Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Gorgiewave]

Having the courage of your convictions is different to the conviction itself being courageous.

 

So No, were it one's conviction, would be no less courageous. But it's not presented that way.

 

Going in the huff is not bravery; going out into the world is brave.

[2NaFish]

 

 

 

So No, were it one's conviction, would be no less courageous. But it's not presented that way.

 

Going in the huff is not bravery; going out into the world is brave.

 

Carrying through a yes vote would be marginally more courageous. That's not to say a no vote isn't. Just that lots of people will get scared of changing the status quo, whereas I doubt anyone will stand in a voting booth and think the other way around.

 

[MODEDIT]

 

[Gorgiewave]

Carrying through a yes vote would be marginally more courageous. That's not to say a no vote isn't. Just that lots of people will get scared of changing the status quo, whereas I doubt anyone will stand in a voting booth and think the other way around.

 

[MODEDIT]

 

[MODEDIT] However, there is an increasing tone of emotional blackmail in the Yes campaign, presenting the referendum as a choice between bravery and, as you put it, "shiting it". Working with another country in a productive manner within a union is a legitimate thing to do and does not imply any cowardice. I think seeking independence in order to be able to express a felt identity indicates a lack of self-confidence.

 

[2NaFish]

 

 

 

[MODEDIT] However, there is an increasing tone of emotional blackmail in the Yes campaign, presenting the referendum as a choice between bravery and, as you put it, "shiting it". Working with another country in a productive manner within a union is a legitimate thing to do and does not imply any cowardice. I think seeking independence in order to be able to express a felt identity indicates a lack of self-confidence.

 

Can't say I've noticed it myself too much.

 

You say 'working within a union' etc, well thats one way of presenting it. You can't complain about the presentation of others when you choose how to present from the outset. If you present the union in another equally plausable way its reasonable to describe it as something akin to cowardice. For someone what rails against ideological purity and selective presentation your fairly intolerant of wilfully un-understanding of the positions of others.

 

[MODEDIT]

 

 

[flecktimus]

Seems Cameron isn't the only one that doesn't want to debate

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/failure-to-engage/#more-49384

 

I know its wings but there is point there.

[JamboX2]

Oil has been a key element of this debate for decades. I was watching FMQs today and what struck me was the desire of Salmond to offer the oil industry a bigger take from oil by saying things like the windfall taxes and "changing tax rules on oil" should be a thing of the past. Personally to me, with the size of the Oil industry in Scotland, it sounds like we are willing to let the oil barons, most foreign owned, a freer hand in the economic policy of an independent Scotland. Akin to Westminster daliance with Bankers.

 

To me that isn't right. Personally these companies should be paying the tax they can afford. The talk of lower business taxation in Scotland and the very pro-oil industry stuff I've been hearing a lot of recently doesn't sound very centre-left.

 

Now I understand this industry employs many, and is a huge generator of incomes in the North East, and would assist a Scottish Exchequer, but it sounds too much like what we've seen in recent years with the banks. If not less likely to busts yet still an over reliance on one sector leading to increased pressure from that industry to engineer the economy round them.

 

It's just thoughts. I guess my fear is that in the event of a Yes, and indeed a No, vote is that the bounty therein continues to flow to private companies and shareholders than national coffers.

 

Note: I understand the history of North Sea Oil and that in the rush to dig out the ground we never went the Norwegian route of nationalising the actual sea bed.

[Jabba]

 

[modedit]

 

You're deserting the country anyway.

 

Can't believe I'll never see you again.

 

 

 

I think I saw you a few weeks ago getting on a bus at longstone before a game. Not sure though and we were both with kids so a passionate clinch would have been awkward.

 

 

 

 

 

[Coco]

Oil has been a key element of this debate for decades. I was watching FMQs today and what struck me was the desire of Salmond to offer the oil industry a bigger take from oil by saying things like the windfall taxes and "changing tax rules on oil" should be a thing of the past. Personally to me, with the size of the Oil industry in Scotland, it sounds like we are willing to let the oil barons, most foreign owned, a freer hand in the economic policy of an independent Scotland. Akin to Westminster daliance with Bankers.

 

To me that isn't right. Personally these companies should be paying the tax they can afford. The talk of lower business taxation in Scotland and the very pro-oil industry stuff I've been hearing a lot of recently doesn't sound very centre-left.

 

Now I understand this industry employs many, and is a huge generator of incomes in the North East, and would assist a Scottish Exchequer, but it sounds too much like what we've seen in recent years with the banks. If not less likely to busts yet still an over reliance on one sector leading to increased pressure from that industry to engineer the economy round them.

 

It's just thoughts. I guess my fear is that in the event of a Yes, and indeed a No, vote is that the bounty therein continues to flow to private companies and shareholders than national coffers.

