Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

One side fiddling and exaggerating figures; the other side fiddling and exaggerating figures.

 

I, for one, am not astonished.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Now I am confused...London voted for Labour in the last General Election, with the most seats and the highest share of popular vote. A very similar situation to Scotland. How are the London MP's accountable to their voters but the Scottish MP's aren't?

 

London gets 1 MP for every 114k citizens, we get 1 MP for every 90k citizens. I would like to think that our politicians are just as capable of collusion as any from London, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

 

And the overwhelming majority of government investment in the UK gravitates where, exactly? This isn't confusing stuff. I don't really understand your last counter argument either. The geographic distance between respective constituencies pretty much slices that one apart.

 

Now, there's an interesting story on www.wingsoverscotland.com titled 'Unrestricted Warfare' that's definitely worth checking out.

[curriehearts]

One side fiddling and exaggerating figures; the other side fiddling and exaggerating figures.

 

I, for one, am not astonished.

 

Tom Hunter on the tv last night talking about having to improve the start up rates of businesses in Scotland.

Thought he interviewed well and said a few interesting points relevant to the vote.

He said he was genuinely undecided, thought the large difference between the Yes and No figures published a couple of days ago was a low point in the debate and said that others must push themselves forward to be heard over the politicians.

As part of his foundation, he is engaging leading independent professors etc from round the world to undertake research Into independence or status quo and he will share this with the voters.

He published a currency options paper at the end of April. He said he will work with (I think) the David Hume institute to analyse both sets of published numbers.

[TheMaganator]

Has anyone got an opinion of their own other than shite newspaper articles being fed to them by policy groups with agendas?

Christ, Geoff. This thread has been going on for years & there's been plenty of good & fresh discussion.

 

I post articles I think may be of interest. You don't need to read them.

[jack D and coke]

Christ, Geoff. This thread has been going on for years & there's been plenty of good & fresh discussion.

 

I post articles I think may be of interest. You don't need to read them.

Tbh I agree with Geoff in a way that the debate has gotten stuck a few months back and has barely moved forward an inch. It's been about polls moving 1 or 2 points in either direction and people claiming some kind of victories of sorts. A few months back I would've debated with people when the subject is raised but I can't anymore it's draining the life out of me. The articles posted are pretty much always written by people with clear agendas of either side too. I can't think of anything I've seen, heard or read for months now that has actually made me think that is was a good reason to rethink at all. The main protagonists won't answer questions at all, they wriggle and squirm through interviews and it's become very tiring tbh.

[TheMaganator]

 

Tbh I agree with Geoff in a way that the debate has gotten stuck a few months back and has barely moved forward an inch. It's been about polls moving 1 or 2 points in either direction and people claiming some kind of victories of sorts. A few months back I would've debated with people when the subject is raised but I can't anymore it's draining the life out of me. The articles posted are pretty much always written by people with clear agendas of either side too. I can't think of anything I've seen, heard or read for months now that has actually made me think that is was a good reason to rethink at all. The main protagonists won't answer questions at all, they wriggle and squirm through interviews and it's become very tiring tbh.

That's down to how long this campaign has been going on tbf.

 

Most people have made their minds up. And most of them have their views pretty entrenched. I doubt there is anything you, or I, could read that'd change our minds.

[jambos are go!]

 

 

Christ, Geoff. This thread has been going on for years & there's been plenty of good & fresh discussion.

 

I post articles I think may be of interest. You don't need to read them.

There is a difference between quoting things you have come across and being part of an organised propoganda machine feeding you stuff to post to promote their cause. Even I suspect to the extent of providing individual repostes to singular posts or debating points. IMO.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

That's down to how long this campaign has been going on tbf.

 

Most people have made their minds up. And most of them have their views pretty entrenched. I doubt there is anything you, or I, could read that'd change our minds.

Indeed. I think the interesting thing is that people have almost exhausted the arguments before the campaign has officially launched, hence the regurgitation.

 

[jack D and coke]

Which leaves the only thing to discuss is the campaigns, rather than the issues.

 

The whole thing hit a new low this week and I think as a result Swinney and Alexander will both be benched for a while. Both of them came out of this looking more than just foolish.

 

The big issue I can see about the above is that the Better Together lot are running out people to make the argument for them. Darling has disappeared, Carmichael has been locked in a cupboard, Osborne dipped his toe in then ran back down south and now Danny Alexander has been hung out to dry. Where do they go from here? I know what I would do if I was them, I'd get a couple of respected and high profile (in Scotland) current Labour MPs to lead the campaign and keep everyone else out.

 

Even still they are probably going to win......

An unbelievably dreadful campaign of negativity coupled with mistruths, incompetence and in some cases lies and blatant incompetence and fronted by utter goons yet still swallowed by most of the electorate. The Yes campaign really hasn't been much better being honest about it also having some utter tickets as mouthpieces and to think I believe both campaigns actually officially begin today!!

 

A slightly interesting banking article here...

