Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Ulysses]

I voted intend not to vote because I am not sure if I have a vote or not since I was on the last General Election register in the UK. I may not be but that's just to cover it.

 

Anyway, even if I still lived in Scotland I would abstain on principle as I'm not Scottish.

 

I've edited the poll and added a sixth option:

 

I am Geoff Kilpatrick

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I've edited the poll and added a sixth option:

 

I am Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

 

I don't like being pigeon holed.

 

[TheMaganator]

Previous JKB polls on the subject have suggested a 3 to 1 majority in favour of independence - although my recollection might well be off.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this one goes.

It will likely be similar, for a number of reasons.

[shaun.lawson]

I think redm's post above should be required reading for the many who are, at present, undecided. However arrogant and none of my business this might sound, an increasingly large part of me just doesn't understand why anyone who considers themselves left of centre wouldn't vote YES next year. It's a historic opportunity for real change and real self-determination.

 

I say this as someone terrified at the electoral consequences for England and Wales of Scotland becoming independent: I think it'd lock the Tories in down south for at least a generation. But if I were Scottish, there is absolutely no question I'd be voting YES. And however much my record on these things is completely notorious, my instinct is that the outcome next year will be far, far closer than is generally assumed. The polls will tighten between now and referendum day: I'm convinced of it.

[Stewart MacD]

I'm ineligible - been in Oz too long.

I'm not sure how long I would have to reside in Scotland again to register (I've just emailed an info request to the Lothian office).

 

Vote would be YAAAS!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I think redm's post above should be required reading for the many who are, at present, undecided. However arrogant and none of my business this might sound, an increasingly large part of me just doesn't understand why anyone who considers themselves left of centre wouldn't vote YES next year. It's a historic opportunity for real change and real self-determination.

 

I say this as someone terrified at the electoral consequences for England and Wales of Scotland becoming independent: I think it'd lock the Tories in down south for at least a generation. But if I were Scottish, there is absolutely no question I'd be voting YES. And however much my record on these things is completely notorious, my instinct is that the outcome next year will be far, far closer than is generally assumed. The polls will tighten between now and referendum day: I'm convinced of it.

Based on what the SNP proposals are, lefties would be even more disappointed than what they normally are.

[TheMaganator]

 

Based on what the SNP proposals are, lefties would be even more disappointed than what they normally are.

Any lefty thinking Scotland will become a lefty utopia if Independent is deluded.

 

Scotland is historically small c conservative. We just have more of a 'social conscience' than the rest of the UK.

 

A Scottish Tory party not tied in 'to they posh *****' in Westminster will undoubtedly become more popular here.

 

The SNP will diminish over time. Their factions will split off & will have no need to toe the party line once they achieve their r''aison d'?tre.

 

Labour will remain labour.

 

More Scots voted for Thatcher than voted SNP in 2007.

 

I truly believe that after the initial delight at winning the referendum there are going to be a lot of very very disappointed Yes voters. Especially the socialists and the republicans (though they're probably constantly disappointed anyway).

[Rudi Skacel]

Voted in the poll under the "I intend to vote no" option.

 

Reason being is I dont see how my life will be any better in an independent Scotland than what it is now as part of the UK.

[reaths17]

I think redm's post above should be required reading for the many who are, at present, undecided. However arrogant and none of my business this might sound, an increasingly large part of me just doesn't understand why anyone who considers themselves left of centre wouldn't vote YES next year. It's a historic opportunity for real change and real self-determination.

 

I say this as someone terrified at the electoral consequences for England and Wales of Scotland becoming independent: I think it'd lock the Tories in down south for at least a generation. But if I were Scottish, there is absolutely no question I'd be voting YES. And however much my record on these things is completely notorious, my instinct is that the outcome next year will be far, far closer than is generally assumed. The polls will tighten between now and referendum day: I'm convinced of it.

 

and the big problem with that is, nobody is offering change, all thats being offered is a scottish face to what we have, hardly worth the hassle pffftt

[redm]

 

and the big problem with that is, nobody is offering change, all thats being offered is a scottish face to what we have, hardly worth the hassle pffftt

 

What sort of change would you like to see? What sort of change would make you think it was worth it?

