in England is that these days LibDems and Tories are part and parcel of the same 'coalition' thing - so the fact the the coalition Scottish Secretary is a LibDem would easily evade me.  Until I heard that he was the Orkney MP - so then knew he couldn't be the Tory.
		
Click to expand...

Both the Tory and LibDem on last night's panel were born in Scotland and still live here, so they both have a vote in next year's referendum.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Whatever happened to the Comyns?
		
Click to expand...

They were just a bunch of Reds.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			True, but then the Scottish monarchy effectively ceased to exist and we've had more than one diversion since then. The Hanovarians we've got running the show in England now probably wouldn't qualify as legitimate and direct descendents of the last true Scottish king.
		
Click to expand...

The Scottish monarchy did not cease to exist.  The Union of the Crowns in 1603 joined the monarchies and the Acts of Union in 1706/7 joined Scotland and England.

The current monarchy belongs equally to both Scotland and England.


----------



## cleanstrike (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			The Scottish monarchy did not cease to exist.  The Union of the Crowns in 1603 joined the monarchies and the Acts of Union in 1706/7 joined Scotland and England.

The current monarchy belongs equally to both Scotland and England.
		
Click to expand...

Okay then, if you wish to be pedantic. I'll qualify it by saying that a Scottish monarchy independent and separate from that of England effectively ceased to exist at that point in history.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			Okay then, if you wish to be pedantic. I'll qualify it by saying that a Scottish monarchy independent and separate from that of England effectively ceased to exist at that point in history.
		
Click to expand...

As did an English monarchy independent and separate from Scotland...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Both the Tory and LibDem on last night's panel were born in Scotland and still live here, so they both have a vote in next year's referendum.
		
Click to expand...

Guess they'll be voting NO


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			They were just a bunch of Reds.
		
Click to expand...

which was 'bad enough' (sorry)


----------



## cleanstrike (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			As did an English monarchy independent and separate from Scotland...
		
Click to expand...

Well, that much is obvious. The point I'm try to make is that the present incumbent to the English throne is not necessarily the legitimate and rightful heir to an independent Scottish monarchy through cause of Parliamentary interference and the Act of Settlement (1701).

At the moment, male-preference cognatic primogeniture still stands so, in theory, it might be argued that the heir apparent to a revitalised independent Scottish monarchy stands with the descendents of Charles Edward Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie).
[h=3][/h]


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			Well, that much is obvious. The point I'm try to make is that the present incumbent to the English throne is not necessarily the legitimate and rightful heir to an independent Scottish monarchy through cause of Parliamentary interference and the Act of Settlement (1701).

At the moment, male-preference cognatic primogeniture still stands so, in theory, it might be argued that the heir apparent to a revitalised independent Scottish monarchy stands with the descendents of Charles Edward Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie).
		
Click to expand...

So will the English have to look for a rightful descendant of Elizabeth I?

My point is that your point is wrong...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			Well, that much is obvious. The point I'm try to make is that the present incumbent to the English throne is not necessarily the legitimate and rightful heir to an independent Scottish monarchy through cause of Parliamentary interference and the Act of Settlement (1701).

At the moment, male-preference cognatic primogeniture still stands so, in theory, it might be argued that the heir apparent to a revitalised independent Scottish monarchy stands with the descendents of Charles Edward Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie).
[h=3][/h]
		
Click to expand...

Oh gawd - that would go down well at Ibroke so don't mention it to them.  Those of the more Jungle persuasion would be delighted no doubt.


----------



## CliveW (Nov 29, 2013)

cleanstrike said:



			True, but then the Scottish monarchy effectively ceased to exist and we've had more than one diversion since then. The Hanovarians we've got running the show in *England* now probably wouldn't qualify as legitimate and direct descendents of the last true Scottish king.
		
Click to expand...



... So you already have an independant monarch?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



			... So you already have an independant monarch?
		
Click to expand...

No, and there are no proposals to change that.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

If there is a yes vote and Scotland are not able to join the EU who will be responsible for paying the pensions and benefits of all those immigrants that remain south of the border.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			If there is a yes vote and Scotland are not able to join the EU who will be responsible for paying the pensions and benefits of all those immigrants that remain south of the border.
		
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen.

Or we could turn the scare story on it's head and come up with an equally never gonna happen scenario.

Scotland vote yes, effectively a dissolving of The UK, Brussels says, hang on, we agreed the rebate with The UK, but The UK no longer exists in the same form, so that rebatet should be looked at again.France and Germany chuckle, tell Cameron that The old UK and Sevco UK are different, so the rebate is now invalid.

Queue implosion in Westminster.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			If there is a yes vote and Scotland are not able to join the EU who will be responsible for paying the pensions and benefits of all those immigrants that remain south of the border.
		
Click to expand...

I can't quite get my head around what you are saying there Old Skier, can you expand a bit so that I can understand please.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Not gonna happen.

Or we could turn the scare story on it's head and come up with an equally never gonna happen scenario.

Scotland vote yes, effectively a dissolving of The UK, Brussels says, hang on, we agreed the rebate with The UK, but The UK no longer exists in the same form, so that rebatet should be looked at again.France and Germany chuckle, tell Cameron that The old UK and Sevco UK are different, so the rebate is now invalid.

Queue implosion in Westminster.
		
Click to expand...

Far fetched I agree, however the whole thing is based on if's, but's and maybe's on the Yes side so perhaps anything might all of a sudden be chucked on the table.

This whole thread is based on a whole herd of guesses.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I can't quite get my head around what you are saying there Old Skier, can you expand a bit so that I can understand please.
		
Click to expand...

I'll hazard a guess he means Scottish folk living in England, non-EU citizens.Twisted logic, but the only one I can think of.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

And we've never got back to the OP's original question - if Scotland vote Yes what happens to the Open?


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Far fetched I agree, however the whole thing is based on if's, but's and maybe's on the Yes side so perhaps anything might all of a sudden be chucked on the table.

This whole thread is based on a whole herd of guesses.
		
Click to expand...

On The No side,too.Not one shred of fact, nothing.Scare stories and project fear.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			And we've never got back to the OP's original question - if Scotland vote Yes what happens to the Open?
		
Click to expand...

The course rota is reduced to those in Scotland, at the behest of The R&A in St.Andrews


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I can't quite get my head around what you are saying there Old Skier, can you expand a bit so that I can understand please.
		
Click to expand...

Seemed fairly clear to me, however it is Friday afternoon.

Sent from my thingy whilst drinking a pint of fine English ale from the pub.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Not gonna happen.

Or we could turn the scare story on it's head and come up with an equally never gonna happen scenario.

Scotland vote yes, effectively a dissolving of The UK, Brussels says, hang on, we agreed the rebate with The UK, but The UK no longer exists in the same form, so that rebatet should be looked at again.France and Germany chuckle, tell Cameron that The old UK and Sevco UK are different, so the rebate is now invalid.

Queue implosion in Westminster.
		
Click to expand...

LOL - good one my man 

All the stuff (opt-outs, rebates etc) that the UK currently enjoys was granted to the UK - a UK that included Scotland - of course it did.  And so if a YES vote then that UK no longer exists in the form the stuff was negotiated and so the other EU countries require a renegotiation of the terms of EU membership for the rUK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I'll hazard a guess he means Scottish folk living in England, non-EU citizens.Twisted logic, but the only one I can think of.
		
Click to expand...

Wot - you mean Scotland might be expected to pay my pension - eh?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Far fetched I agree, however the whole thing is based on if's, but's and maybe's on the Yes side so perhaps anything might all of a sudden be chucked on the table.

This whole thread is based on a whole herd of guesses.
		
Click to expand...

And if the BT Campain was truthful - the whole NO thing assumes a load of ifs, buts and maybes - guesses both sides.  Difference is that BT Campaign choses to simply rely on the status quo as the NO position - freeing them up to attack the uncertainties around the YES position.  At the moment YES camp are trying to sell a positive view of gthe future, whereas the No camp tend to focus on the negatives of YES.  If they were to have to start putting the positives of NO the uncertainties would be exposed.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And if the BT Campain was truthful - the whole NO thing assumes a load of ifs, buts and maybes - guesses both sides.  Difference is that BT Campaign choses to simply rely on the status quo as the NO position - freeing them up to attack the uncertainties around the YES position.  At the moment YES camp are PUTTING A positive view whereas the No camp tend to focus on the negatives of YES.  If they were to have to start putting the positives of NO the uncertainties would be exposed.
		
Click to expand...

The "Never Never Land" described by A Salmond (failed economist) is not a positive, rather it is a misty-eyed fantasy. I agree that the No campaign could present their case better but it is always difficult to prove a negative.

As for keeping sterling as the currency, well that I feel would be the step that is too far for the English electorate.

More worrying still is the apparent bribe being offered to Scotland. Vote No and get Devolution plus. Again could prove a step too far for the majority of English people living outside the South East and tired of being governed by London.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

Whatever happens this is, IMHO all going to end in tears. People only believe in democracy when it comes out in their favour. The Scots voted for and gave the SNP the mandate to go for independence, live with it and do it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			The "Never Never Land" described by A Salmond (failed economist) is not a positive, rather it is a misty-eyed fantasy. I agree that the No campaign could present their case better but it is always difficult to prove a negative.

As for keeping sterling as the currency, well that I feel would be the step that is too far for the English electorate.

More worrying still is the apparent bribe being offered to Scotland. Vote No and get Devolution plus. Again could prove a step too far for the majority of English people living outside the South East and tired of being governed by London.
		
Click to expand...

The BT Campaign don't have to prove a negative - they have to be clear and honest about what a NO will  mean - because as sure as heck it isn't business as usual.  

As you say yourself there is stuff around a NO that the UK outside of Scotland will not be happy about and/or would be a 'step too far' - and we do not know what that is.  So in what you say you are getting towards the truth of it.  What are BT offering - because pretending they offer the status quo is being somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Whatever happens this is, IMHO all going to end in tears. People only believe in democracy when it comes out in their favour. The Scots voted for and gave the SNP the mandate to go for independence, live with it and do it.
		
Click to expand...

Change usually hurts.  No pain no gain. etc etc.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Whatever happens this is, IMHO all going to end in tears. People only believe in democracy when it comes out in their favour. The Scots voted for and gave the SNP the mandate to go for independence, live with it and do it.
		
Click to expand...

Not all Scots who vote SNP want independence.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Not all Scots who vote SNP want independence.
		
Click to expand...

And not all Scots who want independence vote SNP


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			Not all Scots who vote SNP want independence.
		
Click to expand...

But all Scots knew that was the only real aim of the SNP.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Change usually hurts.  No pain no gain. etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

The pain may be more than everyone bargained for.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			But all Scots knew that was the only real aim of the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

And that ultimately it would be the people who would decide and not the SNP.

So my original point stands i.e. those voting SNP last time out were NOT voting for independence.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			And that ultimately it would be the people who would decide and not the SNP.

So my original point stands i.e. those voting SNP last time out were NOT voting for independence.
		
Click to expand...

But it was in there manifesto so what were those that voted SNP voting for.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			But it was in there manifesto so what were those that voted SNP voting for.
		
