Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[coconut doug]

This study was mentioned earlier in the thread, and was completely ignored by the mainstream media. http://newsnetscotla...r-eu-indy-story

 

The main point for me is that it was not deemed important enough to be mentioned on the news bulletins but was important enough for the BBC to attack the writers and their methodology and write to the principal of the university. This on top of other stories about Nats trying to interfere with academic freedom when in my view they were not.

[coconut doug]

Tbh the views of the Chief Exec of one of the biggest investors in North Sea Oil that Scotland is better in the UK is a positive story for Better Together and NOT for Yes Scotland and the SNP.

 

Except he did not give any reasons other than say because in his opinion Britain was Great. He did not say Scotland is better in the UK as you state, all he said several times was "there are uncertainties" and "it depends". He only gave his personal opinion and that was based on Britain being Great. There is no story here. It is a piece of propaganda and poor propaganda at that. Despite being asked about scaling back and reducing investment he did not say that would happen. There was no balancing question about the opportunities that independence might afford BP although he himself said that changes in tax rates might change things.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26028481

 

 

 

The BBC News at 6 (inc Scottish News) had the First Minister give his view on it - he was clearly not liking it and was short and sharp, as is his right. Then in Scotland they spent more time talking about the much more important issue of Gay Marriage being passed in Scotland.

 

FM answered the question straightforwardly and directly, not particularly short but very sharp, as usual.

 

What would you have preferred, a diatribe from Blair Jenkins on why this mans view meant little in terms of the campaign, as he would do based on the fact it doesn't benefit him or Yes Scotland to chat about it.

 

I would have preferred no story because there isn't one.

 

 

STV is as bad on all these fronts as well of waffling and missing the point. But for once I thought BBC Scotland dealt with as they should, right here's his view, here's the response, now it's time to move onto the actual day to day story which is actually a bigger deal.

 

It was a personal view and Dudley said it was a personal view. Why did the BBC and you pretend or at least allude to it being a

 

corporate view? As a personal view it has no more validity than any other personal view. The guy isn't even British.

[JamboX2]

It was a personal view and Dudley said it was a personal view. Why did the BBC and you pretend or at least allude to it being a

 

corporate view? As a personal view it has no more validity than any other personal view. The guy isn't even British.

 

I and the BBC never denied it was a personal view. Nor have I alluded to it being a corporate one. All I said was BBC Scotland focused on a more important issue and that it can be taken as a positive to BT as this man clearly exerts some influence economically on Scotland and believes personally that the Union is better.

 

I am not saying they will cut funding, I am not saying it is a game changer, I am not saying anything of the sort. However, I'd say that if this Dudley chap had said "I personally believe Scotland would be better off independent" then Yes Scotland and the SNP would be carping about this till the cows came home.

[Alba gu Brath]

Agree with your point about the BP guy & his personal opinion......especially as oil companies tend to shy away from countries with "uncertainty" (like perhaps Iraq, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, DRC, R of Congo, Syria etc).

They (oil companies) dont give a rats ass of what currency is used in any country, as long as they get the rights to drill.

 

 

BP's disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was certain enough!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Some interesting responses to the nationality question. To my mind, then, it is interesting that the Yes Scotland camp dismisses potential issues and points to the White Paper. The White Paper can only ever be a desired outcome, it cannot be policy, hence why the childcare thing is bonkers.

 

Leaving that aside though, I personally think there would be mileage in taking a different stance on some statements. Take, for example, border posts. Border posts still exist under Schnegen, they just aren't used. However, if the Yes camp acknowledged that the desired outcome of independence was to maintain the Common Travel Area BUT there may be an issue in Scotland obtaining a Schnegen opt-out from Europe so, in the very worst case scenario, there may be a border post and then said that would be a small price to pay for securing EU membership, then that is coherent. It would also neutralise scare stories from the No camp.

[JamboX2]

The latest polls indicate that the gap between Yes and No is narrowing. I'm wondering, after a thread of over 8,600 posts, many of which have been articulate and thought-provoking, has anyone on here changed his voting intentions?

 

Anyone changed from Yes to No, or vice versa?

 

I should state at the outset that I began this an avid No voter. Independence was not for me. I believed the Union, with devolution at it's heart, was key to Scotland's future.

 

I began thinking about this when the SNP brought out their National Conversation - a document and Government scheme to begin setting the groundwork for the proposed 2010 vote - back in 2008/09 when I was at University studying Constitutional Law.