[Maple Leaf]

Been working my way steadily through this thread and it is, by far, the best debate I've seen on the subject. Incredible work!

Especially from Bateman and JamboX2.

 

I'm not quite finished reading the whole thing yet but I'm genuinely really grateful for this information.

I decided a while ago that I'd be voting yes (pending review of any suitably awful info to come) but I still had so many questions about different things, the majority of which have been covered here in one way or another. Can't believe it took me this long to open and read it. Thanks loads.

 

My position is quite simple. I'm sick to the back teeth of Westminster and I don't think I've ever felt more alienated from the body making decisions on behalf of the UK people. I've never felt less represented by them, probably because they just aren't representing me. Their actions over the last year/18 months in particular were pretty much the final nail in the coffin as far as that goes. I want us to take responsibility for making these decisions by ourselves. I'm not worried about the majority of repercussions or complexities, nothing worth having was ever easy. And nor am I worried about the 'what ifs' - mostly anyway - because I don't think we can do much worse. If we make mistakes, at least they'll be our own mistakes.

 

But more than that, I see no reason why we shouldn't do this. I was having a chat with Scandinavian colleagues about the independence debate and when I said that I didn't know how it would go, they looked at me in utter disbelief. Independence is just a given for so many other people, I think we've forgotten that independence is normal. I've gone from feeling anxious about the idea and wondering why we should do it to feeling really very positive. Why shouldn't we? I have every faith in the ability of the Scottish people to do what needs to be done, change what needs to change, manage the transition, navigate through difficulties and ultimately make a success of an independent Scotland. It depresses me a wee bit that so many people seem fearful about that.

 

It's not about breaking away from England or the UK for me. Not in an emotional sense. They'll still be right next door and you can't avoid having a cooperative relationship of some description when you share an island this small. I genuinely can't imagine there being much of a change in terms of how we relate to the rest of them. As people mention, we have history together for starters. We have friends and family who live on either side of the border. We had history before the Union, we have the history throughout it and this is simply a new chapter. We'll just be making our own decisions.

 

I'm waiting on the White Paper to be published and if there are any horrors in there then I might find myself changing position but I don't know what they could tell me that would be so awful that I'd change my mind now. I appreciate that they can't give the level of intricate detail that many are asking for, I understand perfectly well that it's an impractical request at this stage, but I know it'll give more information than we have currently. It'll give us the foundations.

 

On a slightly different note, it might just be that I've started to pay more attention and attend debates/Q&As in recent months and will be more engaged with the subject, but I feel like there's an interesting shift. People's Chimp alluded to it some pages ago and I totally agree that it feels like there's an increasing discontent which might be leading to folk who were previously NO shifting slightly towards a 'tell me more/convince me' sort of position. It's almost like people are waiting to be persuaded and that's so encouraging, people who might not normally get into politics seem to be feeling an increasing sense of responsibility for this decision and that has to be a good thing.

 

I also don't think we'll get another chance. This is it. And I don't want to wake up in a country full of people with regrets on the day after the referendum. I hope we don't.

 

Right, I'm away back to continue reading. And thanks again to the contributors.

 

This is a very good post.

 

I don't live in Scotland, so I won't be voting, but if I did live there I would be voting "Yes" and actively working for the "Yes" campaign. My reasons for that position are captured in the highlighted parts of redm's excellent post. The financial arguments leave me cold. I doubt if independence will make much difference financially to the average punter one way or the other, at least initially. It's the intangibles that count for me.

 

As with redm's Scandinavian friends, my Canadian friends are genuinely puzzled when the subject of the Scottish referendum comes up. An occasional one is surprised; they think that Scotland already IS independent! Without exception, they will ask "Who on earth would vote no to independence?"

 

This is a unique opportunity for the Scots, probably a once-in-a-lifetime chance. A final chance to be masters of their own destiny.

 

"Who on earth would vote no?", indeed.