 

Note: I understand the history of North Sea Oil and that in the rush to dig out the ground we never went the Norwegian route of nationalising the actual sea bed.

 

There would have to be other significant inducements for some of the big players in the financial industry to stay in Scotland. I saw that Vince Cable today was talking about the potential for RBS to shift south of the border. Others would also face similar quandaries.

[leginten]

 

 

I am aware of what democracy is.

 

The point is - we are often told that in Scotland we don't get the government we vote for in Westminster - I am sure Edinburgh will vote No (imo, obviously) yet we may be removed from the UK anyway - the same could happen for any other region that votes No - and that is irreversable.

 

The point R17 was making above is, why should we stop at independence for Scotland - if Edinburgh votes No - we shouldnt we be able to have our own independence ref?

 

It is not toys out the pram stuff (well, no more than the 'we dont get what we vote for brigade' that are voting Yes). At what stage does regional democracy out trump national? The Scottish government may make decisions that are for the benefit of Glasgow and the central belt over the highlands - its the same as the 'Westminster only serves London' argument. How far do we break it down when we are not happy with what the government does?

 

This "why no independence for Edinburgh/Orkney/Pittenweem/my street" stuff keeps coming up. It's not really got off the ground as an argument and it's not likely to either unless a substantial demand for independence were to emerge in any of these places, which of course it won't. I can't understand why people keep bringing up this nonsense as if they had somehow discovered a telling argument in the Scottish independence debate.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I just can't understand the mindset of would be no voters who concede that the UK has mismanaged things, but suppose things *probably* wouldn't be any better as a direct consequence of independence, so would reject the chance of constitutional change. It's baffling.

[TheMaganator]

This "why no independence for Edinburgh/Orkney/Pittenweem/my street" stuff keeps coming up. It's not really got off the ground as an argument and it's not likely to either unless a substantial demand for independence were to emerge in any of these places, which of course it won't. I can't understand why people keep bringing up this nonsense as if they had somehow discovered a telling argument in the Scottish independence debate.

I think you have misunderstood the point being made. It is not a 'telling argument' or whatever you want to call it. It just highlights the problems of the 'we dont get the government we voted for/the government did that to serve Edinburgh/highlands/Glasgow' or whatever.

 

However you frame boundries - there will always be people who see themselves as not being best served by a government X miles away - be the Shetland to Edinburgh or Dumfires to London. The question is, how far do you break it down when you are not happy? If it is purely about getting what you vote for, and Edinburgh votes No, why couldn't Edinburgh remain part of the Union? Or, why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't the whole of the UK or Scotland be governmed locally rather than at one or two hubs?

[TheMaganator]

I just can't understand the mindset of would be no voters who concede that the UK has mismanaged things, but suppose things *probably* wouldn't be any better as a direct consequence of independence, so would reject the chance of constitutional change. It's baffling.

That is because you have no affinity with the UK. In fact, from the tone of your posts, you seem to positively despise it.

 

Some people dont.

 

And some people are not commited like you - and are not prepared to take a leap of faith on the hope that things might be better, eventually.

[JamboX2]

There would have to be other significant inducements for some of the big players in the financial industry to stay in Scotland. I saw that Vince Cable today was talking about the potential for RBS to shift south of the border. Others would also face similar quandaries.

 

Totally accept that position. And I can't argue against it. It is for businesses to decide where they locate. I'd fully expect many to move south to London, either way as it is. But that's the international draw of a cosmopolitan city of 6 million. Even Yes-man McCall has said he'd end up moving south in the event of a Yes vote as that's where the best staff to run firms can be found if it continues to grow. It seems to be an unstoppable move.

[coconut doug]

 

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 agree on the first point.

 

 

 

As i understand it, the SNP propose a ?transformational? change in child care which would cost about ?600million to implement and would return ?700million in taxes. There would also be a significant boost to the economy from increased spending. Now whilst these figures are probably highly speculative the principle is not.

 

The Scottish government could not find this kind of money to start the programme, from its existing budget. The money accrued from taxation would go directly to Westminster and so the following year the Scottish Government would have to find the start up costs all over again. This is simply nowhere near possible or am i missing something?

[flecktimus]

Totally accept that position. And I can't argue against it. It is for businesses to decide where they locate. I'd fully expect many to move south to London, either way as it is. But that's the international draw of a cosmopolitan city of 6 million. Even Yes-man McCall has said he'd end up moving south in the event of a Yes vote as that's where the best staff to run firms can be found if it continues to grow. It seems to be an unstoppable move.

 

I find that a very sad statement.

 

The question is why is the staff better down south?