 

Back then I had a very pro-Yes sympathetic and a pro-No sympathetic jointly teaching our class. This division opened my eyes to both sides of the coin. My opinion that began to form then was a staunch no one. I founded this on a belief that looking at it since 1990 the UK has radically shifted the balance of power domestically and with the EU in ways not thought possible in the 1970s and the then highwater mark, still at Westminster, of the SNP. This gradual change in the nature of power in the UK and with the EU made me come to the conclusion that this process will continue and still continue to develop over time. Historically that is the nature of the UK, gradual change based on pragmatism and changes in societal values and opinions - even the Irish conumdrum was nearly offered a solution in 1914 but due to outbreak of war the Act was never passed. It is the reason we've never had revolution. There is an inherent flexibility in the UK which appeals to me. And continues to.

 

However, since this debate has rolled on, and the SNP gained majority power and has not prevaricated like it did in 2007-10 on the referendum, my views have altered. I am not as staunchly opposed to independence as I was once was. I am opposed to elements of what is proposed within the package on offer from the SNP and their White Paper, but I am attracted to the positions of others with smaller voices in the campaign. My opinion has also moved to one more apathetic to both sides. My view is that neither camp (Yes Scotland and Better Together) has inherently failed to set the heather alight. Neither has really made the case as to why their view is an imperative. I am able to make my mind up on this out with these groups. However, for those less engaged in the debate I feel that these groups are failing at giving a message which means much to either.

 

The debate has grown, both here and elsewhere, to be more mature and more relevant to peoples lives. I feel British and Scottish equally, both are interchangeable. I feel as though the issues which affect me are as much issues in Scotland as they are in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. We share a lot in common. Our nations are incredibly interlinked and on the issues that we hold in common it makes sense to me to have a point politically where we can debate and decide on them together. However, in saying that independence to me no longer seems to be as much as a barrier as was once thought to be - especially the brand being sold in this referendum as the negotiating platform. So should it happen I won't be as bothered as I would've been. I'd still feel it the wrong move but the nation would've decided and so be it.

 

I still reckon improved devolution with increased areas of taxation, borrowing and welfare devolved to Scotland, with things like Pensions, Employment legislation, Consumption taxes, economic taxes, foreign affairs, borders, defence, UK wide transport services, energy and the like run jointly and the rest devolved. Maybe too hopeful, but we've seen major changes in the past 20 years in the UK so such moves are not beyond the realms of possibility. So I am still leaning No.

 

I've read a lot on Scottish politics since this began. McLeish - The Growing Divide, Tomkins - Our Republican Constitution, The White Paper (well the parts that I have gotten to), The Red Paper Collective (Class, Nation and Socialism) 2014 and too many articles by respected and distinguished this and thats on everything from constitutional politics to welfare to council powers and services. If anything the whole debate has told me that Scotland is not in a good place. It's conservative in thought in it's institutions, it lacks a plurality of opinion in it's politics and it is increasingly failing to be innovative in social policy which is detrimental for Scotland. It's made me think whatever comes we need to really look at ourselves and design policies to suit us - not import whatever the Finns, Danes or Icelandics think is best. That strikes me as beyond the ability of many Scots politicians and their increasingly centralising and controlling ways come what may.

[coconut doug]

I and the BBC never denied it was a personal view. Nor have I alluded to it being a corporate one. All I said was BBC Scotland focused on a more important issue and that it can be taken as a positive to BT as this man clearly exerts some influence economically on Scotland and believes personally that the Union is better.

 

You said "Tbh the views of the Chief Exec of one of the biggest investors in North Sea Oil" you did not say The personal view of

 

Bob Dudley, in fact you did not even mention his name. You only metioned his view in connection with his position otherwise his view

 

had no credibility or interest. By doing what you did you attempted to put the weight of BP behind this man's personal view.

 

When asked about possible economic implications Dudley kept using words like uncertainty and saying he didn't know what

 

might happen. He did not say that Scotland would be better off in the union as you suggest.

 

Not denying it was a personal view makes no sense in your reply. Why would it? I accused you of alluding to it being a

 

corporate view. I never said you called it a corporate view. I've read too many of your posts to do that. Why are you defending a position

 

that you have not been accused of?

 

to

 

I am not saying they will cut funding, I am not saying it is a game changer, I am not saying anything of the sort. However, I'd say that if this Dudley chap had said "I personally believe Scotland would be better off independent" then Yes Scotland and the SNP would be carping about this till the cows came home.