[Ulysses]

A small number of members have taken part in our online voting intentions poll so far.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/134460-scottish-independence-referendum-jkb-voting-intentions-november-2013/

[Ulysses]

I was having a chat with Scandinavian colleagues about the independence debate and when I said that I didn't know how it would go, they looked at me in utter disbelief.

 

 

As with redm's Scandinavian friends, my Canadian friends are genuinely puzzled when the subject of the Scottish referendum comes up.

 

I've occasionally discussed this with quite a few friends and colleagues here over the past few months. They all just assume that Scotland will vote for independence. When I tell them that the opinion polls generally point to a No vote, they are surprised - and that's putting it mildly.

 

It's remarkable how something can be so glaringly obvious to Scots, and not at all obvious to foreigners - and the other way around.

[Patrick Bateman]

Here's a debate between the two Blairs; McDougall and Jenkins.

 

[TheMaganator]

I wonder if these Canadains supported independence for Quebec?

 

It'd alsobe interesting to hear what the Scandanavians & Canadians think of the EU.

[Stanley_]

I wonder if these Canadains supported independence for Quebec?

 

It'd alsobe interesting to hear what the Scandanavians & Canadians think of the EU.

 

Quebec is quite a different situation although still comparable in some ways. Much more based on the French language. The Canadians I have spoken to are quite negative about nationalism in Quebec having the image of it being about French-speakers and anti-English speakers. It's a much more exclusive type of nationalism. Scottish nationalism, thankfully, is just about Scotland being independent regardless of the nationality of the people living in Scotland and free from language issues.

 

Of course, you could speak to some people in England and hear that Scottish nationalism is about being anti-English so you can't take everything people say at face value. Still, there's definitely more of a perception of nationalism in Quebec being more exclusive than Scottish nationalism and at least partly based on protecting the French language.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Stanley_

[Sarah O]

Good poll. Some posters will be seething at how it's looking

[TheMaganator]

Good poll. Some posters will be seething at how it's looking

 

 

Not at all. The last poll here saw the Yes camp came out on top 3 to 1. As things stand, that is now 2 to 1. Even on JKB support is falling

[Maple Leaf]

I wonder if these Canadains supported independence for Quebec?

 

It'd alsobe interesting to hear what the Scandanavians & Canadians think of the EU.

 

There are more differences than similarities between Quebec and Scotland. For one thing, Quebec has never been an independent country. Prior to being called Quebec, it was called Lower Canada. Also, the support for independence in Quebec is very low. There is more interest in what they call sovereignty association, which is negotiating for more provincial powers in Quebec, and less federal powers, rather than complete independence. Much of the disquiet in Quebec comes from the realisation that the French language is shrinking in significance. As a percentage of the Canadian population, French speakers are dwindling census after census, and as a percentage of the entire continent of about 350 million, French is practically irrelevant. The feeling of "we need to do something" drives much of the political thinking in Quebec. I've worked in Quebec, and almost all the people I met were staunchly proud Canadians.

 

Most Canadians, including myself, have no opinion on the EU.

 

Sorry for taking the thread off-topic.

[TheMaganator]

There are more differences than similarities between Quebec and Scotland. For one thing, Quebec has never been an independent country. Prior to being called Quebec, it was called Lower Canada. Also, the support for independence in Quebec is very low. There is more interest in what they call sovereignty association, which is negotiating for more provincial powers in Quebec, and less federal powers, rather than complete independence. Much of the disquiet in Quebec comes from the realisation that the French language is shrinking in significance. As a percentage of the Canadian population, French speakers are dwindling census after census, and as a percentage of the entire continent of about 350 million, French is practically irrelevant. The feeling of "we need to do something" drives much of the political thinking in Quebec. I've worked in Quebec, and almost all the people I met were staunchly proud Canadians.

 

Most Canadians, including myself, have no opinion on the EU.

 

Sorry for taking the thread off-topic.

 

I was in Quebec in the last couple of years - it is a lovely place. Though I thought their independence referendum was very close. Did the No camp noty only win by a tiny percentage?

