Jump to content

Scottish independence and devolution superthread


Happy Hearts

Recommended Posts

Dangerous UKIP style talk there. :rolleyes:

 

Indeed. However, the ramifications of the unremitting negativity about the EU warps debate here on independence "in Europe". It's characterised as naturally Scottish, with UKIP and Euroskepticism being naturally English. Therefore it is the case an independent Scotland should join the EU as a matter of point that we all agree on. I don't think that's healthy in terms of the debate here.

 

Should we leave, should we stay the UK the membership of the EU for either Scotland or the UK will be debated. For the sake of a healthy debate on the EU we need to start debating it. The culture of the euro-skeptic has emerged in Britain. It's a side story in Scotland due to independence. It will either way emerge as an issue. Why not begin debating it rationally whilst we look at this independence malarky and spread the word on what we find out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TheMaganator

    2323

  • JamboX2

    2165

  • Geoff Kilpatrick

    1717

  • Boris

    1199

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Exactly this!   I was thinking about the naysayers and then thought about WHY a movement would want to lead a nation into independence which would ultimately lead to financial ruin, expulsion from c

Posted Images

It's not impossible to achieve. More do we really want it?

 

Personally, I think we need to look at the EU and membership long and hard. I'd probably continue to vote to stay in, but I still think we need and deserve to debate entry in Scotland separate of independence.

 

I probably agree with you on that and as I just said to Coco, the existing UK arrangement is in no way guaranteed to continue as it is. There's a host of different things that could happen regardless of whether or not we become independent. So much so that I'm almost tempted to treat the whole EU element of the independence debate as a side issue or distraction.

 

Eurozone integration is pushing the UK to a point where it extends less and less influence and economic governance amendments may end up meaning we can't even have further devolved powers of a fiscal nature regardless of what Westminster might end up dangling as devomax carrots in the run up to the referendum. That's assuming the UK even decide to stay in the EU, which they may well decide against. The whole thing is up in the air and as far as I'm concerned, it currently seems like there would be more room for negotiation on all of these issues as a standalone member of the EU than there would be as a component part of the UK anyway. We certainly aren't likely to find ourselves in a significantly worse position.

 

In short, there's no guarantee either way on what happens with the EU going forward.

Edited by redm
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand Paul's Ray Bans

But we aren't a joint member. Scotland as a constituent party of the United Kingdom is in the EU thanks to the UK being a signatory to the Treaties of Rome (via accession in the 1970s). Therefore they are the UK's terms, not Scotland's. Scotland will surely have to negotiate her own position. Much the same as Catalonia, the Basques or the Bavarians and Flems would need to should they ever achieve independence in Europe if they wish so.

 

There are many EU states resentful of the UK and Dutch rebates. It stands to reason there'd be pressure to reduce or drop it, perhaps in return for a favourable CFP deal.

 

In purist International Law we have no membership rights now, we are citizens of Europe because we are citizens of the UK. Scotland is a nation, but not an independent state, she herself has no rights and duties to the EU, the UK however, does - however the EU is a fudger and I'd expect fudging.

 

Indeed.

 

Agreed it's a side story. But if Bulmer can be paid to write articles in a neutral capacity by Yes Scotland then this bod can campaign for BT and be on a pannel of experts looking into independence imo.

 

I'm sure this has been gone over before, but in the case of these two there needs to be transparency: if you're paid to write an article for someone, you declare it.

 

The figures from the Scottish Government (not included in the White Paper) are that with rebate the net contribution would rise from ?124m to ?378m. Without rebate the net contribution would rise to ?673m. For context this is about twice what the public sector spends on science and technology or about a quarter of transport spending. It is a huge sum and it is clear why these figures have not been included in the Paper.

 

If that's true, then I'd think hard about the pros and cons of EU membership. That would be a lot of money for an independent Scotland; a significant cost-benefit analysis would need to be carried out (even though they aren't exactly 100% accurate).

 

It's not impossible to achieve. More do we really want it?