[leginten]

 

 

I think you have misunderstood the point being made. It is not a 'telling argument' or whatever you want to call it. It just highlights the problems of the 'we dont get the government we voted for/the government did that to serve Edinburgh/highlands/Glasgow' or whatever.

 

However you frame boundries - there will always be people who see themselves as not being best served by a government X miles away - be the Shetland to Edinburgh or Dumfires to London. The question is, how far do you break it down when you are not happy? If it is purely about getting what you vote for, and Edinburgh votes No, why couldn't Edinburgh remain part of the Union? Or, why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't the whole of the UK or Scotland be governmed locally rather than at one or two hubs?

 

This debate isn't really about shades of government and not getting the party you voted for, though. It's about whether or not to be self-governing. It's not about creating a new entity at all (as the ridiculous example of Edinburgh seceding from an independent Scotland would be). The question is whether or not an entity that has been recognisable for a thousand years or so wishes to take control of its own affairs again.

 

After that is settled, then we can start dealing with all the movements and regions that want to be separate from the new Scotland, should it come to pass. But I'm not really aware of their existence in the past, and I would doubt that they'll emerge after independence. That's why I think this stuff is a red herring at the moment.

[Don Draper]

This "why no independence for Edinburgh/Orkney/Pittenweem/my street" stuff keeps coming up. It's not really got off the ground as an argument and it's not likely to either unless a substantial demand for independence were to emerge in any of these places, which of course it won't. I can't understand why people keep bringing up this nonsense as if they had somehow discovered a telling argument in the Scottish independence debate.

 

Indeed. Generally emanates from the hard of thinking.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Indeed. Generally emanates from the hard of thinking.

cheers pal

[redm]

 

So No, were it one's conviction, would be no less courageous. But it's not presented that way.

 

Going in the huff is not bravery; going out into the world is brave.

 

Exactly!

 

I want Scotland to go out into the world and achieve things on our own two feet, in the same way that many other smaller, resourceful and innovative countries have. That's the bravery right there, doing what we want to do, doing it for ourselves and doing it unencumbered by strain of competing needs of other parts of UK for whom there are different aspirations or priorities.

 

As for the cowardice related comments I think they stem predominantly from fact that many no or undecided voters have made it clear that their reticence is a product of fear of the unknown, uncertainty and sometimes lack of confidence that we're capable - fiscally and otherwise. Cowardice is a strong word, but I can see why this issue frustrates people on the other side of the fence.

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

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.

That is complete farce.

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

 

 

Totally accept that position. And I can't argue against it. It is for businesses to decide where they locate. I'd fully expect many to move south to London, either way as it is. But that's the international draw of a cosmopolitan city of 6 million. Even Yes-man McCall has said he'd end up moving south in the event of a Yes vote as that's where the best staff to run firms can be found if it continues to grow. It seems to be an unstoppable move.

The best staff running firms down south are probably Scots.

[redm]

That is because you have no affinity with the UK. In fact, from the tone of your posts, you seem to positively despise it.

 

Some people dont.

 

And some people are not commited like you - and are not prepared to take a leap of faith on the hope that things might be better, eventually.

 

When you say 'affinity' are you going down the identity route again? Had an interesting exchange about this today - why is it that Scottish nationalism is nationalism but British nationalism isn't considered to be the same thing?

 

Identity doesn't play a part in my decision making by the way. There's a hundred more important issues to consider before I start worrying about how I emotionally engage with my fellow island dwellers (and NI, tbf.) But even if I did worry about that stuff I'd wonder how it could possibly change with emergence of an independent Scotland. What would be so different?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

When you say 'affinity' are you going down the identity route again? Had an interesting exchange about this today - why is it that Scottish nationalism is nationalism but British nationalism isn't considered to be the same thing?

 

Identity doesn't play a part in my decision making by the way. There's a hundred more important issues to consider before I start worrying about how I emotionally engage with my fellow island dwellers (and NI, tbf.) But even if I did worry about that stuff I'd wonder how it could possibly change with emergence of an independent Scotland. What would be so different?

Because a nationalist wants to be politically independent. So, UKIP could be described as British nationalist - but somebody proud to be British is just that, proud our a patriot.

 

You can be proud to be Scottish but not be a Scottish nationalist.

 

We'll no longer be British - sure, we'll live in the isles but national identity is about more that geography

 

[Patrick Bateman]

That is because you have no affinity with the UK. In fact, from the tone of your posts, you seem to positively despise it.

 

Some people dont.

 

And some people are not commited like you - and are not prepared to take a leap of faith on the hope that things might be better, eventually.