Click to expand...

A referendum was in their manifesto.  Voting for a party that wants a referendum does NOT automatically follow that you want the same outcome from that referendum as that party.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			A referendum was in their manifesto.  Voting for a party that wants a referendum does NOT automatically follow that you want the same outcome from that referendum as that party.
		
Click to expand...

I get it, everyone voted for the SNP so they could have a referendum, and all vote No. Great plan.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I get it, everyone voted for the SNP so they could have a referendum, and all vote No. Great plan.
		
Click to expand...

You know they are the party of government up here too and do normal stuff like manage the Scottish budget, pass legislation and represent their constituents?


----------



## CliveW (Nov 29, 2013)

The people of Scotland voted SNP as a protest against labour, not because they wanted independence.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			You know they are the party of government up here too and do normal stuff like manage the Scottish budget, pass legislation and represent their constituents?
		
Click to expand...

You have said nothing that detracts from their main aim which was to get independence for Scotland.


----------



## HughJars (Nov 29, 2013)

CliveW said:



			The people of Scotland voted SNP as a protest against labour, not because they wanted independence.
		
Click to expand...

A protest against a party not in power? Interesting twist there. normally there are protest votes against the sitting party, but last time out the sitting party exceeded all projected possible outcomes and secured a majority that the voting system was designed not to allow.

That's one helluva protest vote. In fact kinda like a huge endorsement of what the govt had actually been doing, but hey what do I know.


----------



## HughJars (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			The pain may be more than everyone bargained for.
		
Click to expand...

Or of course, and more likely, much less.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			You have said nothing that detracts from their main aim which was to get independence for Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

And your point that the people of Scotland by voting SNP were voting for independence remains incorrect.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

HughJars said:



			Or of course, and more likely, much less.
		
Click to expand...

Which will depend on your point of view.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			And your point that the people of Scotland by voting SNP were voting for independence remains incorrect.
		
Click to expand...

My point is what I believe (right or wrong).


----------



## ger147 (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			My point is what I believe (right or wrong).
		
Click to expand...

It is your right to be wrong.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			It is your right to be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Is your surname another kind of fish as well.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			The pain may be more than everyone bargained for.
		
Click to expand...

they'll get over it - they will - 100% certain that in time the Scots economy would find it's stable point and that isn't going to be 'third world' in nature.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2013)

ger147 said:



			And that ultimately it would be the people who would decide and not the SNP.

So my original point stands i.e. those voting SNP last time out were NOT voting for independence.
		
Click to expand...

..and similarly those who vote YES will not all vote for the SNP at the first Scottish general election.  

The SNP don't hide the fact that much of the 650 page dossier could be viewed as an SNP manifesto.  But if there is a YES vote then the Scottish electorate will decide which bits of it they like - and if they don't like it they won't vote SNP.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2013)

ger147 said:



			And we've never got back to the OP's original question - if Scotland vote Yes what happens to the Open?
		
Click to expand...

Close it.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2013)

I have spent many a happy time in Scotland and looking forward to popping up for the games next summer. 

My real question is what is it in the 21st century that Scots hate about being part of the UK. The reason I ask is that going on the comments in this thread, they are desperate to be in the EU which continues to express a desire to become a federal organisation and ruling everyone from Brussels.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2013)

As I am sure you are aware OS more Scots wish to remain in the UK than want to leave it...at the moment.

Of the ones who wish to be self governing. The main reason is a lack of influence on a Westminster government that they seem to have nothing in common with.
An example would be that nobody up here wants the bedroom tax it is unworkable and unfair but we have no choice to accept it.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			As I am sure you are aware OS more Scots wish to remain in the UK than want to leave it...at the moment.

Of the ones who wish to be self governing. The main reason is a lack of influence on a Westminster government that they seem to have nothing in common with.
An example would be that nobody up here wants the bedroom tax it is unworkable and unfair but we have no choice to accept it.
		
Click to expand...

The so called bedroom tax is not just a Scots problem unfortunately. But how much influence will an Independent Scotland have within the EU.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			The so called bedroom tax is not just a Scots problem unfortunately. But how much influence will an Independent Scotland have within the EU.
		
Click to expand...

The same as rUK do now.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The same as rUK do now.
		
Click to expand...

Persacktly DfT. Lose one outside agency and gain another, so independent in name only. :angry:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 30, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The same as rUK do now.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly listened to a little more given the current UK voice often falls on hostile ears - UK being soooo anti-EU in so many things.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 30, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			I have spent many a happy time in Scotland and looking forward to popping up for the games next summer. 

My real question is what is it in the 21st century that Scots hate about being part of the UK. The reason I ask is that going on the comments in this thread, they are desperate to be in the EU which continues to express a desire to become a federal organisation and ruling everyone from Brussels.
		
Click to expand...

For many not so much *hating *being part of the UK, but keen to be themselves and, in context of the EU, in a position to fight their own corner.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			For many not so much *hating *being part of the UK, but keen to be themselves and, in context of the EU, in a position to fight their own corner.
		
Click to expand...

You prefer it down here though


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Possibly listened to a little more given the current UK voice often falls on hostile ears - UK being soooo anti-EU in so many things.
		
Click to expand...

Bigger say in fishing, agriculture and oil I would think.


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 30, 2013)

We are going to get a whole year of this.

I'm bored already.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Nov 30, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Bigger say in fishing, agriculture and oil I would think.
		
Click to expand...

Only if a completely disproportionate say is given relative to population and influence. I do think that some in the YES camp have allowed themselves to become totally deluded over the importance to the rest of EU of a country with a population approximately half the size of London.


----------



## SocketRocket (Nov 30, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			As I am sure you are aware OS more Scots wish to remain in the UK than want to leave it...at the moment.

Of the ones who wish to be self governing. The main reason is a lack of influence on a Westminster government that they seem to have nothing in common with.
An example would be that nobody up here wants the bedroom tax it is unworkable and unfair but we have no choice to accept it.
		
Click to expand...

Scottish MPs can vote on matters solely related to England.  English MPs cant vote on matters solely related to Scotland.  The Scottish assembly has now many responsibilities for the every day life of Scottish people.  To quote a matter like the so called 'Bedroom Tax' as an example of UK meddling is a bit far fetched. It's  not a tax at all, it only affects non pensioners living in social housing and having their rent paid by benefits.  You say 'No one up here wants it'  I would put it to you that this is (to use your own term) utter rubbish.  Can you substantiate that 'No One' wants it.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2013)

Be be interesting to see how this changes over the year.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 1, 2013)

I really can't see the Yes % getting above 40%.


----------



## CMAC (Dec 1, 2013)

heres a stat I heard recently- someone correct me if I'm wrong or if they know the correct number please- I heard that approx 40% of the working population in Scotland is employed by local authorities 

Makes you think what job opportunities there will be if independent, and will that number increase and paper gets pushed around by even more 'employed'.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 1, 2013)

CMAC said:



			heres a stat I heard recently- someone correct me if I'm wrong or if they know the correct number please- I heard that approx 40% of the working population in Scotland is employed by local authorities 

Makes you think what job opportunities there will be if independent, and will that number increase and paper gets pushed around by even more 'employed'.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is around that as an average, higher in the rural highlands and islands.
Similar to the Scandinavian countries.
Do you know what it is in Wales and England?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 1, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think it is around that as an average, higher in the rural highlands and islands.
Similar to the Scandinavian countries.
Do you know what it is in Wales and England?
		
Click to expand...

Proportion of workforce employed in Public Sector:-

27.7% in Northern Ireland
25.7% in Wales
23.5% in Scotland
16.6% to 22.2% in English regions   (highest in North East)

Source: Office for National Statistics


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Dec 1, 2013)

Found an interesting snippet from the same source.
Of the 578,600 people employed in the public sector in Scotland, 486,000 work for bodies devolved to Scotland.
That leaves 92,600 employees who currently work for bodies that are the responsibility of the UK government.
Does anyone know what will happen to these peoples jobs in the event of a yes vote ?
Genuine question, not sure where to look for answers, or if its even been raised yet.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2013)

Not sure that there would be a government brave enough to leave the jobs that side of the wall if there was a yes vote.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2013)

blackpuddinmonster said:



			Found an interesting snippet from the same source.
Of the 578,600 people employed in the public sector in Scotland, 486,000 work for bodies devolved to Scotland.
That leaves 92,600 employees who currently work for bodies that are the responsibility of the UK government.
Does anyone know what will happen to these peoples jobs in the event of a yes vote ?
Genuine question, not sure where to look for answers, or if its even been raised yet.
		
Click to expand...

My guess is that whatever those bodies do will be needed in an independent Scotland too. So maybe tuped over to the Scottish government or maybe shared in some radical cross border cooperation....?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 1, 2013)

murphthemog said:



			We are going to get a whole year of this.

I'm bored already.
		
Click to expand...

You got a vote in the referendum?


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 1, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You got a vote in the referendum?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, You?


----------



## chrisd (Dec 1, 2013)

Nearly 600 posts on a subject hardly anyone outside of Scotland (SLH excepted) is remotely interested in and now we're getting stats OMG!


----------



## williamalex1 (Dec 1, 2013)

chrisd said:



			Nearly 600 posts on a subject hardly anyone outside of Scotland (SLH excepted) is remotely interested in and now we're getting stats OMG!
		
Click to expand...

 And most post are by, guess who.


----------



## chrisd (Dec 1, 2013)

williamalex1 said:



			And most post are by, guess who.
		
Click to expand...

I'm getting as nearly peed off with him as his neighbours are!


----------



## williamalex1 (Dec 1, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I'm getting as nearly peed off with him as his neighbours are! 

Click to expand...

Oi , be quiet  but not too loud .


----------



## Iaing (Dec 1, 2013)

A blow was dealt last night to the SNP's plans for an independent Scotland, after the publication of a report which sets out a future for the Union in the aftermath of a No vote.* Professor Douglas McLeish of the University of Aberdeen has researched the viability of a bold, new 'road-map' for Britain, which has been warmly welcomed by the Unionist parties.

Professor McLeish begins his paper by recognising that, 'The referendum is taking place because of a perceived imbalance in power between London and Scotland, but there are obvious steps which can be taken to rectify this, ensuring that the spectre of Scottish independence never again raises its head.'

The report suggests that, to demonstrate the equality of the constituent nations, Westminster should transfer control over all of the UK's political, economic, defence, immigration and welfare decisions to Holyrood.

The UK's Central Bank, currently the Bank of England, will be renamed the Bank of Scotland.* Revenues from Britain's natural resources will flow to the Exchequer in Edinburgh, which will issue 'block grants' to the rest of the UK (in respect of England's larger contribution they will receive a slightly higher grant).* This would allow Britain to finally afford a vital high-speed rail-link betwen Carlisle and Aberdeen.* The Trident nuclear submarine, meanwhile, would be removed from Faslane and rehoused in the Thames Estuary.

Westminster would remain active as a de facto English parliament, controlling the devolved matters of education, law and health.* One example of the benefits of this, cited by McLeish, is that it would allow the English exam board to ensure that every child studies a single playwright, novelist or poet from England.