 

Personally, I think we need to look at the EU and membership long and hard. I'd probably continue to vote to stay in, but I still think we need and deserve to debate entry in Scotland separate of independence.

 

It seems to me that the Scottish Govn. are using the lack of Scottish opposition to the UK's current position in the EU (with its various benefits) as an excuse -- rightly or wrongly -- to not have a referendum.

 

However, as it's highly likely that if an independent Scotland were to negotiate EU membership it would be without the membership benefits we had as part of the UK, it would be inexcusable to not have a referendum on EU membership.

 

Also on the subject of EUFTA: if an independent Scotland were to go for the EUFTA option, we'd have to factor in possible fall in exports due to dropping out of the EU's various free trade agreements; also we'd have to accept that we may not get as good a trade deal with other nations as we would as part of the EU due to the Scotland being a significantly smaller market compared to the EU.

 

But of course: Iceland has a free trade agreement with China; the EU does not. It's a debate worth having.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alba gu Brath

Indeed. However, the ramifications of the unremitting negativity about the EU warps debate here on independence "in Europe". It's characterised as naturally Scottish, with UKIP and Euroskepticism being naturally English. Therefore it is the case an independent Scotland should join the EU as a matter of point that we all agree on. I don't think that's healthy in terms of the debate here.

 

Should we leave, should we stay the UK the membership of the EU for either Scotland or the UK will be debated. For the sake of a healthy debate on the EU we need to start debating it. The culture of the euro-skeptic has emerged in Britain. It's a side story in Scotland due to independence. It will either way emerge as an issue. Why not begin debating it rationally whilst we look at this independence malarky and spread the word on what we find out?

 

The EU issue is a red herring. It's all 'we might not be allowed to join' though suddenly it's become 'we need to debate it rationally in case the English take us all out in 2016'.

 

Independence first. I can assure you that real politik and Scotland's wealth will see us in a position to weigh up the offers. Either way, both Norway and Finland have more independence and are better off than they would be ruled by Stockholm or Moscow. Voting 'yes' is the starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably agree with you on that and as I just said to Coco, the existing UK arrangement is in no way guaranteed to continue as it is. There's a host of different things that could happen regardless of whether or not we become independent. So much so that I'm almost tempted to treat the whole EU element of the independence debate as a side issue or distraction.

 

Eurozone integration is pushing the UK to a point where it extends less and less influence and economic governance amendments may end up meaning we can't even have further devolved powers of a fiscal nature regardless of what Westminster might end up dangling as carrots in the run up to the referendum. That's assuming the UK even decide to stay in the EU, which they may well decide against. The whole thing is up in the air and as far as I'm concerned, it currently seems like there would be more room for negotiation on all of these issues as a standalone member of the EU than there would be as a component part of the UK anyway. We certainly aren't likely to find ourselves in a significantly worse position.

 

I don't know about that. There's a naievity in all this "the rest will pull us out" as an inevitability. Farage wins attention because he's loud. I've noticed he gets shouted down a lot by audiences on BBCQT - not scientific, but a sign of a diverse opinion on him and UKIP (who'll gain next to nadda in 2015 as there's no PR at Westminster).

 

Should we vote Yes next September. We join the EU in 2016. We enter currency union same year with the UK. We share a desire for a British Common Market and shared regulators. Then in 2017 the UK votes to leave the EU. That throws a lot of that into confusion and uncertainty in my opinion. It means Scotland shares currency with a non-EU member. A nation which may no longer follow EU directives in future and not be hindered in meeting EU employment and financial requirements. It's a mess this whole issue to me. Not unsurmountable challenges of course, but more trouble than it seems worth to me when the whole package is considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

 

 

I'm sure this has been gone over before, but in the case of these two there needs to be transparency: if you're paid to write an article for someone, you declare it.

 

 

 

If that's true, then I'd think hard about the pros and cons of EU membership. That would be a lot of money for an independent Scotland; a significant cost-benefit analysis would need to be carried out (even though they aren't exactly 100% accurate).