 

I don't despise any country, or even Westminster. I see Westminster as being an archaic, undemocratic and corrupt institution that has overseen the UK's progressive decline over the past century. I see our neighbours around us doing significantly better, despite often being smaller and with less resources and expect the same here. That hasn't happened under Westminster, so it stands to reason that something must change. Independence offers that change. So my desire for independence isn't based on hatred, rather it's built on a belief that Scotland can, should, and will do better as an independent nation. I don't understand people whose mindset is based on worrying about all sorts of improbably bad things happening. I'm more interesting in facing challenges rather than letting other people decide for us. Thankfully, this seems to be in line with the majority thinking on KB.

[leginten]

 

 

Because a nationalist wants to be politically independent. So, UKIP could be described as British nationalist - but somebody proud to be British is just that, proud our a patriot.

 

You can be proud to be Scottish but not be a Scottish nationalist.

 

We'll no longer be British - sure, we'll live in the isles but national identity is about more that geography

 

 

Why just UKIP? Doesn't your definition mean that anyone at Westminster who wants the UK to remain an independent state is a British Nationalist?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Why just UKIP? Doesn't your definition mean that anyone at Westminster who wants the UK to remain an independent state is a British Nationalist?

Well, I suppose anyone at Westminster that wants to be independent of Europe is a British Nationalist

[JamboX2]

As i understand it, the SNP propose a ?transformational? change in child care which would cost about ?600million to implement and would return ?700million in taxes. There would also be a significant boost to the economy from increased spending. Now whilst these figures are probably highly speculative the principle is not.

 

The Scottish government could not find this kind of money to start the programme, from its existing budget. The money accrued from taxation would go directly to Westminster and so the following year the Scottish Government would have to find the start up costs all over again. This is simply nowhere near possible or am i missing something?

 

It is possible now as you say. But that large start up cost is incurred irregardless of the constitutional position. A quick way to solve that is devolution of income taxation - which is where the SNP say most of the return on this will be accrued (that and NI). That is actually being proposed now by Unionists, if not official policy in Labour yet, it is emerging as such for the Liberals and the Tories.

 

However (and I back the principle and policy) it's not a transformative policy in terms of impact. Ed Miliband has said that he wants this in England and will move gradually in it's implementation. Is that not transformative as well? It's not been heralded as much as the Scots politicos have Salmond's proposals. It's party policy, policy shared by Labour and the Liberals. It's not new, innnovative or transformative. Nor do we need independence to fulfill it. Devolution will change and adapt and be empowered if we vote No. It's the trend. This can be done either way and doesn't depend on independence.

 

I find that a very sad statement.

 

The question is why is the staff better down south?

 

His point was that as his firm expands and grows he needs more experienced and frankly better businessmen running the show with him. He argued that it is harder to attract them to Scotland for a career at the end of the tree because Scotland (in some cases) can't offer the international edge of London. This is true of cities across the globe, Idaho as a state can't compete with New York. Lille with Paris and so on and so forth.

 

He said he felt an inevitability his HQ would need to go to London to take advantage of the contacts, the brand and the experience London has and can offer a business. Like it or not that will happen irregardless of the vote.

 

London is a cosmopolitan city. Many of it's citizens think themselves Londoners before English. It almost has it's own nationality about it in my opinion. It's basically an emerging city state. Scotland has a smaller population than it and it is hard to compete with the international edge of it.

 

Not for a minute is a negative for Scottish independence, as we can make it work if it comes. It's more an issue we will face. I don't think tax cuts will radically change that. It'll sweeten it. But it's Europe must international city and that's hard to fight against.

 

This debate isn't really about shades of government and not getting the party you voted for, though. It's about whether or not to be self-governing. It's not about creating a new entity at all (as the ridiculous example of Edinburgh seceding from an independent Scotland would be). The question is whether or not an entity that has been recognisable for a thousand years or so wishes to take control of its own affairs again.

 

After that is settled, then we can start dealing with all the movements and regions that want to be separate from the new Scotland, should it come to pass. But I'm not really aware of their existence in the past, and I would doubt that they'll emerge after independence. That's why I think this stuff is a red herring at the moment.

 

If any area has a feeling of community strong enough to consider itself entitled to self governance it's not in anyone's power to deny them that right. Gorgiewave has a point to an extent as it is right that it seems arbitrary for nationalists like the SNP to stop that at the Scottish level. I know guys from Shetland. Closer Norway than Edinburgh. They feel that they have a right to more power and self governance - one has said to me we look at the Faroese and the Danes and go that makes sense for us to be like that especially if Scotland gets independence. Why then when it was raised did Alex Salmond stand in the Chamber and tell Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott (MSPs for Orkney and Shetland) that the islands would be better off as part of Scotland? It was a reverse. If they (and I use them as an example because it has been raised politically) want more power away from what they see as a centralised Scotland focused on the Central Belt and Glasgow then we should respect that and give them it. Devo or not.