 

I only ask about the EU, because that is an example of union where you surrender certain aspects of your own sovereignty for perceived benefits. You keep control over certain aspects, but surrender others. It is thought that unions such as this are for the benefit of the individual member states.

 

Scotland surrenders aspects of its sovereignty to be part of the union. The two things are very similar. That is why I was asking.

[Patrick Bateman]

 

Not at all. The last poll here saw the Yes camp came out on top 3 to 1. As things stand, that is now 2 to 1. Even on JKB support is falling

 

Can you point me in the direction of this poll? I couldn't find it myself.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Can you point me in the direction of this poll? I couldn't find it myself.

Sorry, PB, I was basing it on Uly's post.

 

Don't remember seeing it myself.

[Maple Leaf]

I was in Quebec in the last couple of years - it is a lovely place. Though I thought their independence referendum was very close. Did the No camp noty only win by a tiny percentage?

 

I agree. Quebec is lovely and the people are great. Their culture is definitely different from the rest of Canada.

 

The second referendum was held in 1995, and the question was on "sovereignty" and a new partnership with Canada. The result was extremely close, with the No side gathering 50.6% and the Yes side 49.4%. There was an incredible 94% voter turnout. The Yes side were bolstered by a very popular man named Lucien Bouchard, who has since left politics (and the country), and the separatistes have been unable to find a replacement anywhere near as charismatic.

[Sharpie]

I seem to recall just before I left Scotland,Independence was a hot topic. The name Wendy Wood rings a bell. The platform was quite strongly that with Independence Scotland could reap all profits and taxes from the Whiskey and North Sea oil discoveries. It ultimately fell through despite the promises of living like some Arab oil states with no income taxes free housing etc.

 

I for obvious reasons have not been into the detail of the debate as the people who live in Scotland. A few things to which I have no answers only questions interest me. A major overhaul of policing has taken place, in part I am sure to cut costs. I have seen newspaper articles that an independent Scotland would have to create and pay for its own army and navy. Health plans would have to be paid for, would there be an application to enter the United Nations in itself a fairly expensive proposition. Based on population size does Scotland in fact have the financial/tax base to support the expenses involved. I have really neither the right or the interest in voting, but watching and listening to some of the debate I am interested in the opinions of the actual people, the ones who will vote if they feel Scotland is capable financially of being independent.

[Coco]

I seem to recall just before I left Scotland,Independence was a hot topic. The name Wendy Wood rings a bell. The platform was quite strongly that with Independence Scotland could reap all profits and taxes from the Whiskey and North Sea oil discoveries. It ultimately fell through despite the promises of living like some Arab oil states with no income taxes free housing etc.

 

I for obvious reasons have not been into the detail of the debate as the people who live in Scotland. A few things to which I have no answers only questions interest me. A major overhaul of policing has taken place, in part I am sure to cut costs. I have seen newspaper articles that an independent Scotland would have to create and pay for its own army and navy. Health plans would have to be paid for, would there be an application to enter the United Nations in itself a fairly expensive proposition. Based on population size does Scotland in fact have the financial/tax base to support the expenses involved. I have really neither the right or the interest in voting, but watching and listening to some of the debate I am interested in the opinions of the actual people, the ones who will vote if they feel Scotland is capable financially of being independent.

 

There is no doubt that Scotland is capable financially of being independent. Other countries with a similar population are able to sustain all the public services/accoutrements of State. The argument that it is not capable seems to have rightly died away completely.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Coco

[Patrick Bateman]

There is no doubt that Scotland is capable financially of being independent. Other countries with a similar population are able to sustain all the public services/accoutrements of State. The argument that it is not capable seems to have rightly died away completely.

 

Yes, the argument is now whether Scotland would be better or worse without a political union with Westminster. A union which is ?1.2 trillion in debt, a government that wasn't elected in Scotland, etc, etc. In fact, it seems that a lot of the debate from the No side is that independence will be difficult in the short term, so we just shouldn't bother. It's a very strange message.