 

 

 

It seems to me that the Scottish Govn. are using the lack of Scottish opposition to the UK's current position in the EU (with its various benefits) as an excuse -- rightly or wrongly -- to not have a referendum.

 

However, as it's highly likely that if an independent Scotland were to negotiate EU membership it would be without the membership benefits we had as part of the UK, it would be inexcusable to not have a referendum on EU membership.

 

Also on the subject of EUFTA: if an independent Scotland were to go for the EUFTA option, we'd have to factor in possible fall in exports due to dropping out of the EU's various free trade agreements; also we'd have to accept that we may not get as good a trade deal with other nations as we would as part of the EU due to the Scotland being a significantly smaller market compared to the EU.

 

But of course: Iceland has a free trade agreement with China; the EU does not. It's a debate worth having.

 

Totally agree on the EU v EFTA stuff. And the Bulmer article.

 

Should Yes win, my point it is, we need to look at those issues - the EU/EFTA, NATO etc - as individual issues. They'll shape Scotland for decades, if not a century to come. I'm 23. I won't be here (probably) in 100 years time. Our generation deserves a say on the issues of who we as Scots choose to align ourselves with. There's benefits and draw backs on all the above issues. But surely the people after a Yes vote should have a say on these? Not merely being part of the Yes settlements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. There's a naievity in all this "the rest will pull us out" as an inevitability. Farage wins attention because he's loud. I've noticed he gets shouted down a lot by audiences on BBCQT - not scientific, but a sign of a diverse opinion on him and UKIP (who'll gain next to nadda in 2015 as there's no PR at Westminster).

 

Should we vote Yes next September. We join the EU in 2016. We enter currency union same year with the UK. We share a desire for a British Common Market and shared regulators. Then in 2017 the UK votes to leave the EU. That throws a lot of that into confusion and uncertainty in my opinion. It means Scotland shares currency with a non-EU member. A nation which may no longer follow EU directives in future and not be hindered in meeting EU employment and financial requirements. It's a mess this whole issue to me. Not unsurmountable challenges of course, but more trouble than it seems worth to me when the whole package is considered.

 

It's not an inevitability but what is considered to be as good as inevitable is that the UK relationship with EU is likely to change.

 

It is a mess, it's a proper stramash actually, but it's a stramash that will need to be addressed regardless of what happens. Negotiating our way through that on our own terms as an independent country appeals way more to me than sitting back and watching Westminster make a pig's ear of it. Another one for the 'making our own achievements/mistakes' file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand Paul's Ray Bans

Totally agree on the EU v EFTA stuff. And the Bulmer article.

 

Should Yes win, my point it is, we need to look at those issues - the EU/EFTA, NATO etc - as individual issues. They'll shape Scotland for decades, if not a century to come. I'm 23. I won't be here (probably) in 100 years time. Our generation deserves a say on the issues of who we as Scots choose to align ourselves with. There's benefits and draw backs on all the above issues. But surely the people after a Yes vote should have a say on these? Not merely being part of the Yes settlements.

 

My inclination at the moment is to be a part of the EU and not be a part of NATO. My views, of course, could change.

 

I agree with you though. It's our future: we should decide. There's no point in becoming independent if we cannot choose what terms we're becoming independent on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 500 odd folk were polled, but it's interesting nonetheless to see how a representation of online scottish football fans intend to vote. The hearts result goes against what we usually see on KB.

The final question asked was a non-football question, with The Away End, like many Scots, keen to see the latest opinion ahead of what will be one of the biggest decisions our country will make.

Our poll saw a slight lead for Yes, out of 538 people who chose to answer the question.

September's referendum: Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes: 48%

No: 39%

Don't know: 13%

 

 

 

 

 

Selected individual clubs.