[leginten]

 

 

Well, I suppose anyone at Westminster that wants to be independent of Europe is a British Nationalist

 

So if I'm a Scottish Nationalist who wants to be in Europe, then I'm maybe not a Nationalist/nationalist?

 

The problem with the term "nationalism" is that it's very easily used pejoratively. Personally I would much rather the SNP had called itself the Scottish Independence Party or something similar. But I suppose that's a different debate.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

So if I'm a Scottish Nationalist who wants to be in Europe, then I'm maybe not a Nationalist/nationalist?

 

The problem with the term "nationalism" is that it's very easily used pejoratively. Personally I would much rather the SNP had called itself the Scottish Independence Party or something similar. But I suppose that's a different debate.

They've plans to change their name next year, I think.

 

Party because of that and party to leave some of their more 'colourful' history behind them.

[JamboX2]

I don't despise any country, or even Westminster. I see Westminster as being an archaic, undemocratic and corrupt institution that has overseen the UK's progressive decline over the past century. I see our neighbours around us doing significantly better, despite often being smaller and with less resources and expect the same here. That hasn't happened under Westminster, so it stands to reason that something must change. Independence offers that change. So my desire for independence isn't based on hatred, rather it's built on a belief that Scotland can, should, and will do better as an independent nation. I don't understand people whose mindset is based on worrying about all sorts of improbably bad things happening. I'm more interesting in facing challenges rather than letting other people decide for us. Thankfully, this seems to be in line with the majority thinking on KB.

 

I don't despise any country, or even Westminster. I see Westminster as being an archaic, undemocratic and corrupt institution that has overseen the UK's progressive decline over the past century. I see our neighbours around us doing significantly better, despite often being smaller and with less resources and expect the same here. That hasn't happened under Westminster, so it stands to reason that something must change. Independence offers that change. So my desire for independence isn't based on hatred, rather it's built on a belief that Scotland can, should, and will do better as an independent nation. I don't understand people whose mindset is based on worrying about all sorts of improbably bad things happening. I'm more interesting in facing challenges rather than letting other people decide for us. Thankfully, this seems to be in line with the majority thinking on KB.

 

Same. I also see a German economy of multiple affinities and parts with their own distinctiveness being the powerhouse of Europe. To me the size of the nation doesn't matter. It's about empowering each level of government to work for the national good and good of the people. And good policy. We could be independent and still have terrible policies and a stagnant economy dependent on one sector. But it'd be ok to many Yes people because it's our mess. Frankly that interests me little. The world is full of possible options. You're right this shouldn't be about what you fear or despise more. You are spot on in fact. But to me it's about it not considering options in a dynamic fashion.

[redm]

Because a nationalist wants to be politically independent. So, UKIP could be described as British nationalist - but somebody proud to be British is just that, proud our a patriot.

 

You can be proud to be Scottish but not be a Scottish nationalist.

 

We'll no longer be British - sure, we'll live in the isles but national identity is about more that geography

 

 

Maybe I just take more issue with the ways in which the term is used. It's rarely employed in situations where one person wants to identify another as simply being an advocate of political independence.

 

What about the identity stuff? What changes?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Maybe I just take more issue with the ways in which the term is used. It's rarely employed in situations where one person wants to identify another as simply being an advocate of political independence.

 

What about the identity stuff? What changes?

We'll no longer be British, we'll no longer have that bond or be part of that state - it will be a foreign country ( a foreign country that controls our fiscal policy, but that's another debate).

 

So, for some, your identity will change.

 

 

[leginten]

 

 

If any area has a feeling of community strong enough to consider itself entitled to self governance it's not in anyone's power to deny them that right. Gorgiewave has a point to an extent as it is right that it seems arbitrary for nationalists like the SNP to stop that at the Scottish level. I know guys from Shetland. Closer Norway than Edinburgh. They feel that they have a right to more power and self governance - one has said to me we look at the Faroese and the Danes and go that makes sense for us to be like that especially if Scotland gets independence. Why then when it was raised did Alex Salmond stand in the Chamber and tell Liam McArthur and Tavish Scott (MSPs for Orkney and Shetland) that the islands would be better off as part of Scotland? It was a reverse. If they (and I use them as an example because it has been raised politically) want more power away from what they see as a centralised Scotland focused on the Central Belt and Glasgow then we should respect that and give them it. Devo or not.

 

There's nothing remotely arbitrary about the political process that is currently taking place and the choice that is going to be made; a country within boundaries which have been more or less unchanged for centuries will be voting on whether or not it wants to be independent. All the rest is just a distraction at the moment.

