Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Don Draper]

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.

 

Very well said.

[willie wallace]

Not happy that we will still have the monarchy but still yes for me.

[TheMaganator]

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.

No, it won't be. Lab,Lib&Tories will be releasing plans for further devolution - which will be happening.

 

[redm]

Having taken the time to learn the things I needed to know (and still going!) I went from a NO to a very very emphatic YES.

I want us to make our own decisions and, if need be, our own mistakes. Independence is something that everybody else has, pretty much anyway, and I want it for Scotland.

I want change and this is how I think we can best achieve that.

Edited February 5, 2014 by redm

[Patrick Bateman]

I anticipate another decisive win for Yes, although it'll be interesting to see how the polls shift. Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, or Scotland's future in Westminster's hands. Not a tough choice, for me.

[Chuck Berry]

Having taken the time to learn the things I needed to know (and still going!) I went from a NO to a very very emphatic YES.

I want us to make our own decisions and, if need be, our own mistakes. Independence is something that everybody else has, pretty much anyway, and I want it for Scotland.

I want change and this is how I think we can best achieve that.

 

Agree 110%, we need to change things for the better and this will not come via Westminster. We will live and fall by our our own decisions, by our own elected politicians. It wont be all milk and honey, but at least we will be able to directly influence Scotland and the people who live here, and hopefully give our children a better life as a result.

 

The future is bleak if we vote no.

[scottg71]

I'll be voting No.

All politicians are arseholes. I prefer the arseholes at Westminster to those at Holyrood though.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

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".

No, it says you can have dual nationality. In fact, I could apply for one (I won't but I will get my kids one).

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Political parties and government don't have exactly have a history of trust.

 

The truth of the matter, independence is likely to see conservative support increase. They will get the benefit of almost be given a clean slate. Without the baggage that is perceived to exist with them at the moment.

 

To be honest it's just bitterness and a inability to let go. Not sure I really want people making important decisions who can't let the past go and let bitterness rule their judgement.

Indeed

That is why I said "in their current form" meaning that I would hope that all the current Westmister parties at Holyrood would get the shake up they need & embrace independance with a fresh direction suitable to the electorate who actually live here.

 

Bitterness perhaps but the Tory party of 20 years ago and today are very similar in my opinion.

[House]

To answer Geoff's question, I think there is a perceived Scottish mentality or identity. It is based on the self-satisfying belief that Scotland is morally superior to England. It might be mentioned that Scotland is "naturally" left-wing; that Scotland is "naturally" egalitarian and that Scotland welcomes immigrants. Clich?s mentioned at this point are likely to be the early appearance of education for poor children or the "lad o' pairts". No mention will be made of the Highland Clearances, the fact that Edinburgh has the highest rate of private education in the UK, the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 19th century or the treatment of Catholics these 450 years. Scotland will be contrasted to terrible, horrible "England", a synonym of "Tory". England/Tory means Thatcherism, Empire nostalgia, hostility to immigrants, an entrenched class system and is thus Evil. Bigger, more populous, more prosperous, more powerful but also more Bad. Thus drama queen Scotland is leaving, away, oot the door. Scotland won't be besmirched by nuclear weapons or Tories, even Tories who were born in Scotland and might like to express an opinion or have their opinions represented. Scotland won't care that nuclear weapons exist, as long as they don't cause any impurities in the green and heather land.

 

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.

 

Your critique of an apparent Scottish exceptionalism would be fine it were a unique phenomenon. However, the belief of national exceptionalism among peoples around the world is not uncommon. There is, of course, the much publicised American exceptionalism; there is also a belief in British exceptionalism. (Both examples can be paired up as an Anglosphere exceptionalism.) It is part and parcel of identity politics to believe that the collective which one belongs to is relatively 'better' than other set(s) of peoples. Your exasperation with nationalism et al is understandable; yet it is unavoidable, unfortunately.

 

I reject your assertion that one of the main driving forces of the independence movement is anti-English sentiment. It certainly doesn't drive my motivations for voting yes. There are, inevitably, some that will value anti-Englishness as principle of voting yes: these people should be ignored, as anti-Englishness is irrational and not representative of most who currently intend to vote yes.