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-call-for-rbs-break-up-1-3426508

[billco98]

To me the poster is saying that despite what some sections of the NO campaign are saying (i.e. the Labour Party!) the effect of Scotland's elected representatives at Westminster is at best marginal. Labour is trying to appeal to those on the left not too abandon their comrades in rUK. But it's a false message as it doesn't really matter. Ironic as well, given that the Labour Party abandoned the comrades in the whole UK a long, long time ago.

 

Spot on, Boris.

 

I heard Simon Pia chuntering on Scotland Tonight last night that Scottish Labours ' big guns' will be coming up shortly to drive home the message that we're better together. So wee Labour in the 'pretendy' Parliament is obviously not up to the job, then? More and more folk in Scotland are seeing through Labour. The 'big guns' are going to find that we're a bit more savvy as to what's going on - thousands are turning up at meetings in village halls, church halls, community centres, theatres, etc across Scotland. We have a population that is becoming more politically aware by the day.

 

More and more people are questioning what they're hearing on radio and television and reading in newspapers. More and more are cross referencing on stories to get to the truth.

 

Look at the reaction to the BBC initially turning a blind eye to the two professors' disclaimers regarding the skewed contents of Danny Alexander's Treasury report. The news of the trickery was in the public domain last weekend - not thanks to the BBC but to Newsnet Scotland. Even so it was like getting blood out of a stone to get the BBC to raise the matter.

 

We are in very interesting times. This will become even more fluid over the next 16 weeks.

 

Scary times for Labour.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

That's depressingly true. Particularly when significant events occur and posters say nowt for ages till the party line is fed to them. I'm in no such loops BTW.

 

There is a difference between quoting things you have come across and being part of an organised propoganda machine feeding you stuff to post to promote their cause. Even I suspect to the extent of providing individual repostes to singular posts or debating points. IMO.

 

Dear oh dear.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Tom Hunter on the tv last night talking about having to improve the start up rates of businesses in Scotland.

Thought he interviewed well and said a few interesting points relevant to the vote.

He said he was genuinely undecided, thought the large difference between the Yes and No figures published a couple of days ago was a low point in the debate and said that others must push themselves forward to be heard over the politicians.

As part of his foundation, he is engaging leading independent professors etc from round the world to undertake research Into independence or status quo and he will share this with the voters.

He published a currency options paper at the end of April. He said he will work with (I think) the David Hume institute to analyse both sets of published numbers.

 

What programme was he on? And do you have a link to his currency options paper? (I can't remember whether I've seen it or not.)

 

I'd agree: both sets of figures do not really help the debate. I think the reality of situation is that the best case scenarios mooted by Yes, Business for Scotland and the Scottish Government are very optimistic, and that the worst case scenario painted by BetterTogether and various other parties and actors are incredibly pessimistic. I would think that the truth and the most likely result is a ballpark figure in the middle of both scenarios. This isn't a particularly out-there prediction I know!

[Don Draper]

Dear oh dear.

 

This was my reaction too...I'm not sure there's been a bigger pot-kettle-black moment on this entire thread, to be honest.

 

However, in case I'm accused of negativity, I have a couple of questions for the posters that live abroad. Apologies if this has been asked before - I only dip in and out of here every couple of weeks or so.

 

If you're a supporter of Scottish independence (and you live abroad), will a 'Yes' result persuade you to return home permanently (or at least get you thinking about it)? And would a 'No' vote have the opposite effect? Or will it make no difference either way?

[jambo1185]

I do wonder to what extent the Scottish people actually care about this referendum, and whether many people consider it to be nothing more than an (expensive) distraction from getting on with things.

 

The poor quality of the campaigns (on both sides) and lack of engagement could be symptomatic of people generally not giving a **** (at least for now, perhaps that will change as we get closer)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

This was my reaction too...I'm not sure there's been a bigger pot-kettle-black moment on this entire thread, to be honest.

 

However, in case I'm accused of negativity, I have a couple of questions for the posters that live abroad. Apologies if this has been asked before - I only dip in and out of here every couple of weeks or so.

 

If you're a supporter of Scottish independence (and you live abroad), will a 'Yes' result persuade you to return home permanently (or at least get you thinking about it)? And would a 'No' vote have the opposite effect? Or will it make no difference either way?

If that is aimed at me the only difference it will make to my life is to ensure my kids get a Scottish passport to go along with their British and Australian ones should Scotland vote Yes.

[curriehearts]

What programme was he on? And do you have a link to his currency options paper? (I can't remember whether I've seen it or not.)

 

I'd agree: both sets of figures do not really help the debate. I think the reality of situation is that the best case scenarios mooted by Yes, Business for Scotland and the Scottish Government are very optimistic, and that the worst case scenario painted by BetterTogether and various other parties and actors are incredibly pessimistic. I would think that the truth and the most likely result is a ballpark figure in the middle of both scenarios. This isn't a particularly out-there prediction I know!

 

Link attached.

