Scotland Debate

[FairwayDodger]

But is that kind of question really that important?You'll still pay it (emission tax) but if you're basing your decision on that kind of detail you were never considering voting yes anyway.

I sort of see your point but, for me, it highlights a big flaw in the process.

There are those who see the "big picture" of an independent Scotland and the possibilities it opens up and like that and embrace it and will vote "yes" regardless. (You, I guess)

There are others who are philosophically opposed to independence, who think people should be coming together rather than pushing apart and will vote "no" regardless. (Me)

And there are others (probably the majority) who maybe lean one way or the other but not enough to vote on the principle. These people are crying out to be informed about what the realities, the specifics of an independent Scotland would be and they are being badly let down. By both sides.

It doesn't help if when people raise legitimate concerns or queries they are dismissed out of hand.

 

[Foxholer]

Anyone know how the vehicle licensing [road tax] will work if it's a yes vote. There's far too many questions not been thought out, it's a NO from me.

That really is a detail way down the list of priorities I would expect to be considered for a Yes/No decision. There's not even an outline plan for when becoming a separate country would happen - and neither should there be, except to prove the viability of doing so and answering the 'major' questions.

While ability of an iScotland infrastructure to manage those sort of details might be a consideration - an inevitable increase in Scottish Civil Service being the result - the transfer of this sort of function from UK to iScotland shouldn't need to be considered for the question the referendum is asking!

I suspect you are really a "don't trust/like/want change" type. If so, you are actually one of the huge group the Yes campaign has to target and convince! The dedicate Yes or No voters aren't in the majority, yet, so (at least the Yes crew) depend on convincing you to have faith in their vision.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

It doesn't help if when people raise legitimate concerns or queries they are dismissed out of hand.

Is it a legitimate concern?What if Swinney had used last night to announce the's abolished emission tax in iScotland?Folk would craw on about the unaffordability of such a move.Or if he had announced that he's raising it by 10%?Petrol heads would go mental.No, the sensible and obvious answer is it'll stay the same, much like most things of such insignificance.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Is it a legitimate concern?What if Swinney had used last night to announce the's abolished emission tax in iScotland?Folk would craw on about the unaffordability of such a move.Or if he had announced that he's raising it by 10%?Petrol heads would go mental.No, the sensible and obvious answer is it'll stay the same, much like most things of such insignificance.

Sorry, I agree this is a minor detail, the wider point is the total lack of clarity about anything. In this one campaign I would like to see politicians breaking with tradition and giving straight, definitive answers.

Doesn't really affect my vote though. If all Scottish golfers named "Karen" were going to be given an annual grant to cover their golf club fees I'd still be voting no.... (Although I don't see why westminster couldn't roll out that policy uk-wide)

 

[williamalex1]

But is that kind of question really that important?You'll still pay it (emission tax) but if you're basing your decision on that kind of detail you were never considering voting yes anyway.

That would require a new system to be set up for issuing/ collecting the road tax, because at the moment it's dealt with by the DVLA in Swansea.
There's also the defence set up , are we going to form our own army/ navy /air force. Are we going to recall the Scots from the UK forces .Which would leave a shortage in the UK forces
I don't imagine there's enough able bodied trained personnel staying in Scotland to take up all the required positions, or we could wait to be annexed by Vladimir, just like Crimea.

A new national pension set up will also be needed, these are just a few unimportant !! matters that have not been made clear.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I sort of see your point but, for me, it highlights a big flaw in the process.

There are those who see the "big picture" of an independent Scotland and the possibilities it opens up and like that and embrace it and will vote "yes" regardless. (You, I guess)

There are others who are philosophically opposed to independence, who think people should be coming together rather than pushing apart and will vote "no" regardless. (Me)

And there are others (probably the majority) who maybe lean one way or the other but not enough to vote on the principle. These people are crying out to be informed about what the realities, the specifics of an independent Scotland would be and they are being badly let down. By both sides.

It doesn't help if when people raise legitimate concerns or queries they are dismissed out of hand.

You (and the BT campaign) seem to be seeking precision and certainly from the YES campaign about the future when none of us know for certain what the future is going to be like if nothing changes. It is absolutely right to seek clarification but it is simply a a fact that very little in life is 100% certain to happen.

Ask a Tory politician today about what will be in their first budget if returned to government at the next West'er elections. They will be vague - some of it because they don't know or don't want to tell - but some of it quite correctly on the grounds they do not have any firm idea of what the lie of the land will be and the environment in which the UK economy will be functioning at that time. But you can set out the principles and when in power negotiate and work towards these principles.