 

If you do believe that it is the case that one of the main motivations for voting yes is an acute dislike of the English, then you shouldn't have too much of a problem presenting evidence to support your case.

[heartyhub]

I'll be voting No.

All politicians are arseholes. I prefer the arseholes at Westminster to those at Holyrood though.

Voting yes gives you the opportunity to unelect the arseholes though

[Jabba]

Would have been a yes from me but I will be living it up in Western Australia by then so unable to vote.

 

I honestly can't see that an independent Scotland could possibly be as badly run or as corrupt as the UK is under Westminster rule. I just feel it's far too good an opportunity to pass up.

[Craigieboy]

No.

 

I don't fancy being responsible for plunging the country into long term ruin.

[The Comedian]

No.

 

I don't fancy being responsible for plunging the country into long term ruin.

 

What makes you think that would happen?

[Jeremy beagle]

Big fat massive No. I genuinely struggle to understand those who believe in Salmond and Sturgeon. 2 of the most scary politicians with pipe dreams you will ever meet.

[Sarah O]

Big fat massive No. I genuinely struggle to understand those who believe in Salmond and Sturgeon. 2 of the most scary politicians with pipe dreams you will ever meet.

 

I'm not voting for them.

 

I'm voting YES.

 

 

[hughesie27]

Big fat massive No. I genuinely struggle to understand those who believe in Salmond and Sturgeon. 2 of the most scary politicians with pipe dreams you will ever meet.

 

I struggle to understand those who still can't see the difference between voting Yes and voting for the SNP.

 

 

[Jabba]

Big fat massive No. I genuinely struggle to understand those who believe in Salmond and Sturgeon. 2 of the most scary politicians with pipe dreams you will ever meet.

 

I don't see this, I think it's just an easy excuse for people who want to vote no but don't know why. I'm not that patriotic and I don't really give a **** about where I come from I just think that we would govern ourselves a lot better on a smaller scale where it's easier to implement change if things aren't working.

 

 

 

[Jeremy beagle]

I fully understand what I'm voting for and I do not want an independent Scotland. I was making the point that it is a SNP white paper that has been proposed, driven by Salmond and the SNP.

[Jabba]

 

I struggle to understand those who still can't see the difference between voting Yes and voting for the SNP.

 

Exactly.

 

It's not difficult to understand that there will be Scottish versions of the mainstream parties and hopefully more choice.

 

 

 

[coconut doug]

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.

 

Its not newsworthy. It's his personal opinion and if you don' t want to take my word for it then what about Alex Massie's ?

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/02/relax-you-can-safely-ignore-bps-warnings-about-the-impact-of-scottish-independence/

 

Similar comments by heads of other organisations who have made pro independence statements have gone unreported as far as i am

 

aware, but they have been picked up on Wings over Scotland http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-uncle-billy/ Wings also makes the point

 

today, that i made yesterday and so if you still cannot understand my point then read the wings article. It shares my sentiments entirely.I

 

know you mentioned McColl but i didn't see it presumably because i missed it on Newsnight. No chance of missing Dudleys statement

 

though. They are carping on about Dudley's personal opinion again on breakfast TV. Except they are describing it as BP's opinion. A

 

cynic might think this was their plan all along and might think the BBC has an agenda. Who was the guy in the studio asked to offer

 

an opinion on an opinion? He states that having the referendum has caused "massive economic damage". This statement goes

 

unchallenged by the BBC. This is not serious journalism in any way. It's blatant propaganda. I think Chick Young and the succulent lamb

 

brigade handled the Sevco story better. This pathetic interview is on Wings as well. Less than two minutes will reveal all. Incidentally no

 

mention of gay marraige.

 

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.

 

 

 

See above.

 

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

 

This is your second misquote on this point. He did not say "for Scotland Great Britain is great" Had he done so, it still would not have

 

mattered as it is his personal opinion and nothing to do with BP despite what you and the BBC say.

 

 

[Jabba]

I fully understand what I'm voting for and I do not want an independent Scotland. I was making the point that it is a SNP white paper that has been proposed, driven by Salmond and the SNP.

 

But you don't have to believe in Salmond and Sturgeon to believe an independent Scotland would be prosperous.