The McLeish Report includes further proposals for Arts and Culture.* BBC Headquarters will be relocated to Pacific Quay in Glasgow, and, to reflect this, the larger share of programming will be set in Scotland.* While most reporting will be be devoted to Scottish events,* Wales, N.Ireland and England would, of course, still receive 'regional' news following the national news from Glasgow.

Scots would be encouraged to apply for all of the top arts posts in England, their experience and prestige accured in Scotland ensuring success in this regard.* To redress this, the world's largest arts festival would be moved from Edinburgh to London, although the report recognises that most performers would likely be from Scotland's elite universities, such as St Andrews.

McLeish reccomends this arrangement for the next 300 hundred years, before power is transferred to Cardiff in 2315 and Belfast in 2615, finally returning to London in 2915.

This report for a strengthened UK has been warmly welcomed by the Unionist parties.* The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alastair Carmichael, has said,

*** "This blows a hole in the SNP's plans for independence.* What Professor McLeish demonstrates is the ways in which the United Kingdom can serve the people of Scotland, while remaining perfectly fair to the rest of the UK."

Prime Minister David Cameron has also recognised the value of the proposals.

*** "These are sensible, rational suggestions for the future of the Union, putting equality squarely at its heart.* Speaking as a proud Brit and an Englishman, I know that I would not mind ceding power to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for the next thousand years, given London's extensive run at the helm.* If that meant the survival of the United Kingdom I think it would be a price worth paying."

The SNP, however, have dismissed the McLeish Report.

**** "If these proposals are implimented they would fail to address fundamental issues of democracy.* Why should any country in the UK have the power to determine what happens in any other?* All this would mean is that, further down the line, England would be agitating for independence and we'd be back in the same boat.

*** "But let us be clear.* Were England to vote for separation they would not be able to access our BBC, would not be keeping our Queen, and their soldiers would still be fighting for our army.* Should we allow them to use our Sterling, furthermore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Bank of Scotland to set England's interest rates."

The Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, could not be reached for comment.


----------



## williamalex1 (Dec 1, 2013)

Iaing said:



			A blow was dealt last night to the SNP's plans for an independent Scotland, after the publication of a report which sets out a future for the Union in the aftermath of a No vote.* Professor Douglas McLeish of the University of Aberdeen has researched the viability of a bold, new 'road-map' for Britain, which has been warmly welcomed by the Unionist parties.

Professor McLeish begins his paper by recognising that, 'The referendum is taking place because of a perceived imbalance in power between London and Scotland, but there are obvious steps which can be taken to rectify this, ensuring that the spectre of Scottish independence never again raises its head.'

The report suggests that, to demonstrate the equality of the constituent nations, Westminster should transfer control over all of the UK's political, economic, defence, immigration and welfare decisions to Holyrood.

The UK's Central Bank, currently the Bank of England, will be renamed the Bank of Scotland.* Revenues from Britain's natural resources will flow to the Exchequer in Edinburgh, which will issue 'block grants' to the rest of the UK (in respect of England's larger contribution they will receive a slightly higher grant).* This would allow Britain to finally afford a vital high-speed rail-link betwen Carlisle and Aberdeen.* The Trident nuclear submarine, meanwhile, would be removed from Faslane and rehoused in the Thames Estuary.

Westminster would remain active as a de facto English parliament, controlling the devolved matters of education, law and health.* One example of the benefits of this, cited by McLeish, is that it would allow the English exam board to ensure that every child studies a single playwright, novelist or poet from England.

The McLeish Report includes further proposals for Arts and Culture.* BBC Headquarters will be relocated to Pacific Quay in Glasgow, and, to reflect this, the larger share of programming will be set in Scotland.* While most reporting will be be devoted to Scottish events,* Wales, N.Ireland and England would, of course, still receive 'regional' news following the national news from Glasgow.

Scots would be encouraged to apply for all of the top arts posts in England, their experience and prestige accured in Scotland ensuring success in this regard.* To redress this, the world's largest arts festival would be moved from Edinburgh to London, although the report recognises that most performers would likely be from Scotland's elite universities, such as St Andrews.

McLeish reccomends this arrangement for the next 300 hundred years, before power is transferred to Cardiff in 2315 and Belfast in 2615, finally returning to London in 2915.

This report for a strengthened UK has been warmly welcomed by the Unionist parties.* The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alastair Carmichael, has said,

*** "This blows a hole in the SNP's plans for independence.* What Professor McLeish demonstrates is the ways in which the United Kingdom can serve the people of Scotland, while remaining perfectly fair to the rest of the UK."

Prime Minister David Cameron has also recognised the value of the proposals.

*** "These are sensible, rational suggestions for the future of the Union, putting equality squarely at its heart.* Speaking as a proud Brit and an Englishman, I know that I would not mind ceding power to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast for the next thousand years, given London's extensive run at the helm.* If that meant the survival of the United Kingdom I think it would be a price worth paying."

The SNP, however, have dismissed the McLeish Report.

**** "If these proposals are implimented they would fail to address fundamental issues of democracy.* Why should any country in the UK have the power to determine what happens in any other?* All this would mean is that, further down the line, England would be agitating for independence and we'd be back in the same boat.

*** "But let us be clear.* Were England to vote for separation they would not be able to access our BBC, would not be keeping our Queen, and their soldiers would still be fighting for our army.* Should we allow them to use our Sterling, furthermore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Bank of Scotland to set England's interest rates."

The Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, could not be reached for comment.



Click to expand...

Welcome back.:cheers:


----------



## Iaing (Dec 2, 2013)

williamalex1 said:



			Welcome back.:cheers:
		
Click to expand...

Shhhhh. Wullie FFS don't tell them!


----------



## blackpuddinmonster (Dec 2, 2013)

FairwayDodger said:



			My guess is that whatever those bodies do will be needed in an independent Scotland too. So maybe tuped over to the Scottish government or maybe shared in some radical cross border cooperation....?
		
Click to expand...

I had to go to work last night FD so i've not had the chance to find out what the bodies involved are.
I hope your right though. I've a couple of cousins who work for the council. :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Yes, You? 

Click to expand...



I was asking @murph...

I ask for the reason that @chris alludes to.  Folks in England not interested or bored in the most important decision Scots have EVER had to make?  A decision that will completely change the economic, cultural and political landscape of the UK for ever - and the vast majority of 'the English' don't care?  

You ask a YES voter why they would vote YES and I am guessing that one reason would be that 'the English' don't care about Scotland.  Indeed!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

chrisd said:



			I'm getting as nearly peed off with him as his neighbours are! 

Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry if I care...

...and I think everyone needs to understand at least a bit about what is being debated.  

Since devolution it's quite understandable that those of us south of the border might ignore the shenanigans going on in and around Holyrood as being irrelevant to us - but this is different.  This isn't a decision that can be 'reversed' if the Scottish electorate decide  in hindsight that they made the wrong decision - but that's not so bad as they will reverse it at the next opportunity - that opportunity will probably *never* come around.  A YES decision will have a massive impact on rUK - so I'm somewhat baffled that debate about it is dismissed as 'boring'.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 2, 2013)

I personally don't believe that a Yes outcome is even a remote possibility, based on the fact that every opinion poll I've ever seen almost always has support for a No at above 50% and Yes below 40%, so all the what ifs and conjecture does get a bit tiresome after a while.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

ger147 said:



			I personally don't believe that a Yes outcome is even a remote possibility, based on the fact that every opinion poll I've ever seen almost always has support for a No at above 50% and Yes below 40%, so all the what ifs and conjecture does get a bit tiresome after a while.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough - so let's wait until we see the outcome of the forthcoming European parliament elections (22nd-25th May 2014) and see if that changes the shape of the status quo.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:






I ask for the reason that @chris alludes to.  Folks in England not interested or bored in the most important decision Scots have EVER had to make?  A decision that will completely change the economic, cultural and political landscape of the UK for ever - and the vast majority of 'the English' don't care?  

You ask a YES voter why they would vote YES and I am guessing that one reason would be that 'the English' don't care about Scotland.  Indeed!
		
Click to expand...

It's not necessarily a "don't care " attitude it's more of a " we have no say in it regardless" attitude.
Quite rightly so.
What I think matters not one jot as I don't have a vote so I shouldn't be influencing one way or the other.
The outcome will affect me to an extent but what can I do about it..


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

Imurg said:



			It's not necessarily a "don't care " attitude it's more of a " we have no say in it regardless" attitude.
Quite rightly so.
What I think matters not one jot as I don't have a vote so I shouldn't be influencing one way or the other.
The outcome will affect me to an extent but what can I do about it..
		
Click to expand...

I agree - though you might be interested in what, if anything, will change if Scotland remains in the UK - and in that context in the run up to the referendum what other 'powers' and 'funding changes' are promised to a devolved (if not independent) Scotland under a devo-max arrangment.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2013)

Interesting - to a point

http://ianssmart.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2013)

In what way?

A bit of pompous one sided cack as far as I was concerned.

How can the white paper be clear about most of these issues when clearly there will be a huge amount of negotiation with a rUK government should there be a Yes vote.

Perhaps you should ask the blogger to balance out his scribble by asking how a 8.4% drop of the value of sterling will affect rUK should the Eton Mess follow out their threats.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 2, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In what way?

A bit of pompous one sided cack as far as I was concerned.

How can the white paper be clear about most of these issues when clearly there will be a huge amount of negotiation with a rUK government should there be a Yes vote.

Perhaps you should ask the blogger to balance out his scribble by asking how a 8.4% drop of the value of sterling will affect rUK should the Eton Mess follow out their threats.
		
Click to expand...

As you appear from your posts on this subject to be pretty firmly in the YES camp I fail to see why you are concerned about the consequences of Scottish independence upon the rest of the UK.
We are quite capable of governing ourselves, after all we have had plenty of experience.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2013)

At the moment I am an honest observer who would prefer Devo Max as the best option.
The rUK will not commit to anything other than supporting the No's.

Re rUk just trying to install a bit of balance to some of the more preposterous posts.
In my mind there is no doubt that Scotland can support itself. Even the Scottish Tories agree with that.

Getting rid of Trident would be a big plus for me as well.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Getting rid of Trident would be a big plus for me as well.
		
Click to expand...

Wished the Trident workforce agreed with that. Plymouth would love it down their to increase employment.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 2, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At the moment I am an honest observer who would prefer Devo Max as the best option.
The rUK will not commit to anything other than supporting the No's.

Re rUk just trying to install a bit of balance to some of the more preposterous posts.
In my mind there is no doubt that Scotland can support itself. Even the Scottish Tories agree with that.

Getting rid of Trident would be a big plus for me as well.
		
Click to expand...

Well I can understand Devo Max being the preferred option, nearly all the benefits with none of the costs. Not exactly the attitude of a mature nation and also the choice that could bring about the break up of the UK in any event.

The perception of many English voters would be that Scotland was gaining independence via the back door at the expense of the English taxpayers. We can debate all night long whether that perception is correct, the fact is that is how many this side of the wall see it.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2013)

With Eddie Reader in full cry my concern is more - what will happen when/if there is a No vote.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 2, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At the moment I am an honest observer who would prefer Devo Max as the best option.
The rUK will not commit to anything other than supporting the No's.

