Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Tabloid? OK.

Cybernats? what the equivalent "Cyberno's"???

Dont wish to see anybody go broke as the rUK and an independent Scotland should have an equally prosperous trading relationship.

to suggest otherwise IS a bit mental!

 

Indeed.

 

BTW, I think the equivalent is the Caspers, the friendly ghosts going "Wooooo".

[TheMaganator]

.

So, let's get this straight, you see nothing wrong in people getting involved in the debate, regardless of where they're from, yet you're against David Cameron coming up to debate independence? Do you not see the inconsistency here?

 

I am against David Cameron debating Salmond because, tactically, it would be bad for BT. It would be spun as 'us vs the Tories' and that is not how the debate should be conducted. Had Salmond himself not used pathetic language like asking Cameron to come and debate 'against Scotland' my position may be different.

 

My sister lives and works in London. She is Scottish and cannot afford to buy a flat here to have her say. She does not carry the clout of a big-named actor either. Donating to either side is he only way she has a 'voice' in this debate. She left Scotland as part of the UK tp pursue a career (before you start, she is an oncologist and not some greedy banker). I do not think that people should be excluded from this debate based on where they reside within the union.

[Patrick Bateman]

I am against David Cameron debating Salmond because, tactically, it would be bad for BT. It would be spun as 'us vs the Tories' and that is not how the debate should be conducted. Had Salmond himself not used pathetic language like asking Cameron to come and debate 'against Scotland' my position may be different.

 

My sister lives and works in London. She is Scottish and cannot afford to buy a flat here to have her say. She does not carry the clout of a big-named actor either. Donating to either side is he only way she has a 'voice' in this debate. She left Scotland as part of the UK tp pursue a career (before you start, she is an oncologist and not some greedy banker). I do not think that people should be excluded from this debate based on where they reside within the union.

 

So you're against the Prime Minister of the UK defending the Union because it would be a tactical disaster for better together. Why would it be a disaster for them? Because the tories have 1 seat in Scotland, yet he's PM? Because it draws the democratic deficit into sharp focus? Stifling debate purely because it doesn't suit better together's agenda and trying to delude the Scottish public into thinking Cameron has no significance to Scotland's future is utterly dishonest. As I have said before; I want as many debates between as many people on both sides as possible, because it informs peoples choices. I'm also confident of the Yes side's ability to win these debates, because they have much stronger arguments that are made by more competent individuals than on the opposite side.

 

As for your second point; this was settled months ago. EU citizens who are domiciled in Scotland can have a vote here, regardless of where they're from. If you don't live here, you don't get to determine Scotland's future, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. Complaining about it now serves no purpose other than to distract from the real debates.

 

I notice at PMQs, Cameron was extolling the high levels of investment in the North Sea this year. It seems oil is a bonus for Westminster but a burden for Holyrood. Only in Scotland.

[TheMaganator]

So you're against the Prime Minister of the UK defending the Union because it would be a tactical disaster for better together. Why would it be a disaster for them? Because the tories have 1 seat in Scotland, yet he's PM? Because it draws the democratic deficit into sharp focus? Stifling debate purely because it doesn't suit better together's agenda and trying to delude the Scottish public into thinking Cameron has no significance to Scotland's future is utterly dishonest. As I have said before; I want as many debates between as many people on both sides as possible, because it informs peoples choices. I'm also confident of the Yes side's ability to win these debates, because they have much stronger arguments that are made by more competent individuals than on the opposite side.

 

As for your second point; this was settled months ago. EU citizens who are domiciled in Scotland can have a vote here, regardless of where they're from. If you don't live here, you don't get to determine Scotland's future, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. Complaining about it now serves no purpose other than to distract from the real debates.

 

I notice at PMQs, Cameron was extolling the high levels of investment in the North Sea this year. It seems oil is a bonus for Westminster but a burden for Holyrood. Only in Scotland.

You raised the issue of people 'interfering' when they have no right to do so. I was going on from that. You ignored my point about Scots living in rUK and made a different point. Why should my sister not be allowed to donate to either side? She is Scottish and can not afford to buy a flat to come back here to vote.