 

http://scotlandseptember18.com/

 

The programme was called Scottish 2014 (or something like that as I was only half listening to it at the start). Was on before Newsnight on BBC2

[Don Draper]

If that is aimed at me the only difference it will make to my life is to ensure my kids get a Scottish passport to go along with their British and Australian ones should Scotland vote Yes.

 

Wasn't aimed at you in particular, Geoff - just anyone that lives outside Scotland. I was interested as I've recently been thinking about moving back home.

[TheMaganator]

People on here seem very keen to get on the back of the No camp.

 

Thoughts in this?

 

"Scottish Government have done no work to establish start-up costs of independent state, Alex Salmond's spokesman reveals"

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-government-done-no-work-3624684

 

Pretty astonishing if true. Not just the fact that they've done no work to calculate the cost - the fact that they've openly lied about it?!

 

File this next to their 'we've got legal advice on the EU, honest guv' shambles.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Bingo. All this talk of a 'seat at the top table' and the god-awful 'punching above our weight' chat is extinguished by the reality - The City of London has 73 MPs, whilst the Country of Scotland has 59 MPs. I'd bet there's a lot more collusion going on in terms of spending on infrastructure projects and so on, and that's not to say I blame them, they're accountable to their voters, but Scotland can, should, and will do better than this.

 

The Greater London area has a population of 9 million. It should by all rights have more seats than Scotland.

 

Greater Glasgow is a populace of around 2 million. Should Edinburgh, a city of 500,000 have more seats than Glasgow?

 

Your issue of accountability and sectional interests of political parties will continue in an independent Scotland as internal differences and needs will become of an importance and resonance not seen for a long time up here.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

 

Has anyone got an opinion of their own other than shite newspaper articles being fed to them by policy groups with agendas?

 

 

Me I'm bored with both sides pish, I've come to realise I'm anti establishment and I'll be voting yes for ideological reasons.

[curriehearts]

The Greater London area has a population of 9 million. It should by all rights have more seats than Scotland.

 

Greater Glasgow is a populace of around 2 million. Should Edinburgh, a city of 500,000 have more seats than Glasgow?

 

Your issue of accountability and sectional interests of political parties will continue in an independent Scotland as internal differences and needs will become of an importance and resonance not seen for a long time up here.

 

Is it not the point that is being made that London (and the South East's) growing population over the last 40 to 50 years dwarfs Scotland's static population and we, as a %, get smaller and smaller. Their population (driven by employment opportunities) has grown approx 20%, ours approx 2%. Our representation gets smaller and smaller but many Scots still hold the perception that we 'punch above our weight'. If Scotland had the same population growth as London & the SE today we would have another 1m of a population.

To think, if our population had grown by 20% over that period and London & the South East's by 2% how different a Westminster parliament would look.

[curriehearts]

People on here seem very keen to get on the back of the No camp.

 

Thoughts in this?

 

"Scottish Government have done no work to establish start-up costs of independent state, Alex Salmond's spokesman reveals"

 

http://www.dailyreco...no-work-3624684

 

Pretty astonishing if true. Not just the fact that they've done no work to calculate the cost - the fact that they've openly lied about it?!

 

File this next to their 'we've got legal advice on the EU, honest guv' shambles.

 

Pretty bad if true.

 

Luckily for them the Treasury did it for them. It will come in between ?1.5bn and ?2.7Bn - sorted

[billco98]

People on here seem very keen to get on the back of the No camp.

 

Thoughts in this?

 

"Scottish Government have done no work to establish start-up costs of independent state, Alex Salmond's spokesman reveals"

 

http://www.dailyreco...no-work-3624684

 

Pretty astonishing if true. Not just the fact that they've done no work to calculate the cost - the fact that they've openly lied about it?!

 

File this next to their 'we've got legal advice on the EU, honest guv' shambles.

 

Jeezo, you lot need to get out more. From my perspective of occasionally checking out the 'debate' on this thread I am more and more of the opinion that it is the same old, same old. This appears to be one of the most incestuous threads on the Indy Debate. Thank God there is an enlightened world out there. Get out there and seek out the real debate that is going on in every corner of the country.

 

I am 67 and now retired after spending my whole working life in the private sector both as employee and self employed. In that time I have never vote Conservative. I have predominantly voted Labour with the occasional dalliance with the SNP. Until fairly recently I would not have supported a Yes vote for independence. I am now utterly convinced that for the people who chose to live and work in Scotland and, more importantly, their children and grand-children, independence is the only way to secure their future. We will have that future in our hands. We will stand or fall by our decisions and no longer be at the mercy of governments which do not have our best interests at heart.

 

I just wish I was 40 years younger. This is potentially the most exciting time in my life.

 

For the sake of our children and grand-children catch a grip and grab this chance - it might not come up again. I sure as Hell would not like to be around when future generations look back at us and say 'What the **** were those clowns thinking about who voted No in 2014?'

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Jeezo, you lot need to get out more. From my perspective of occasionally checking out the 'debate' on this thread I am more and more of the opinion that it is the same old, same old. This appears to be one of the most incestuous threads on the Indy Debate. Thank God there is an enlightened world out there. Get out there and seek out the real debate that is going on in every corner of the country.