Re rUk just trying to install a bit of balance to some of the more preposterous posts.
In my mind there is no doubt that Scotland can support itself. Even the Scottish Tories agree with that.

Getting rid of Trident would be a big plus for me as well.
		
Click to expand...

So are you allergic to Submarines or just plain pacifist, do you disagree that the nuclear umbrella has been the major contributor in  stopping a World War over the last 65 years?    Will you miss all the jobs and money flowing into the local economy? Or as I suspect are you jumping on the bandwagon of 'Nukes out of Scotland' only because it can be used as a kind of rallying battle cry!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Well I can understand Devo Max being the preferred option, nearly all the benefits with none of the costs. Not exactly the attitude of a mature nation and also the choice that could bring about the break up of the UK in any event.

The perception of many English voters would be that Scotland was gaining independence via the back door at the expense of the English taxpayers. We can debate all night long whether that perception is correct, the fact is that is how many this side of the wall see it.
		
Click to expand...

Aha! At last - someone from south of the border who is seeing the side of a NO vote that the BT Campaign are being rather  coy about.  The side of the NO coin that says that English voters may have a thing or two to say about maintaining the status quo - never mind moving towards devo-max!


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Aha! At last - someone from south of the border who is seeing the side of a NO vote that the BT Campaign are being rather  coy about.  The side of the NO coin that says that English voters may have a thing or two to say about maintaining the status quo - never mind moving towards devo-max!
		
Click to expand...

Devo Max will be a very danger mouse way to go, it would IMHO cause a major problem for any political party that tried that one on. What next independence for Cornwall.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 2, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So are you allergic to Submarines or just plain pacifist, do you disagree that the nuclear umbrella has been the major contributor in  stopping a World War over the last 65 years?    Will you miss all the jobs and money flowing into the local economy? Or as I suspect are you jumping on the bandwagon of 'Nukes out of Scotland' only because it can be used as a kind of rallying battle cry!
		
Click to expand...


I just do not want weapons of mass destruction near my house. Neither would the people of Plymouth I suspect.
Faslane would be an obvious choice for a main Scottish naval base so the jobs thing would balance out.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Devo Max will be a very danger mouse way to go, it would IMHO cause a major problem for any political party that tried that one on. What next independence for Cornwall.
		
Click to expand...

Just wait until polls start showing a strong wish for a devo-max NO - BT Campaign will start making devo-max promises and will they be able to deliver?  Personally I doubt that they will be able to deliver the status quo following a vote never mind devo-max.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I just do not want weapons of mass destruction near my house. Neither would the people of Plymouth I suspect.
Faslane would be an obvious choice for a main Scottish naval base so the jobs thing would balance out.
		
Click to expand...

You must be careful about stating the obvious


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I just do not want weapons of mass destruction near my house. Neither would the people of Plymouth I suspect.
Faslane would be an obvious choice for a main Scottish naval base so the jobs thing would balance out.
		
Click to expand...

'Main Scottish Naval Base'!!!   And what will that be, a couple of frigates?  Should balance the books.

The people of Plymouth already have ships with nuclear weapons and manage to keep it in perspective.   Bet you never even gave the matter a second thought before Alex started making it an issue for independence.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Bet you never even gave the matter a second thought before Alex started making it an issue for independence.
		
Click to expand...

I was 15 years old when we went through the Cuban crisis so you are totally wrong there.
Do you remember Greenham Common, and the warm welcome the people of Newbury gave to the Cruise missiles?


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was 15 years old when we went through the Cuban crisis so you are totally wrong there.
Do you remember Greenham Common, and the warm welcome the people of Newbury gave to the Cruise missiles?
		
Click to expand...

Greenham Common was invaded by 'The Womens Peace Camp' a motly band of yogart knitting pacificts, hardly the 'people of Newbury'.    Regarding the Cuban Missile crisis it was only the threat of a 'Nuclear War' that stopped the Russians from building up bases in Cuba.   

Coming back to your previous comments:  So you dont think Scotland would lose jobs or income if it lost the Subs?   I still think you are jumping onto the SNP bandwagon here.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Greenham Common was invaded by 'The Womens Peace Camp' a motly band of yogart knitting pacificts, hardly the 'people of Newbury'.    Regarding the Cuban Missile crisis it was only the threat of a 'Nuclear War' that stopped the Russians from building up bases in Cuba.   

Coming back to your previous comments:  So you dont think Scotland would lose jobs or income if it lost the Subs?   I still think you are jumping onto the SNP bandwagon here.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong there SR, many local residents were involved in the campaign. The peace camp was only a fairly small weekday part of the protest. It was much busier at weekends when the working public and students were involved
Noisy lesbian protesters made good copy for the newspapers, middle class couples and students did not not. 

I am aware that a few British naval jobs will go at Faslane but that is the price of democracy.
There is strong support for Scotland to be a nuclear free country.


----------



## Wildrover (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wrong there SR, many local residents were involved in the campaign. The peace camp was only a fairly small weekday part of the protest. It was much busier at weekends when the working public and students were involved
Noisy lesbian protesters made good copy for the newspapers, middle class couples and students did not not. 

I am aware that a few British naval jobs will go at Faslane but that is the price of democracy.
There is strong support for Scotland to be a nuclear free country.
		
Click to expand...

Many local residents were involved in the campaign, but how many were not. In situations like that you always see/hear the vocal minority, but never hear from the vast majority of residents who are happy or apathetic about the situation. Or was at least 51% of the population of Newbury out there every weekend. Oh, by the way, Students don't count as locals in my book as most will only be there for a very short time before moving away.


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

I moved to Greenham Common in early 93; there were 4 or 5 of the protesters left in residence despite the Cruise Missiles being long gone.  I seem to recall their leader went by the superb name of 'cat spider crone'.  They lived by blue gate which was where the postie delivered their giros.

Eventually they got bored and moved to Aldermaston.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Wrong there SR, many local residents were involved in the campaign. The peace camp was only a fairly small weekday part of the protest. It was much busier at weekends when the working public and students were involved
Noisy lesbian protesters made good copy for the newspapers, middle class couples and students did not not. 

I am aware that a few British naval jobs will go at Faslane but that is the price of democracy.
There is strong support for Scotland to be a nuclear free country.
		
Click to expand...


Nuclear free ?!:lol:

Does that include getting power from Nuclear stations 

Does it also include no longer having the North Sea patrolled by subs and ships. 

Will never be "nuclear free"


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Wished the Trident workforce agreed with that. Plymouth would love it down their to increase employment.
		
Click to expand...

Plymouth would get nowt from closing Faslane as a Nuclear base, nowt of they closed Coulport either.all the nukes would be sent back to America because no-where, and I mean no-where in England has the capacity/security abilities to house them like coulport does.



SocketRocket said:



			So are you allergic to Submarines or just plain pacifist, do you disagree that the nuclear umbrella has been the major contributor in  stopping a World War over the last 65 years?    Will you miss all the jobs and money flowing into the local economy? Or as I suspect are you jumping on the bandwagon of 'Nukes out of Scotland' only because it can be used as a kind of rallying battle cry!
		
Click to expand...

The MAD scenario earned its acronym well.



SocketRocket said:



			'Main Scottish Naval Base'!!!   And what will that be, a couple of frigates?  Should balance the books.

The people of Plymouth already have ships with nuclear weapons and manage to keep it in perspective.   Bet you never even gave the matter a second thought before Alex started making it an issue for independence.
		
Click to expand...

What ships in Plymouth have nukes?I genuinely have never heard anyone say this.They occasionally have subs there for overhauls iirc, but prior to that they're de-nuked in Scotland.And the incremental,affordable increase in a new Scottish navy would not only replace the jobs removed by removing nukes, but also help The Clyde by letting BAE build our ships in out yards ( beside your ships in out yards_



Liverpoolphil said:



			Nuclear free ?!:lol:

Does that include getting power from Nuclear stations 

Does it also include no longer having the North Sea patrolled by subs and ships. 

Will never be "nuclear free"
		
Click to expand...

Eventually we could be nuclear stationless, we have the capacity of renewables, the tech just needs improving.

And yes, in Scottish waters, subs would not be allowed to patrol.Whether that in enforceable is another thing, but building a few rigs out to the west to drill out our other field might stop them...generally, subs hitting rigs or trawlers works out pretty bad.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Do you think that there will be a "Scottish Navy , Army and Air Force " - not in a million years - can say that with 100% that will never ever happen.

And renewable energy will never sustain the whole country because the cost to produce renewable energy is far too big and they can't foresee it reducing.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you think that there will be a "Scottish Navy , Army and Air Force " - *not in a million years - can say that with 100% that will never ever happen.*

And renewable energy *will never sustain the whole country* because the cost to produce renewable energy is far too big and they* can't foresee *it reducing.
		
Click to expand...

That's the spirit!


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you think that there will be a "Scottish Navy , Army and Air Force " - not in a million years - can say that with 100% that will never ever happen.
		
Click to expand...

OK, so Scotland votes Yes next year and we decide to have no military?I'm pretty sure that's an avante garde approach to Nation building, and one I'm theoretically behind, but I forsee issues from the outset.Initially, lets just have a military and _then_ move the wee fat jambo onto world peace,eh?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			OK, so Scotland votes Yes next year and we decide to have no military?I'm pretty sure that's an avante garde approach to Nation building, and one I'm theoretically behind, but I forsee issues from the outset.Initially, lets just have a military and _then_ move the wee fat jambo onto world peace,eh?
		
Click to expand...


How can you afford the build a military forms scratch - do you think the Scottish people in the current uk military will just switch across ?

They won't have a separate military - it's not affordable or workable.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How can you afford the build a military forms scratch - do you think the Scottish people in the current uk military will just switch across ?

They won't have a separate military - it's not affordable or workable.
		
Click to expand...

We wouldn't build one from scratch, we'd have approx 9% of the current UK one, give or take a few bits and pieces.And some serving folk wouldn't want to to join a new Scottish force, but some would, but we could employ some others...hey, we'd reduce unemployment at the same time.

Lets not be silly about things, we'd have a military.Every with a gram of common sense knows that.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			We wouldn't build one from scratch, we'd have approx 9% of the current UK one, give or take a few bits and pieces.And some serving folk wouldn't want to to join a new Scottish force, but some would, but we could employ some others...hey, we'd reduce unemployment at the same time.

Lets not be silly about things, we'd have a military.Every with a gram of common sense knows that.
		
Click to expand...

Why would you have 9% of he current one ? They are the UK military which you are leaving and will just leave the Scottish bases and move to the English ones leaving you to form your own. That's just personnel - let's not forget the equipment which goes with it - billions upon billions worth of equipment - just one Typhoon is over 30 mil to buy let alone look after.

Currently the people employed in the current uk force are contracted to the UK force on long engagements.

There will still just be a UK military and Scotland would just pay for their services.

I spent 22 years in the military working alongside a number of jocks and the last place the majority wanted to be based at was Scotland.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

Here's a model for Scotland from a friendly country pop 4.5m (you could choose Norway - but just for a change...)  