 

Again, this 'burden' is a complete non-point. Nobody has said oil is a burden. You repeating the point does not make it correct. I think you know that though but are just bashing on with it as you believe it suits your purpose.

 

I answered your point about Cameron. Again, you have just ignored it. What do you think of the First Minister of Scotland asking the Prime Minister to debate 'against Scotland'?

 

The SNP have made a rod for thier own backs on the Cameron debate issue. I think you know that too.

[Patrick Bateman]

You raised the issue of people 'interfering' when they have no right to do so. I was going on from that. You ignored my point about Scots living in rUK and made a different point. Why should my sister not be allowed to donate to either side? She is Scottish and can not afford to buy a flat to come back here to vote.

 

Again, this 'burden' is a complete non-point. Nobody has said oil is a burden. You repeating the point does not make it correct. I think you know that though but are just bashing on with it as you believe it suits your purpose.

 

I answered your point about Cameron. Again, you have just ignored it. What do you think of the First Minister of Scotland asking the Prime Minister to debate 'against Scotland'?

 

The SNP have made a rod for thier own backs on the Cameron debate issue. I think you know that too.

 

Your sister is from Scotland; as I clearly stated earlier, I have no problem with people who have connections to Scotland donating. You're just bayonetting another straw man. My point about people with connections to Scotland and those without was absolutely clear.

 

Do you have an actual quote from Salmond saying Cameron would be 'debating against Scotland' because I've never heard him say that. The case against independence, maybe, but the case 'again Scotland'? No. Again, you can throw up issues of semantics all you wish, the fact remains that Cameron is shirking his responsibility, and you're happy to see him do it. All it does is strengthen the argument that Scotland's in a political union where its needs cannot be properly represented.

 

There is no rod for the Yes campaign here. Cameron looks awful if he continue to shirk a debate, and worse if he engages. Bring on Darling, Brown or whomever else; going by their political careers and their colleagues performances to date and Yes will win every single time. Unless they bring out Sarwar to filibuster again, of course.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Patrick Bateman

[Boris]

I am against David Cameron debating Salmond because, tactically, it would be bad for BT. It would be spun as 'us vs the Tories' and that is not how the debate should be conducted. Had Salmond himself not used pathetic language like asking Cameron to come and debate 'against Scotland' my position may be different.

 

My sister lives and works in London. She is Scottish and cannot afford to buy a flat here to have her say. She does not carry the clout of a big-named actor either. Donating to either side is he only way she has a 'voice' in this debate. She left Scotland as part of the UK tp pursue a career (before you start, she is an oncologist and not some greedy banker). I do not think that people should be excluded from this debate based on where they reside within the union.

 

I disagree. It's about the future of Scotland and only those resident in Scotland should be eligible to vote.

 

Do you think your sister should have a vote for elections to Holyrood?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I disagree. It's about the future of Scotland and only those resident in Scotland should be eligible to vote.

 

Do you think your sister should have a vote for elections to Holyrood?

No. I raised the issue of my sister as someone who should be able to donate, not vote.

[Boris]

No. I raised the issue of my sister as someone who should be able to donate, not vote.

 

Ah, sorry, my mistake.

 

I think there should be some transparency in donations and, in the interests of fair play, should only come from those domiciled in Scotland, just to avoid any acquisations of dodginess.

[Patrick Bateman]

 

No. I raised the issue of my sister as someone who should be able to donate, not vote.

 

Which nobody has challenged. Re-read my post, I was very clear.

[number-16]

Off-topic from the donations debate, a very interesting quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister in this article:

 

http://www.abc.es/agencias/noticia.asp?noticia=1552460

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I disagree. It's about the future of Scotland and only those resident in Scotland should be eligible to vote.

 

Do you think your sister should have a vote for elections to Holyrood?

 

Interesting debate. I was born in Scotland and grew up there for 18 years so I guess if Scotland goes independent, I'd get a Scottish passport - but no vote in the referendum.