 

 

 

But then he didn't say "I personally believe Scotland would be better off in the union". He didn't even need to say that, for you and the

 

BBC to be "carping" on about it.

 

What price an open and fair debate?

[JamboX2]

But then he didn't say "I personally believe Scotland would be better off in the union". He didn't even need to say that, for you and the

 

BBC to be "carping" on about it.

 

What price an open and fair debate?

 

But BBC Scotland spent more time on the Gay Marriage Act. The BBC news spent more time on the floods in Somerset. I fail to see a carping on here. Both rightly fixed their guns on bigger stories.

 

You yourself placed weight behind the opinions of a former, now deceased, Tory Lord for an opinion no one but him spoused - hence a personal opinion. Is that not using his former position to add weight to his views? Dudley's statement is news worthy because no one in business of such a position (and of foreign origin for that) of power has given a personal view on independence. He gave it. It's news-worthy. I remember Newsnight Scotland devoting a whole show to McCall coming out behind a Yes vote. Was that carping?

 

What's your point here? I really don't get it.

[TheMaganator]

"Great Britain is great".

 

 

May many more follow him without fear of being rounded on and derided by cyber loonies.

[Pans Jambo]

 

"Great Britain is great".

 

 

May many more follow him without fear of being rounded on and derided by cyber loonies.

GB broke years ago. Read somewhere that there's now only 2 areas in Britain now. London & everywhere else!

Desiring self determination = loonies??? Nice.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

GB broke years ago. Read somewhere that there's now only 2 areas in Britain now. London & everywhere else!

Desiring self determination = loonies??? Nice.

Anyone who abuses and derides those that come out in favour of one way or the other is a loony and doesn't deserve a voice.

 

[JamboX2]

 

Desiring self determination = loonies??? Nice.

 

In fairness that's not what he said. He was getting at those who merely deride and abuse others for their opinions either side of this debate. And believe me, i've seen the lists on social media below the posts of both groups and this is not solely down to the Yes side. Fair number of No-numpties too.

[coconut doug]

"Great Britain is great".

 

 

May many more follow him without fear of being rounded on and derided by cyber loonies.

 

Who has rounded on and derided Mr Dudley?

 

[TheMaganator]

Have you read my post?

 

For now at least - he seems to not be getting abuse.

 

So, again, may many more etc

[Ulysses]

I`d like to know your source:

 

Indeed, though there's more than one source. The short version of the list: the CIA, the United Nations, the Scottish Government, the Irish Central Statistics Office and the United States IRS.

 

My immediate source was, as it often is, the CIA World Factbook. I thoroughly recommend it as a quality source of statistical data about countries around the world. Because it didn't quite cover everything (it doesn't have statistics for different parts of the UK, for example), I also got some data from the United Nations Statistics Division, and from the 2011-2012 GERS report of the Scottish Government. I had to do one or two sums myself (to separate out the rUK data by excluding Scotland from the UK figures). I also had to convert a couple of figures from Sterling into Dollars, and I used exchange rates supplied on the website of the IRS for that purpose.

 

According to the GERS (and using the IRS exchange rates) Scotland's GDP excluding oil in 2011-12 was $192 billion. Including oil it was $232 billion.

 

If you look at a list of EEA member countries with GDP higher than Scotland's oil-inclusive $232 billion, there are 15. Here they are ranked in order of GDP (and adjusting the UK to exclude Scotland):

 

1. Germany

2. France

3. UK

4. Italy

5. Spain

6. Netherlands

7. Switzerland (not in the EEA, but functions as a de facto member arising from a series of bilateral agreements)

8. Sweden

9. Norway

10, Poland

11. Belgium

12. Austria

13. Denmark

14. Finland

15. Greece

 

The 15th country, Greece, had a GDP of $249 billion. The next country after that was Portugal, with a GDP of $213 billion. Therefore Scotland is 16th and Portugal is 17th.

 

If you exclude oil, Scotland's GDP of $192 billion is less than Portugal's GDP of $213 billion. It's also less than Ireland's $210 billion figure - but Ireland's figure is distorted by profit repatriation data for multinationals, so Ireland's real figure is below $192 billion (hence my use of the Irish CSO as a source). However, the figure is also lower than the Czech Republic's GDP of $196 billion. I missed that one the first time round because of an error in currency conversion.