Rangers

Yes: 15%

No: 79%

Dk: 6%

 

 

Celtic

Yes: 82%

No: 18%

Dk: 0%

Aberdeen

 

Yes: 53%

No: 33%

Dk: 14%

 

Dundee United

Yes: 50%

No: 25%

Dk: 25%

Hearts

 

Yes: 44%

No: 47%

Dk: 9%

 

*Hibernian

Yes: 67%

No: 21%

Dk: 12%

 

*Hibs result was included in order to be compared with Edinburgh rivals Hearts, however it was only a small number of Hibs fans who voted (24 to be precise) and they and the others clubs not mentioned above didn't vote in large enough numbers for any real trend in opinion to emerge

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unionists.

 

Back. To. Square. One....

 

I meant the media source. Did someone say it was the FT? It's a bit naff of the FT to run with a non-story like that.

 

I can understand the biased nationalist site running the other non-story, but you'd think the FT would at least make some pretence of being impartial. I guess not, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
Only 500 odd folk were polled, but it's interesting nonetheless to see how a representation of online scottish football fans intend to vote. The hearts result goes against what we usually see on KB.

The final question asked was a non-football question, with The Away End, like many Scots, keen to see the latest opinion ahead of what will be one of the biggest decisions our country will make.

Our poll saw a slight lead for Yes, out of 538 people who chose to answer the question.

September's referendum: Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes: 48%

No: 39%

Don't know: 13%

 

 

 

 

 

Selected individual clubs.

Rangers

Yes: 15%

No: 79%

Dk: 6%

 

 

Celtic

Yes: 82%

No: 18%

Dk: 0%

Aberdeen

 

Yes: 53%

No: 33%

Dk: 14%

 

Dundee United

Yes: 50%

No: 25%

Dk: 25%

Hearts

 

Yes: 44%

No: 47%

Dk: 9%

 

*Hibernian

Yes: 67%

No: 21%

Dk: 12%

 

*Hibs result was included in order to be compared with Edinburgh rivals Hearts, however it was only a small number of Hibs fans who voted (24 to be precise) and they and the others clubs not mentioned above didn't vote in large enough numbers for any real trend in opinion to emerge

:lol: no shock at the Rangers result

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that assumes there is no room to debate the rebate and while other member countries might well be unhappy with what the UK received my understanding is that it's still well below what other members receive. The government was criticised heavily (externally and from within) for failing to secure an improvement on the rebate when other small countries such as Finland and Slovakia managed to re-negotiate a significantly higher rate. They should have done better in the first place and they didn't, and if that mechanism presents opportunities for other small countries to receive improved rebate terms then there's little reason to think Scotland can't have a bash at improving the situation for themselves either.

 

I'm not clear on why you think we might lose the rebate altogether though - why would that happen?

 

As it stands, the UK relationship with the EU is not at all guaranteed to remain the same in coming years anyway.

 

We are getting a bit off topic - but this suggests that there aren't rebates for Finland or Slovakia.

In the past, some countries felt that they were paying too much towards the budget, compared to other countries.

Measures were taken to correct (compensate) these imbalances, including:

  • the 'UK rebate' ? the UK is reimbursed by 66% of the difference between its contribution and what it receives back from thebudget (worth about ?4bn in 2010). The calculation is based on its GNI and VAT
  • lump-sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden
  • reduced VAT call rates for the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm

 

There is no logic in Scotland receiving rebates on a UK basis (which was originally due to the relative poverty of the UK, the lower proportion of agriculture in GDP and higher proportion of non-EC trade in agriculture) when those things are different in Scotland. The argument is that the Scottish economy is stronger - and therefore that would be recognised. Agriculture share of GDP as mentioned is closer to EU average. I don't know any stats on non-EC trade in agriculture and its effects on customs duties with reference to Scotland though.

 

Why would the other EU states - in unanimity - go for that?

 

Again, for context - if that increase in payment to the EU happened it is equivalent to 3x the inheritance tax raised in Scotland. Or all the stamp duty raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are getting a bit off topic - but this suggests that there aren't rebates for Finland or Slovakia.

In the past, some countries felt that they were paying too much towards the budget, compared to other countries.