 

For what it's worth, I think only Scottish residents should get to vote. But just out of interest, will students of all nationalities who study in Scotland get a vote too?

[number-16]

Interesting debate. I was born in Scotland and grew up there for 18 years so I guess if Scotland goes independent, I'd get a Scottish passport - but no vote in the referendum.

 

For what it's worth, I think only Scottish residents should get to vote. But just out of interest, will students of all nationalities who study in Scotland get a vote too?

 

Only if they are UK, EU or Commonwealth citizens; resident in Scotland and over 16. But for the most part, yes.

Edited December 18, 2013 by number-16

[JamboInSouthsea]

Off-topic from the donations debate, a very interesting quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister in this article:

 

http://www.abc.es/ag...noticia=1552460

 

What does it say, I don't read Spanish?

[TheMaganator]

Only if they are UK, EU or Commonwealth citizens; resident in Scotland and over 16. But for the most part, yes.

 

My bird can't vote - she's a US citizen who has been living and working here for the past 6 years. She's pretty pissed off but those are the rules, I suppose.

[Gene Parmesan]

What does it say, I don't read Spanish?

 

The Spanish position on Scotland would depend on the UK's. If the UK acknowledges the independence of Scotland, so will Spain.

 

The comparison is drawn with Kosovo and Serbia. Because Serbia refuses to recognise Kosovo's independence, neither does Spain.

 

He goes on to add that there is "no chance" of unilateral agreement of secession for Catalunya, which would leave it in a Kosovo-style limbo, and thus out of the EU.

[TheMaganator]

The Spanish position on Scotland would depend on the UK's. If the UK acknowledges the independence of Scotland, so will Spain.

 

The comparison is drawn with Kosovo and Serbia. Because Serbia refuses to recognise Kosovo's independence, neither does Spain.

 

He goes on to add that there is "no chance" of unilateral agreement of secession for Catalunya, which would leave it in a Kosovo-style limbo, and thus out of the EU.

It would recognise us as an independent state? Generous of them.

 

That doesn't mean that they will want us in the EU though - or does the article mention that? I don't know Spanish either

[number-16]

What does it say, I don't read Spanish?

The Spanish position on Scotland would depend on the UK's. If the UK acknowledges the independence of Scotland, so will Spain.

 

The comparison is drawn with Kosovo and Serbia. Because Serbia refuses to recognise Kosovo's independence, neither does Spain.

 

He goes on to add that there is "no chance" of unilateral agreement of secession for Catalunya, which would leave it in a Kosovo-style limbo, and thus out of the EU.

 

The full text from Google Translate which is summed up very well by Gene Parmesan.

 

 

 

Spain says its stance on Scottish independence will depend on London

 

 

 

 

 

12.16.2013 / 20:15 h EFE

 

 

Spain's position ahead of a possible entry of an independent Scotland in the European Union (EU) will depend critically on the attitude adopted by the UK, said today the Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo.

"Spain does not work on assumptions. What I'm saying is that it would be a determining factor when deciding what our vote was the attitude of the United Kingdom," said Garc?a-Margallo asked about it.

According to the minister, "the decision of the UK would be key," but stressed that it is a situation that neither believed nor expected to occur.

Garc?a-Margallo spoke of the situation in Kosovo, whose declaration of independence was not recognized by Spain, noting that recognition would be "decisive" the "attitude of Serbia", since the Constitution does not recognize the right of secession.

"The important thing is that the right to decide or any other right must always be understood in the framework of the Constitution and laws," stressed the minister.

Garc?a-Margallo, asked by reporters, again referred to the situation in Catalonia and reiterated that there is no possibility of an agreed secession, as would be contrary to the Constitution.

He stressed that a unilateral declaration of independence would leave Catalonia outside the European Union and can prevent its return, it would not be an internationally recognized state.

"I doubt he could separate territory and obtain the qualification of recognized state. Would not have critical mass so that it was a recognized state as there are plenty of examples in the United Nations," he said.