[Coco]

Yes, the argument is now whether Scotland would be better or worse without a political union with Westminster. A union which is ?1.2 trillion in debt, a government that wasn't elected in Scotland, etc, etc. In fact, it seems that a lot of the debate from the No side is that independence will be difficult in the short term, so we just shouldn't bother. It's a very strange message.

 

Correct. As well as considering those obvious difficulties in the short term they should also be looking at the longer term issues both opportunity and threat. Unfortunately longer term issues tend to get shot down (by all sides) as scaremongering.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Yes, the argument is now whether Scotland would be better or worse without a political union with Westminster. A union which is ?1.2 trillion in debt, a government that wasn't elected in Scotland, etc, etc. In fact, it seems that a lot of the debate from the No side is that independence will be difficult in the short term, so we just shouldn't bother. It's a very strange message.

It depends on what short term is, though. In the history of a nation it could be 10/20 years. That isn't short term for people's lives though.

 

For those that aren't sold on the idea a difficult decade or so could not be less appealing.

[JamboX2]

Yes, the argument is now whether Scotland would be better or worse without a political union with Westminster. A union which is ?1.2 trillion in debt, a government that wasn't elected in Scotland, etc, etc. In fact, it seems that a lot of the debate from the No side is that independence will be difficult in the short term, so we just shouldn't bother. It's a very strange message.

 

That's their argument because they lack anything to fight on. It's the chink in the armour of the Better Together campaign that after the White Paper will be ripe for exposing. Whether this is actually done well by the Yes side is ofcourse open to debate as they've so far failed to capitalise on a number of things they could've - ie the bedroom tax. As Maganator says, 10/20 years may be short term in historical thought but to an ordinary voter it's fair chunk of their life. It's why political party priorities are only ever 5 years long and never much beyond in detail. That's the obstacle the Yes side need to get over.

[Patrick Bateman]

Sorry, PB, I was basing it on Uly's post.

 

Don't remember seeing it myself.

 

So you've not seen the 3/1 poll? Where did Ulysses mention it? As far as I'm aware, this is the first official Independence KB poll, unless I've missed something?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

So you've not seen the 3/1 poll? Where did Ulysses mention it? As far as I'm aware, this is the first official Independence KB poll, unless I've missed something?

Not sure of post number as I'm on my phone, but:

[Pans Jambo]

Anybody see that report today about the Scottish councils having rent arrears of ?1.2million since the bedroom tax was foisted upon us by Westminster earlier THIS year?

Yet another looney policy by a government we didn't vote for and something like 90% of Scottish politicians (of all parties) voted to reject.

Let's hammer the poor and forget about the ?16 Billion of uncollected corporation taxes.

 

Trust?

 

Remind me why your are voting NO again?

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

Anybody see that report today about the Scottish councils having rent arrears of ?1.2million since the bedroom tax was foisted upon us by Westminster earlier THIS year?

Yet another looney policy by a government we didn't vote for and something like 90% of Scottish politicians (of all parties) voted to reject.

Let's hammer the poor and forget about the ?16 Billion of uncollected corporation taxes.

 

Trust?

 

Remind me why your are voting NO again?

 

To me its a repugnant policy. However, the SG has failed to dent it by funding full cover of the arrears. Only ?20m a year instead of the ?60m to neutralise this.

 

On bad decisions re-poverty, this is a Scottish Government which through its backing of a underfunded tax freeze has seen cuts totalling ?1bn on targeted and succesful anti-poverty policies.

 

Neither government is doing enough to fight poverty and are both engaged in regressive policies hurting the worst off.

[TheMaganator]

Anybody see that report today about the Scottish councils having rent arrears of ?1.2million since the bedroom tax was foisted upon us by Westminster earlier THIS year?

Yet another looney policy by a government we didn't vote for and something like 90% of Scottish politicians (of all parties) voted to reject.

Let's hammer the poor and forget about the ?16 Billion of uncollected corporation taxes.

 

Trust?

 

Remind me why your are voting NO again?

Assuming the spare room subsidy is reversed in an independent Scotland - what party that will form a government will aggressively go after the unpaid corporation tax that you talk of?

[jambos are go!]