 

Therefore without oil, Scotland's economy is actually the 18th biggest in the EEA. With oil, it jumps to 16th, pushing Portugal and the Czech Republic out of the way - an achievement Scotland's footballers would no doubt like to emulate. Just to remind you, the point is in response to this somewhat delusional comment of yours:

 

WITH THE OIL? Oh, Lordy...... Switzerland, come bank with us, we are gonna be BIG PLAYERS.

 

Er, quite.

 

Just to put things in perspective, if you combined the bottom seven countries on the list (Scotland plus the Czech Republic, Portugal, Greece, Finland, Denmark and Austria), their combined economies would still be smaller than the rUK - who wouldn't even be the biggest BIG PLAYER in Europe. Throw in Ireland as well and the whole lot would still be smaller. Add in Belgium too and those nine would finally be bigger than the rUK - but smaller than France. Scotland is no big player, and oil wouldn't make it a big player, any more than Ireland or the Czech Republic is a big player.

 

 

name='Hearts Machine' timestamp='1391535911' post='4036868']"If it`s geographic of UK of oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotlands GDP (Economic output) per head, is bigger than that of France."[/b]

 

So what? The EU country with the biggest economic output per head is Luxembourg. Big players indeed.

[Ulysses]

We'll be running another poll soon to get an updated picture, but we'll be using the same questions as before for reasons of continuity.

 

And here it is at the link below, three months after the previous JKB poll on the subject.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/137292-how-will-you-vote-jkb-independence-referendum-poll-february-2014/

[coconut doug]

But BBC Scotland spent more time on the Gay Marriage Act. The BBC news spent more time on the floods in Somerset. I fail to see a carping on here. Both rightly fixed their guns on bigger stories.

 

The BBC cannot help but carp. It has radio, TV and online content with constant news. This was a non story and should not have been given air time at all even on a slow news day.

 

You yourself placed weight behind the opinions of a former, now deceased, Tory Lord for an opinion no one but him spoused - hence a personal opinion. Is that not using his former position to add weight to his views?

 

I drew this ludicrous piece (England may bomb Scotland) to your attention to demonstrate both the absurdity of the many NO arguments in project fear and the willingness of the British press to publish them. I'm surprised you have forgotten the context of my post.

 

Dudley's statement is news worthy because no one in business of such a position (and of foreign origin for that) of power has given a personal view on independence. He gave it. It's news-worthy.

 

It's a personal opinion and so of little value. The fact that he offered no reasoning for his view other than that "Britain is great" makes it worthless. Its his view and he is entitled to it and he was honest enough to emphasise that it was a personal view. I suspect BP will have a more nuanced view on independence despite Mr Dudley being their CEO. That might have been interesting but the question was probably avoided by Dudley, but i don't know for sure as the BBC have "creatively" edited out the original question.

 

I remember Newsnight Scotland devoting a whole show to McCall coming out behind a Yes vote. Was that carping?

 

Don't know as i didn't see it

 

What's your point here? I really don't get it.

 

My point is that you are imo repeatedly misquoting and misinterpreting information. This guy did not say that Scotland would be better in the UK as you suggest. Maybe i am biased but i genuinely believe there is no story here. It looks like media manipulation to me and others are jumping on the story. It is a personal opinion, that's all.

[JamboX2]

I still fail to see the carping on. The BBC and STV both covered the story. Dunno about Scotland Tonight but Newsnight focused on two stories unconnected to it. Radio news reports are repeated every 2 hours or so with little content change.

 

All I have said is that the stature of this man gave the story credence and interest to broadcasters due to his position. Had the head of Shell said similar it'd be news had either said they personally viewed a yes vote as good and the "independence would be great" then equally it'd be newsworthy.

 

I think it was a lesser story as all it brought was an opinion to thr table. But equally if the No side use it so be it. If it'd been the reverse Yes Scotland would be carping on about it. I also guess if it'd received the minimal attention it did on tv supporters would still say it biased.

 

He also said for Scotland Great Britain is great. Where's the ambiguity in that?

Edited February 5, 2014 by JamboX2

[44man]

It's a No from me.

 

The SNP tying themselves in knots telling people what they think they want to hear but not really meaning it is starting to get on my nerves. The sooner it is put to bed the better for all.

[Serge]

I think we owe future Scots the right to govern themselves. If we deny them this opportunity they should rightly look back on our generation with disdain.