It also found that "there would be very few, if any, the states of the European Union to decide to admit a state whose secession had occurred unilaterally and contrary to the constitutional order."

"I think we should explain the Catalans (...) would be excluded" from the EU, with a unilateral secession would not then "no chance to get" and that they would produce "a decline in their welfare than about 25 percent, "Garcia-Margallo said.

[flecktimus]

Off-topic from the donations debate, a very interesting quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister in this article:

 

http://www.abc.es/ag...noticia=1552460

 

So can we put the EU debate to bed now.

[flecktimus]

Off-topic from the donations debate, a very interesting quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister in this article:

 

http://www.abc.es/ag...noticia=1552460

 

And just as a side note I haven't seen this quoted all over the BBC or our media outlets.

 

Funny that.

[Gene Parmesan]

It would recognise us as an independent state? Generous of them.

They seem to think it is, as their own constitutional framework doesn't allow it?!

 

That doesn't mean that they will want us in the EU though - or does the article mention that? I don't know Spanish either

The minister says they'd mirror the UK's stance on EU entry.

 

He adds that he doesn't expect independence to happen to Scotland anyway.

[JamboInSouthsea]

Cheers for the translations Number 16 & GP.

 

With a number of potential small breakaway nations and the unknowns regarding the EU I wonder if this would result in the no. of EFTA countries growing, only 4 at present.

[Coco]

Once again all the issues about Parliaments binding successors apply plus there is the continuing likelihood that Cameron will not be in power post 2015 - but for what it is worth he is saying that the Barnett formula (which for now means higher spending per head in Scotland) would continue in the event of a No vote.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25435861

[TheMaganator]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-currency-union-blow-for-snp-1-3238498

Fitch wade in on the currency union.

[JamboInSouthsea]

http://m.scotsman.co...r-snp-1-3238498

Fitch wade in on the currency union.

 

Whilst in firm favour of independence the currency issue of keeping sterling seems to me to be something that should be short term only.

 

I recall reading, many moons ago so eff all in terms of links, but an American economic study concluded that the most efficient economies were those in countries of 5-6M with their own currency.

 

I have read the various posted links to keeping sterling and can see the point but still think it should be short term max. I know Finland has adopted the euro but they are probably now regretting it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Whilst in firm favour of independence the currency issue of keeping sterling seems to me to be something that should be short term only.

 

I recall reading, many moons ago so eff all in terms of links, but an American economic study concluded that the most efficient economies were those in countries of 5-6M with their own currency.

 

I have read the various posted links to keeping sterling and can see the point but still think it should be short term max. I know Finland has adopted the euro but they are probably now regretting it.

 

In recent weeks a BBC Scotland documentary "Our Friends in the North" looked at Scotland and its referendum through a Nordic lense. Of all 4 nations - Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland - the one with the biggest political and economic regret was Finland over the euro.

 

Independence of mind and action is ingrained in the Nordic psyche it seems. The show linked that to the fact historically in all 4 there was a land owning pesantry. Finnish politicians and citizens prefered the pre -euro freedom from the ECB than now. It offered more scope and power to set a course of their own.

 

Scotland may well come to view a Yes with Stetling a economic straightjacket without monetary levers to help balance the economy. Its an issue I find hard to back a Yes vote over.

[JamboInSouthsea]

Yeah it's an SNP policy that I don't agree with but then again they have a fair few I don't like...wouldn't stop me voting 'yes' but i can't vote anyway.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Whilst in firm favour of independence the currency issue of keeping sterling seems to me to be something that should be short term only.

 

I recall reading, many moons ago so eff all in terms of links, but an American economic study concluded that the most efficient economies were those in countries of 5-6M with their own currency.

 

I have read the various posted links to keeping sterling and can see the point but still think it should be short term max. I know Finland has adopted the euro but they are probably now regretting it.

Currency is a serious issue.

 

Did you see news night last week with the retailer from Edinburgh? He said that he is charged a processing fee when he pays his suppliers who use the Euro. We'd need a system that allowed us to somehow get around this as a huge, huge proportion of our trade is with rUK - if we had our own currency, that is.