 

 

 

[Jabba]

No.

 

I don't fancy being responsible for plunging the country into long term ruin.

 

You don't think we're heading in that direction under the last 10 years of UK rule?

 

I don't see that much improvement to be honest. Rising living costs and stagnant wages.

 

 

 

[TheMaganator]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by TheMaganator

[wbm1874]

I find it slightly embarrassing that I have to explain to my non-UK friends that this is even a debate.

 

Succinctly yours,

 

Ewan

[JamboX2]

But you don't have to believe in Salmond and Sturgeon to believe an independent Scotland would be prosperous.

 

You do have to accept the White Paper, which is SNP based, inspired and drafted, as the starting point for negotiations though.

[Jabba]

 

You do have to accept the White Paper, which is SNP based, inspired and drafted, as the starting point for negotiations though.

 

That's a bit of a digression from JB's post that I replied to though.

 

For me it's as simple as believing that a small independent nation, with a history of innovation and is rich in natural resources, could be in better shape than it is under UK rule.

 

Yes, it is a risk, but I believe there is far too much potential for positive change to just carry on as things are. A lot of people are afraid or wary of change though.

 

 

 

[Maiden Gorgie]

I am undecided but leaning towards yes, basically because when I look at the options - Salmond, Milliband, Clegg/Cameron I know who I would rather run my country.

[JamboX2]

 

Right - the statement is "Great Britain is better together" (in his personal opinion). He said that when asked about the referendum. He then gave an opinion which based on inward investment figures is not correct. Investment is up - if that is down to Scottish Government, UK Government or a mix of the twos policies is open to debate.

 

Whilst his view - as Wings and Massie both state - is personal it is also true to say that the view of the ranting loon on the BBC news item on papers was also expressing a personal opinion. It was not a view of the BBC. It was not an official position of the BBC. If folk, Wings again, can't see that then they miss the point of the newspaper segments, which as the BBC can't give her own opinion on it under editorial guidelines invite others in to comment. Bit like Sky News, it's not their view on those peices, it's the views of those they invite on - as is the rules governing broadcast news and journalism.

 

The Gay Marriage thing was me mentioning that it was the main element of the Scottish current affairs segements on the 6:30 news. I wouldn't expect it to receive much front page paper attention on UK front pages.

 

Obviously BP will stay in Scotland. There's a load of oil off shore. They'll stay and dredge it up to fill their coffers as they have for decades. The state will siphon off what it can in tax. As Massie rightly says in a smaller economy where that sector will exert more influence in Scotland and have a bigger hand in shaping the laws governing them and their taxation. Whilst the ownership of the fields will result in money coming in. The lobbying pressure from them will exponentially grow. And it's already very strong in the Scottish Parliament.

[I P Knightley]

Alex Salmond will not allow me to vote because he knows I'd vote no.

 

 

(So I've not voted in the poll).

 

If you bams want to vote yes, you go and knock yourselves out. Just don't come running to me when it all goes tits up.

Edited February 5, 2014 by I P Knightley

[JamboX2]

That's a bit of a digression from JB's post that I replied to though.

 

For me it's as simple as believing that a small independent nation, with a history of innovation and is rich in natural resources, could be in better shape than it is under UK rule.

 

Yes, it is a risk, but I believe there is far too much potential for positive change to just carry on as things are. A lot of people are afraid or wary of change though.

 

Scotland has that history of innovation within the UK. To make it better means better policies. And that is lacking both at Scottish and UK levels.

 

I'm not wary of change, I want it. But I don't see independence as offering a better vehicle for it. Via the White Paper I see it as a propogation of more of the same as it limits change through a currency union which ties us to Westminster orthodoxy.

 

I feel a Yes vote in it's current guise is more of the same in a Scots accent.

[Maiden Gorgie]

Alex Salmond will not allow me to vote because he knows I'd vote no.

 

 

(So I've not voted in the poll).

 

If you bams want to vote yes, you go and knock yourselves out. Just don't come running to me when it all goes tits up.

 

Why is that?

[Jabba]

Apologies, I wasn't aiming that last point at anyone in particular.

 

I share your concerns but I suppose the only way to find out is to make the decision. I'm the sort of person that would be more inclined to go for it and find out.