[Gorgiewave]

I won't be able to vote but it would be No. I think the whole idea is frivolous, based on a false idea that Scotland is inherently different, it is anti-English, anti-democratic and will make Scotland more insular and self-satisfied than it currently is. Humanity has to get over nationalism and identity politics.

 

On the other hand, it's bald men fighting over a comb. Scotland is a boring country where nothing happens and a few groats more to spend a few groats more is what motivates more people. It is educationally mediocre and getting worse under a policy born and bred in Scotland and will still be so after independence. There is an entrenched class system and there still will be. Scotland deludes itself into thinking it's important because of 18th and 19th century writers and scientists. Independence will indulge living on past glories.

 

But none of this matters. Scotland is part of the consumption-property-finance-anti-intellectual axis that runs from Australia to Alaska and will still be, whether governed from Edinburgh, London, Brussels or 600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Boris]

I won't be able to vote but it would be No. I think the whole idea is frivolous, based on a false idea that Scotland is inherently different, it is anti-English, anti-democratic and will make Scotland more insular and self-satisfied than it currently is. Humanity has to get over nationalism and identity politics.

 

On the other hand, it's bald men fighting over a comb. Scotland is a boring country where nothing happens and a few groats more to spend a few groats more is what motivates more people. It is educationally mediocre and getting worse under a policy born and bred in Scotland and will still be so after independence. There is an entrenched class system and there still will be. Scotland deludes itself into thinking it's important because of 18th and 19th century writers and scientists. Independence will indulge living on past glories.

 

But none of this matters. Scotland is part of the consumption-property-finance-anti-intellectual axis that runs from Australia to Alaska and will still be, whether governed from Edinburgh, London, Brussels or 600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

What id an independent Scotland took a more Scandinavian approach to things? Would take time to realise, but wouldn't be a bad thing imo. Your points regarding being part of the consumer capitalist world are spot on, yet, like many parts of the UK, I don't think Scotland fully bought into the Thatcherite vision.

 

What you also have under the status quo is Westminster directing the UK economy so that it best suits the City of London. I think that for the rest of the UK the benefits of this are limited.

 

My starting point in this debate was devo max leading to a fully federalised UK. But that's not on the agenda so given the option I'll go for Independence over the status quo. Not for my own benefit, but because I believe it will benefit my son's generation and those generations still to come.

[AlphonseCapone]

I won't be able to vote but it would be No. I think the whole idea is frivolous, based on a false idea that Scotland is inherently different, it is anti-English, anti-democratic and will make Scotland more insular and self-satisfied than it currently is. Humanity has to get over nationalism and identity politics.

 

On the other hand, it's bald men fighting over a comb. Scotland is a boring country where nothing happens and a few groats more to spend a few groats more is what motivates more people. It is educationally mediocre and getting worse under a policy born and bred in Scotland and will still be so after independence. There is an entrenched class system and there still will be. Scotland deludes itself into thinking it's important because of 18th and 19th century writers and scientists. Independence will indulge living on past glories.

 

But none of this matters. Scotland is part of the consumption-property-finance-anti-intellectual axis that runs from Australia to Alaska and will still be, whether governed from Edinburgh, London, Brussels or 600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

The anti-English stuff is the arguement of a child or an absolute simpleton, and completely unfounded. Anti-democratic? Can you explain how people voting on an issue is anti-democratic?

 

Swap Scotland for UK and writers and scientists for empire and the same applies.

 

Fair enough.

[jambo1185]

Is part of the difficulty with the Scandanavia approach not that they actually like their citizens to pay for the welfare state? Although in recent years state benefits have been reduced, and there has been some reduction in taxation, generally taxes are still high.

 

Britain seems to be full of people who want all the benefits but not to pay the tax that is needed to fund them. If an independent Scotland laid out these grand plans but said everyone is going to need to pay around, say, 3% more of their annual income to pay for it (which isn't huge) there would be uproar.

[TheMaganator]

The anti-English stuff is the arguement of a child or an absolute simpleton, and completely unfounded. Anti-democratic? Can you explain how people voting on an issue is anti-democratic?

 

Swap Scotland for UK and writers and scientists for empire and the same applies.

 

Fair enough.

 

It is being billed, by some, as a reason to ensure that the Tories never get into power again. The vote also excludes Scots living elsewhere, so in effect, it is un-democratic. The SNP changed the vote to 16yr olds to suit their purpose - you can bet that had they thought that Scots living elsewhere would vote Yes, they would have found a way for them to vote too.