To me its a repugnant policy. However, the SG has failed to dent it by funding full cover of the arrears. Only ?20m a year instead of the ?60m to neutralise this.

 

On bad decisions re-poverty, this is a Scottish Government which through its backing of a underfunded tax freeze has seen cuts totalling ?1bn on targeted and succesful anti-poverty policies.

 

Neither government is doing enough to fight poverty and are both engaged in regressive policies hurting the worst off.

 

Indeed a billion pounds taken from the fight on poverty in Scotland to fund what is no more than an electoral bribe from the prime political arm of the YES campaign - The SNP. This should never be forgotten or forgiven in the run up to the Referendum and beyond.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

Assuming the spare room subsidy is reversed in an independent Scotland - what party that will form a government will aggressively go after the unpaid corporation tax that you talk of?

Who knows. Maybe none of them will go after old debt. Nobody knows as yet who will govern Scotland until we hold our general elections in 2016 (as is the way with general elections) however; I don't think Scotland's corporate taxation system will be anywhere near as complex as the UK's is which allows far too many loop holes for corporations to dodge paying billions each year & then they (the Westminster based government) screw every last penny they can from the vulnerable.

 

One thing is sure to be certain after a Yes vote & that is the government that Scotland chooses will decide the taxation system for the people that chose them.....the Scot's.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

To me its a repugnant policy. However, the SG has failed to dent it by funding full cover of the arrears. Only ?20m a year instead of the ?60m to neutralise this.

 

On bad decisions re-poverty, this is a Scottish Government which through its backing of a underfunded tax freeze has seen cuts totalling ?1bn on targeted and succesful anti-poverty policies.

 

Neither government is doing enough to fight poverty and are both engaged in regressive policies hurting the worst off.

 

What part of the Scottish budget block grant system from Westminster would you take the other ?40 million from?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Who knows. Maybe none of them will go after old debt. Nobody knows as yet who will govern Scotland until we hold our general elections in 2016 (as is the way with general elections) however; I don't think Scotland's corporate taxation system will be anywhere near as complex as the UK's is which allows far too many loop holes for corporations to dodge paying billions each year & then they (the Westminster based government) screw every last penny they can from the vulnerable.

 

One thing is sure to be certain after a Yes vote & that is the government that Scotland chooses will decide the taxation system for the people that chose them.....the Scot's.

An independent Scotland will make things easier for companies to invest here short/medium term. IMO

 

Any & all tax systems have loopholes. Lawyers & accountants can. & will find ways round every tax system.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

An independent Scotland will make things easier for companies to invest here short/medium term. IMO

 

Any & all tax systems have loopholes. Lawyers & accountants can. & will find ways round every tax system.

I'm fairly sure an independent Scotland would create a very business friendly tax system to encourage companies to base here or to discourage them from upping sticks too so yes I agree we wouldn't suddenly close all the loopholes or frankly it would be silly and would possibly work against us.

 

I'm having one of my Yes weeks just now as everything I seem to read at the moment points positively to Scotland making a real success of going it alone but I tend to swing one way then the other a lot. One thing I'd like to mention to coco is the gers figures and the fact he's mentioned there being a deficit I read the other day about GERS figures not including all the money recouped from companies like Tesco etc as it all goes to their head offices predominantly based in London so there's billions of pounds available if Scotland were to go it alone. Not saying that immediately brings us into the black but on another point coco raised the other day was that taxation would have to rise 75% to cover the defecit we'll it's even more in the union to cover the national debt. I'll try find the article I'm on a new device and don't have my bookmarks to hand.

[Gene Parmesan]

George Galloway starting his "Just Say Naw" tour. His point appears to be that Scottish people would suddenly start ethnically cleansing the country of immigrants and Catholics in the event of independence.

 

Seems bizarre, but then I read this on Wings today.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/careful-now/

 

wat

[jack D and coke]

 

George Galloway starting his "Just Say Naw" tour. His point appears to be that Scottish people would suddenly start ethnically cleansing the country of immigrants and Catholics in the event of independence.

 

Seems bizarre, but then I read this on Wings today.