 

I won't get a vote anyway because I'm out of here in June. I won't have to live with the consequences either way.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

No, it won't be. Lab,Lib&Tories will be releasing plans for further devolution - which will be happening.

 

No it won't! That lot can't couldn't agree on the colour of crap! The only thing they do agree on is keeping Scotland under their boot.

 

As far a further devolution is concerned, a heard a speech a good few months ago about the very same thing happening. It went something like this:

.............

"The future will look very different in the result of a Yes vote, the future will look very different in the result of a No vote.

 

Here's what the future will actually look like in the result of a No vote.

 

Ahead of the referendum the unionist parties will start talking about enhanced devolution, strange considering that David Cameron fought to remove Devo Max from the ballot paper, for a reason, and yet they'll talk about it anyway.

 

This will be then amplified by the media as an enhanced devolution settlement and it will be on the basis of taxation.

 

Let's allow Scotland to raise more in taxation, that's fair, that's the way ahead, that's the next step for devolution.

 

Meanwhile, they'll scrap the Barnett formula so there'll be a ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances. Now because there's been this enhanced devolution, that will allow the right-wingers in Westminster to say "Well why are Scottish MPs still allowed to vote on English only matters?" because actually we all reckon that's probably unfair, so that will be redressed.

 

Therefore reducing the presence and power of Scottish MPs at Westminster. So Scotland becomes less powerful at Westminster, has less money to spend because of the reduction in the block grant, but has more powers to increase taxation.

 

So what does an SNP government do in 2016? Labour have already written off the 2016 election to the SNP in the result of a No vote.

 

What do they do? In order to fill that ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances, the either raise taxes or they cut public services, making them extremely unpopular.

So having lost the referendum and having either raised taxes or cut services therefore proving to the media that they're the same as Westminster, they become untenable as a vote.

 

So Labour set Scotland up to fail and then occupy the ruins.

The Tories, having already written Scotland off as there's no vote there get the bonus of ejecting Scottish MPs from Westminster.

 

That's the future.

You watch them.

This is the program they're about to carry out.

 

They'll start talking, cause they KNOW the No voting is melting, they know that the Yes vote is rising, and so they'll bring this scheme out, here's the enhanced devolution proposal.

It's nothing like an enhanced devolution proposal.

 

It's simply another way to keep Scotland subjugated.

That's what the union is.

It's not partnership.

It's a subjugation.

Cultural, political, economic,

 

And we've got a chance to change this."

[JamboX2]

Apologies, I wasn't aiming that last point at anyone in particular.

 

I share your concerns but I suppose the only way to find out is to make the decision. I'm the sort of person that would be more inclined to go for it and find out.

 

I won't get a vote anyway because I'm out of here in June. I won't have to live with the consequences either way.

 

That's an interesting slant on it, as someone leaving the country (I mean that in no jibe what so ever btw). I have a friend returning to Scotland (well there's a high chance of him doing so) and he is avidly behind a Yes win - although a show of more devolution may sway him. His time in the Netherlands and Belgium has shaped his opinions, although he is more a Scot in the way he feels than having a dual identity like I myself feel.

 

I find it interesting that those who leave Scotland, and the UK, feel more Scottish, and wish to see it vote Yes and that (current polling shows anyway) those who stay back are less likely to vote Yes. I wonder if there is something in that. There probably is - going elsewhere and seeing other nations do other things. My issue is that would be a good move if there was a clear huge gulf in policies and character between Scotland and the UK political establishments. However, I don't see that, and therefore for me, devolution (enhanced) is the right way forward. For now at least.

[Sarah O]

Alex Salmond will not allow me to vote because he knows I'd vote no.

 

 

(So I've not voted in the poll).

 

If you bams want to vote yes, you go and knock yourselves out. Just don't come running to me when it all goes tits up.

 

And if we vote aye and it goes barry?

 

 

[Chuck Berry]

I am undecided but leaning towards yes, basically because when I look at the options - Salmond, Milliband, Clegg/Cameron I know who I would rather run my country.

 

Remember that Salmond will only "run" an Independent Scotland if he is elected in the first elections after Independence to do so.