 

This issue has been covered so I do not really want to get into it again - other than I hope that the young Scot living down south looking to launch a legal challenge on the issue does so and is successful.

[Gorgiewave]

The anti-English stuff is the arguement of a child or an absolute simpleton, and completely unfounded. Anti-democratic? Can you explain how people voting on an issue is anti-democratic?

 

Swap Scotland for UK and writers and scientists for empire and the same applies.

 

Fair enough.

 

See the innumerable examples of attempts to shut people up - "exclude them from the debate" in euphemism. Yesterday directed at a writer at the New York Times, both because of being so far away and because he went to Eton and Oxford (so did Bertie Wooster FFS). I've been told to butt out many times because I live outside Scotland. See 25:39 onwards. Forget it's George Galloway and just listen to the points:

 

[Boris]

It is being billed, by some, as a reason to ensure that the Tories never get into power again. The vote also excludes Scots living elsewhere, so in effect, it is un-democratic. The SNP changed the vote to 16yr olds to suit their purpose - you can bet that had they thought that Scots living elsewhere would vote Yes, they would have found a way for them to vote too.

 

This issue has been covered so I do not really want to get into it again - other than I hope that the young Scot living down south looking to launch a legal challenge on the issue does so and is successful.

 

It is undemocratic to not give the vote to people who live outwith the constituency? Have to disagree with you there.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Boris

[AlphonseCapone]

It is being billed, by some, as a reason to ensure that the Tories never get into power again. The vote also excludes Scots living elsewhere, so in effect, it is un-democratic. The SNP changed the vote to 16yr olds to suit their purpose - you can bet that had they thought that Scots living elsewhere would vote Yes, they would have found a way for them to vote too.

 

This issue has been covered so I do not really want to get into it again - other than I hope that the young Scot living down south looking to launch a legal challenge on the issue does so and is successful.

 

People claiming that it will stop the Tories getting into power doesn't make it anti-democratic though, they are giving an opinion (or desire) but the fact is the Tories could still get into power in an independent Scotland. The vote itself isn't about banning the Tories getting into power so I don't get this an arguement that it makes the vote un-democratic.

 

Oh I don't deny for a second the SNP have set it up in a way that they feel gives them the best chance but they are a political party, what else would you expect? As you say, it has been covered about those not resident in Scotland voting and I have my own opinion on that. However, there would have been disagreements regardless of how it was set up.

 

The bottom line is, the vast majority (I'd guess over 95% of those aged 16 or over) of Scottish people will be able to vote, how is that anti-democratic?

[SE16 3LN]

Bought in 1994 (after living in it for 6 years)

Sold in 2005 (bought for 11 years but lived in for almost 16 years)

Maggie left politics in 1990! Hardly supported HER. Supported my wife and my kids though.

Like you say, your opinion but I disagree. Politics is not always black & white and although I despise the Tory party I can appreciate that ALL parties have at least a few policies that are decent. Perhaps right to buy isn't one of them but as you say, that's a matter of opinion and me buying a flat in 1994 hardly gave her any confidence given she left politics 4 years earlier!

Like I said I did make money on the flat but I lost money on a new build. Is that OK then?

 

If I had bought the council flat during Tony's reign would that have been OK?

 

Oh and if you are wondering where the gap year went in 2005/6......I privately rented for about 14 months (probably from a guy who bought the house from the council).

Council House sales were a key plank of Thatcher's privatisation ideology. In the "home owning democracy" everyone would love the free market. Council house estates would be broken up, and the people who lived there would vote Tory with great thanks for the gift granted by Thatcher and her millionaire cabinet colleagues. The Housing revenue account was ring fenced so that money from sales couldn't be spent on building new homes, or improving existing ones. The money could be used to reduce the level of council tax. Another plank of the Thatcher doctrine was to smash the unions, thereby eroding resistance to changes in working condition, privatisation, lowering wages and introducing flexible working. If people bought into one they bought into another in my opinion. In the case of council house sales they probably supported the poll tax as well.

 

We all have to do what you have to do to support your family, but in buying their council house, I believe many people supported that government and gave it the confidence to wreak havoc on the less well off.

[TheMaganator]

The bottom line is, the vast majority (I'd guess over 95% of those aged 16 or over) of Scottish people will be able to vote, how is that anti-democratic?