Measures were taken to correct (compensate) these imbalances, including:

  • the 'UK rebate' ? the UK is reimbursed by 66% of the difference between its contribution and what it receives back from thebudget (worth about ?4bn in 2010). The calculation is based on its GNI and VAT
  • lump-sum payments to the Netherlands and Sweden
  • reduced VAT call rates for the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Austria.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm

 

There is no logic in Scotland receiving rebates on a UK basis (which was originally due to the relative poverty of the UK, the lower proportion of agriculture in GDP and higher proportion of non-EC trade in agriculture) when those things are different in Scotland. The argument is that the Scottish economy is stronger - and therefore that would be recognised. Agriculture share of GDP as mentioned is closer to EU average. I don't know any stats on non-EC trade in agriculture and its effects on customs duties with reference to Scotland though.

 

Why would the other EU states - in unanimity - go for that?

 

Again, for context - if that increase in payment to the EU happened it is equivalent to 3x the inheritance tax raised in Scotland. Or all the stamp duty raised.

 

Apologies, I didn't mean the rebate - I meant the opportunity to renegotiate the agricultural fund.

 

As for share of rebate that wouldn't be a question for EU members, that would be a negotiation between Scotland and Westminster, for the period up to 2020 anyhow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Apologies, I didn't mean the rebate - I meant the opportunity to renegotiate the agricultural fund.

 

As for share of rebate that wouldn't be a question for EU members, that would be a negotiation between Scotland and Westminster, for the period up to 2020 anyhow.

 

CAP wont see serious reform as it's the basis of French membership.

 

I dont get how our EU budget commitment is down to us and the UK negotiation. Surely as a new member we'd have our budget commitment to the EU determined by negotiations with the Council and Commission. What we and the UK think post yes vote would need a high level of EU input as proposed members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAP wont see serious reform as it's the basis of French membership.

 

I dont get how our EU budget commitment is down to us and the UK negotiation. Surely as a new member we'd have our budget commitment to the EU determined by negotiations with the Council and Commission. What we and the UK think post yes vote would need a high level of EU input as proposed members.

 

All depends entirely what the EU want us to do after we vote yes, I suppose. It would be the most logical path to take if we do find the other EU members don't fancy reviewing the budget all over again before 2020. Perhaps our own negotiations would include a 'start date' of 2020 or something along those lines. Truthfully, I just don't know., but a solution along those lines makes a whole lot more sense than just ripping the whole thing up and starting all over again.

 

Here, have a look at this. It makes interesting reading: http://www.scottishglobalforum.net/scottish-independence-and-eu-membership-debunking-the-myths.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the chart of net contribution by population across the EU - a rebate-less Scotland would become the third highest contributor to the EU.

 

E150 per person or so at the ?673m quoted in the articles above. High price to pay.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...36097.stm#start

 

Then again perhaps the SNP would get exactly what they want from every international negotiation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the comments on the Scotsman article from this afternoon and amongst the usual rubbish tit for tat

http://www.scotsman....to-eu-1-3230466

 

was this:

http://www.parliamen...dhat_101212.pdf

 

Interesting?

 

Actually, thinking about it - not interesting.

 

Just confirms what we know already - that the question is whether negotiation is from within or outwith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All depends entirely what the EU want us to do after we vote yes, I suppose. It would be the most logical path to take if we do find the other EU members don't fancy reviewing the budget all over again before 2020. Perhaps our own negotiations would include a 'start date' of 2020 or something along those lines. Truthfully, I just don't know., but a solution along those lines makes a whole lot more sense than just ripping the whole thing up and starting all over again.

 

Here, have a look at this. It makes interesting reading: http://www.scottishglobalforum.net/scottish-independence-and-eu-membership-debunking-the-myths.html

 

Just hypothesising, surely they'd just calculate Scotlands share of the budget and reduce other contributions accordingly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alba gu Brath
Rangers

Yes: 15%

No: 79%

Dk: 6%

 

:vrwow:

 

Was a bit surprised at the Celtic poll though. Despite all the 'rebel' bluster they seem to have some big-name Unionists in their camp - Brian Wilson, John Reid, James MacMillan - all of whom seem to posit that an independent Scotland would become a graveyard for Catholics. Billy Connolly is probably a Brit too and is big pals with the Royals.

