Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You can have more older people and a lower Dependency Ratio if you have fewer children. This is the case with Scotland and England.

 

Do you agree with the equation and accept that the dependency ratio could be lower with more old people?

 

Clearly you do not agree that the stagnation in Japan was brought about by a currency that was too strong, financial crisis etc otherwise you would not suggest that China would follow Japan. I've just googled the Japan crisis - its not about a demographic crunch.

 

The one child policy has been going for forty years, if demographics has such a potent effect as you suggest don't you think it would have kicked in by now?

I completely agree with the equation and you make my point! As we are all getting older we all need the kids to support the top part, otherwise it falls over.

 

As for Japan, the underlying reason under the stagnation is the relative population cohorts because, like all economies, Japan borrowed from the future (Japan invented the heriditary mortgage) and the purchasing power of those becoming economically active was insufficient to keep the pace they had grown at previously.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[dc-jambo]

So I'm a soft no voter. Can someone give me 5 straight forward reasons to vote yes? I haven't heard a convincing argument ither than no is a negative word....

 

(1) what country, given the choice, would reject self-determination?

 

(2) no more Tory governments. Ever.

 

(3) By the Financial Times' remarkable assessment from last week: middle-class families would each be about ?5,000 better off under independence

 

(4) The Trident missiles on the Clyde, targeted for no good reason at millions of innocent Russian civilians, need to go. Even Washington knows this, but Westminster can't figure out how to get rid of them. We can.

 

(5) Even if you didn't like a Scottish government, they'd be close enough to throw stones at.

 

 

[Patrick Bateman]

So I'm a soft no voter. Can someone give me 5 straight forward reasons to vote yes? I haven't heard a convincing argument ither than no is a negative word....

 

1. Because it's the only way Scotland will be governed by the party it votes for. Regardless of who that might be, independence means that Scotland's interests are their paramount consideration (at least in theory) whilst this simply isn't the case at Westminster, not can it ever be. That's the 9% or 100% argument. This isn't to say that I think the Tories are 'evil' or anything like that, nor do I think they're anti-Scottish. But I don't think they reflect the political will of Scotland, and the political map shows that. Independence will lead to more accountable politics in Scotland, if a party becomes unpopular, they can be voted out. We do not have that choice as part of the UK.

 

2. Because Scotland contributes 9.9% to the UK treasury and receives 9.3% back in spending. Whilst the spend is technically higher than the income in the figures, this is just the creation of debt, not the UK 'contributing' to or subsidising Scotland. We are a strongly performing nation, we have natural and economic resources to match any nation of our size. Independence is the only way the money from these resources stays in Scotland, and is spent by the elected governments according to particular needs.

 

3. Because Westminster has presided over the UK becoming the 4th most unequal society in the developed world. It also has the 4th highest military budget, and regardless of whomever is in power, the gap between the richest and poorest is expanding exponentially. If something is as broken as this, there needs to be change for things to improve. Independence is the only thing that guarantees change. The promises of parties who aren't in power, nor at they likely to be for the foreseeable future, are not.

 

4. Since 1945, over 150 nations have gained independence, and not one has decided that it was a mistake and that they wanted to cede sovereignty elsewhere. There's no reason why Scotland would be any different.

 

5. Because the world has changed since the days of Empire were beneficial. The UK has been on the decline for over a century, it has lost most of its old prestige and there are now greater platforms where Scotland can work with other nations for a common good. That union won't determine how much money we get to spend, regardless of how much we generate, nor would it send our soldiers to war. It will serve the same trade purposes that the Act of Union did in 1707.

 

So there we go, independence offers us something different, to paraphrase Yes Scotland, the referendum really does put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands. If we vote yes, we get to keep it, if we vote no, we hand it back. I'm confident that people will take the right choice in September.

[syndicalist]

Since you seem to know what independence will bring, can you tell me whether the UK will be in europe in ten years time, what the state of the NHS will be, what the national debt will be, etc, etc. Simply saying there are unknowns, so therefore i'm against independence is to ignore the fact that a no vote will not ensure the status quo (if, you'd be keen to maintain this status quo), but is very much up in the air.