 

It is estimated that c800k Scots live in rUK. That's a fair whack considering the actual population in around 6m and the voting population will be much less.

 

Given that it could affect their residential status there is a very good argument (as put forward by O'Neil QC and others) that says they should get a vote.

[Gorgiewave]

It is estimated that c800k Scots live in rUK. That's a fair whack considering the actual population in around 6m and the voting population will be much less.

 

Given that it could affect their residential status there is a very good argument (as put forward by O'Neil QC and others) that says they should get a vote.

 

Yes, imagine Scotland became independent and did not immediately enter the EU. What is my nationality? On what basis can I live and work in Spain?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yes, imagine Scotland became independent and did not immediately enter the EU. What is my nationality? On what basis can I live and work in Spain?

 

Nationality is not removed retrospectively.

 

If you are born British, you can stay British.

[Gorgiewave]

Nationality is not removed retrospectively.

 

If you are born British, you can stay British.

 

Good!

[Gorgiewave]

Geoff, does this referendum get a mention in Australia?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Geoff, does this referendum get a mention in Australia?

 

There were a couple of articles a few months ago in The Age.

 

It will probably get attention again nearer the time with a guaranteed parochial angle of the argument over the Union Flag being on the Aussie flag.

[TheMaganator]

My bird, an American, has lived & paid taxes here for 6 years and just got a visa to be here for another 5.

 

She doesn't get a vote,

 

But you could arrive tomorrow from an EU or Commonwealth country and register after 6 months and get to vote - and leave the country on 20th September.

 

That stinks IMO.

[AlphonseCapone]

See the innumerable examples of attempts to shut people up - "exclude them from the debate" in euphemism. Yesterday directed at a writer at the New York Times, both because of being so far away and because he went to Eton and Oxford (so did Bertie Wooster FFS). I've been told to butt out many times because I live outside Scotland. See 25:39 onwards. Forget it's George Galloway and just listen to the points:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8zNrOI6vM

 

I can't watch just now but I will later. However, before I do what I will say is that yes there will be people shouting this and that, saying such and such doesn't deserve an opinion or it means nothing etc but there is a difference between randoms online or a couple of people in a crowd to for example the government censoring your opinion or blocking articles that don't support their stance, that would actually be un-democratic.

 

You have the right to voice your opinion, I mine, a journalist in the New York Times his, the CEO of BP his, and as long as those opinions can be aired then that is democratic, people responding to these views is further evidence of democracy, but I agree it would be nice if people could respond without being abusive or feeling they need to shout louder than the other guy.

 

It is estimated that c800k Scots live in rUK. That's a fair whack considering the actual population in around 6m and the voting population will be much less.

 

Given that it could affect their residential status there is a very good argument (as put forward by O'Neil QC and others) that says they should get a vote.

 

That is more than I expected if I am honest. However, I think the arguements for and against excluding them could be argued all day but I don't think ultimately it makes this vote un-democratic.

[Pans Jambo]

Council House sales were a key plank of Thatcher's privatisation ideology. In the "home owning democracy" everyone would love the free market. Council house estates would be broken up, and the people who lived there would vote Tory with great thanks for the gift granted by Thatcher and her millionaire cabinet colleagues. The Housing revenue account was ring fenced so that money from sales couldn't be spent on building new homes, or improving existing ones. The money could be used to reduce the level of council tax. Another plank of the Thatcher doctrine was to smash the unions, thereby eroding resistance to changes in working condition, privatisation, lowering wages and introducing flexible working. If people bought into one they bought into another in my opinion. In the case of council house sales they probably supported the poll tax as well.

 

We all have to do what you have to do to support your family, but in buying their council house, I believe many people supported that government and gave it the confidence to wreak havoc on the less well off.

 

Well her plan to win votes in ma hoose back fired!

Appreciate your views however; I dont share them.

 

By your thinking, if you drive across the cross the Forth Road Bridge, Go to University in Scotland, pick-up a free prescription or continue to pay the same level of council tax for the last few years and are befitting from these policies, are you therefore an SNP supporter and are then giving fuel to Alex Salmond's fire???

 

Of course not!

[Pans Jambo]

There were a couple of articles a few months ago in The Age.

 

It will probably get attention again nearer the time with a guaranteed parochial angle of the argument over the Union Flag being on the Aussie flag.