 

You're voting for Scotland's future, not Salmond/SNP. There are many Labour supporters who also back Independence and will vote Yes http://www.labourforindy.com/

[Gorgiewave]

Scotland has that history of innovation within the UK. To make it better means better policies. And that is lacking both at Scottish and UK levels.

 

I'm not wary of change, I want it. But I don't see independence as offering a better vehicle for it. Via the White Paper I see it as a propogation of more of the same as it limits change through a currency union which ties us to Westminster orthodoxy.

 

I feel a Yes vote in it's current guise is more of the same in a Scots accent.

 

Yes, and as we've mentioned before, free childcare is a perfectly good policy, but hardly profound change and independence is not necessary for it. It sounds like a bog standard election pledge, i.e., not radical change.

 

I think the first point is good. A brave, optimistic project would be to try to drag the rest of the UK in the progressive direction some Scots want. Why limit yourself to Scotland? Instead, they have gone in the huff and decided to try to go their own way. They have effectively admitted defeat to Tories and think that the only way to have their way is in a different country. I think this fundamentally indicates a lack of confidence in progressive ideas and in themselves in promoting them. There could be a substantial progressive electoral alliance across the UK, but that won't be possible under independence.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Gorgiewave

[JamboX2]

No it won't! That lot can't couldn't agree on the colour of crap! The only thing they do agree on is keeping Scotland under their boot.

 

As far a further devolution is concerned, a heard a speech a good few months ago about the very same thing happening. It went something like this:

.............

"The future will look very different in the result of a Yes vote, the future will look very different in the result of a No vote.

 

Here's what the future will actually look like in the result of a No vote.

 

Ahead of the referendum the unionist parties will start talking about enhanced devolution, strange considering that David Cameron fought to remove Devo Max from the ballot paper, for a reason, and yet they'll talk about it anyway.

 

This will be then amplified by the media as an enhanced devolution settlement and it will be on the basis of taxation.

 

Let's allow Scotland to raise more in taxation, that's fair, that's the way ahead, that's the next step for devolution.

 

Meanwhile, they'll scrap the Barnett formula so there'll be a ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances. Now because there's been this enhanced devolution, that will allow the right-wingers in Westminster to say "Well why are Scottish MPs still allowed to vote on English only matters?" because actually we all reckon that's probably unfair, so that will be redressed.

 

Therefore reducing the presence and power of Scottish MPs at Westminster. So Scotland becomes less powerful at Westminster, has less money to spend because of the reduction in the block grant, but has more powers to increase taxation.

 

So what does an SNP government do in 2016? Labour have already written off the 2016 election to the SNP in the result of a No vote.

 

What do they do? In order to fill that ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances, the either raise taxes or they cut public services, making them extremely unpopular.

So having lost the referendum and having either raised taxes or cut services therefore proving to the media that they're the same as Westminster, they become untenable as a vote.

 

So Labour set Scotland up to fail and then occupy the ruins.

The Tories, having already written Scotland off as there's no vote there get the bonus of ejecting Scottish MPs from Westminster.

 

That's the future.

You watch them.

This is the program they're about to carry out.

 

They'll start talking, cause they KNOW the No voting is melting, they know that the Yes vote is rising, and so they'll bring this scheme out, here's the enhanced devolution proposal.

It's nothing like an enhanced devolution proposal.

 

It's simply another way to keep Scotland subjugated.

That's what the union is.

It's not partnership.

It's a subjugation.

Cultural, political, economic,

 

And we've got a chance to change this."

 

The Barnett Formula, Scottish MPs all go if we vote Yes. We loose power at Westminster totally. On top of that the national debt is divied up and we have to either raise, cut or borrow to run Scotland and manage the debt. So is it not rather similar if Scotland gains more power either way?

 

Barnett may well go if we vote No overtime in hand with increased powers, but aslong as there is a Union of a political and economic nature there will be a need for fiscal redistribution across that economic unit - hell it happens in the EU with development grants. Germany has a form of fiscal federalism, and redistribution mechanisms which are (reportedly) better than Barnett.