 

I am 67 and now retired after spending my whole working life in the private sector both as employee and self employed. In that time I have never vote Conservative. I have predominantly voted Labour with the occasional dalliance with the SNP. Until fairly recently I would not have supported a Yes vote for independence. I am now utterly convinced that for the people who chose to live and work in Scotland and, more importantly, their children and grand-children, independence is the only way to secure their future. We will have that future in our hands. We will stand or fall by our decisions and no longer be at the mercy of governments which do not have our best interests at heart.

 

I just wish I was 40 years younger. This is potentially the most exciting time in my life.

 

For the sake of our children and grand-children catch a grip and grab this chance - it might not come up again. I sure as Hell would not like to be around when future generations look back at us and say 'What the **** were those clowns thinking about who voted No in 2014?'

All fairly patronising.

 

But as you raise the issue of being at the behest of governments that don't have our best interest at heart - what do you think of a government that has not costed how much their separation plans will cost? Which was the point of the article you quite purposely deflected attention away from.

 

Because, you know, in the real world, where we don't all have the luxury of being retired the actual costs of this matters.

[Cade]

How can the SNP cost anything when the Westminster crowd refuse to negotiate? This is the same circular argument that the No gang get hung up on.

[Felix Lighter]

All fairly patronising.

 

But as you raise the issue of being at the behest of governments that don't have our best interest at heart - what do you think of a government that has not costed how much their separation plans will cost? Which was the point of the article you quite purposely deflected attention away from.

 

Because, you know, in the real world, where we don't all have the luxury of being retired the actual costs of this matters.

 

Spoken like a true Tory, er HELLO, Billco is 67 ffs and entitled to his retirement.

[JamboInSouthsea]

This was my reaction too...I'm not sure there's been a bigger pot-kettle-black moment on this entire thread, to be honest.

 

However, in case I'm accused of negativity, I have a couple of questions for the posters that live abroad. Apologies if this has been asked before - I only dip in and out of here every couple of weeks or so.

 

If you're a supporter of Scottish independence (and you live abroad), will a 'Yes' result persuade you to return home permanently (or at least get you thinking about it)? And would a 'No' vote have the opposite effect? Or will it make no difference either way?

 

This is a very interesting question,speaking for myself as an economic migrant (annoyingly got offered a job 2 days after starting down here in Edinburgh) and part of the brain drain...'not sure' is the simple answer as I am now very settled in Portsmouth and have more friends here than back in Edinburgh or Scotland.

 

Have always thought I would like to move back at some point, about 50/50 heid and heart(s).

[Ulysses]

The EU want us. Que sorpresa. I'm cool with that.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-27623271

 

 

I don't mean to say "I told yiz so", but.........

 

 

The biggest risk to Scotland's continued membership of the European Union is in the form of the Conservative Party and UKIP.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Link attached.

 

http://scotlandseptember18.com/

 

The programme was called Scottish 2014 (or something like that as I was only half listening to it at the start). Was on before Newsnight on BBC2

 

Thanks curriehearts - I've added the currency paper you've referenced to my reading list.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I don't mean to say "I told yiz so", but.........

 

 

The biggest risk to Scotland's continued membership of the European Union is in the form of the Conservative Party and UKIP.

The biggest risk is the continuation of daft federalist EU policies but that is another debate.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Spoken like a true Tory, er HELLO, Billco is 67 ffs and entitled to his retirement.

of course he's entitled to it. But he's able to come at this from a completely different perspective as he's retired.

 

What an odd post.

[TheMaganator]

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Is it not the point that is being made that London (and the South East's) growing population over the last 40 to 50 years dwarfs Scotland's static population and we, as a %, get smaller and smaller. Their population (driven by employment opportunities) has grown approx 20%, ours approx 2%. Our representation gets smaller and smaller but many Scots still hold the perception that we 'punch above our weight'. If Scotland had the same population growth as London & the SE today we would have another 1m of a population.

To think, if our population had grown by 20% over that period and London & the South East's by 2% how different a Westminster parliament would look.

 

Population growth varies by country to country in the EU and is slower in Northern nations than southern ones. Partly due to waves of migration affecting southern ones more.

 

Scotland does punch above her weight, as the UK does generally.

 

You also failed to recognise my point. In an independent Scotland the nation's government will be reliant on winning Glasgow and Strathclyde based seats as the population is based predominantly there. We already see a Glasgow-centric Scotland via BBC Scotland, th new Police Scotland and in terms of where most money is spent on infrastructure and poverty relief and social development spending. In effect Glasgow is our London. It sucks the money of Scotland into it. Yes there's oil in Aberdeen and financial services in Edinburgh generating wealth but Glasgow is still the foremost concern of government, or so it feels. For example since the introduction of Police Scotland the chief of the force, Stephen House, has been pressuring Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils to amend their by-laws on public drinking and the sex trade to be more like the zero tolerance of Glasgow. More money is spent on social deprevation in the Glasgow area than elsewhere, where yes poverty is an issue but poverty is also a huge issue across Scotland's other towns and cities.