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/about-us/default.htm

Is their mission and objectives that different from those of an independent Scotland?  Besides - as the UK would never have to 'stand alone' in any significant conflict - similarly Scotland would never have to.  Joint Forces and all that - all the easier and simpler to create (interoperability and all that) given one would be fashioned out of the other.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Here's a model for Scotland from a friendly country pop 4.5m (you could choose Norway - but just for a change...)  

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/about-us/default.htm

Is their mission and objectives that different from those of an independent Scotland?  Besides - as the UK would never have to 'stand alone' in any significant conflict - similarly Scotland would never have to.  Joint Forces and all that - all the easier and simpler to create (interoperability and all that) given one would be fashioned out of the other.
		
Click to expand...

Didn't the UK stand alone against Argentina and still currently do in The Falklands , also will the Scottish Military be in Cyprus or Germany or one of the many embassy's around the world that you currently see UK military working. 

You can't compare Scotland to New Zealand etc because New Zealand weren't a country part of a wider force.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why would you have 9% of he current one ? They are the UK military which you are leaving and will just leave the Scottish bases and move to the English ones leaving you to form your own. That's just personnel - let's not forget the equipment which goes with it - billions upon billions worth of equipment - just one Typhoon is over 30 mil to buy let alone look after.

Currently the people employed in the current uk force are contracted to the UK force on long engagements.

There will still just be a UK military and Scotland would just pay for their services.

I spent 22 years in the military working alongside a number of jocks and the last place the majority wanted to be based at was Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Fortunately for any post yes Scotland, I'm pretty sure you'll not have a seat round the negotiation table, so I think those that do will be able to see the bigger picture.But answer me this-

If Scotland isn't allowed a proportion of the hardware/assets that the tax payers of Scotland have funded, would Scotland have to take on the same proportion of liabilities and debts accrued when we were in The UK?

no assets=no liabilities, yes or no?


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			We wouldn't build one from scratch, we'd have approx 9% of the current UK one, give or take a few bits and pieces.And some serving folk wouldn't want to to join a new Scottish force, but some would, but we could employ some others...hey, we'd reduce unemployment at the same time.

Lets not be silly about things, we'd have a military.Every with a gram of common sense knows that.
		
Click to expand...

The Scottish Military would be absolutely shambolic for years to come.  A number of those Scots currently serving in the British Army may well transfer across; I would suggest that a significant number wouldn't, particularly Senior NCOs and Warrant Officers who would see a much reduced career progression opportunity.  The Army is nothing like a civvy firm, you can't go out and recruit a Sgt, SSgt etc etc.  It takes a lot of time, effort and investment to develop people sufficiently for them to be effective.  On that note, the Scottish Army would lack the training school system that the British Army currently has ie School of Signals, School of Logistics etc etc - I would envisage an agreement for the Scottish Government to pay the UK to train its personnel on certain key courses.

The Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps recruit on regional lines and therefore you could argue that this would form a healthy basis, however, the supporting arms and services do not recruit on regional lines.  You would therefore be hoping that (using the Royal Signals as an example) sufficient Scots transferred across that could fill the various trade group roles (and ranks) of the Brigade Signal Squadron. Good luck with that.

The white paper suggested a Brigade sized formation (in reality a Brigade +) based on 3 infantry/ marine battalions.  The white paper was a bit woolly on details:

2 Armoured Recce units - Really? for a Brigade? Or would that be two Squadrons.
2 Artillery units - What size? Two Regiments would be a bit OTT for a Brigade, so two Batteries?

If a Scottish Army had a deployable Brigade then in reality it wouldn't deploy more than a Battalion + at any one time on operations.  It simply isn't possible to commit to deploying more on a long term operation.  As a consequence it would not be a major player in any operation and would find itself under operational command of a foreign country.  The consequences are that they would more than likely be guarding the bogs at the Port of Entry.  3 Battalions to provide cover on a long time deployment means you are away 6 months of every 18.  Soldiers know this sort of stuff and it may well be a big stumbling block to British Soldiers willingness to transfer.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Fortunately for any post yes Scotland, I'm pretty sure you'll not have a seat round the negotiation table, so I think those that do will be able to see the bigger picture.But answer me this-

If Scotland isn't allowed a proportion of the hardware/assets that the tax payers of Scotland have funded, would Scotland have to take on the same proportion of liabilities and debts accrued when we were in The UK?

no assets=no liabilities, yes or no?
		
Click to expand...

They had the use of the assets when they were part of the UK - leave the UK they leave the assets along with the debt etc. They want independence then off you trot and set up on your own using your own money. I wonder how many people in Scotland would be willing the Government to be able to spend billions building the three services.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			The Scottish Military would be absolutely shambolic for years to come.  A number of those Scots currently serving in the British Army may well transfer across; I would suggest that a significant number wouldn't, particularly Senior NCOs and Warrant Officers who would see a much reduced career progression opportunity.  The Army is nothing like a civvy firm, you can't go out and recruit a Sgt, SSgt etc etc.  It takes a lot of time, effort and investment to develop people sufficiently for them to be effective.  On that note, the Scottish Army would lack the training school system that the British Army currently has ie School of Signals, School of Logistics etc etc - I would envisage an agreement for the Scottish Government to pay the UK to train its personnel on certain key courses.

The Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps recruit on regional lines and therefore you could argue that this would form a healthy basis, however, the supporting arms and services do not recruit on regional lines.  You would therefore be hoping that (using the Royal Signals as an example) sufficient Scots transferred across that could fill the various trade group roles (and ranks) of the Brigade Signal Squadron. Good luck with that.

The white paper suggested a Brigade sized formation (in reality a Brigade +) based on 3 infantry/ marine battalions.  The white paper was a bit woolly on details:

2 Armoured Recce units - Really? for a Brigade? Or would that be two Squadrons.
2 Artillery units - What size? Two Regiments would be a bit OTT for a Brigade, so two Batteries?

If a Scottish Army had a deployable Brigade then in reality it wouldn't deploy more than a Battalion + at any one time on operations.  It simply isn't possible to commit to deploying more on a long term operation.  As a consequence it would not be a major player in any operation and would find itself under operational command of a foreign country.  The consequences are that they would more than likely be guarding the bogs at the Port of Entry.  3 Battalions to provide cover on a long time deployment means you are away 6 months of every 18.  Soldiers know this sort of stuff and it may well be a big stumbling block to British Soldiers willingness to transfer.
		
Click to expand...

I have zero knowledge on all things soldiering, so I'll bow to your obvious superior inside track, and appreciate also the sensible reply.

Would a new Scottish military not also create opportunities for ambitious soldiers looking to make a career out of it?There is obviously limits in the current set up, and given the ongoing downsizing (I've witnessed myself in RAF High Wycombe) opportunities are becoming less and less.

I also realise that by its very nature, the military automatic response would be to vote No to a greater degree, but not all of them.

I think everyone accepts that initially things like Military might take a while to find its feat, but with less engagement in stuff like Iraq, less policing places like the falklands, its all workable.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They had the use of the assets when they were part of the UK - leave the UK they leave the assets along with the debt etc. They want independence then off you trot and set up on your own using your own money. I wonder how many people in Scotland would be willing the Government to be able to spend billions building the three services.
		
Click to expand...

So you suggest no assets and no liabilities? I might try and find you a seat at the table after all.We have our own money by the way, it called sterling.

congratulations on being ignorant, you wear it well.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			So you suggest no assets and no liabilities? I might try and find you a seat at the table after all.We have our own money by the way, it called sterling.

congratulations on being ignorant, you wear it well.
		
Click to expand...


Let's not start getting personal shall we - I'm giving my view point on a unworkable or affordable Scottish military after seeing how the Military works for the last 22 years. Don't start dishing out the insults ok.

What we can do is revisits this in the years to come and you will find no change in the military right now. It's unworkable or affordable for a separate Scottish Military to work as a separate force. There will be a UK military which Scottish Battalions will be a part of.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I have zero knowledge on all things soldiering, so I'll bow to your obvious superior inside track, and appreciate also the sensible reply.

Would a new Scottish military not also create opportunities for ambitious soldiers looking to make a career out of it?There is obviously limits in the current set up, and given the ongoing downsizing (I've witnessed myself in RAF High Wycombe) opportunities are becoming less and less.

I also realise that by its very nature, the military automatic response would be to vote No to a greater degree, but not all of them.

I think everyone accepts that initially things like Military might take a while to find its feat, but with less engagement in stuff like Iraq, less policing places like the falklands, its all workable.
		
Click to expand...

What different career would a solider get in the Scottish Military ? 

I suppose there is lovely outposts for them to work at - forget places like Cyprus ,  holland , Belgium and Ascension etc when they could be in Benbecula.

They would also have to repopulate all the Radar sites which are controlled remotely by sites in the UK. They are in some wonderful places in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Fortunately for any post yes Scotland, I'm pretty sure you'll not have a seat round the negotiation table, so I think those that do will be able to see the bigger picture.But answer me this-

If Scotland isn't allowed a proportion of the hardware/assets that the tax payers of Scotland have funded, would Scotland have to take on the same proportion of liabilities and debts accrued when we were in The UK?

no assets=no liabilities, yes or no?
		
Click to expand...

Yes!   We will give you a  few Trident missiles and an Aircraft Carrier with no planes.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you think that there will be a "Scottish Navy , Army and Air Force " - *not in a million years - can say that with 100% that will never ever happen.*

Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			How can you afford the build a military forms scratch - do you think the Scottish people in the current uk military will just switch across ?

*They won't have a separate military - it's not affordable or workable*.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Why would you have 9% of he current one ? They are the *UK military* which you are leaving and will just leave the Scottish bases and *move to the English ones* leaving you to form your own. That's just personnel - let's not forget the equipment which goes with it - billions upon billions worth of equipment - just one Typhoon is over 30 mil to buy let alone look after.

Currently the people employed in the current uk force are contracted to the UK force on long engagements.

There will still just be a UK military and Scotland would just pay for their services.

*I spent 22 years in the military working alongside a number of jocks* and the last place the majority wanted to be based at was Scotland.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			They had the use of the assets when they were part of the UK - leave the UK they leave the assets along with the debt etc. They* want independence then off you trot *and set up on your own *using your own money.* I wonder how many people in Scotland would be willing the Government to be able to spend billions building the three services.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



*Let's not start getting personal shall we* - I'm giving my view point on a unworkable or affordable Scottish military after seeing how the Military works for the last 22 years. *Don't start dishing out the insults ok.*

What we can do is revisits this in the years to come and you will find no change in the military right now. It's unworkable or affordable for a separate Scottish Military to work as a separate force. There will be a UK military which Scottish Battalions will be a part of.
		
Click to expand...

Take it as an insult if you want, I reckon there's enough in there to back up my opinion you're ignorant to the possibilities of an independent Scotland, which is fine, alot of English folk are, look at that CH5 programme last week, I reckon that was a pretty decent reflection on the general opinion held by English folk.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes!   We will give you a  few Trident missiles.
		
Click to expand...