 

Your view that Scotland is subjugated in the UK muddies your view of a No vote. No party advocates the status quo - In my opinion a joint platform was needed and a lot of the ideas in each party (increased welfare and economic control from Labour, fiscal federalism from the Tories of all folk or the Liberals idea of "joint powers" on various issues) are all interesting and can all be brought closely together.

 

I don't view a No vote or a Yes vote with a horrific vision of an apocalypse for Scotland. I think cooler heads always prevail. The Labour Party hasn't written Scotland off in 2016, it thinks it difficult to win enough to govern alone, in minority or otherwise, but that's not a write off it's pragmatism based on numbers (that goes with a Yes vote as well btw).

 

Will these parties seek to do Scotland down post-2016 independence day and elections should we vote Yes as well? Or is that as baseless as your views of some despotic totalitarianism to follow a No vote? (Yes scaremongering one could argue).

 

The Tories have not written Scotland off, they have numerous councillors, run a number of councils and have been consititently the 3rd Party in Scotland since devolution. Not a write off really is it?

[Maiden Gorgie]

Remember that Salmond will only "run" an Independent Scotland if he is elected in the first elections after Independence to do so.

 

You're voting for Scotland's future, not Salmond/SNP. There are many Labour supporters who also back Independence and will vote Yes http://www.labourforindy.com/

 

True CB, but if an independent Scotland is what I prefer then there is only one party that will 'take it over the line'

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

No it won't! That lot can't couldn't agree on the colour of crap! The only thing they do agree on is keeping Scotland under their boot.

 

As far a further devolution is concerned, a heard a speech a good few months ago about the very same thing happening. It went something like this:

.............

"The future will look very different in the result of a Yes vote, the future will look very different in the result of a No vote.

 

Here's what the future will actually look like in the result of a No vote.

 

Ahead of the referendum the unionist parties will start talking about enhanced devolution, strange considering that David Cameron fought to remove Devo Max from the ballot paper, for a reason, and yet they'll talk about it anyway.

 

This will be then amplified by the media as an enhanced devolution settlement and it will be on the basis of taxation.

 

Let's allow Scotland to raise more in taxation, that's fair, that's the way ahead, that's the next step for devolution.

 

Meanwhile, they'll scrap the Barnett formula so there'll be a ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances. Now because there's been this enhanced devolution, that will allow the right-wingers in Westminster to say "Well why are Scottish MPs still allowed to vote on English only matters?" because actually we all reckon that's probably unfair, so that will be redressed.

 

Therefore reducing the presence and power of Scottish MPs at Westminster. So Scotland becomes less powerful at Westminster, has less money to spend because of the reduction in the block grant, but has more powers to increase taxation.

 

So what does an SNP government do in 2016? Labour have already written off the 2016 election to the SNP in the result of a No vote.

 

What do they do? In order to fill that ?4 to ?7 billion hole in Scotland's finances, the either raise taxes or they cut public services, making them extremely unpopular.

So having lost the referendum and having either raised taxes or cut services therefore proving to the media that they're the same as Westminster, they become untenable as a vote.

 

So Labour set Scotland up to fail and then occupy the ruins.

The Tories, having already written Scotland off as there's no vote there get the bonus of ejecting Scottish MPs from Westminster.

 

That's the future.

You watch them.

This is the program they're about to carry out.

 

They'll start talking, cause they KNOW the No voting is melting, they know that the Yes vote is rising, and so they'll bring this scheme out, here's the enhanced devolution proposal.

It's nothing like an enhanced devolution proposal.

 

It's simply another way to keep Scotland subjugated.

That's what the union is.

It's not partnership.

It's a subjugation.

Cultural, political, economic,

 

And we've got a chance to change this."

Sorry PJ but your post is nonsense. Why would Scottish parties pledging more Devo want to keep Scotland under their boot?

 

That Bisset speach is equally awful. I made my thoughts on that quite clear when PB posted it pages back. It is both pathetic and insulting.

[TheMaganator]

& FFS Salmond didn't want the Devo option on the ballot!

 

Had it been there it would have guaranteed a loss in the independence referendum. Guaranteed. He knows that, the SNP knows that. You think he'd do that to something he's worked his whole life for? That's not even getting into the territory of the SNP having no mandate to offer that to the people.