 

Long term the only sensible option is our own currency. Do you think ditching the ? will have an impact on the undecideds?

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

 

 

My bird can't vote - she's a US citizen who has been living and working here for the past 6 years. She's pretty pissed off but those are the rules, I suppose.

If EU residents in Scotland can vote which I don't agree with unless they have resided in Scotland for a number of years.

Your girlfriend should be allowed to vote also.

[Boris]

To be honest, I'm not really too hung up on currency, EU, NATO or stuff like that. Let's face it, the White Paper is more or less an SNP wish list than a proper road map to independence, a lot of the things in it requiring an SNP majority at the first elections.

 

But stuff like this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-leaves-commons-debate-on-food-banks-early-9013917.html makes more of an impact to me. Westminster is a busted flush and the Tories and Lib Dems are *****.

[TheMaganator]

To be honest, I'm not really too hung up on currency, EU, NATO or stuff like that. Let's face it, the White Paper is more or less an SNP wish list than a proper road map to independence, a lot of the things in it requiring an SNP majority at the first elections.

 

But stuff like this http://www.independe...ly-9013917.html makes more of an impact to me. Westminster is a busted flush and the Tories and Lib Dems are *****.

 

Yes, that is fairly shocking from IDS.

 

The issue of food banks was highlighted just over a year ago ? as far as I am aware, not a single UK or Scottish party has come up with a suggested proposal or solution to food poverty. What have Holyrood done to attempt to fix it?

 

What policy have Holyrood tried to implement to sort this, that Westminster have stopped them from doing?

[pablo]

Yes, that is fairly shocking from IDS.

 

The issue of food banks was highlighted just over a year ago ? as far as I am aware, not a single UK or Scottish party has come up with a suggested proposal or solution to food poverty. What have Holyrood done to attempt to fix it?

 

What policy have Holyrood tried to implement to sort this, that Westminster have stopped them from doing?

 

Holyrood won't have anything to fix, until it's dealing with the same issues that Slough suffers from as a result of mass immigration. Assuming that the Scottish Socialist MP representing thhe Berkshire town wasn't lying about Tesco's customers fighting over discounted items.

[Boris]

Yes, that is fairly shocking from IDS.

 

The issue of food banks was highlighted just over a year ago ? as far as I am aware, not a single UK or Scottish party has come up with a suggested proposal or solution to food poverty. What have Holyrood done to attempt to fix it?

 

What policy have Holyrood tried to implement to sort this, that Westminster have stopped them from doing?

 

The fact that nothing has been done is shocking, on all sides. An austerity programme that has resulted in the wages of public sector workers falling by 13.5% in real terms doesn't really help matters and that can be laid at Westminster's door.

 

Holyrood won't have anything to fix, until it's dealing with the same issues that Slough suffers from as a result of mass immigration. Assuming that the Scottish Socialist MP representing thhe Berkshire town wasn't lying about Tesco's customers fighting over discounted items.

 

I'm sure that was supposed to sound satirical, but I don't get how immigration equates to food poverty.

[pablo]

 

 

The fact that nothing has been done is shocking, on all sides. An austerity programme that has resulted in the wages of public sector workers falling by 13.5% in real terms doesn't really help matters and that can be laid at Westminster's door.

 

 

 

I'm sure that was supposed to sound satirical, but I don't get how immigration equates to food poverty.

 

A lot of people that come here can't afford to support themselves. Slough is a particular black spot. I suggest it's these these unfortunate people fighting over discounted items in supermarkets, not public sector workers.

[Pans Jambo]

To be honest, I'm not really too hung up on currency, EU, NATO or stuff like that. Let's face it, the White Paper is more or less an SNP wish list than a proper road map to independence, a lot of the things in it requiring an SNP majority at the first elections.

 

But stuff like this http://www.independe...ly-9013917.html makes more of an impact to me. Westminster is a busted flush and the Tories and Lib Dems are *****.