 

Personally, the issue of London being a drain would be reflected on Scotland with Glasgow and that is not healthy either. Your issue of of the south east of England electing governments is as bad as Glasgow affecting Scottish politics. Will Aberdeen ever get a government to reflect her needs, or Shetland hers? No, highly unlikely. For me this is the big stumbling block with the accountability/government for Scotland stuff. You'll get a government to suit the largest population area again because no serious thought is being made to affect the regional interests within Scotland now or in a post-Yes nation. Local councils should be given a huge amount more of power and financial powers either way here, it's really the only way everyone will get responsive and accountable government.

[scottg71]

 

 

Population growth varies by country to country in the EU and is slower in Northern nations than southern ones. Partly due to waves of migration affecting southern ones more.

 

Scotland does punch above her weight, as the UK does generally.

 

You also failed to recognise my point. In an independent Scotland the nation's government will be reliant on winning Glasgow and Strathclyde based seats as the population is based predominantly there. We already see a Glasgow-centric Scotland via BBC Scotland, th new Police Scotland and in terms of where most money is spent on infrastructure and poverty relief and social development spending. In effect Glasgow is our London. It sucks the money of Scotland into it. Yes there's oil in Aberdeen and financial services in Edinburgh generating wealth but Glasgow is still the foremost concern of government, or so it feels. For example since the introduction of Police Scotland the chief of the force, Stephen House, has been pressuring Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils to amend their by-laws on public drinking and the sex trade to be more like the zero tolerance of Glasgow. More money is spent on social deprevation in the Glasgow area than elsewhere, where yes poverty is an issue but poverty is also a huge issue across Scotland's other towns and cities.

 

Personally, the issue of London being a drain would be reflected on Scotland with Glasgow and that is not healthy either. Your issue of of the south east of England electing governments is as bad as Glasgow affecting Scottish politics. Will Aberdeen ever get a government to reflect her needs, or Shetland hers? No, highly unlikely. For me this is the big stumbling block with the accountability/government for Scotland stuff. You'll get a government to suit the largest population area again because no serious thought is being made to affect the regional interests within Scotland now or in a post-Yes nation. Local councils should be given a huge amount more of power and financial powers either way here, it's really the only way everyone will get responsive and accountable government.

 

Excellent post.

[billco98]

All fairly patronising.

 

But as you raise the issue of being at the behest of governments that don't have our best interest at heart - what do you think of a government that has not costed how much their separation plans will cost? Which was the point of the article you quite purposely deflected attention away from.

 

Because, you know, in the real world, where we don't all have the luxury of being retired the actual costs of this matters.

 

The Scottish Government will have calculated a budget for the transition/setting up costs of the government infrastructure for an Independent Scotland. The key reason for not disclosing that budget figure at this stage is that their will be negotiations to be carried out between Holyrood and Westminster, post a Yes vote, to divide up existing assets. You don't go into negotiations by first showing your hand. Whatever people have to say about Alex Salmond, I'm by no means his biggest fan, he is not naive.

 

Professor Patrick Dunleavy, who baulked at the Treasury's traducing of his advice regarding setting up costs, suggested a realistic budget of between ?150 and ?200 million. That of course didn't suit the Better Together agenda so they applied a factor of 12.

 

It would appear that those set against the brave decision to take the running of our affairs, and therefore the future of our country back into our own hands, are prepared to accept the lies, distortions and doom-laden guff delivered by the daytrippers from Westminster. So be it, but I am sure the penny is dropping and more and more can see through the BT fog.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Population growth varies by country to country in the EU and is slower in Northern nations than southern ones. Partly due to waves of migration affecting southern ones more.

 

Scotland does punch above her weight, as the UK does generally.

 

You also failed to recognise my point. In an independent Scotland the nation's government will be reliant on winning Glasgow and Strathclyde based seats as the population is based predominantly there. We already see a Glasgow-centric Scotland via BBC Scotland, th new Police Scotland and in terms of where most money is spent on infrastructure and poverty relief and social development spending. In effect Glasgow is our London. It sucks the money of Scotland into it. Yes there's oil in Aberdeen and financial services in Edinburgh generating wealth but Glasgow is still the foremost concern of government, or so it feels. For example since the introduction of Police Scotland the chief of the force, Stephen House, has been pressuring Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils to amend their by-laws on public drinking and the sex trade to be more like the zero tolerance of Glasgow. More money is spent on social deprevation in the Glasgow area than elsewhere, where yes poverty is an issue but poverty is also a huge issue across Scotland's other towns and cities.

 

Personally, the issue of London being a drain would be reflected on Scotland with Glasgow and that is not healthy either. Your issue of of the south east of England electing governments is as bad as Glasgow affecting Scottish politics. Will Aberdeen ever get a government to reflect her needs, or Shetland hers? No, highly unlikely. For me this is the big stumbling block with the accountability/government for Scotland stuff. You'll get a government to suit the largest population area again because no serious thought is being made to affect the regional interests within Scotland now or in a post-Yes nation. Local councils should be given a huge amount more of power and financial powers either way here, it's really the only way everyone will get responsive and accountable government.