Since you seem to know what independence will bring, can you tell me whether the UK will be in europe in ten years time, what the state of the NHS will be, what the national debt will be, etc, etc. Simply saying there are unknowns, so therefore i'm against independence is to ignore the fact that a no vote will not ensure the status quo (if, you'd be keen to maintain this status quo), but is very much up in the air.

 

and that is pretty much what the yes campaign is based on. "No, we can't tell you what will happen to the pension you've been banking on for your retirement, we can't tell you if the property you hoped to be passing on to your children will have any value if you die in the next few years. In fact, and in spite of making a song and dance about it, we can't tell you if we can continue with free prescriptions, free university education or implement our big child care plans and...wait for it, we can't even tell you what currency we'll be using the day after we become independent, in little more than two years. Now for me all that doesn't really matter because if you haven't got anything you've got nothing to lose. but if I was someone to whom all this mattered, several million people in Scotland I'd guess, I'd be saying it's not worth the gamble. Not because I'm into project fear, but [modedit]

[flecktimus]

They have, frequently. They could also ask if Yes supporters would argue for independence instead of making vitriolic anti-UK posts, or if Yes supporters would concentrate on the issues instead of posting repeated complaints about the No campaign, or if Yes supporters would actually post what they think instead of just regurgitating articles from Newsnet and Wings.

 

But do you know what? With those questions we might NOT actually get somewhere, just as we might NOT actually get somewhere with your question above. The purpose of the thread is to debate the issues, not each other. So could everyone debate the issues, please?

 

I agree with most of your post but to be honest if it wasn't for web sites like Business for Scotland, wings, Bateman and newsnet we would be getting very little pro yes information through the Scottish media.

[coconut doug]

I completely agree with the equation and you make my point! As we are all getting older we all need the kids to support the top part, otherwise it falls over.

 

As for Japan, the underlying reason under the stagnation is the relative population cohorts because, like all economies, Japan borrowed from the future (Japan invented the heritardy mortgage) and the purchasing power of those becoming economically active was insufficient to keep the pace they had grown at previously.

 

You're moving the goalposts now. You previously said "The dependency ratio is lower with more old people? I think you need to check

 

how the dependency ratio is calculated" I checked and stand by my original assertion that you can have more older people and a lower

 

dependency ratio. The equation proves it. Are you disagreeing?

 

Your assertion that the kids are needed to support the top part is not true because as you can see from the equation kids are

 

dependents too.

 

You are right about the drop in demand in Japan playing a part but there was no significant change in the demographics of Japan. The

 

stagnation was about financial realignment.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You're moving the goalposts now. You previously said "The dependency ratio is lower with more old people? I think you need to check

 

how the dependency ratio is calculated" I checked and stand by my original assertion that you can have more older people and a lower

 

dependency ratio. The equation proves it. Are you disagreeing?

 

Your assertion that the kids are needed to support the top part is not true because as you can see from the equation kids are

 

dependents too.

 

You are right about the drop in demand in Japan playing a part but there was no significant change in the demographics of Japan. The

 

stagnation was about financial realignment.

Hardly. You would be correct at any point in time but as we are all getting older would you prefer a dependency ratio of 3 where 75% of the numerator is made up of children or a dependency ratio of 1.5 where 75% of the numerator is made up of retirees?

[coconut doug]

Hardly. You would be correct at any point in time but as we are all getting older would you prefer a dependency ratio of 3 where 75% of the numerator is made up of children or a dependency ratio of 1.5 where 75% of the numerator is made up of retirees?

 

This is a different argument. Is there anything i have said which is wrong? Is it possible to have more older people and a lower dependency ratio or should i have another look at how it is defined? Do you still say that my comments do not make sense?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

This is a different argument. Is there anything i have said which is wrong? Is it possible to have more older people and a lower dependency ratio or should i have another look at how it is defined? Do you still say that my comments do not make sense?