 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/careful-now/

 

wat

I've got mates who believe this stuff too. Galloway believes in NI leaving the UK but not Scotland? Strange.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

What part of the Scottish budget block grant system from Westminster would you take the other ?40 million from?

 

Maybe from the money being used to fund the tax freeze.

 

Thats political choices in a nut shell though. Even if independent Scotland's political elite will need to allocate funds on what they deem a worthy use of the tax take whilst paying the national debt and all other things.

 

You spoke of corporation tax and collection of it to raise funds. Yet the Yes camp seem happy to go along saying we'd cut it - irregardless of the level - at least by 3% of what it is in the UK. So we are seeing an independence campaign built on offering corporations tax cuts and reducing the tax base there of. Very little on how we'll actually change Scotland to be progressive but a lot of reassurances for businesses.

 

Its been said on here before that there's a lot of scaremongering, from both sides. Now that to me isnt the case - well the too wee stuff and the subjugation to London are. Those who shout it when serious objections or problems for either side is raised are trying to avoid two key questions going forward irregardless of the votes out come:

 

1. Economic productivity and the system it follows in a globalised world

2. Sustainability of social services with an ageing population and reduced tax base.

 

In effect this is much more than who we are and who governs Scotland but the question of how we face these challenges in the coming 100 years. Failure to talk seriously about poverty, whats the most effective use of government funds and a serious look at the structural reform we need to see in Scotland to raise its game is misplaced. Yet sadly all too common. An example being the council tax freeze - questioned by the Christie Commission and Prof Midwinter, defended to the hilt by the government as untouchable as though its a modern NHS. Or the corp tax cut proposal, said to help increase jobs, tax revenue and reduce poverty by the government, slammed as an inappropriate and regressive fiscal position by their own economist, but when they are pressed on that the debate is shut down as being somehow against prosperity and growth.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

I've got mates who believe this stuff too. Galloway believes in NI leaving the UK but not Scotland? Strange.

 

Seriously???

 

Ethnically cleanse????

 

Everyone except the "white proddies" will be told to GTF???

 

That's outrageous!

 

Think there was a guy called Hitler tried something similar a few decades ago.

 

Galloway has to be the most embarrassing thing to come from Scotland since the shortbread tin

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

 

Maybe from the money being used to fund the tax freeze.

 

Thats political choices in a nut shell though. Even if independent Scotland's political elite will need to allocate funds on what they deem a worthy use of the tax take whilst paying the national debt and all other things.

 

You spoke of corporation tax and collection of it to raise funds. Yet the Yes camp seem happy to go along saying we'd cut it - irregardless of the level - at least by 3% of what it is in the UK. So we are seeing an independence campaign built on offering corporations tax cuts and reducing the tax base there of. Very little on how we'll actually change Scotland to be progressive but a lot of reassurances for businesses.

 

Its been said on here before that there's a lot of scaremongering, from both sides. Now that to me isnt the case - well the too wee stuff and the subjugation to London are. Those who shout it when serious objections or problems for either side is raised are trying to avoid two key questions going forward irregardless of the votes out come:

 

1. Economic productivity and the system it follows in a globalised world

2. Sustainability of social services with an ageing population and reduced tax base.

 

In effect this is much more than who we are and who governs Scotland but the question of how we face these challenges in the coming 100 years. Failure to talk seriously about poverty, whats the most effective use of government funds and a serious look at the structural reform we need to see in Scotland to raise its game is misplaced. Yet sadly all too common. An example being the council tax freeze - questioned by the Christie Commission and Prof Midwinter, defended to the hilt by the government as untouchable as though its a modern NHS. Or the corp tax cut proposal, said to help increase jobs, tax revenue and reduce poverty by the government, slammed as an inappropriate and regressive fiscal position by their own economist, but when they are pressed on that the debate is shut down as being somehow against prosperity and growth.

 

Cutting tax is completely different to not collecting any!

[jack D and coke]

 

 

 

 

Seriously???

 

Ethnically cleanse????

 

Everyone except the "white proddies" will be told to GTF???

 

That's outrageous!