[Chuck Berry]

True CB, but if an independent Scotland is what I prefer then there is only one party that will 'take it over the line'

 

Oh absolutely, but the referendum is nothing to do with political parties, it's to do with Scotland. I voted SNP to get to this stage, if and when the Yes vote carries the day, I may not be voting SNP again, the political landscape will change. There are many more like that and there are many non-SNP voters/supporters who will be voting Yes as they see that as a better future for our country than continuing with what we have, which is a very bleak prospect indeed.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Sorry PJ but your post is nonsense. Why would Scottish parties pledging more Devo want to keep Scotland under their boot?

 

That Bisset speach is equally awful. I made my thoughts on that quite clear when PB posted it pages back. It is both pathetic and insulting.

Seems to be coming true though given the recent pish from the unionists about enhanced powers. Let's see how it pans out in the next few weeks. Jam tomorrow is the other phrase I'm hearing quite a lot.

& I stand by my statement, that lot don't agree on anything! Except, what to do with this wee area of United Great Britain!

[JamboX2]

Yes, and as we've mentioned before, free childcare is a perfectly good policy, but hardly profound change and independence is not necessary for it. It sounds like a bog standard election pledge, i.e., not radical change.

 

I think the first point is good. A brave, optimistic project would be to try to drag the rest of the UK in the progressive direction some Scots want. Why limit yourself to Scotland? Instead, they have gone in the huff and decided to try to go their own way. They have effectively admitted defeat to Tories and think that the only way to have their way is in a different country. I think this fundamentally indicates a lack of confidence in progressive ideas and in themselves in promoting them. There could be a substantial progressive electoral alliance across the UK, but that won't be possible under independence.

 

I agree on the first point.

 

The second is an interesting one. The issue there is the electoral model of the UK doesn't lend itself to alliances, nor does it at Scottish level really - most parties have started to revert to placing tribal interest first - although there is evidence of the SNP at that since 1999. Progressive policies are capable of being developed, but that is down to your interpretation of progressive - many centre right parties call themselves "Progressives". To me there is an inherent disconnect in that whole Yes argument - "We can't work for a progressive future in the UK anymore, so Yes means we will be a progressive beacon to the UK" and it's sister argument of "We will be close at working alongside the rest of the UK and work together irregardless of who forms the government in London".... where's the inability to build a "progressive" alliance in the latter?

[JamboX2]

Seems to be coming true though given the recent pish from the unionists about enhanced powers. Let's see how it pans out in the next few weeks. Jam tomorrow is the other phrase I'm hearing quite a lot.

& I stand by my statement, that lot don't agree on anything! Except, what to do with this wee area of United Great Britain!

 

Jam tomorrow equally applies to Yes Scotland and the SNP. Vote Yes, then we'll do X, Y and Z. Jam tomorrow indeed.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Sorry PJ but your post is nonsense. Why would Scottish parties pledging more Devo want to keep Scotland under their boot?

 

That Bisset speach is equally awful. I made my thoughts on that quite clear when PB posted it pages back. It is both pathetic and insulting.

Is his speech insulting because it's inconveniently starting to be true?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Is his speech insulting because it's inconveniently starting to be true?

Nope - the subjugation point. Rabble rousing insulting drivel.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Jam tomorrow equally applies to Yes Scotland and the SNP. Vote Yes, then we'll do X, Y and Z. Jam tomorrow indeed.

Aye, true enough. Although given that the SNP have put in place the majority (not all) of their pre-election promises I would be more inclined to believe them in comparison to the UK Government who have been trying to erase their pre-election manifesto from the internet as if it did not exist! And we all know why!

Why are they offering "more powers" at this stage of the game? I recall them shouting "Let's have the referendum now" when the September referendum date was announced by Salmond. I don't recall their Jam tomorrow back then or their version of the white paper now!

 

[House]

Can Scotland drag the rest of the UK towards 'progressive' (I hate this word: it's used so much the meaning of it has become diluted) policies?

 

Scotland took the lead on a smoking ban in public places, first floated the idea of a minimum unit price on alcohol, and began the conversation of legalising gay marriage (?). Those are just off the top of my head. However, there's a clear divergence in health and education policy, for better or for worse.

 

We can't influence welfare policy or taxation as we don't have those powers.