A ratio like the dependency ratio is meaningless without context. You claim the dependency ratio is lower which helps Scotland. It does not when the ratio is being driven by fewer children.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

I agree with most of your post but to be honest if it wasn't for web sites like Business for Scotland, wings, Bateman and newsnet we would be getting very little pro yes information through the Scottish media.

 

Indeed. The major newspapers up here are utterly dreadful in providing balance.

[flecktimus]

Indeed. The major newspapers up here are utterly dreadful in providing balance.

 

Dont forget BBC Scotland

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Indeed. The major newspapers up here are utterly dreadful in providing balance.

The last three words are not required.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

Dont forget BBC Scotland

 

Wish I could, but I get reminded every time I look at a bank statement.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

 

and that is pretty much what the yes campaign is based on. "No, we can't tell you what will happen to the pension you've been banking on for your retirement, we can't tell you if the property you hoped to be passing on to your children will have any value if you die in the next few years. In fact, and in spite of making a song and dance about it, we can't tell you if we can continue with free prescriptions, free university education or implement our big child care plans and...wait for it, we can't even tell you what currency we'll be using the day after we become independent, in little more than two years. Now for me all that doesn't really matter because if you haven't got anything you've got nothing to lose. but if I was someone to whom all this mattered, several million people in Scotland I'd guess, I'd be saying it's not worth the gamble. Not because I'm into project fear, but [modedit]

 

And yet if the UKs debt gets beyond control and it's increasing every day then you'll be gambling anyway as all of what you worked for will be worth owt in bankrupt Britain.

[coconut doug]

A ratio like the dependency ratio is meaningless without context. You claim the dependency ratio is lower which helps Scotland. It does not when the ratio is being driven by fewer children.

 

Despite your response having nothing to with my questions i will answer yours anyway. Of course everything has a context but you didn't seem to understand that when you asked me to check how the Dependency Ratio was calculated. The Dependency Ratio also has a meaning irrespective of context. It shows, well you know what it shows.

The idea that having fewer chidren does not help Scotland is debateable. There can be little need for large numbers of children outside of agricultural societies where they are used for cheap labour. Having lots of children does not lead a society towards prosperity it is the opposite. Obviously the population must be replaced and therein lies the context. England is the most crowded country in Europe of any size and one of the most crowded in the world. They have almost the highest birth rate in Europe. This, if nothing changes will be a disaster.a demographic crunch. Scotland does not have this problem. Our population growth is much more modest and sustainable. For us and England too a balanced sustainable population is needed. Currently Scotland is in a better position than England.

[Ulysses]

I agree with most of your post but to be honest if it wasn't for web sites like Business for Scotland, wings, Bateman and newsnet we would be getting very little pro yes information through the Scottish media.

 

Like I said, a lot of what passes for pro-Yes information in the debate here has consisted of vitriolic anti-UK comment and complaining about the No campaign.

 

Neither side does itself any favours by opting to berate the other side instead of promoting its own vision.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Despite your response having nothing to with my questions i will answer yours anyway. Of course everything has a context but you didn't seem to understand that when you asked me to check how the Dependency Ratio was calculated. The Dependency Ratio also has a meaning irrespective of context. It shows, well you know what it shows.

The idea that having fewer chidren does not help Scotland is debateable. There can be little need for large numbers of children outside of agricultural societies where they are used for cheap labour. Having lots of children does not lead a society towards prosperity it is the opposite. Obviously the population must be replaced and therein lies the context. England is the most crowded country in Europe of any size and one of the most crowded in the world. They have almost the highest birth rate in Europe. This, if nothing changes will be a disaster.a demographic crunch. Scotland does not have this problem. Our population growth is much more modest and sustainable. For us and England too a balanced sustainable population is needed. Currently Scotland is in a better position than England.

Who mentioned agriculture? It is the economic output needed to create the GDP that the government will tax to give to the dependents I am referring to.

 

I do agree that there are differing priorities between England and Scotland though. England is overcrowded. Scotland is not, hence Salmond's wish for more immigration. That will be a challenge for the Common Travel Area in future if Scotland has a much more open border policy than England.