 

Missed the Jambo Kick poll. What was the outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hearts

 

Yes: 44%

No: 47%

Dk: 9%

 

 

I really like this. Cos it suggests that Hearts fans - and there are 400,000 of us, aren't there :teehee: - might well decide the outcome of the whole thing. :o :o :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

 

:vrwow:

 

Was a bit surprised at the Celtic poll though. Despite all the 'rebel' bluster they seem to have some big-name Unionists in their camp - Brian Wilson, John Reid, James MacMillan - all of whom seem to posit that an independent Scotland would become a graveyard for Catholics. Billy Connolly is probably a Brit too and is big pals with the Royals.

 

Missed the Jambo Kick poll. What was the outcome?

The JKB poll was about 60-40 in favour iirc.

 

On the Celtic poll although it will only be a small number of people i too was surprised. I have catholic friends who share the view that the SNP are anti catholic and certainly won't vote for indy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this is only if negotiation from within is not possible.

 

Yes, I think you are right. But as far as I am aware we are not clear if this cannot be negotiated before independence day and we THEN are on the outside.

 

I would have no issue with post-poning independence day - if we havent managed to get everything sorted in time (which i don't think we will btw)

Edited by TheMaganator
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alba gu Brath

Interesting piece on Wings about the Sun's recent poll and not good reading for Milibland:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/behold-the-messiah/#more-45855

 

Because that Labour government would of course be headed by Ed Miliband. And this, according to the poll, is what Labour voters think of Ed Miliband:

In touch with the concerns of ordinary people: 57%

Honest: 39%

Sticks to what he believes in: 36%

Decisive: 16%

Strong: 13%

Charismatic: 10%

Good in a crisis: 13%

A natural leader: 10%

None of these: 18%

Wow. The leader Labour voters want Scots to put their faith in as the great saviour of everything that?s wrong with Britain is considered to be ?honest? by barely over a third of his own supporters. A frightening 87% feel themselves unable to express confidence in their man?s ability to handle a crisis (and goodness knows, if we?re not in a crisis now we can?t imagine what counts as one).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonnie Prince Charlie

It is a nationalist platform. All sources are bias - some are bias to the point of being useless.

But, you would always say that would you not?

Edited by Bonnie Prince Charlie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest on the supermarket scare story. Rebuffed by Asda, this time directly with a high-heid yin writing in the Herald:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/12/asda-scottish-independence_n_4433722.html

:lol:

It's not rebuffed at all. He says if politicians 'do the right thing' prices could go down. But he says there that it is more expensive doing business in Scotland. That is quite clear.

 

So, if politicians don't do the right thing (whatever that may be) then prices could go up.

 

The most telling part of that article is when it talks of 'nationalist fury & boycotts'. You think people are going to speak out when the cyber loonies round on any nae sayers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboInSouthsea

The whole supermarket thing is a total load of pants and a non-entity.

 

Where I live I have 3 Co-Ops within 5-10 mins walking distance of each other and they all charge different amounts for the same products...price of 10 Royals (classy smoker I know) varies by 5-10p.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

:lol:

It's not rebuffed at all. He says if politicians 'do the right thing' prices could go down. But he says there that it is more expensive doing business in Scotland. That is quite clear.

 

So, if politicians don't do the right thing (whatever that may be) then prices could go up.

 

The most telling part of that article is when it talks of 'nationalist fury & boycotts'. You think people are going to speak out when the cyber loonies round on any nae sayers?

Prices are different already. I believe Tesco actually alter their prices depending on the location too.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-status-quo/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Catalonia is never going to leave Spain with Spanish permission. If they leave then that is it. They are out in the cold.

 

Unless the rest of the United Kingdom ejected Scotland on day 1 of a yes vote (which is kind of the whole point of the Edinburgh agreement) I can't see how Van Rompuy's comments would apply.