 

If, in the event of independence for Scotland, Orkney and Shetland wanted to be independent from Scotland, then no doubt a political process would take place. It's another debate for another time, though. Why are people so keen to labour this point? Are there any Scottish regions which currently have a vibrant separatist movement? I'm unaware of them.

Edited February 6, 2014 by leginten

[JKBMod 1]

Members are reminded to stick to the topic of the debate, and not make comments about other posters.

 

In particular, please don't accuse other members of trolling or breaking the rules in some other way. If you think a post breaks the rules please report it to the moderators. We had to edit some posts today for this reason and we don't want to have to do it again.

[Ulysses]

Just a reminder about our latest voting intentions poll, which is at this link:

 

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

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

There's nothing remotely arbitrary about the political process that is currently taking place and the choice that is going to be made; a country within boundaries which have been more or less unchanged for centuries will be voting on whether or not it wants to be independent. All the rest is just a distraction at the moment.

 

If, in the event of independence for Scotland, Orkney and Shetland wanted to be independent from Scotland, then no doubt a political process would take place. It's another debate for another time, though. Why are people so keen to labour this point? Are there any Scottish regions which currently have a vibrant separatist movement? I'm unaware of them.

 

You've never heard of ORAL? The Orkney Republican Army for Liberation?

 

I accept that as an expat, i have less of a stake in the game at the present time, however i'd love to see some real debate amongst the Yes and No campaigns. Instead of what we currently get which consists of the better together campaign being able to throw some 'scary' predictions out there (yes, i know all they need to do is cause doubt) but the Yes campaign appear unable to squash this (could be a product of a biased media...) and as such i'm not seeing them paint the picture that they need to paint of a better society in an independent Scotland.

 

My personal hope is that we see a Yes vote in September, but i fear that unless the Yes campaign do a better job of disproving the no campaign's assertions then we won't see it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

You've never heard of ORAL? The Orkney Republican Army for Liberation?

 

I accept that as an expat, i have less of a stake in the game at the present time, however i'd love to see some real debate amongst the Yes and No campaigns. Instead of what we currently get which consists of the better together campaign being able to throw some 'scary' predictions out there (yes, i know all they need to do is cause doubt) but the Yes campaign appear unable to squash this (could be a product of a biased media...) and as such i'm not seeing them paint the picture that they need to paint of a better society in an independent Scotland.

 

My personal hope is that we see a Yes vote in September, but i fear that unless the Yes campaign do a better job of disproving the no campaign's assertions then we won't see it.

 

As I said above, the Better Together scare stories, for want of a better phrase, could easily be neutralised by the SNP/Yes by saying "You know what, the circumstances surrounding that scenario are of such a low probability that, should it happen, we would deal with it at the time". The problem Yes have, to my mind, is that they are so concerned of the numbers game they have decided that the "soft soap" strategy will get some voters over the line. Hence why they have majored on the currency union which would end in tears if it happened as economic decisions taken on political expediency always fall apart (see Greece cheating their way into the Euro).

 

So, rather than force Better Together to make a case for the Union, they have played defend the White Paper, which means the flaws in the White Paper can be discussed.

[JamboX2]

There's nothing remotely arbitrary about the political process that is currently taking place and the choice that is going to be made; a country within boundaries which have been more or less unchanged for centuries will be voting on whether or not it wants to be independent. All the rest is just a distraction at the moment.

 

If, in the event of independence for Scotland, Orkney and Shetland wanted to be independent from Scotland, then no doubt a political process would take place. It's another debate for another time, though. Why are people so keen to labour this point? Are there any Scottish regions which currently have a vibrant separatist movement? I'm unaware of them.

 

No there aren't. I was just voicing what mates of mine from up there have said to me on the matter of independent. They view both Westminsr and Holyrood as not really considering their needs and views well enough and catering to certain areas. There is also a movement with the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland calling for more power domestically, called Our Islands Our Future. So there is a movement of sorts.

 

It's not for independence but increased powers based on what they view as distinct concerns and identity from the mainland. The point GW makes on constituencies isn't quite on, but for places like these or even cities, I'd argued there's as much a reason and legitimacy for greater powers as there is with say Scotland or Wales.

 

http://www.orkney.gov.uk/Council/C/our-islands-our-future.htm

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/11/29/councils-agree-on-concordat-for-our-islands-our-future/

 

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/purposeful-opportunists-our-islands-our-future

[Pans Jambo]

A rousing speech from Pete Wishart at The House of Commons in Westminster.

 

Sums it up for me!