If you require 100% certainty to vote YES then you will definitely be voting NO. How many of us do things that might well result in advantage to us even though only 90% sure of the positive outcome. We all do from time to time. And we do this for very significant life events - not just the lottery. We accept new jobs we are not 100% of; we might ask the girl to marry us though we might not be 100% certain it's the correct thing; we move home; we have children when our future finances might not be able stand the strain. But we do these things because we believe them to be the right thing - the best thing for us. Life is risk/reward - there is very little certainty. If you believe in an independent Scotland being what is right for Scotland then you will vote for it. If you are really worried that your car tax might go up or how Scotland and rUK would sort it out then you probably won't.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

That would require a new system to be set up for issuing/ collecting the road tax, because at the moment it's dealt with by the DVLA in Swansea.
There's also the defence set up , are we going to form our own army/ navy /air force. Are we going to recall the Scots from the UK forces .Which would leave a shortage in the UK forces
I don't imagine there's enough able bodied trained personnel staying in Scotland to take up all the required positions, or we could wait to be annexed by Vladimir, just like Crimea.

A new national pension set up will also be needed, these are just a few unimportant !! matters that have not been made clear.

I assume you've not taken the time to have a wee scan thru the white paper the SNP delivered last year?And for clarity, I've never and will never vote SNP, I'll never endorse them or their motives, excluding independence.But I can argue their point of view, much like,if asked,I can argue my own.

 

[williamalex1]

That really is a detail way down the list of priorities I would expect to be considered for a Yes/No decision. There's not even an outline plan for when becoming a separate country would happen - and neither should there be, except to prove the viability of doing so and answering the 'major' questions.

While ability of an iScotland infrastructure to manage those sort of details might be a consideration - an inevitable increase in Scottish Civil Service being the result - the transfer of this sort of function from UK to iScotland shouldn't need to be considered for the question the referendum is asking!

I suspect you are really a "don't trust/like/want change" type. If so, you are actually one of the huge group the Yes campaign has to target and convince! The dedicate Yes or No voters aren't in the majority, yet, so (at least the Yes crew) depend on convincing you to have faith in their vision.

I believe united we stand , suspect all you like but I have always been and will stay a no vote.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I believe united we stand

aye, because the westminster elite with tax breaks and endorsing tax avoidance of billions really are united we stand with the food bank users of easterhouse and pilton,eh?

 

[FairwayDodger]

You (and the BT campaign) seem to be seeking precision and certainly from the YES campaign about the future when none of us know for certain what the future is going to be like if nothing changes. It is absolutely right to seek clarification but it is simply a a fact that very little in life is 100% certain to happen.

Ask a Tory politician today about what will be in their first budget if returned to government at the next West'er elections. They will be vague - some of it because they don't know or don't want to tell - but some of it quite correctly on the grounds they do not have any firm idea of what the lie of the land will be and the environment in which the UK economy will be functioning at that time. But you can set out the principles and when in power negotiate and work towards these principles.

If you require 100% certainty to vote YES then you will definitely be voting NO. How many of us do things that might well result in advantage to us even though only 90% sure of the positive outcome. We all do from time to time. And we do this for very significant life events - not just the lottery. We accept new jobs we are not 100% of; we might ask the girl to marry us though we might not be 100% certain it's the correct thing; we move home; we have children when our future finances might not be able stand the strain. But we do these things because we believe them to be the right thing - the best thing for us. Life is risk/reward - there is very little certainty. If you believe in an independent Scotland being what is right for Scotland then you will vote for it. If you are really worried that your car tax might go up or how Scotland and rUK would sort it out then you probably won't.

I absolutely get that. But we are currently exposed to day after day, night after night of our countries second-rate politicians bickering over minutia while providing absolutely no concrete details. It's pointless and it's boring.

Personally, I think all the economic arguments are irrelevant. Scotland will survive and life will go on quite happily one way or the other. It's a purely philosophical decision for me and I'd rather have seen the referendum a year ago. However, these matters are being "debated" but no information is coming out - so the whole process is tedious.

I think either of two alternative methods would have been preferable:

* a quick referendum based purely on the principle of independence, held last year or maybe the year before!
* proper negotiation between scottish and uk parliaments to agree a blueprint for independence that establishes a "baseline" for iScotland year 1. Voters then vote for or against that.

Instead what we have is a quite unedifying and, at times, embarrassing spectacle. I, for one, am sick of it already and can only see it getting worse over the next 6 months.

 

[Foxholer]

I believe united we stand , suspect all you like but I have always been and will stay a no vote.

Indeed, I meant to add the 'died in the wool' No voter just raising another trivial 'what-if' as an alternative.