[2NaFish]

 

and that is pretty much what the yes campaign is based on. "No, we can't tell you what will happen to the pension you've been banking on for your retirement, we can't tell you if the property you hoped to be passing on to your children will have any value if you die in the next few years. In fact, and in spite of making a song and dance about it, we can't tell you if we can continue with free prescriptions, free university education or implement our big child care plans and...wait for it, we can't even tell you what currency we'll be using the day after we become independent, in little more than two years. Now for me all that doesn't really matter because if you haven't got anything you've got nothing to lose. but if I was someone to whom all this mattered, several million people in Scotland I'd guess, I'd be saying it's not worth the gamble. Not because I'm into project fear, but [modedit]

 

If that's the case the Yes side need to re-consider their marketing, because that's awfy poor.

[coconut doug]

Who mentioned agriculture? It is the economic output needed to create the GDP that the government will tax to give to the dependents I am referring to.

 

I do agree that there are differing priorities between England and Scotland though. England is overcrowded. Scotland is not, hence Salmond's wish for more immigration. That will be a challenge for the Common Travel Area in future if Scotland has a much more open border policy than England.

 

Children don't create wealth. They are dependents apart from in developing countries where they work, usually in agriculture. In our country they need schools, health care etc as well as being an impediment to families earning money and paying tax because they have to be looked after. It is not an advantage to have one type of dependent over another. They are all dependents.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Children don't create wealth. They are dependents apart from in developing countries where they work, usually in agriculture. In our country they need schools, health care etc as well as being an impediment to families earning money and paying tax because they have to be looked after. It is not an advantage to have one type of dependent over another. They are all dependents.

They are the future workers who pay for your pension. They are advantageous.

[coconut doug]

They are the future workers who pay for your pension. They are advantageous.

 

I won't need the pension because i'll be dead. That's the way it works.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

I won't need the pension because i'll be dead. That's the way it works.

Yep, that would be another solution, a little bit of enforced euthanasia...

[coconut doug]

Yep, that would be another solution, a little bit of enforced euthanasia...

 

No euthenasia required, facilitated by the passage of time which leads me to my bed. Good night.

[Maple Leaf]

1. Because it's the only way Scotland will be governed by the party it votes for. Regardless of who that might be, independence means that Scotland's interests are their paramount consideration (at least in theory) whilst this simply isn't the case at Westminster, not can it ever be. That's the 9% or 100% argument. This isn't to say that I think the Tories are 'evil' or anything like that, nor do I think they're anti-Scottish. But I don't think they reflect the political will of Scotland, and the political map shows that. Independence will lead to more accountable politics in Scotland, if a party becomes unpopular, they can be voted out. We do not have that choice as part of the UK.

 

2. Because Scotland contributes 9.9% to the UK treasury and receives 9.3% back in spending. Whilst the spend is technically higher than the income in the figures, this is just the creation of debt, not the UK 'contributing' to or subsidising Scotland. We are a strongly performing nation, we have natural and economic resources to match any nation of our size. Independence is the only way the money from these resources stays in Scotland, and is spent by the elected governments according to particular needs.

 

3. Because Westminster has presided over the UK becoming the 4th most unequal society in the developed world. It also has the 4th highest military budget, and regardless of whomever is in power, the gap between the richest and poorest is expanding exponentially. If something is as broken as this, there needs to be change for things to improve. Independence is the only thing that guarantees change. The promises of parties who aren't in power, nor at they likely to be for the foreseeable future, are not.

 

4. Since 1945, over 150 nations have gained independence, and not one has decided that it was a mistake and that they wanted to cede sovereignty elsewhere. There's no reason why Scotland would be any different.

 

5. Because the world has changed since the days of Empire were beneficial. The UK has been on the decline for over a century, it has lost most of its old prestige and there are now greater platforms where Scotland can work with other nations for a common good. That union won't determine how much money we get to spend, regardless of how much we generate, nor would it send our soldiers to war. It will serve the same trade purposes that the Act of Union did in 1707.

 

So there we go, independence offers us something different, to paraphrase Yes Scotland, the referendum really does put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands. If we vote yes, we get to keep it, if we vote no, we hand it back. I'm confident that people will take the right choice in September.