 

http://petewishart.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/the-speech-they-tried-to-shout-down/

[Alba gu Brath]

Coming on the back of news that the London govt, is apparently (according to the FT, I think) putting pressure on big businesses to back the 'no' vote, despite Cameron saying its not his place to 'debate'... here's what pro-indy Tory Massie has to say... interestingly,Massie seems much more positive about the Yes campaign, the White Paper and the SNP generally than I remember him to be on QT a few weeks back.

 

Alex Salmond is within striking distance of victory. Why hasn?t England noticed?

 

We could be seven months away from the end of Britain. It's time to worry

 

It is easy to assume, in England, that Salmond is sunk. After all, aren?t all other major political parties uniting against him? It is less appreciated that the other parties are the same ones Salmond has outmanoeuvred at every turn since 2011, when the SNP first won an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament. As referendum day draws closer, a formerly formidable unionist advantage is being whittled away. Since Salmond published his ?white paper on independence?, six successive opinion polls have shown a swing towards a ?yes? vote. At present, more than 40 per cent of decided voters plan to vote for independence. It does not take a psephologist to work out that Salmond may win.Salmond is also a formidable late-stage campaigner. Two months before the 2011 Holyrood election, he languished 15 points behind in the polls ? but went on to win an outright majority, in a voting system designed so no party would ever win an outright majority. No wonder senior strategists in No. 10 are said to believe Salmond?s victory is not just possible, but likely.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9131482/union-in-peril/

 

And this from Bob Holman, English born Labour stalwart and anti=poverty campaigner:

 

Agenda: Why a Yes vote is the best thing for the people ... and the Labour Party

 

I was born in England, though I have lived in Glasgow for 30 years.

 

I am a member of the Labour Party, which is against Scottish independence, but I will be voting Yes in September. My decision is not because I have strong nationalistic feelings, but because I believe in democracy and equality. Here is why:

 

l Democracy

 

The House of Commons is not representative. In 2010, the Speaker of the House of Commons chaired a group of MPs in a study published as The Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation. It showed a large number of MPs were drawn from the 7% of the population educated at public, that is private, schools. 27% attended Oxbridge. Working class MPs were in decline. The report concluded that many MPs "are divorced from reality" and "it is important to ensure that there is no single route into politics".

 

The report was ignored and political elitism has increased. Seven-tenths of the Coalition cabinet are from Oxbridge. The latest development in the Labour Party is candidates chosen because of the right contacts. Stephen Kinnock, Will Straw, David Prescott and probably Euan Blair are among prospective MPs with political relatives.

 

The social composition of the parliament of an independent Scotland would probably reflect that of Holyrood. Few come from private schools. Most have been to college or university but there is no institution with the prestige and power associated with Oxbridge. More were brought up in working-class homes. One-half are women, contrasted with 19% in the Commons. They are more like ordinary people and so more representative. Given also the absence of a House of Lords, independence would bring greater democracy.

 

l Equality

 

Much of my life has been in socially deprived areas. In Easterhouse, Glasgow, which I know well, there is increased poverty. The Coalition Government has cut billions of pounds from the welfare budget imposing inadequate benefits, hunger and despair. An SNP government in an independent Scotland would be committed to abolishing the punishment that is right-wing welfare.

 

I joined the Labour Party 53 years ago as a Christian socialist who believed that all people were equal in the sight of God and that, as far as possible, resources should be fairly shared. The research by Professors Wilkinson and Pickett demonstrates that the most equal countries such as Denmark and Norway, where the top 20% earned only two to three times as much as the bottom 20%, had far fewer social problems and more contentment than unequal ones such as the UK and USA, where they earned between seven and 10 times as much (The Spirit Level. Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, 2010).

 

The SNP's paper, Scotland's Future, talks much about equality. For instance: "Social justice and equality are objectives that should be pursued for their own sake. They are also important aspects of improved economic performance which in turn provides for a happier, safer and fairer society." I believe a parliament less controlled by privileged elites and more concerned about ordinary people would radically reduce the gap between rich and poor.

 

l Still Labour

 

I am still in the Labour Party. Yes, the party whose commitment to equality was revealed by its shadow chancellor, Ed Balls. He announced that Labour would impose a 50p tax rate on the rich. When they objected, he said it would only be temporary.

 

Yet I think the Scottish Labour Party, freed from the influence of the British Labour Party in an independent Scotland, would move to the left again - the only way to challenge the SNP. I hope it would back public and co-operative services, a living wage, social housing, peace, humane policies towards asylum seekers and migrants ... plus equality, but with a much more precise objective than Alex Salmond's vagueness. It should state just what would be the financial distance between top and bottom.

 

Yes, independence with its loss of Labour seats in the Commons would reduce the party's chances of electoral victory at Westminster. But what is the point of a Labour government which, in reality, is still Blairite? Perhaps the Labour Party south of the Border would then decide it should offer the country an alternative - like socialism.