Currently it's us giving rUK the tridents.Possession 9/10ths of law n'all that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Take it as an insult if you want, I reckon there's enough in there to back up my opinion you're ignorant to the possibilities of an independent Scotland, which is fine, alot of English folk are, look at that CH5 programme last week, I reckon that was a pretty decent reflection on the general opinion *held by English folk*.
		
Click to expand...

Only English? What about the rest of the UK?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Take it as an insult if you want, I reckon there's enough in there to back up my opinion you're ignorant to the possibilities of an independent Scotland, which is fine, alot of English folk are, look at that CH5 programme last week, I reckon that was a pretty decent reflection on the general opinion held by English folk.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry but I'm not ignorant to a working Scottish Independance - that wasn't what I was discussing and haven't discussed - I'm taking about a separate Scottish military and the unworkable aspect of that. Hence why I have been talking about the military aspect. 

Currently I do know though that the polls suggest there will be a No vote - if that will happen that will be a royal kick in the nuts for some. The majority of Jocks I have worked with have been too blokes who don't want to be an independent country because they all ready have their own identity as people - my own experience is it's mainly the "anti English " who want an independent Scotland because they mainly don't want anything to do with England. 

Maybe some English wished it had happened before our worst PM in modern history - Gordon Brown who sold the country down the river - took office.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Only English? What about therest of the UK?
		
Click to expand...

fair point



Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but I'm not ignorant to a working Scottish Independance - that wasn't what I was discussing and haven't discussed - I'm taking about a separate Scottish military and the unworkable aspect of that. Hence why I have been talking about the military aspect. 

Currently I do know though that the polls suggest there will be a No vote - if that will happen that will be a royal kick in the nuts for some. The majority of Jocks I have worked with have been too blokes who don't want to be an independent country because they all ready have their own identity as people - my own experience is it's mainly the "anti English " who want an independent Scotland because they mainly don't want anything to do with England. 

Maybe some English wished it had happened before our worst PM in modern history - Gordon Brown who sold the country down the river - took office.
		
Click to expand...

OK, point taken.all you've done however is say 'never in a million years' 'its not affordable or workable' 'using your own money' all of which is either opinion based on nothing concrete you've provided and ignorance to the fact that the Â£ is as much Scotlands as it is Englands...the UK central bank (or bank of england as its known) is precisely that...the UK central bank, so currently and forever more, part Scottish.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			fair point



OK, point taken.all you've done however is say 'never in a million years' 'its not affordable or workable' 'using your own money' all of which is either opinion based on nothing concrete you've provided and ignorance to the fact that the Â£ is as much Scotlands as it is Englands...the UK central bank (or bank of england as its known) is precisely that...the UK central bank, so currently and forever more, part Scottish.
		
Click to expand...

It's based upon 22 years of experience working in the military. That's why I believe a Scottish Military is unworkable . I think the actual plan is just to have a Scottish battalion but nothing about an Air Force or Navy.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 3, 2013)

In the event of a Yes vote in Scotland, there would have to be some sort of split of the existing military kit, infrastructure, troops etc. or an agreement to continue with a UK military inc. Indy Scotland as there is absolutely 0% chance of the Westminster government letting Scotland swanny off with no debt, as if they did Scotland really would be Quids in, or Euros in...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

ger147 said:



			In the event of a Yes vote in Scotland, there would have to be some sort of split of the existing military kit, infrastructure, troops etc. or an agreement to continue with a UK military inc. Indy Scotland as there is absolutely 0% chance of the Westminster government letting Scotland swanny off with no debt, as if they did Scotland really would be Quids in, or Euros in...
		
Click to expand...

And it's why I believe there will still be a UK military which Scotland would be apart of instead of an Independant Scottish Military - it would be the most workable way forward.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And it's why I believe there will still be a UK military which Scotland would be apart of instead of an Independant Scottish Military - it would be the most workable way forward.
		
Click to expand...

It would certainly make more sense than trying to work out what 8.2% of an aircraft carrier was. What would Scotland get, all the dishes and cutlery?


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's based upon 22 years of experience working in the military. That's why I believe a Scottish Military is unworkable . I think the actual plan is just to have a Scottish battalion but nothing about an Air Force or Navy.
		
Click to expand...

Again, your showing your ignorance.There is a plan for a navy/army/air force, its been costed and its in the white paper.

And working in the military doesn't give you an inside track.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's not start getting personal shall we - I'm giving my view point on a unworkable or affordable Scottish military after seeing how the Military works for the last 22 years. Don't start dishing out the insults ok.

What we can do is revisits this in the years to come and you will find no change in the military right now. It's unworkable or affordable for a separate Scottish Military to work as a separate force. There will be a UK military which Scottish Battalions will be a part of.
		
Click to expand...

No there won't, if Scotland splits there will be a Scottish military. Scotland as a stand alone country won't "borrow" soldiers/sailors or airmen, if they can't prove they can do it then IMO there will be no YES vote.

Stevie speaks on the Army side of things and is probably bang on with his assesment of numbers, naval and airforce numbers will follow suit. It's not as if we need to build any of these, we have them already or will the UK government try and reclaim these sites as UK assets?

As Stevie highlighted the biggest foreseeable issue is if UK service personel want to join a Scottish military, that more than anything would be the YES campaigns biggest stumbling block on defence.


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's based upon 22 years of experience working in the military. That's why I believe a Scottish Military is unworkable . I think the actual plan is just to have a Scottish battalion but nothing about an Air Force or Navy.
		
Click to expand...

Battalion? Brigade + mate, a Navy and Air Force are noted in the white paper:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Again, your showing your ignorance.There is a plan for a navy/army/air force, its been costed and its in the white paper.

And working in the military doesn't give you an inside track.
		
Click to expand...

When did I suggest anything about any "inside track"

Can you show me this costing and white paper of the Scottish Air Force please. Which bases will they use , including the Air Defense structure including air and ground and Radar. Also including the personnel and equipment to patrol the skies and the ground crew to back them. Also including the training facilities for all the trades ( all currently in England or Wales ) plus the servicing of the A/C ( done in England ) . Currently the Air Force has multiple tactical deployable trades all based in England. Currently a lot of the instructors are civilians living in England around the base areas. There is so much more - could go on forever.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What different career would a solider get in the Scottish Military ? 

I suppose there is lovely outposts for them to work at - forget places like Cyprus ,  holland , Belgium and Ascension etc when they could be in Benbecula.

They would also have to repopulate all the Radar sites which are controlled remotely by sites in the UK. They are in some wonderful places in the middle of nowhere.
		
Click to expand...

I'd rather go to Benbecula than the Ascension Isles, a god awful place that all it has going for it is sunshine. It sounds nice but in reality, its the land that time forgot, at least it was back in '97.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's not start getting personal shall we - I'm giving my view point on a unworkable or affordable Scottish military after seeing how the Military works for the last 22 years. Don't start dishing out the insults ok.

What we can do is revisits this in the years to come and you will find no change in the military right now. It's unworkable or affordable for a separate Scottish Military to work as a separate force. There will be a UK military which Scottish Battalions will be a part of.
		
Click to expand...

So Scottish forces pretty much permanently part of a Joint Forces with rUK then.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So Scottish forces pretty much permanently part of a Joint Forces with rUK then.
		
Click to expand...


rUK ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I'd rather go to Benbecula than the Ascension Isles, a god awful place that all it has going for it is sunshine. It sounds nice but in reality, its the land that time forgot, at least it was back in '97.
		
Click to expand...

You have just described Benbecula without the sunshine plus the added wind and small gene pool


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

Valentino said:



			I'd rather go to Benbecula than the Ascension Isles, a god awful place that all it has going for it is sunshine. It sounds nice but in reality, its the land that time forgot, at least it was back in '97.
		
Click to expand...

I was there for an hour, then got back on the plane and carried on heading south


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When did I suggest anything about any "inside track"

Can you show me this costing and white paper of the Scottish Air Force please. Which bases will they use , including the Air Defense structure including air and ground and Radar. Also including the personnel and equipment to patrol the skies and the ground crew to back them. Also including the training facilities for all the trades ( all currently in England or Wales ) plus the servicing of the A/C ( done in England ) . Currently the Air Force has multiple tactical deployable trades all based in England. Currently a lot of the instructors are civilians living in England around the base areas. There is so much more - could go on forever.
		
Click to expand...

so many job creation programmes for an indy Scotland!You make it sound better than I ever could.

The white paper is easy to find.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You have just described Benbecula without the sunshine plus the added wind and small gene pool
		
Click to expand...

It does have a golf course with proper grass, unlike 2 boats golf club.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Valentino said:



			It does have a golf course with proper grass, unlike 2 boats golf club.
		
Click to expand...

Well calling it a golf course is pushing the boundaries a little


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			so many job creation programmes for an indy Scotland!You make it sound better than I ever could.

The white paper is easy to find.
		
Click to expand...

Yes because it's going it that easy to recreate decades upon decades of expertise.

I have read the white paper and it's so generic is amusing

They suggest what they should get but there is a little caveat - dependent on negotiation.

In fact reading makes me feel more confident it won't happen.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I was there for an hour, then got back on the plane and carried on heading south 

Click to expand...

2 and half weeks for me and it was 2 weeks too much.


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes because it's going it that easy to recreate decades upon decades of expertise.

I have read the white paper and it's so generic is amusing

They suggest what they should get but there is a little caveat - dependent on negotiation.

*In fact reading makes me feel more confident it won't happen*.
		
Click to expand...

Thankfully me too


----------



## Val (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well calling it a golf course is pushing the boundaries a little
		
Click to expand...

What one? Benbecula is a nice little 9 holer, 2 boats is a volcanic mass area with flags and various other nonsense.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes because it's going it that easy to recreate decades upon decades of expertise.

I have read the white paper and it's so generic is amusing

They suggest what they should get but there is a little caveat - dependent on negotiation.

In fact reading makes me feel more confident it won't happen.
		
Click to expand...

You've read the white paper?

I don't believe you.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Valentino said:



			What one? Benbecula is a nice little 9 holer, 2 boats is a volcanic mass area with flags and various other nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

Benny must have improved in the last ten years then - the weather never helped though.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			You've read the white paper?

I don't believe you.
		
Click to expand...

Ok don't believe me.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok don't believe me.
		
Click to expand...

I won't.

Ignorance and lies.


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes!   We will give you a  few Trident missiles and an Aircraft Carrier with no planes.
		
Click to expand...

At the risk of being accused of pedantry, the missiles belong to the good old US, the war heads are ours.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I won't.

Ignorance and lies.
		
Click to expand...

Please refrain from calling me a liar ok pal

This is what I have just read after someone kindly posted in on the thread and I had a quick read on the defence area


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10

If you can't be polite when talking to people then don't bother replying


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Please refrain from calling me a liar ok pal

This is what I have just read after someone kindly posted in on the thread and I had a quick read on the defence area


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/10

If you can't be polite when talking to people then don't bother replying
		
Click to expand...

So you hadn't read the white paper, just a wee bit of it.Just as I thought.

I'm not your pal btw.

Before an admin intervenes, I'll stop replying to you as a) I stand by assertions already made b) you have no vote next year so your opinion doesn't really count and c) I cannae be bothered with your chat.