 

Very good post. The first sentence of point 1 would be enough for me, and should be enough for anyone. But point 4 is pretty compelling too.

[Gregory House M.D.]

.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Ezio Auditore da Firenze

[Gregory House M.D.]

 

 

They have, frequently. They could also ask if Yes supporters would argue for independence instead of making vitriolic anti-UK posts, or if Yes supporters would concentrate on the issues instead of posting repeated complaints about the No campaign, or if Yes supporters would actually post what they think instead of just regurgitating articles from Newsnet and Wings.

 

But do you know what? With those questions we might NOT actually get somewhere, just as we might NOT actually get somewhere with your question above. The purpose of the thread is to debate the issues, not each other. So could everyone debate the issues, please?

 

Where are these vitriolic anti-UK posts though? Or these regurgitations of articles?

 

I personally am voting yes. The reason I am voting yes is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to be part of a real change which I think will be for the better. It's already been established that Scotland (with north sea oil) has a higher GDP than the UK, France and even without the oil Italy and that contrary to uneducated English beliefs, we actually subsidise the UK rather than the other way about.

 

I am voting yes because when I vote in an election I want my vote and Scottish peoples votes to actually matter. As far as I'm aware, Scotlands vote has had no bearing on an election in over 60 years. Every government, whether Scotland voted to be ruled by them or not, would've been the exact same had you removed the Scottish vote. We live by the choices of the English majority.

 

I am voting yes because I genuinely feel it is what is best for the Scottish people and my future children and grandchildren.

 

I am voting yes because I want to be part of a country that's not run to suit London and it's surroundings. I want to be part of a country that's capital city isn't sucking the life out of it.

 

I am voting yes because I have never and never will want Trident missiles housed in Scotland awaiting the whims of a government we have little to no say in. In fact, I don't want Nuclear weapons in Scotland in any fashion.

 

I am voting yes because I will never and have never supported the dodgy wars we have sent our soldiers to since the turn of this century.

 

I am voting yes as I want our country to start an Oil Investment fund rather than have oil from Scottish waters' revenue squandered by government after government that the Scottish people never voted for. I want to follow Norways lead in terms of oil. They have an oil fund worth about ?500bn and are one of the best countries in the world to live in because of this.

 

Scotland will be a more prosperous country post-independence. Of that I am in no doubt. Even if we wipe North Sea Oil off of our GDP we are more or less the same per head as the entire UK. With the oil we completely trounce it. 91% of the oil going by the median line belongs to Scotland. Of course, the no campaigns argument has changed from the "population= 9%" to "The oil's about to run dry anyway" so clearly the UK government are now well aware of who the oil belongs to.

 

We can build a future that our future generations deserve using the resources available to us to build a country that can have amongst the best living conditions in the world. I'd be spewing if I didn't take the chance to vote for it.

 

We deserve to make our own choices like every other independent state in the world and we shouldn't be shiting it from dreamt up risks.

[redm]

National identity is like some kind of mental prison. Though it is becoming less and less relevant, the equation that one's identity is based on where one is from looks so logical and convincing that people can't see beyond it. Like going to university will guarantee you a better job - very seductive, very logical, not true.

 

GW if you've got time and inclination please consider reading Lesley Riddoch's 'Blossom'. Started it earlier tonight and I couldn't put it down for hours, fascinating discussion of Scotland, our history and the way in which this might affect identity and behaviour. Plus some other stuff. It's only ?1 for digital version at the moment - a real bargain. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

In fact, I reckon you should all grab a copy regardless of your position on independence. It's so immensely thought provoking.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1908373695

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

GW if you've got time and inclination please consider reading Lesley Riddoch's 'Blossom'. Started it earlier tonight and I couldn't put it down for hours, fascinating discussion of Scotland, our history and the way in which this might affect identity and behaviour. Plus some other stuff. It's only ?1 for digital version at the moment - a real bargain. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

In fact, I reckon you should all grab a copy regardless of your position on independence. It's so immensely thought provoking.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1908373695

Thanks but I'll pass. I can't stand Lesley Riddoch.