I absolutely get that. But we are currently exposed to day after day, night after night of our countries second-rate politicians bickering over minutia while providing absolutely no concrete details. It's pointless and it's boring.

Personally, I think all the economic arguments are irrelevant. Scotland will survive and life will go on quite happily one way or the other. It's a purely philosophical decision for me and I'd rather have seen the referendum a year ago. However, these matters are being "debated" but no information is coming out - so the whole process is tedious.

I think either of two alternative methods would have been preferable:

* a quick referendum based purely on the principle of independence, held last year or maybe the year before!
* proper negotiation between scottish and uk parliaments to agree a blueprint for independence that establishes a "baseline" for iScotland year 1. Voters then vote for or against that.

Instead what we have is a quite unedifying and, at times, embarrassing spectacle. I, for one, am sick of it already and can only see it getting worse over the next 6 months.

You haven't followed, or been forced to follow, a General Election (anywhere, I hasten to add) closely then?

From my experience in 3 different countries, you are correct - it will get worse!

Still that's Western Democracy for you! If you want it done quicker, go the Crimea/Eastern Democracy method!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

United we stand eh!

The welfare changes which introduced the bedroom tax was supported by 11 Westminster MP's in Scotland [Con/Dems]
At present Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the world.
At present Scotland also has the 4th largest split between rich and poor in the world.

Not united to me.....I am uncomfortable living in that kind of country and would seek to change it.

 

[MegaSteve]

United we stand eh!

The welfare changes which introduced the bedroom tax was supported by 11 Westminster MP's in Scotland [Con/Dems]
At present Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the world.
At present Scotland also has the 4th largest split between rich and poor in the world.

Not united to me.....I am uncomfortable living in that kind of country and would seek to change it.

But do you actually want independence or the real 'prize' devomax?

Fairly certain Salmond wants the latter...

 

[Doon frae Troon]

But do you actually want independence or the real 'prize' devomax?

Fairly certain Salmond wants the latter...

I would prefer devo max but I don't trust the Eton Mess to make a fair choice when it comes to Scotland.
They are now running scared as they did not anticipate a close vote.

 

[Val]

You (and the BT campaign) seem to be seeking precision and certainly from the YES campaign about the future when none of us know for certain what the future is going to be like if nothing changes.

I've heard this a lot but what puzzles me is who said anything would change if we vote NO in Scotland?

 

[MegaSteve]

I would prefer devo max but I don't trust the Eton Mess to make a fair choice when it comes to Scotland.
They are now running scared as they did not anticipate a close vote.

Unfortunately for yourself and Salmond devo max is not an option for this vote...

Believe he [Salmond] is hoping for a yes vote which he can then use as leverage to negotiate for his desired devo max...

Hopefully the "Eton mess" give him short shrift should that be the case...

My concern is, in the event of a yes vote, my chance of voting to get out of Europe will vanish....

 

[Val]

I would prefer devo max but I don't trust the Eton Mess to make a fair choice when it comes to Scotland.
They are now running scared as they did not anticipate a close vote.

I don't think it will be close, Im pretty sure we'll see a resounding NO

 

[stevie_r]

I assume you've not taken the time to have a wee scan thru the white paper the SNP delivered last year?And for clarity, I've never and will never vote SNP, I'll never endorse them or their motives, excluding independence.But I can argue their point of view, much like,if asked,I can argue my own.

Are you referring solely to Defence here? The white paper gives a proposed force structure which looks a bit unbalanced. It doesn't give any indication on how a Brigade plus (talking only about land forces here) would be recruited, that might be tricky given that Scottish Infantry Battalions within the British Army have had recruitment problems for years, and years.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I don't think it will be close, Im pretty sure we'll see a resounding NO

What would the figures be to make it resounding for you?For me, I'd think 65/35 would be resounding.Which means you think,using recent polling data (something I don't like) that every undecided PLUS some current yes voters are all going to vote No.That's just not going to happen.

This vote will be close, 52/48 is my guess, maybe 51/49.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Are you referring solely to Defence here? The white paper gives a proposed force structure which looks a bit unbalanced. It doesn't give any indication on how a Brigade plus (talking only about land forces here) would be recruited, that might be tricky given that Scottish Infantry Battalions within the British Army have had recruitment problems for years, and years.

It may be unbalanced, I dunno.If I had my way we'd have a seriously minimal defence force and be a neutral country.I'd spend money on ships and helicopters as part of search and rescue/fishing protection force/homeland security thing.the idea of having battalions of men with guns and bombs turns me off completely, but I also appreciate my views might not be shared on this forum.