----------



## stevie_r (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Would a new Scottish military not also create opportunities for ambitious soldiers looking to make a career out of it?There is obviously limits in the current set up, and given the ongoing downsizing (I've witnessed myself in RAF High Wycombe) opportunities are becoming less and less.
		
Click to expand...

I need to try and explain this so it makes as much sense as it does in my head  and it relates primarily to the willingness of British Army personnel to transfer across.

In the Corps and Services of the British Army (I'll continue to use the Royal Signals as an example) individuals are moved around from unit to unit rather than units moving en masse as the Infantry and Cav do; normally every 3 years for a Junior or Senior rank, every 2 years for a Warrant Officer or if selected for promotion.  The advantages of this being that the pain of being posted to a crap hole was fairly shared and every few years you got what could be quite a change of role/ job.

If you only have one unit of a particularly type, in this case the nascent Scottish Brigade Signal Squadron, in terms of advancement it pretty much becomes dead man's shoes.  For example your three Troop Staff Sergeants are all particularly competent and worthy of promotion however, there is only one slot into which one of them can be promoted.  In the Royal Corps of Signals as it stands at the moment there is more scope for those deserving of promotion to be promoted due to the scale of the Corps.  Obviously you are competing against more candidates but if good enough you will get there.

For those reasons I would definitely have been reticent to transfer.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was 15 years old when we went through the Cuban crisis so you are totally wrong there.
Do you remember Greenham Common, and the warm welcome the people of Newbury gave to the Cruise missiles?
		
Click to expand...

Remember it and regularly was involved in convoy duty running the launchers around the country. The people of Newbury were never a problem and enjoyed the extra employment they bought. The only people that used to create any kind of problem which was extremely limited where 1/2 dozen unwashed women who enjoyed camping.

I do like your thoughts on the Scottish Navy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			So you hadn't read the white paper, just a wee bit of it.Just as I thought.

I'm not your pal btw.

Before an admin intervenes, I'll stop replying to you as a) I stand by assertions already made b) you have no vote next year so your opinion doesn't really count and c) I cannae be bothered with your chat.
		
Click to expand...

I never stated I read the whole paper - you shouldn't make assumptions 

I know you're not my pal hence why I used the word

As for saying my opinion doesn't count is rubbish because the vote will also effect people in other countries within the UK

In every walk of life you come across arrogant nationalists - people that live up to stereotypical picture. You fit that perfect picture on anti anyone but Scotland Scotsman and you would be a plus point of Scotland being Independant. 

Shame as it's looking likely the vote won't be a yes. 

The lack of reply would be welcome


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I need to try and explain this so it makes as much sense as it does in my head  and it relates primarily to the willingness of British Army personnel to transfer across.

In the Corps and Services of the British Army (I'll continue to use the Royal Signals as an example) individuals are moved around from unit to unit rather than units moving en masse as the Infantry and Cav do; normally every 3 years for a Junior or Senior rank, every 2 years for a Warrant Officer or if selected for promotion.  The advantages of this being that the pain of being posted to a crap hole was fairly shared and every few years you got what could be quite a change of role/ job.

If you only have one unit of a particularly type, in this case the nascent Scottish Brigade Signal Squadron, in terms of advancement it pretty much becomes dead man's shoes.  For example your three Troop Staff Sergeants are all particularly competent and worthy of promotion however, there is only one slot into which one of them can be promoted.  In the Royal Corps of Signals as it stands at the moment there is more scope for those deserving of promotion to be promoted due to the scale of the Corps.  Obviously you are competing against more candidates but if good enough you will get there.

For those reasons I would definitely have been reticent to transfer.
		
Click to expand...

Most of the Jocks I have worked with joined the Air Force to leave Scotland and to get posted around the UK and the rest of the World.

Can't see many wanting to leave nice postings to go to Leuchars.

In fact when at Lossiemouth there were more English guys and gals there than Scottish


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			I won't.

Ignorance and lies.
		
Click to expand...

Something you appear to be guilty of yourself with your assertion that Scotland will retain sterling without any problems. That really is the sort of idealistic twaddle that I thought only the failed economist was capable of peddling.

And on the subject of matching assets to liabilities you conveniently overlook the current situation with devolved powers not being matched by devolved costs. This will be even worse if Devo Max results from a No vote.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 3, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Something you appear to be guilty of yourself with your assertion that Scotland will retain sterling without any problems. That really is the sort of idealistic twaddle that I thought only the failed economist was capable of peddling.

And on the subject of matching assets to liabilities you conveniently overlook the current situation with devolved powers not being matched by devolved costs. This will be even worse if Devo Max results from a No vote.
		
Click to expand...

We can keep the Â£ whatever, the perceived issue is whether there would be a currency union, there is a significant difference.

The second paragraph I don't quite understand, can you clarify?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In fact when at Lossiemouth there were more English guys and gals there than Scottish
		
Click to expand...

Priceless!

Scotland's population 5.3 million
England's population 60 million.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Priceless!

Scotland's population 5.3 million
England's population 60 million.
		
Click to expand...

?!

On the base in the RAF 

Not sure the meaning of your little stat


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 3, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			We can keep the Â£ whatever, the perceived issue is whether there would be a currency union, there is a significant difference.

The second paragraph I don't quite understand, can you clarify?
		
Click to expand...

So it is not the Â£ sterling but the Scottish Â£ left to float freely on currency markets. Don't think the failed economist or his sidekicks made that clear when presenting the White Paper.
Not surprising really as history shows that very small countries tend to find their currency subject to wider fluctuations due to the volatility of their economies.
In additio, as you say the BoE is the central bank of the UK and an independent Scotland would no longer be part of that so a new lender of last resort would be needed to support Scotland's banks.

Finally the point referring to devolved powers/benefits relates to the cost of those benefits/powers being met by taxpayers elsewhere in the UK, predominantly but not exclusively in England.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Remember it and regularly was involved in convoy duty running the launchers around the country. The people of Newbury were never a problem and enjoyed the extra employment they bought. The only people that used to create any kind of problem which was extremely limited where 1/2 dozen unwashed women who enjoyed camping.
		
Click to expand...

You only worked Mon-Fri in the middle of the night then Skier as they gave up trying to move them at weekends.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 3, 2013)

It will be a no by a long way. I dont even know why you're bothering with the referendum!


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2013)

guest100718 said:



			It will be a no by a long way. I dont even know why you're bothering with the referendum!
		
Click to expand...


Because its a referendum Westminster believe they can 'win'?

Unlike a referendum on continued EU membership ...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			?!

On the base in the RAF 

Not sure the meaning of your little stat
		
Click to expand...

In the British services I would expect ten Englishmen for every one Scots.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In the British services I would expect ten Englishmen for every one Scots.
		
Click to expand...

You would expect that but would be surprised.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In the British services I would expect ten Englishmen for every one Scots.
		
Click to expand...

550 of us and 2 jocks. Thankfully only one played the pipes.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

I was at Lossiemouth when it was an RNAS.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			550 of us and 2 jocks. Thankfully only one played the pipes.
		
Click to expand...

That would be the engineer and the trade union official then!


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2013)

I think there could be a Scottish Military but it would not be anything like the current UK Defence Services.  The UK currently is a major force that is part of Nato and has the capabilities for not only national defence but can make a major contribution to International peacekeeping and security.  Scotland should be able to create a National Defence Force that could look after border and fishery protection with a small Army and air force that operated much in the way the Republic or Ireland does.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I think there could be a Scottish Military but it would not be anything like the current UK Defence Services.  The UK currently is a major force that is part of Nato and has the capabilities for not only national defence but can make a major contribution to International peacekeeping and security.  Scotland should be able to create a National Defence Force that could look after border and fishery protection with a small Army and air force that operated much in the way the Republic or Ireland does.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure how they can afford it. As south of the border all we can settle for is not enough in the army to fill Wembley stadium, a navy with no real strategic capability and a few noisy ac.
I think north of the border they will have to settle for a couple of guys in skirts blowing up a couple of pigs bladders. :ears: .  No tongue in cheek jobbies.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I think there could be a Scottish Military but it would not be anything like the current UK Defence Services.  The UK currently is a major force that is part of Nato and has the capabilities for not only national defence but can make a major contribution to International peacekeeping and security.  Scotland should be able to create a National Defence Force that could look after border and fishery protection with a small Army and air force that operated much in the way the Republic or Ireland does.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds suitable and appropriate to me for a small nation


----------



## MarkA (Dec 5, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			We can keep the Â£ whatever, the perceived issue is whether there would be a currency union, there is a significant difference.

The second paragraph I don't quite understand, can you clarify?
		
Click to expand...

Id love to hear how you can justify that rather blasÃ© claim . Why would England want a currency union with a country who wants Independence but that couldn't even guarantee it qualifying for membership of the Euro? You want independence, you got it but without B of E support! Why would the B of E wish to guarantee and independent Scotland's currency? It'd be interesting to hear of who you think would guarantee it.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 5, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be the engineer and the trade union official then!
		
Click to expand...

Certainly wouldn't have been the cook.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 5, 2013)

Scottish wind turbines will be burning out in this wind - enough energy to power the whole country - just need to link it to the hydro stations do do the pumping to store the excess energy ion the high lochs.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 5, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			Certainly wouldn't have been the cook.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Yerman (Dec 5, 2013)

Who will be monarch after King Alec? 
I remember when Swinney took over -all seems a bit of a one man band.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 6, 2013)

MarkA said:



			Id love to hear how you can justify that rather blasÃ© claim . Why would *England* want a currency union with a country who wants Independence but that couldn't even guarantee it *qualifying for membership of the Euro? *You want independence, you got it but without* B of E support*! Why would the *B of E *wish to guarantee and* independent Scotland's currency*? It'd be interesting to hear of who you think would guarantee it.
		
Click to expand...




rUK not England
I'd rather we didn't join the Euro
B of E = central bank of The United Kingdom, equally Scottish as English
Scotland currency = Â£


If anyone can show me one member of the current UK govt that has categorically said there will be no currency union, I'll vote No next year.

I'm under no illusion that concessions would have to be made by post indy Scotland, but that seems to be a one way street where No people seem to think they'll make all the demands.Seriously, that won't be the case.


----------



## MarkA (Dec 6, 2013)

So tell me if Scotland wants independence from the UK - why would Scotland think that there would still be any reason to have Currency union? Independence is Independence, you cant pick and chose the nice bits!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

MarkA said:



			So tell me if Scotland wants independence from the UK - why would Scotland think that there would still be any reason to have Currency union? Independence is Independence, you cant pick and chose the nice bits!
		
Click to expand...

There are the huge *practical *benefits to the rUK in having monetary union with Scotland that the government of the rUK and the Bank of England would recognise.  A Westminster government might have difficulty swallowing it - but it would happen.


----------



## Adi2Dassler (Dec 6, 2013)

MarkA said:



			So tell me if Scotland wants independence from the UK - why would Scotland think that there would still be any reason to have Currency union? Independence is Independence, you cant pick and chose the nice bits!
		
Click to expand...

Because it would make sense to both countries?They'll not say it, but rUK would want it too happen too.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 6, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Because it would make sense to both countries?They'll not say it, but rUK would want it too happen too.
		