 

Funny you should mention that Geoff, a good mate of mine in New Zealand told me that the discussion has already started there about the U.J. on their flag.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Funny you should mention that Geoff, a good mate of mine in New Zealand told me that the discussion has already started there about the U.J. on their flag.

 

It appears from time to time here as well. No one takes it that seriously.

[2NaFish]

It appears from time to time here as well. No one takes it that seriously.

 

Flag debates are serious things, Geoff.

[SE16 3LN]

Well her plan to win votes in ma hoose back fired!

Appreciate your views however; I dont share them.

 

By your thinking, if you drive across the cross the Forth Road Bridge, Go to University in Scotland, pick-up a free prescription or continue to pay the same level of council tax for the last few years and are befitting from these policies, are you therefore an SNP supporter and are then giving fuel to Alex Salmond's fire???

 

Of course not!

Well not really because you don't have choice in these matters. I suppose I could try and pay, but there would have to be a mechanism. I take your point though.

[Pans Jambo]

People really need to get over Maggie. It's gone surely it should be about looking forward, whatever form that takes.

I agree with you mate but for some, its a question of trust and for others, its an opportunity to end that lot (in their current form) once and for all up here.

[SE16 3LN]

I can't watch just now but I will later. However, before I do what I will say is that yes there will be people shouting this and that, saying such and such doesn't deserve an opinion or it means nothing etc but there is a difference between randoms online or a couple of people in a crowd to for example the government censoring your opinion or blocking articles that don't support their stance, that would actually be un-democratic.

 

You have the right to voice your opinion, I mine, a journalist in the New York Times his, the CEO of BP his, and as long as those opinions can be aired then that is democratic, people responding to these views is further evidence of democracy, but I agree it would be nice if people could respond without being abusive or feeling they need to shout louder than the other guy.

 

 

 

That is more than I expected if I am honest. However, I think the arguements for and against excluding them could be argued all day but I don't think ultimately it makes this vote un-democratic.

See the innumerable examples of attempts to shut people up - "exclude them from the debate" in euphemism. Yesterday directed at a writer at the New York Times, both because of being so far away and because he went to Eton and Oxford (so did Bertie Wooster FFS). I've been told to butt out many times because I live outside Scotland. See 25:39 onwards. Forget it's George Galloway and just listen to the points:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO8zNrOI6vM

I was quite surprised the nationalists openly spoke about censoring the views of UKIP not simply because they disagreed, but also because they had little support in Scotland. For once it was good to hear George Galloway speak and that's why freedom of speech must be defended. Nationalist political organisations have never been very inclusive, but I'd hope the SNP were different.

[jambo1185]

Nationality is not removed retrospectively.

 

If you are born British, you can stay British.

 

Does the white paper not say that British passports will all be replaced with Scottish passports over a certain timeframe? I had hoped we would get a choice (like people in Northern Ireland) as to which passport we could use going forward.

 

I may have mis-understood it, but it certainly seemed like an attempt to me to remove British nationality from those they consider to be "Scottish".

[queensferryjambo]

Undecided - and will be putting a lot of thought into my vote as it is of such importance to the country.

[Del1812]

Getting rid of the Tories is mighty tempting, but I don't have enough faith in whomever takes over to change a culture of greed and do anything to diminish the gap between rich and poor.

 

I also believe the threat that we could enter a depression for many years until we find our feet is very real.

 

That being said, I don't know a tremendous amount about the subject, and I intend to read a lot more about it before I make my final decision.

[Serge]

Getting rid of the Tories is mighty tempting, but I don't have enough faith in whomever takes over to change a culture of greed and do anything to diminish the gap between rich and poor.

 

I also believe the threat that we could enter a depression for many years until we find our feet is very real.

 

That being said, I don't know a tremendous amount about the subject, and I intend to read a lot more about it before I make my final decision.

 

Diminishing the gap should be more achievable on a smaller scale and the Scottish Government's attitude to the hideous Westminster bedroom tax would seem to show that they are looking out for the less well off.

I don't see there being more chance of a depression under Independence than under Westminster. There are capable people in Scotland and they will have fabulous resources to work with. They will do well for the nation. Trust them.

[ArmiyaRomanova]

Still Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

A No is a vote for the status quo and the pursuance of systemic interests that are rotten to their core. Yes at least gives us a chance.

[Serge]

Still Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

A No is a vote for the status quo and the pursuance of systemic interests that are rotten to their core. Yes at least gives us a chance.

 

I'm going to memorise that and use it to bludgeon fence sitters into submission.