[redm]

 

and that is pretty much what the yes campaign is based on. "No, we can't tell you what will happen to the pension you've been banking on for your retirement, we can't tell you if the property you hoped to be passing on to your children will have any value if you die in the next few years. In fact, and in spite of making a song and dance about it, we can't tell you if we can continue with free prescriptions, free university education or implement our big child care plans and...wait for it, we can't even tell you what currency we'll be using the day after we become independent, in little more than two years. Now for me all that doesn't really matter because if you haven't got anything you've got nothing to lose. but if I was someone to whom all this mattered, several million people in Scotland I'd guess, I'd be saying it's not worth the gamble. Not because I'm into project fear, but [modedit]

 

Hmm. That'd be fair (on most points) if it wasn't for the fact that Westminster can't answer those questions either, nor would they want to given their plans for extended austerity measures.

[redm]

Thanks but I'll pass. I can't stand Lesley Riddoch.

 

You don't have to talk to her, just read.

 

It's very good.

[Craigieboy]

 

 

 

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

 

 

I'm sure they'd have understood, given the circumstances.

[IMac]

(1) what country, given the choice, would reject self-determination?

 

We have self determination in a country called the United Kingdom. I have a government I voted for (in part) in Westminster and one I didn't in Holyrood.

 

(2) no more Tory governments. Ever.

 

Although unlikely at the moment the conservatives received 16.7% of the vote in 2010 almost the same as the Lib Dems or the SNP. There is a myth running rampant in Scotland that nobody votes conservative at that is simply not true (412,855 in 2010).

 

(3) By the Financial Times' remarkable assessment from last week: middle-class families would each be about ?5,000 better off under independence.

 

?5000 per year?

 

(4) The Trident missiles on the Clyde, targeted for no good reason at millions of innocent Russian civilians, need to go. Even Washington knows this, but Westminster can't figure out how to get rid of them. We can.

 

I don't have a problem with Trident. nonissue.

 

(5) Even if you didn't like a Scottish government, they'd be close enough to throw stones at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically this is why I'm a soft No. There are no real arguments for except because we feel Scottish and not British?

[44man]

So basically this is why I'm a soft No. There are no real arguments for except because we feel Scottish and not British?

 

Spot on!

[Gorgiewave]

redm, I'll look at that, thanks. I'm a Sony Reader man, which I now think was the wrong choice.

[jambo1185]

Like others I have felt there being more support onn the ground for YES, but I still think this will be a NO victory in the end.

Edited February 10, 2014 by jambo1185

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Like others I have felt there being more support onn the ground for YES, but I still think this will be a NO victory in the end.

 

Me too, sadly. On both points.

[Boris]

Me too, sadly. On both points.

 

Whilst I would welcome a YES win, if NO wins the day I don't think it will be by such a huge margin that independence will be killed off for a generation.

 

Firstly, we would see exactly what devolution reforms would be given and how they would work. It may be that we would have the trappings of independence and eventually think, why not?

 

Secondly, another 20 years of neo-liberal govt at Westminster may well break the camel's back.

 

I suspect that the Tories will win the next general election and then we will really see what they are all about. The same thing they have always been about. They are not a true "capitalist" party, despite their rhetoric. No. Their main aim is to stay in power and consolidate the elites that they are part of. Follow the money. They scratch the back of big business, big business returns the favour by funding the party. Thus the mutual self satisfying clique remains. If they were truly capitalist then perhaps our society would be more of a meritocracy? Surely, from a business perspective, you would WANT investment in state things like education to create the workforce equipped to meet the challenges? You would want to get the talent from wherever it may be, rather than from a clique, surely?

 

Anyway, my point being is that life at Westminster will not change as the whole class system demands that it does not.

 

An independent Scottish, while it will no doubt have a new elite to contend with, can also be the opportunity to create a society based on egalitarian and meritocratic ideals. Surely that will benefit society far, far more?