Click to expand...

No we would not and nor would any of the leading political parties. Certainly would not make sense for the UK to have its currency linked to that of a small independent nation.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 6, 2013)

Adi2Dassler said:



			Because it would make sense to both countries?
		
Click to expand...

That it may... But, if I wanted independence then my first requirement would be total control over my own purse strings... Which is why I remain confused over Scotland's desire to beholding to others...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			No we would not and nor would any of the leading political parties. Certainly would not make sense for the UK to have its currency linked to that of a small independent nation.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - Westminster and the rUK electorate might not like the idea, but the practicalities (and maybe also the impracticalities of there not being) currency union would mean that it would happen.


----------



## MarkA (Dec 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			There are the huge *practical *benefits to the rUK in having monetary union with Scotland that the government of the rUK and the Bank of England would recognise.  A Westminster government might have difficulty swallowing it - but it would happen.
		
Click to expand...

 Please feel free to name them , as I cant see one having to underwrite a small independent nation


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed - Westminster and the rUK electorate might not like the idea, but the practicalities (and maybe also the impracticalities of there not being) currency union would mean that it would happen.
		
Click to expand...

You don't half kid yourself in your desperation for Scottish independence, but you make zero allowance for the realities whilst inflating the importance of an independent Scotland to the UK. (please do not refer to rUK as after a YES vote Scotland would not be any part of this country)

Provide a crutch for Scottish financial institutions by BoE being lender of last resort whilst having no control over the Scottish economy!!!

Not even Osborne or Balls are that daft.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			You don't half kid yourself in your desperation for Scottish independence, but you make zero allowance for the realities whilst inflating the importance of an independent Scotland to the UK. (please do not refer to rUK as after a YES vote Scotland would not be any part of this country)

Provide a crutch for Scottish financial institutions by BoE being lender of last resort whilst having no control over the Scottish economy!!!

Not even Osborne or Balls are that daft.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not desperate for independence and it's nothing to do with any potential rUK dependency on Scotland (btw - if you follow the debate in Scotland you will find the rUK is the commonly adopted shorthand for United Kingdom without Scotland i.e. rest of UK or rump UK ).   I'm just trying to see through disinformation and assertions of what absolutely would and absolutely would not happen following a YES.  

And it isn't a case of anyone being daft or sensible - it would be based upon what would realistically and pragmatically be the most appropriate thing to do.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not desperate for independence and it's nothing to do with any potential rUK dependency on Scotland (btw - if you follow the debate in Scotland you will find the rUK is the commonly adopted shorthand for United Kingdom without Scotland i.e. rest of UK or rump UK ).   I'm just trying to see through disinformation and assertions of what absolutely would and absolutely would not happen following a YES.  

And it isn't a case of anyone being daft or sensible - it would be based upon what would realistically and pragmatically be the most appropriate thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

In which case answer the question. 

How can it be appropriate, realistic or pragmatic for the BoE to provide support as a lender of last resort to financial institutions based in another country over whose fiscal policy the UK Government would have no control?

Not only does it not make political sense it does not make economic sense.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			In which case answer the question. 

How can it be appropriate, realistic or pragmatic for the BoE to provide support as a lender of last resort to financial institutions based in another country over whose fiscal policy the UK Government would have no control?

Not only does it not make political sense it does not make economic sense.
		
Click to expand...

Mickie..AGAIN it is all down to negotiation.
If Scotland have to settle for the Euro as a second choice I am not sure if the rUK can take a sterling loss of 8.4% when we convert.
Would that not be a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. 
We would prefer to keep the pound and I am sure that rUK would like to keep the VALUE of the pound.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 6, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Mickie..AGAIN it is all down to negotiation.
If Scotland have to settle for the Euro as a second choice I am not sure if the rUK can take a sterling loss of 8.4% when we convert.
Would that not be a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. 
We would prefer to keep the pound and I am sure that rUK would like to keep the VALUE of the pound.
		
Click to expand...

Would you like to explain why sterling would be devalued by 8.4% in the event of a YES vote.

I see no reason to suspect that this would be the case and what makes you so certain that Scotland would be accepted into the Eurozone. Certainly the ECB have not confirmed that.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 6, 2013)

I did not say it would be devalued, that will only happen if rUK decide they don't want our share of the money invested in the UK bank.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 6, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I did not say it would be devalued, that will only happen if rUK decide they don't want our share of the money invested in the UK bank.
		
Click to expand...

Still would not result in a devaluation of sterling on currency markets. Exchange rates are determined by many factors such as interest rates and economic outlook.
In addition stability tends to be a more attractive characteristic for a currency.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 6, 2013)

WTF is rUK


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 6, 2013)

Re Currency, would the pro independents not prefer to have control over their own currency/interest rates etc?

If interest rates are controlled by the BoE then, in theory, Scotland could end up being limited in the event of a "Scottish" recession in the future? E.g. Greece etc having no ability to devalue their currency.

Obviously being in the Euro wouldn't exactly help this either.....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			WTF is rUK
		
Click to expand...

I did explain that 'rUK' is the generally accepted shorthand being used in Scotland for the 'rest of the UK' i.e. UK without Scotland - but you know that?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

NWJocko said:



			Re Currency, would the pro independents not prefer to have control over their own currency/interest rates etc?
		
Click to expand...

...which might well happen over time.  But following a YES there will be 'forever' for the economies of Scotland and rUK to evolve to the point that this could be appropriate and desirable.  But in the first instance, and at least in the short term (which is in years), it would be pragmatic for both Scotland and the rUK to have currency union.


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...which might well happen over time.  But following a YES there will be 'forever' for the economies of Scotland and rUK to evolve to the point that this could be appropriate and desirable.  But in the first instance, and at least in the short term (which is in years), it would be pragmatic for both Scotland and the rUK to have currency union.
		
Click to expand...

This is what confuses me a little....

One of the main motivations appears to be being freed from the "rule" of Westminster/UK policy.

However, Scotland would be happy to have fiscal policy freedom severely limited by interest rate and monetary policy decide by the BoE? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.....

A lot of the argument seems to be (rightly or wrongly) how financially successful an independent Scotland would be, why on earth wouldn't you want to control the (perceived) positive impact on Scotland's P&L through fiscal/monetary policy?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2013)

NWJocko said:



			This is what confuses me a little....

One of the main motivations appears to be being freed from the "rule" of Westminster/UK policy.

However, Scotland would be happy to have fiscal policy freedom severely limited by interest rate and monetary policy decide by the BoE? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.....

A lot of the argument seems to be (rightly or wrongly) how financially successful an independent Scotland would be, why on earth wouldn't you want to control the (perceived) positive impact on Scotland's P&L through fiscal/monetary policy?
		
Click to expand...

Because these things will take time to evolve and to be negotiated and worked out - and evolve they will.  But there will be plenty of time for tghese things to be sorted out.  Forever is a long time - but they won't take forever - just time.  You seem to suggest that there should be an instant fix or solution - and immediate change to a new 'steady state'.  Nothing really changes like that.

When you introduce a step change into a stable system where all 'states' defining the system have relatively low levels of uncertainty, all the states go into a transitional phase with associated higher levels of uncertainty.  Over time the states defining the system move to their new steady-state position and as they do their uncertainty reduces until the system reaches stability and relatively strong against further disruptive inputs.   But state dynamics and uncertainty are time variable - and that is all that we will have with Scotland after a YES vote.

And at that point a change from currency union may be appropriate without too much disruption on either economy.


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 6, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Because these things will take time to evolve and to be negotiated and worked out - and evolve they will.  But there will be plenty of time for tghese things to be sorted out.  Forever is a long time - but they won't take forever - just time.  You seem to suggest that there should be an instant fix or solution - and immediate change to a new 'steady state'.  Nothing really changes like that.

When you introduce a step change into a stable system where all 'states' defining the system have relatively low levels of uncertainty, all the states go into a transitional phase with associated higher levels of uncertainty.  Over time the states defining the system move to their new steady-state position and as they do their uncertainty reduces until the system reaches stability and relatively strong against further disruptive inputs.   But state dynamics and uncertainty are time variable - and that is all that we will have with Scotland after a YES vote.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting there is a fix, more that what that fix will be hasn't been thought about and/or communicated.

You seem to be explaining almost a Markov chain approach with regards to "states". Where these models fall down, in my experience, is not fully understanding the volatility or certainty of each "state" when one can act independently of another....

Is the assumption that Scotland will be welcome in a Currency union confirmed with the UK? Why are you sure there is "plenty of time"?

If, and with everything to do with this its a big if, the Yes vote results in an instability of the Â£ on the global markets do you think the new UK would be happy for us hanging around or want us to decide ASAP what the currency is actually going to be (be that a Â£ pegged to the UK Â£, an independent Â£/other or Euro)?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I did explain that 'rUK' is the generally accepted shorthand being used in Scotland for the 'rest of the UK' i.e. UK without Scotland - but you know that?
		
Click to expand...

I must of missed it as have some others. A large R would be more appropriate if feel the need to make a difference within the UK or perhaps use rS.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 7, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I did explain that 'rUK' is the generally accepted shorthand being used in Scotland for the 'rest of the UK' i.e. UK without Scotland - but you know that?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't know what it meant either.

I have been following this issue since the SNP's election victory and I have NEVER seen that shorthand used except in this thread on this forum.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 7, 2013)

A forum invention to remind a few posters on here that four countries make up the UK.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			A forum invention to remind a few posters on here that four countries make up the UK.
		
Click to expand...

We all appreciate that, it appears there is only the odd republican scot who doesn't and wants to change everything and thinks that that the remainder of the UK only deserve a small r.

Still not heard the pro lobby's thoughts on what may happen when/if there happens to be a No vote.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 7, 2013)

Old Skier said:



			Still not heard the pro lobby's thoughts on what may happen when/if there happens to be a No vote.
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine that we continue as we have for the last 300 years.
What else would you expect?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 7, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I would imagine that we continue as we have for the last 300 years.
What else would you expect?
		
Click to expand...

I raise a glass to that one and hope your right.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 7, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			A forum invention to remind a few posters on here that four countries make up the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Sound more of an 'Intervention' to me


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 8, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Sound more of an 'Intervention' to me
		
Click to expand...

Well it is better than the alternate abbreviation of 'f  ormer UK'
With a Nats slogan of 'Don't vote for f ormrer UK' sake.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 8, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Well it is better than the alternate abbreviation of 'f  ormer UK'
With a Nats slogan of 'Don't vote for f ormrer UK' sake.
		
Click to expand...

But that's the point . If Scotland leaves the rest of us will still be the UK not the former, rump or rest of UK.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 8, 2013)

MetalMickie said:



			But that's the point . If Scotland leaves the rest of us will still be the UK not the former, rump or rest of UK.
		
Click to expand...

Na, I think you will have to change your name.
Not four united countries any more.

That will cost a fortune in new branding, stationary and flags.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Dec 8, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Na, I think you will have to change your name.
Not four united countries any more.

That will cost a fortune in new branding, stationary and flags.
		
Click to expand...

Three is plenty!


----------