 

This government 'for London' rubbish will be no different in Scotland. It'll just be governments for Glasgow.

 

That's democracy.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10865895/Tories-offer-Scots-control-over-income-tax-if-they-vote-No.html

Tories going to offer control over income tax if we vote No.

 

Not sure about this tbh unless it's offered to Wales, Eng & NI too

 

[billco98]

All fairly patronising.

 

But as you raise the issue of being at the behest of governments that don't have our best interest at heart - what do you think of a government that has not costed how much their separation plans will cost? Which was the point of the article you quite purposely deflected attention away from.

 

Because, you know, in the real world, where we don't all have the luxury of being retired the actual costs of this matters.

 

Oh, just had senior moment and forgot to comment on the above.

 

Yes I am retired but what makes you think I haven't considered the risk to my pension when making my mind up on voting Yes? I don't want to tempt fate but I hope I will have a good few more years to enjoy my retirement, ups and downs at Tynie aside, but I am confident my pension will hold up. I'll take the risk. It's worth it. I can't for the life of me see what there is to be feart of.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Oh, just had senior moment and forgot to comment on the above.

 

Yes I am retired but what makes you think I haven't considered the risk to my pension when making my mind up on voting Yes? I don't want to tempt fate but I hope I will have a good few more years to enjoy my retirement, ups and downs at Tynie aside, but I am confident my pension will hold up. I'll take the risk. It's worth it. I can't for the life of me see what there is to be feart of.

From your perspective & view point I get it.

 

I'm 31. Have got myself into a position where I'm qualified in a profession that will turn into a good career. The next 10 years is where I'll put in the graft to hopefully set me up for a fairly comfortable life for me & any family that I acquire along the way.

 

I see no reason to rock the boat so that matters can be decided mostly in Edinburgh rather than London. I don't see WM as being the big bogey man. I don't see me as being any different from anyone across the UK.

 

My firm really pushes the business networking thing & I've come across people in all professions & industries over the past year. When the referendum eventually pops up, and it always does, nobody I've met in business supports it. Everybody is wary of it.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

The Scottish Government will have calculated a budget for the transition/setting up costs of the government infrastructure for an Independent Scotland. The key reason for not disclosing that budget figure at this stage is that their will be negotiations to be carried out between Holyrood and Westminster, post a Yes vote, to divide up existing assets. You don't go into negotiations by first showing your hand. Whatever people have to say about Alex Salmond, I'm by no means his biggest fan, he is not naive.

 

Professor Patrick Dunleavy, who baulked at the Treasury's traducing of his advice regarding setting up costs, suggested a realistic budget of between ?150 and ?200 million. That of course didn't suit the Better Together agenda so they applied a factor of 12.

 

It would appear that those set against the brave decision to take the running of our affairs, and therefore the future of our country back into our own hands, are prepared to accept the lies, distortions and doom-laden guff delivered by the daytrippers from Westminster. So be it, but I am sure the penny is dropping and more and more can see through the BT fog.

 

This would be the first time the Scottish Governemnt have decided not to reveal their hand. The white paper, whilst arguably necessary, left them no scope for negotiating and for building consensus. Economically they declared through that document that they wanted a lot from London - currency union and in effect a single market. As we've seen in the EU that needs a degree of political integration and a huge amount of political will. As we then saw it was easy to bat away by the UK Governemnt and dealt a larger blow to the yes movement than was given credit for. Poll slumps and a degree of disunity from the SSP and Greens.

 

Should Yes fail to win the blame should lie with Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and not the tactics of the BT group who've been unispiring and largely incapable of bringing people on board. A lot of the planning, the strategy and development of the Yes narrative has been their creation or that of those working for them who moved to Yes Scotland- Noon etc. I doubt it will be laid at their feet but to me they've played into a lot of traps by the UK Governemnt and the Better Together group. Many undecideds or light Yesses will be affected by that. On 4 high profile issues they've lost IMO;

 

1. Currency

 

2. The Childcare Plan being spuriously devised

 

3. Governemnt start up costs

 

4. The EU membership issue

 

In all 4 issues they've come out looking worse. If they were government policies in an independent Scotland they're poll ratings would be rock bottom. The fact is they can differentiate on these and politically come out intact.

[JamboX2]

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10865895/Tories-offer-Scots-control-over-income-tax-if-they-vote-No.html

Tories going to offer control over income tax if we vote No.

 

Not sure about this tbh unless it's offered to Wales, Eng & NI too

 

It's the direction of travel for the UK. The positions of each party on devolution is increasingly one where they have offered things that would integrate well together. Labour and the LibDems offer greater welfare and employment powers. The Tories and LibDems add more taxation powers to the bargain.

 

My stated preferred option on here has always been added welfare powers out with pensions and devolution of all income, wealth and property taxation with corporate taxes and vat left reserved.

 

An English parliament or the like is the next step.