 

Think there was a guy called Hitler tried something similar a few decades ago.

 

Galloway has to be the most embarrassing thing to come from Scotland since the shortbread tin

Straight up. Couple of catholic pals reckon the nats are anti catholic and are dodgy about voting Yes.

[JamboX2]

 

 

I've got mates who believe this stuff too. Galloway believes in NI leaving the UK but not Scotland? Strange.

 

Not really. He believes in Irish Unification. A position which he views as comparable to British Unionism. Why? Because he views us as Brits and the Irish as Irish, therefore Ireland should be one unified nation and the British one union. In a sense its actually quite consistent.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Cutting tax is completely different to not collecting any!

 

So we have a fleshed out tax position on one strand of taxation, yet a report from the Fiscal Working Group which lists a set of wishy washy proposals. Its hard to judge a tax systems progressiveness in principle alone. And I'd argue the corporation tax policy shows that it wont be the brave step left many Yes supporters say it will be.

 

Its frankly embarrasing to see John Seinney make sperches slamming tge UKs fiscal position and then lacking much of a detailed position to illustrate an alternative. Example is the 50p tax cut to 45p, slammed, but um no pledge to reinstate. In fact the line is tax continuity in rates. So we wont move to a Nordic progressivism in taxation or design our own alternative.

 

It depresses me as the No side are missing the devolution alternative bus the Yes side continues to argue independence is a better nation which is exactly the same as it is now. The debate on here has been of ideas, pure politics and hopes on either side with a helpful dose of cynicism and realism. The actual debate is two camps with no real vision on each position and a lack of clarity in their messages which contradicts themselves. How can you have Scottish solutions in the UK on all matters? But how can an independent nation drastically offer a real alternative when the plan retains the real basic elements of the UK economic model inc currency and regulators? Its maddening.

 

 

[redm]

Seriously???

 

Ethnically cleanse????

 

Everyone except the "white proddies" will be told to GTF???

 

That's outrageous!

 

Think there was a guy called Hitler tried something similar a few decades ago.

 

Galloway has to be the most embarrassing thing to come from Scotland since the shortbread tin

 

I'm completely clueless on this stuff, religion and any sort of protestant/catholic hostility only ever features in my life in a football sense.

Are there good reasons why the catholic community might still continue to feel marginalised in Scottish society at the moment? I suppose I might be asking about the education system or similar. Has there been any decisions made in that sort of respect which might have led them to feel this way?

[JamboX2]

 

 

I'm completely clueless on this stuff, religion and any sort of protestant/catholic hostility only ever features in my life in a football sense.

Are there good reasons why the catholic community might still continue to feel marginalised in Scottish society at the moment? I suppose I might be asking about the education system or similar. Has there been any decisions made in that sort of respect which might have led them to feel this way?

 

Its mainly a west coast thing. Elements of Labour (going back to its founding in the 1890s) courted the catholic vote by arguing the Unionist Party was anti-catholic and pro-Church of Scotland. This was stoked up again by the likes of Galloway later on the emergence of the SNP. It was argued that catholics would suffer in an independent Scotland as the establishment would be presbyterian and anti-catholic schooling and ignore catholic sentiments.

 

There's always been an anti-catholicism in scottish life, more so in the 1890s and early 20th century. Sectarianism is a national disgrace. But such lines now are beneath politicians like Galloway. But old tricks die hard.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm completely clueless on this stuff, religion and any sort of protestant/catholic hostility only ever features in my life in a football sense.

Are there good reasons why the catholic community might still continue to feel marginalised in Scottish society at the moment? I suppose I might be asking about the education system or similar. Has there been any decisions made in that sort of respect which might have led them to feel this way?

 

In the inter-war periods (reflective probably of the partition of Ireland post the Wars of Independence), there was significant sectarian hostility in Scotland (see John Cormack). At this time, the Irish Catholic vote settled around Labour as the best means of 'protection'.

 

It has been used in the past to suggest that Scottish independence would unleash these feelings. Quite why, I have no idea but then Scottish Labour likes to do that to its voters.