 

SM

 

http://yesscotland.net/news/committed-labour-party-member-backs-independence-reduce-poverty-gap

[Pans Jambo]

Coming on the back of news that the London govt, is apparently (according to the FT, I think) putting pressure on big businesses to back the 'no' vote, despite Cameron saying its not his place to 'debate'... here's what pro-indy Tory Massie has to say... interestingly,Massie seems much more positive about the Yes campaign, the White Paper and the SNP generally than I remember him to be on QT a few weeks back.

 

 

http://www.spectator...union-in-peril/

 

And this from Bob Holman, English born Labour stalwart and anti=poverty campaigner:

 

 

 

http://yesscotland.n...uce-poverty-gap

 

[JamboX2]

Scotsman editorial has said today that the UK government is in talks about devolving welfare powers - including Housing benefit. An interesting development.

[TheMaganator]

Oh, so we are now listening to Massie?

 

It's hard to keep up.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Scotsman editorial has said today that the UK government is in talks about devolving welfare powers - including Housing benefit. An interesting development.

Will this include state pensions, the biggest component of welfare?

[Pans Jambo]

 

Scotsman editorial has said today that the UK government is in talks about devolving welfare powers - including Housing benefit. An interesting development.

Great, just need work & pensions, foreign policy, defence, transport, air duty, rural affairs and energy and we will be just about there!

[JamboX2]

Will this include state pensions, the biggest component of welfare?

 

It intimated an intent to devolve areas of welfare related to Scottish matters - ie Child and family benefits, housing benefits and such like. I can see an argument for consistency across the UK in Pensions. But that's me. So probably not.

 

PJ - If the Scotsman has some sort of knowledge here then it's interesting. To be honest it'd be a step to some form of federalism. I'd also point out rural affairs and transport are devolved matters.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

It intimated an intent to devolve areas of welfare related to Scottish matters - ie Child and family benefits, housing benefits and such like. I can see an argument for consistency across the UK in Pensions. But that's me. So probably not.

 

PJ - If the Scotsman has some sort of knowledge here then it's interesting. To be honest it'd be a step to some form of federalism. I'd also point out rural affairs and transport are devolved matters.

 

I actually agree that pensions should remain reserved. The problem is how pensions interact with other benefits.

[Gizmo]

I think you have misunderstood the point being made. It is not a 'telling argument' or whatever you want to call it. It just highlights the problems of the 'we dont get the government we voted for/the government did that to serve Edinburgh/highlands/Glasgow' or whatever.

 

However you frame boundries - there will always be people who see themselves as not being best served by a government X miles away - be the Shetland to Edinburgh or Dumfires to London. The question is, how far do you break it down when you are not happy? If it is purely about getting what you vote for, and Edinburgh votes No, why couldn't Edinburgh remain part of the Union? Or, why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't the whole of the UK or Scotland be governmed locally rather than at one or two hubs?

 

So the Highlands are well served by Westminster - with fortunes spent on HS1 and other England-centric projects whilst the Royal Mail is privatised, for example?

 

We also know that the North and North East of Scotland were shafted by England when Westminster negotiated away the fishing rights. And that the quarter of a BILLION euro agriculture payments to be received from the EU over a 7 year period, in respect of the unique make-up of Scotland's agriculture, was not passed on to the Scottish farmers.

 

You'll have to do better to persuade many up North that Holyrood won't be better than Westminster in protecting their rights.

[JamboX2]

I actually agree that pensions should remain reserved. The problem is how pensions interact with other benefits.

 

A lot of old aged benefits in a social context beyond pensions are already devolved - free personal care, bus passes etc. Things like Winter Heating Allowance are not. However, there again I'd argue they are best kept consistent across the UK as energy prices are set at a UK wide level.

[JamboX2]

So the Highlands are well served by Westminster - with fortunes spent on HS1 and other England-centric projects whilst the Royal Mail is privatised, for example?

 

We also know that the North and North East of Scotland were shafted by England when Westminster negotiated away the fishing rights. And that the quarter of a BILLION euro agriculture payments to be received from the EU over a 7 year period, in respect of the unique make-up of Scotland's agriculture, was not passed on to the Scottish farmers.

 

You'll have to do better to persuade many up North that Holyrood won't be better than Westminster in protecting their rights.

 

I know some who think Holyrood is an engine which furthers central belt agendas and spends most money there - looking at how long we've taken to improve the A9 since 1999 they may have a point. Also, the UK gave into the EU on these matters to get into the EU, or the EEC as it was. We'll never ever know what a Scottish government would've done to get into the EU. However, if independent little will alter to the Common Fisheries Policy to return that industry to what it was.