 

I just read that link.

 

An absolute disgrace of a government at Westminster. Worse poverty seen since the 1984 miners strike and now the Red Cross is helping distribute FOOD in the UK (FFS) for the first time since WWII.

 

Tory's and the Lib-Dems voting together (not unusual I suppose)!

 

As I said a few pages ago.....the baw has burst! time for change.

[Boris]

A lot of people that come here can't afford to support themselves. Slough is a particular black spot. I suggest it's these these unfortunate people fighting over discounted items in supermarkets, not public sector workers.

 

Pardon the pun?

 

Well, we'll probably never know to be honest, but I suspect that it is a broader cross section of the population than you think.

[Patrick Bateman]

I just read that link.

 

An absolute disgrace of a government at Westminster. Worse poverty seen since the 1984 miners strike and now the Red Cross is helping distribute FOOD in the UK (FFS) for the first time since WWII.

 

Tory's and the Lib-Dems voting together (not unusual I suppose)!

 

As I said a few pages ago.....the baw has burst! time for change.

 

Lets not forget that inequality grew under the last Labour government too. Westminster cannot manage the UK's affairs any more, so how on earth is it the best place to represent Scotland's interests?

 

What can be done by Holyrood at the moment? They get pocket money from Westminster and should they spend money to alleviate poverty will have to be cut elsewhere within devolved matters. Or, we could be independent and not waste ?160 million per year on storing and maintaining nuclear weapons and spend that money elsewhere.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Patrick Bateman

[Gorgiewave]

Has poverty anything to do bank policies? Have banks any blame for current poverty? What has Alex Salmond done about that?

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/alex-salmond-backed-rbs-s-abn-disaster

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

[Coco]

Lets not forget that inequality grew under the last Labour government too. Westminster cannot manage the UK's affairs any more, so how on earth is it the best place to represent Scotland's interests?

 

What can be done by Holyrood at the moment? They get pocket money from Westminster and should they spend money to alleviate poverty will have to be cut elsewhere within devolved matters. Or, we could be independent and not waste ?160 million per year on storing and maintaining nuclear weapons and spend that money elsewhere.

 

At a cost benefit ratio of 0.5 the spending on the Borders Railway is currently wasting ?147m of the supposed ?294m cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-25035749

 

That has been a clear choice by the Scottish Government. Rather than alleviating suffering the choice has been to waste ?147m. So even under the devolved settlement there are opportunities to spend the money much better.

[flecktimus]

At a cost benefit ratio of 0.5 the spending on the Borders Railway is currently wasting ?147m of the supposed ?294m cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-25035749

 

That has been a clear choice by the Scottish Government. Rather than alleviating suffering the choice has been to waste ?147m. So even under the devolved settlement there are opportunities to spend the money much better.

 

So in your opinion the Scottish Borders should just be left without any public rail links.

 

This rail link will hopefully be extended in future years.

[Coco]

Poll update:

 

Shift towards 'Yes'

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-shows-yes-narrowing-gap-1-3239245

[Coco]

So in your opinion the Scottish Borders should just be left without any public rail links.

 

This rail link will hopefully be extended in future years.

 

Trying to avoid taking this off topic I was linking the waste of ?147m to the devolved settlement. Clearly there are far better uses of scarce public money than to waste ?147m.

[pablo]

Pardon the pun?

 

Well, we'll probably never know to be honest, but I suspect that it is a broader cross section of the population than you think.

 

I don't want people coming here and either committing crime or becoming the victims of crime when they can't afford to provide for themselves. It is is important, it could affect future border policy between Britain and Scotland. That's something else you can add to your list of things you don't care about, like currency and defence, while you pretend know what poverty is, despite having never having witnessed any.

[TheMaganator]

Lets not forget that inequality grew under the last Labour government too. Westminster cannot manage the UK's affairs any more, so how on earth is it the best place to represent Scotland's interests?