[billco98]

This would be the first time the Scottish Governemnt have decided not to reveal their hand. The white paper, whilst arguably necessary, left them no scope for negotiating and for building consensus. Economically they declared through that document that they wanted a lot from London - currency union and in effect a single market. As we've seen in the EU that needs a degree of political integration and a huge amount of political will. As we then saw it was easy to bat away by the UK Governemnt and dealt a larger blow to the yes movement than was given credit for. Poll slumps and a degree of disunity from the SSP and Greens.

 

Should Yes fail to win the blame should lie with Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and not the tactics of the BT group who've been unispiring and largely incapable of bringing people on board. A lot of the planning, the strategy and development of the Yes narrative has been their creation or that of those working for them who moved to Yes Scotland- Noon etc. I doubt it will be laid at their feet but to me they've played into a lot of traps by the UK Governemnt and the Better Together group. Many undecideds or light Yesses will be affected by that. On 4 high profile issues they've lost IMO;

 

1. Currency

 

2. The Childcare Plan being spuriously devised

 

3. Governemnt start up costs

 

4. The EU membership issue

 

In all 4 issues they've come out looking worse. If they were government policies in an independent Scotland they're poll ratings would be rock bottom. The fact is they can differentiate on these and politically come out intact.

 

1, 3 & 4 require input from Westminster.

 

1. On the currency, they, and by they I mean the triumvirate of Unionist parties, have pre-empted negotiations by declaring a position. This in violation of the terms of the Edinburgh agreement that no negotiations should take place until after independence. Salmond is quite right to hold his position at this stage of expressing a preference for a currency union. Westminster is trying to force him off that stance because they know for him to move would weaken Scotland's hand in post Yes negotiations. I am confident that Osborne and Co's bluff will be called.

 

3. The same applies to Start up costs. Salmond would be crazy to show his hand prior to formal negotiations with rUK.

 

4. EU membership. Westminster refuses to formally ask Brussels to lay out the procedures for membership transition for an independent Scotland. They probably already know the answer and don't want the people of Scotland to find out so they are keeping schtum.

 

2. The Childcare Plan being spuriously devised? Please explain, if you can.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1, 3 & 4 require input from Westminster.

 

1. On the currency, they, and by they I mean the triumvirate of Unionist parties, have pre-empted negotiations by declaring a position. This in violation of the terms of the Edinburgh agreement that no negotiations should take place until after independence. Salmond is quite right to hold his position at this stage of expressing a preference for a currency union. Westminster is trying to force him off that stance because they know for him to move would weaken Scotland's hand in post Yes negotiations. I am confident that Osborne and Co's bluff will be called.

 

3. The same applies to Start up costs. Salmond would be crazy to show his hand prior to formal negotiations with rUK.

 

4. EU membership. Westminster refuses to formally ask Brussels to lay out the procedures for membership transition for an independent Scotland. They probably already know the answer and don't want the people of Scotland to find out so they are keeping schtum.

 

2. The Childcare Plan being spuriously devised? Please explain, if you can.

 

On 1, I would argue that the Edinburgh Agreement is easily superseded by national interest. Why do you think HM Treasury had to guarantee all of the UK debt stock, which some in the independence side of the debate have taken as an opportunity to shed all debt if Scotland becomes independent without a currency union?

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

1, 3 & 4 require input from Westminster.

 

1. On the currency, they, and by they I mean the triumvirate of Unionist parties, have pre-empted negotiations by declaring a position. This in violation of the terms of the Edinburgh agreement that no negotiations should take place until after independence. Salmond is quite right to hold his position at this stage of expressing a preference for a currency union. Westminster is trying to force him off that stance because they know for him to move would weaken Scotland's hand in post Yes negotiations. I am confident that Osborne and Co's bluff will be called.

 

Legally the only binding element of the Edinburgh Agreement on both parties (UK and Scottish Governments as institutions not their political make up) is the facilitation of a fair and balanced referendum under UK electoral law devised, run and made possible by Scottish Legislation from Holyrood.

 

The fair and balanced part relates to the legality of it and to the management of it by the electoral commission. The rest of it is politically binding, in that there are no legal compulsions created by it. This is because it is a section 32 agreement to devolve certain powers under the 1998 Scotland Act, not a treaty agreement between two nation stares. Scotland has no such standing internationally. In effect the 3 unionist parties have not breached anything in the agreement.

 

Salmond weakened his hand by saying he backed a currency union and nothing else. Whilst a fair position to take it is easily then dismissed. His then unsurprising rant about repudiating debt lead the UK Government to declare it'd underwrite Scottish debt if Scotland repudiated it to quell markets and to prevent a run on the ? in the event of a yes win.

 

Again Salmond and Swinney looked weak and out of kilter. The wider Yes movement also seemed to have had no idea about what the SNP had planned, even some in the SNP seemed to have missed the memo here. This lead to Canavan telling the RiC conference that they had to stick together on this irregardless do the fact many there hated the notion of currency union and all that entailed economically for an independent Scotland. The appearance from this was of the SNP Government having been rumbled by their BT opponents and the yes movement split on an issue none of them seems to expect there to be disagreement on.