 

I'm not commenting on anything beyond that it seems a bit lame of UK politicians to try and scaremonger with stuff like this, especially when they already hold a substantial lead in every poll that matters.

 

In regards the supermarket stuff, it's nonsense saber rattling from both sides. Supermarkets in an independent Scotland will charge as much as they can get away within exactly the same way they do now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
southside1874

The amount of natural resources Scotland has means that we can all live a lovely life for ourselves without worrying much. You see how these new oil and gas rich countries appear with billionaires?? If you're not quite ready for independence yet and want to vote "No" then watch London ramp it up a bit and take what we have without remorse. If it makes folk feel better, we can establish our flag as the St Andrews with a wee Union flag in the corner like the Aussies and Kiwis. We can keep the Royals as our sovereign. We can do what we want really. Have some balls and vote to make this your choice. Let the supermarkets make your choice or make the EU make it for you. In the meantime be gripped with fear. Your own fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The amount of natural resources Scotland has means that we can all live a lovely life for ourselves without worrying much. You see how these new oil and gas rich countries appear with billionaires?? If you're not quite ready for independence yet and want to vote "No" then watch London ramp it up a bit and take what we have without remorse. If it makes folk feel better, we can establish our flag as the St Andrews with a wee Union flag in the corner like the Aussies and Kiwis. We can keep the Royals as our sovereign. We can do what we want really. Have some balls and vote to make this your choice. Let the supermarkets make your choice or make the EU make it for you. In the meantime be gripped with fear. Your own fear.

Exactly this!

 

I was thinking about the naysayers and then thought about WHY a movement would want to lead a nation into independence which would ultimately lead to financial ruin, expulsion from credible international treaties and organisations a such as the EU and NATO and all the other things that the No camp claim will happen to this country if we vote YES and I simply cannot understand why anyone would allow this to happen. Why would anyone WANT to make things worse than they are? Of course they wouldn't! What would be in it for the nationalists to see Scotland crumble and the Scotttish people suffer? Vanity? That would be mental!

 

Then ask the same question and reason to the NO campaigners! Wow! It all becomes clear to me. Safeguard what the MP's currently have including their own jobs/pensions etc. continue to rape Scotland's natural wealth for their own purposes and dump the worlds larges single collection of nuclear bombs here etc etc etc etc etc.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke

 

 

 

Exactly this!

 

I was thinking about the naysayers and then thought about WHY a movement would want to lead a nation into independence which would ultimately lead to financial ruin, expulsion from credible international treaties and organisations a such as the EU and NATO and all the other things that the No camp claim will happen to this country if we vote YES and I simply cannot understand why anyone would allow this to happen. Why would anyone WANT to make things worse than they are? Of course they wouldn't! What would be in it for the nationalists to see Scotland crumble and the Scotttish people suffer? Vanity? That would be mental!

 

Then ask the same question and reason to the NO campaigners! Wow! It all becomes clear to me. Safeguard what the MP's currently have including their own jobs/pensions etc. continue to rape Scotland's natural wealth for their own purposes and dump the worlds larges single collection of nuclear bombs here etc etc etc etc etc.

I guess most people just don't really want their circumstances to change. It's understandable I suppose and if it ain't broke for you why fix it. Thing is though some people will actually believe that Salmond is determined to see this through purely out of vanity and he doesn't care whether we're worse off or not and you won't convince them otherwise. Most people I know and I mean this on both sides of the argument, have basically invented ideas in their head for voting one way or another. I'm continually surprised at the ridiculous reasons some people give tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gene Parmesan

'The great myth of UK inequality'

 

http://www.thinkscot...inkscotland.org

 

Interesting article. It seems the UK isn't quite as bad as Yes Scotland has been peddling.

 

Peculiarly selective use of ratings from Fraser.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-damned-lies-and-tories/

 

Particularly interesting part is the difference made to inequality levels in the UK after tax and transfers. Of course, the right has never been concerned by inequality anyway - a big gap means more "trickle down" wealth, apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...