 

What can be done by Holyrood at the moment? They get pocket money from Westminster and should they spend money to alleviate poverty will have to be cut elsewhere within devolved matters. Or, we could be independent and not waste ?160 million per year on storing and maintaining nuclear weapons and spend that money elsewhere.

 

Your Holyrood explanation is a complete cop-out. JamboX2 has gone into greart detail about the council tax freeze issue and how that benefits the wealthy. The fact is that Holyrood could quite easily do something about food poverty but choses not to.

 

I'll ask again, what party has put forward a coherant proposal of how to tackle food poverty? It is not good enough to say 'aye, we'll fix that after we vote Yes'. Who will fix it and with what policy? We will still have the same politicians if we are independent.

[Pans Jambo]

Trying to avoid taking this off topic I was linking the waste of ?147m to the devolved settlement. Clearly there are far better uses of scarce public money than to waste ?147m.

You can say that about any amount of money. It could be better spent elsewhere.....

 

Truth is, Galashiels will be transformed when the line opens. It has already had a bump in the house values (I have relatives who live & work there).

 

Like anywhere, when better transport links are built the area gets a lift. But money can be always be spent better although I thing reversing the railway closures to the borders is a very good way to spend the money in this case (IMO).

Edited December 19, 2013 by Pans Jambo

[Boris]

I don't want people coming here and either committing crime or becoming the victims of crime when they can't afford to provide for themselves. It is is important, it could affect future border policy between Britain and Scotland. That's something else you can add to your list of things you don't care about, like currency and defence, while you pretend know what poverty is, despite having never having witnessed any.

 

I think you have taken me too literally in that of course these things are important but can be sorted/solved/managed by an independent Govt. They are not precursors for independence, simply matters that ANY govt needs to deal with.

 

While I have never experienced poverty personally, I have witnessed kids about 5 years old being thrown out of their houses, wearing shoes that were literally falling apart and spending all day in the library just because it was a - open and b- warm (well, warmer than outside!), with no provision for lunch/dinner etc.

[Pans Jambo]

Your Holyrood explanation is a complete cop-out. JamboX2 has gone into greart detail about the council tax freeze issue and how that benefits the wealthy. The fact is that Holyrood could quite easily do something about food poverty but choses not to.

 

I'll ask again, what party has put forward a coherant proposal of how to tackle food poverty? It is not good enough to say 'aye, we'll fix that after we vote Yes'. Who will fix it and with what policy? We will still have the same politicians if we are independent.

If you are in any way defending that article you are defending the indefensible!

 

You can ask as many questions as you like to look for answers but the fact is, Foodbanks are an embarrassment that needs sorting by all parties and it will take more that a simple policy or council tax rise (although I still fail to see why the poor paying more council tax helps them). Its more about a huge shift in government and looking after the vulnerable and creating well paying jobs etc etc.

 

None of that will happen from a Westminster government thats for sure!

[pablo]

I think you have taken me too literally in that of course these things are important but can be sorted/solved/managed by an independent Govt. They are not precursors for independence, simply matters that ANY govt needs to deal with.

 

While I have never experienced poverty personally, I have witnessed kids about 5 years old being thrown out of their houses, wearing shoes that were literally falling apart and spending all day in the library just because it was a - open and b- warm (well, warmer than outside!), with no provision for lunch/dinner etc.

 

And if the library is in Manchester, Slough or anywhere other than Scotland, you're prepared to turn your back? To side with the Nationalists ?

[Boris]

And if the library is in Manchester, Slough or anywhere other than Scotland, you're prepared to turn your back? To side with the Nationalists ?

 

I think it's Westminster that is turning its back on these people, Pablo.

 

Your comments earlier about immigration etc, isn't that turning your back on these people too?

[Gorgiewave]

I'm surprised at Boris not being bothered about NATO.

[Boris]

I'm surprised at Boris not being bothered about NATO.

 

Not bothered in the sense that if we become independent we could (would) join it. No big deal imo.

 

The stuff about nuclear weapons etc, again, no big deal as Denmark seems to be able to be a member and refuse nukes on its soil and harbours.