[Boris]

And I would add that I do not hold with the view that an independent Scotland means no more Tory govt. That is up to the will of the electorate and if a centre right party wins in Scotland, so be it!

[2NaFish]

Firstly, we would see exactly what devolution reforms would be given and how they would work. It may be that we would have the trappings of independence and eventually think, why not?

 

 

Given the trend of concessions to salve scotland from around 1800 onwards, over a long enough period independence is inevitable.

[syndicalist]

Hmm. That'd be fair (on most points) if it wasn't for the fact that Westminster can't answer those questions either, nor would they want to given their plans for extended austerity measures.

Which is the point I was responding to and accept. But currency has to be sorted out now or everything else fails.

[djf]

Latest panelbase poll shows slight drop in support for Yes (37%) and a slight increase for No (49%). When "working class" voters are considered then Yes (53%) leads No (47%).

 

It really still is entirely up for grabs and so much is going to come down to the Summer months. Yes will need to play a blinder in terms of galvanising their support base but I would suggest that they will find it easier to do so through emotional rhetoric and feet on the ground in comparison to No.

[hughesie27]

[modedit]

[Gorgiewave]

And redm, Tom Gallagher, "The Illusion of Freedom", plz. "One for one" as we used to say in primary school when swapping crisps.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

Whilst I would welcome a YES win, if NO wins the day I don't think it will be by such a huge margin that independence will be killed off for a generation.

O

Firstly, we would see exactly what devolution reforms would be given and how they would work. It may be that we would have the trappings of independence and eventually think, why not?

 

Secondly, another 20 years of neo-liberal govt at Westminster may well break the camel's back.

 

I suspect that the Tories will win the next general election and then we will really see what they are all about. The same thing they have always been about. They are not a true "capitalist" party, despite their rhetoric. No. Their main aim is to stay in power and consolidate the elites that they are part of. Follow the money. They scratch the back of big business, big business returns the favour by funding the party. Thus the mutual self satisfying clique remains. If they were truly capitalist then perhaps our society would be more of a meritocracy? Surely, from a business perspective, you would WANT investment in state things like education to create the workforce equipped to meet the challenges? You would want to get the talent from wherever it may be, rather than from a clique, surely?

 

Anyway, my point being is that life at Westminster will not change as the whole class system demands that it does not.

 

An independent Scottish, while it will no doubt have a new elite to contend with, can also be the opportunity to create a society based on egalitarian and meritocratic ideals. Surely that will benefit society far, far more?

 

That's an interesting theory. It's completely at odds with what I usually hear from yes voters. Most yes voters I speak to fear that if the independence campaign is unsuccessful, the Westminster government would, using my own analogy: 'salt the land'.

 

I would like to believe your theory though, obviously.

[Boris]

And redm, Tom Gallagher, "The Illusion of Freedom", plz. "One for one" as we used to say in primary school when swapping crisps.

 

Doesn't Tom Gallagher's argument rely on any post independence Scotland having an SNP hegemony?

[Boris]

That's an interesting theory. It's completely at odds with what I usually hear from yes voters. Most yes voters I speak to fear that if the independence campaign is unsuccessful, the Westminster government would, using my own analogy: 'salt the land'.

 

I would like to believe your theory though, obviously.

 

I suppose I should have stressed the word MAY! ;-)

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

I suppose I should have stressed the word MAY! ;-)

 

Yeah, it's not something that's easy to try and predict with any certainty or even confidence. It's probably really dependent on the individual's outlook and level of cynicism, I guess.

[Boris]

Yeah, it's not something that's easy to try and predict with any certainty or even confidence. It's probably really dependent on the individual's outlook and level of cynicism, I guess.

 

Which leads me to deduce that a YES vote is the "safer" option of the two!

[Gorgiewave]

No, Boris, he argues that Labour and the SNP are very similar in their unwillingness to reform major institutions and devolve power to local communities.

 

I think many aspirations of the Yes side could be accomplished by a Scotland-Norway Union.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

 

 

Which leads me to deduce that a YES vote is the "safer" option of the two!

 

I agree... you old cynic.

 

*sups a few suds from half empty pint glass*