 

 

3. The same applies to Start up costs. Salmond would be crazy to show his hand prior to formal negotiations with rUK.

 

Indeed. So why not say our position cannot be revealed for public interest reasons as these will be subject to negotiation? Instead of a series of interviews were spokespersons and ministers seemed clueless. Although the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was also wrong footed here, again it showed a naivety and lack of maturity in presenting their position and has made them again look like they are hiding something and that they were unprepared for the eventuality. As you'll agree not a good position to be in on such an issue.

 

4. EU membership. Westminster refuses to formally ask Brussels to lay out the procedures for membership transition for an independent Scotland. They probably already know the answer and don't want the people of Scotland to find out so they are keeping schtum.

 

Again here the yes position appears weak as it was handled poorly. Instead of asserting a position, paying to have nonexistent legal advice hidden and then having a battle of academic and political opinions they should've requested the UK government request legal advice for the good of the vote from the EU.

 

That then plays the ball to the guys who will decide this in reality, the EU, and not develop a spat between administrations.

 

However, where I'd urge caution, is that whilst there is no provision to evict a member, which here is not the case, there is equally no provision in the Lisbon treaty for a part of a member state declaring independence and becoming a member by its own right under the terms of membership of the nation state it just left. The latter being the actual case here not the former as Scotland is only a member by right of the UK being the signatory to the treaties of Rome and subsequently Lisbon, not by herself.

 

Legally after a yes vote Scotland from March 2016 would not be a member for two reasons:

 

1. It has left the UK.

 

2. The EU does not traditionally negotiate with non-independent nation states, which puts the 2014-16 window of in the UK but moving out negotiation zone dead in the water. NATO has said no negotiation till after March 2016. Fair play to them. The only saving grace is the EU loves a quick fix and if it's members can agree a deal to start negotiations in the 18month period fair enough, but again there is no provision to allow this to occur and it'd need unanimity from the council of ministers, of which Spain and Italy are on and both have secessionist movements operating.

 

This is not fear mongering. It's a pragmatic assessment of the position based on treaty law and the actions of the Scottish government in regards to this issue. To me again they've failed to set out a position based on negotiating in a world of varying interests and national positions and asserted a position and stuck to it.

 

2. The Childcare Plan being spuriously devised? Please explain, if you can.

 

They published an un-costed and un-assessed policy which was then roundly derided as a clear piece of political manoeuvring to court the women vote, which they could enact tomorrow and is no way needing independence to work.

 

To me if you want independence it should be based on a desire to see us run all our affairs irregardless of what the EU position is or currency union etc. That in itself is based on the idea that our interests and we as people are fundamentally different from the wider UK in our opinions or politics etc. That is arguably nationalistic but true of what independence should amount to. If that is your view vote yes. I don't fully see it like that, but nor does the SNP who instead of making the case I just made there have sought to base it on the issues above, and in doing so weakened their hand considerably and made it an issue of these things not about the benefits of running your own affairs to meet your own interests.

[billco98]

And you don't see the triumvirates currency Union stance as a threat? No one on the Yes side ever suggested not paying back of our share before Osborne's 'Speech on the Pound' OK for Westminster to make threats but grim when they are countered by the SNP?

[JamboX2]

 

And you don't see the triumvirates currency Union stance as a threat? No one on the Yes side ever suggested not paying back of our share before Osborne's 'Speech on the Pound' OK for Westminster to make threats but grim when they are countered by the SNP?

 

One creates insecurity over the repayment of debt and the strength of the ?. The other is a group of politicians saying they didn't view the idea of currency union desireable. To me one is irresponsible and the other pre-emptive negotiation.

 

I think national interest has to be factored in here, the SNP aren't developing a narrative which respects the interests of the UK. On the contrary they are asserting their position as being in the interests of both. The UK government has always been suspect of currency union in the EU, why is making the pound a supranational currency and elevating the BoE into an ECB body above Governemnt in their interests?

[Boris]

Cant link right now, but found David Steel's comnents in today's Scotsman very interesting. Now, if only the unionists had thought of this at the start then the campaign would be over before it began!

[ToadKiller Dog]

Cant link right now, but found David Steel's comnents in today's Scotsman very interesting. Now, if only the unionists had thought of this at the start then the campaign would be over before it began!

 

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-holyrood-needs-more-power-1-3427530

 

This one , it's ok think he plays on the fear of the cost of separation a bit to much .

More powers is just a half way house leading to inevitable independence further down the road .

 

Have to admit I have lost a lot of respect for Steel over his comments and reasoning over his inaction when liberal leader over Cyril Smith .

Edited May 31, 2014 by ToadKiller Dog

[ToadKiller Dog]

An response to Steel

https://www.kiltr.com/peterabell/1764347726

Edited May 31, 2014 by ToadKiller Dog

[jack D and coke]

Both decent articles. I found myself agreeing with both funnily enough